Brexit Begins

[RandBlade]

1: Saying we want a frictionless border is as far as we can go at this stage. What more do you expect? Should we bring some dancing unicorns to do the tango with leprechauns? Once we the outlines of a final trade deal agreed that will determine what happens at the border and if you're not happy that its frictionless at that stage then that is the stage to suggest changes.

2: Nothing to change for existing citizens to be formally agreed in a Treaty is specific. There's a lot of specifics behind that too as Barnier himself has said.

3: Again our obligations cease the moment we leave. By the end of a transition period we will have paid in full for all our obligations even under the multi-year agreements and paid in full for five years after the referendum. If that isn't long enough for you to get your books in order without us then maybe you shouldn't bother.

4: Your reference about not giving "a flying fuck" and about whether or not we "desperately need any deal" should demonstrate clearly to gogo who is being unreasonable here.

[RandBlade]

Incorrect. The Irish border problem is easy to solve, it's just that the current govt can't solve it. The solution is simply to do whatever it takes to stay in the CU and SM. Solution no. 2 is to place the border around the entire island, but the govt. can't agree to that because they'll lose DUP if they do.

The "concessions" you've made aren't something you can get points for because they represent backtracking from positions that were known to be non-starters to begin with. It's like saying you deserve extra points for agreeing to play and to abide by the rules.

Staying within the Single Market and Customs Union while leaving the EU is not a realistic suggestion. It defeats the entire purpose of leaving the EU. Maybe stay in one or the other but to stay in both but be out of the EU - what would be the point of that?

Neither of those suggestions work because you can't have a border around the entire island as Northern Ireland is part of the same country let alone the same market as the rest of the UK. Your suggestion is just as plausible as a suggestion of having a border around the entire British Isles (all of Ireland and Great Britain) between us collectively the continent. That doesn't work as you don't want a border within the single market yet there's supposed to be a border within a single country? You really think that's a real suggestion? Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

You speak of non-starters right after making two "easy" suggestions are clearly non-starters so why did you make them? What suggestions do you have that aren't non-starters?

[gogobongopop]

4: Your reference about not giving "a flying fuck" and about whether or not we "desperately need any deal" should demonstrate clearly to gogo who is being unreasonable here.

Not really. I don't consider Hazir's rabid hatred for us representative of the EU27. I just kinda ignore him and try to avoid stepping on the dripping mouth froth.

Also, regarding the divorce bill - I'm as keen as anyone to see how this has been calculated. However I've always expected us to owe them something. It seems reasonable to expect that we should cover any costs of future initiatives that we committed to when we were members. Those initiatives will have been carefully planned and costed and it seems right that we honor that. There's also the cost of these negotiations (which I imagine cost a pretty penny) which again seems reasonable for us to cover/contribute to. And there's also most likely a huge range of costs dealing with all sorts of complexities and administrative stuff that's just too boring and detailed to articulate at sound-bite level.

We'd expect the same if someone else were leaving, wouldn't we?

[Aimless]

Contrary to popular British myth, Hazir is not the EU. We had a vote and Merkel vetoed him. Of course, Merkel is also not the EU, nor is Macron. Merkel is not Germany, Macron isn't France, and neither Germany nor France are the EU. It's astonishing what difficulties Brexiteers have with understanding these simple things.

[RandBlade]

Gogo regarding payments I think a reasonable comparison is discussions that took place with regards to Scottish Independence. Would I expect them to be liable for their fair share of existing liabilities and debts? And their fair share of assets? Of course. Things like the existing debt and pensions etc.

But for future projects including ongoing projects? No that ends at separation. We are currently having major upgrades to the M6 and M60 and M62 near where I live. Should the Scots be liable for that after separation? Should the English be liable for upgrades to the Forth Bridge after separation? No. Even if these projects were carefully costed before separation the communality of the project ends when the union does. Just as even if a project commenced before accession of a new member they still take on their fair share upon becoming a member.

Or even longer term projects. We've committed to renewing Trident. Would an independent Scotland be expected to pay for the next few decades while that project completes? No that would be ridiculous.

[gogobongopop]

If the leaving party had agreed to fund x% or x amount of a planned future project then I would expect them to honor that as best they could before separation.

[RandBlade]

Projects are communal until/from the point of separation/merger.

Did accession states receive immunity from being liable for future obligations already agreed before they joined? Or did they take up their share of liability once they joined?

[gogobongopop]

Projects are communal until/from the point of separation/merger.

May I ask whether that's fact or opinion? Have you a source for this?

Did accession states receive immunity from being liable for future obligations already agreed before they joined? Or did they take up their share of liability once they joined?

Dunno. Would be interesting to know. I'll see if I can find out.

[gogobongopop]

Not sure how credible this is but:

When Britain became a member of the 28-nation bloc, it agreed to a whole range of rules—including the EU’s long-term budget and contributing to huge infrastructure projects that have a long time frame for completion.

Britain signed up to the EU’s budget framework when it became a member; budgets are not calculated year by year. The EU budget is a “legal act” and is over a seven year span. The last one started in 2014 and it ends in 2020. So, when Britain leaves the EU—tentatively set for March, 2019—it will still be liable to pay its share for the remaining seven quarters—from April 2019 until the end of 2020.

Even if Britain leaves in 2019, if there are projects it agreed to contribute to that are meant to be completed by 2030, it would still have to pay for what it promised to fund at the time. This is the same for if a project in the UK was meant to be completed by 2030—EU members would have to continue paying the UK

https://qz.com/1134703/brexit-divorc...e-eu-to-leave/

Is it wrong?

[Aimless]

Projects are communal until/from the point of separation/merger.

Did accession states receive immunity from being liable for future obligations already agreed before they joined? Or did they take up their share of liability once they joined?

... this is completely irrelevant because those nations could not have made any commitments of that sort before joining. The UK is attempting to disavow promises it has already committed to keeping.

[RandBlade]

May I ask whether that's fact or opinion? Have you a source for this?

Yes, history. For British history have a look at the Darian Scheme which is one reason why the United Kingdom came to be, when Scotland became a member of the United Kingdom the Scottish obligations for the Darian Scheme became communal UK obligations rather than remaining Scottish ones unilaterally. When the UK acceded to the EU we started contributing to projects that were agreed before we joined.

French Algeria was a fully fledged member of the EEC (EU predecessor) as a sovereign part of France. After Algeria became independent how much did it continue to contribute to future EU projects and future French projects?

Not sure how credible this is but:


https://qz.com/1134703/brexit-divorc...e-eu-to-leave/

Is it wrong?

The budget is a legal act and so it is plausible that it may be legally necessary since the UK has legally committed to spending those funds. That is one reason why the transition period has been proposed to extend to the end of that period to cover that.

Regarding the future projects no that is entirely and 100% wrong. There is no legal requirement, the projects are funded by the EU and can be completed, paid for or cancelled by the EU at will at any time. If an EU project is meant to be in the UK then the EU has not just the right to cancel that project post-Brexit it has already done so! See the well publicised move of two EU agencies out of the UK that were brought up earlier. The idea that the EU is committed to remaining with projects in the UK post-Brexit or vice-versa is patently absurd and wrong as the EU have so adroitly already determined.

[RandBlade]

... this is completely irrelevant because those nations could not have made any commitments of that sort before joining. The UK is attempting to disavow promises it has already committed to keeping.

... as the EU has done by moving agencies out of the UK. Future plans are always subject to change and not set in stone.

[Aimless]

Staying within the Single Market and Customs Union while leaving the EU is not a realistic suggestion. It defeats the entire purpose of leaving the EU. Maybe stay in one or the other but to stay in both but be out of the EU - what would be the point of that?

Indeed, and therein lies the dilemma that encapsulates the absurdity of Brexit. However, you're not entirely correct. The EFTA states are for all intents and purposes within the Single Market, while a small number of non-member nations and territories have customs union agreements with the EU. A similarly small number of territories belonging to EU member states are outside the EU customs union.

Neither of those suggestions work because you can't have a border around the entire island as Northern Ireland is part of the same country let alone the same market as the rest of the UK.

Of course you can. It would require granting NI greater autonomy and you'd have customs borders at airports & sea-ports rather than on the island itself. If it makes you feel better you can make that border "frictionless".

Your suggestion is just as plausible as a suggestion of having a border around the entire British Isles (all of Ireland and Great Britain) between us collectively the continent. That doesn't work as you don't want a border within the single market yet there's supposed to be a border within a single country? You really think that's a real suggestion? Northern Ireland is part of the UK.

Northern Ireland is a part of the UK but it's economy is a very small part of the UK's economy. Its economy is also extremely dependent on truly frictionless trade with RoI. This solution would safeguard the peace process, protect NI's and Ireland's economic interests and protect NI from a major negative consequence of Brexit. You're obviously free to decide whether or not you want to do that. Your arguments against implementing this solution demonstrate the folly of Brexiteers expecting the EU to agree to similar but much more damaging and unrealistic (in terms of feasibility) proposals.

You speak of non-starters right after making two "easy" suggestions are clearly non-starters so why did you make them?

The UK is free to implement this solution if it wishes. It would end the impasse and safeguard the interests of both NI and RoI. It would in one move neutralize the most difficult obstacle in this phase of the negotiations. The power to do this is entirely in the UK's hands. If it chooses not to implement this real and concrete solution to a real and concrete problem, then how can it expect the EU--and especially Ireland--to behave any differently? My intention was both to remind you of a proposed solution to a thorny problem as well as to help you understand the EU's position on this matter, which is, as you can see, not very different in principle from the UK's.

What suggestions do you have that aren't non-starters?

*shrug* Revoke article 50. Given that around half of your citizens would be on-board with that it's the closest thing you have to something that isn't a non-starter.

[RandBlade]

Indeed, and therein lies the dilemma that encapsulates the absurdity of Brexit. However, you're not entirely correct. The EFTA states are for all intents and purposes within the Single Market, while a small number of non-member nations and territories have customs union agreements with the EU. A similarly small number of territories belonging to EU member states are outside the EU customs union.

Yes but I said "one or the other". The EFTA states [or more correctly the EEA states] are within the Single Market but crucially they are outside of the Customs Union. Conversely Turkey is outside of the Single Market but effectively inside the Customs Union. There is no non-EU state in both.

Of course you can. It would require granting NI greater autonomy and you'd have customs borders at airports & sea-ports rather than on the island itself. If it makes you feel better you can make that border "frictionless".

Just as you could grant Ireland the same within the EU if you wanted to. Customs borders within nations is a stupid idea and its a complete non-starter.

The UK is free to implement this solution if it wishes. It would end the impasse and safeguard the interests of both NI and RoI. It would in one move neutralize the most difficult obstacle in this phase of the negotiations. The power to do this is entirely in the UK's hands. If it chooses not to implement this real and concrete solution to a real and concrete problem, then how can it expect the EU--and especially Ireland--to behave any differently? My intention was both to remind you of a proposed solution to a thorny problem as well as to help you understand the EU's position on this matter, which is, as you can see, not very different in principle from the UK's.

No its completely different. The UK has a right within the EU to leave the EU, not to leave the EU on condition the nation itself breaks up.

*shrug* Revoke article 50. Given that around half of your citizens would be on-board with that it's the closest thing you have to something that isn't a non-starter.

Again a non-starter we are a democracy. Actually polls show support for revocation of article 50 at around 20%. The majority of Remain voters are democrats who accepted the result and expect the will of the nation to be implemented.

[Hazir]

Yes but I said "one or the other". The EFTA states [or more correctly the EEA states] are within the Single Market but crucially they are outside of the Customs Union. Conversely Turkey is outside of the Single Market but effectively inside the Customs Union. There is no non-EU state in both.
Just as you could grant Ireland the same within the EU if you wanted to. Customs borders within nations is a stupid idea and its a complete non-starter.
No its completely different. The UK has a right within the EU to leave the EU, not to leave the EU on condition the nation itself breaks up.
Again a non-starter we are a democracy. Actually polls show support for revocation of article 50 at around 20%. The majority of Remain voters are democrats who accepted the result and expect the will of the nation to be implemented.

So in the category 'ridiculous Breximaniac ideas' we have now reached a new summit; we should remove the RoI from the EU just because of your stupid vote?

How many times do we have to remind you that we don't owe you anything?

[Hazir]

Not really. I don't consider Hazir's rabid hatred for us representative of the EU27. I just kinda ignore him and try to avoid stepping on the dripping mouth froth.

Also, regarding the divorce bill - I'm as keen as anyone to see how this has been calculated. However I've always expected us to owe them something. It seems reasonable to expect that we should cover any costs of future initiatives that we committed to when we were members. Those initiatives will have been carefully planned and costed and it seems right that we honor that. There's also the cost of these negotiations (which I imagine cost a pretty penny) which again seems reasonable for us to cover/contribute to. And there's also most likely a huge range of costs dealing with all sorts of complexities and administrative stuff that's just too boring and detailed to articulate at sound-bite level.

We'd expect the same if someone else were leaving, wouldn't we?

You can ignore what I say all you want, but what I write is merely a less polite version of what leading EU politicians are saying.

[RandBlade]

So in the category 'ridiculous Breximaniac ideas' we have now reached a new summit; we should remove the RoI from the EU just because of your stupid vote?

How many times do we have to remind you that we don't owe you anything?

You must be illiterate as I never said you should. I said the idea was a non-starter and used that as a contrast to the absurd notion of a customs border within the UK.

[RandBlade]

You can ignore what I say all you want, but what I write is merely a less polite version of what leading EU politicians are saying.

So you confirm that the EU are unreasonable but just more polite about it?

[Aimless]

Yes but I said "one or the other". The EFTA states [or more correctly the EEA states] are within the Single Market but crucially they are outside of the Customs Union. Conversely Turkey is outside of the Single Market but effectively inside the Customs Union. There is no non-EU state in both.

So? The point is that it can be done, and is much more feasible in the case of a small region within a country. There's only one nation in the world that trades solely under WTO rules, but that hasn't stopped leading Brexiteers from wanting to join Mauritania in its exclusive club.

Just as you could grant Ireland the same within the EU if you wanted to. Customs borders within nations is a stupid idea and its a complete non-starter.

*shrug* Ireland doesn't want that and, as you know, the EU can't force it to accept such a proposal.

No its completely different. The UK has a right within the EU to leave the EU, not to leave the EU on condition the nation itself breaks up.

I was referring to the various proposals that require the EU to weaken the integrity of not only the Single Market but the Union itself.

Again a non-starter we are a democracy.

There's nothing inherently undemocratic about it. The referendum was advisory. The margin of victory was small, but, more importantly, it showed a very strong interest on the part of the public to remain in the EU. If you still have doubts, you can hold another referendum and make it even more democratic. Historically, the British have not been keen on referendums. After all, they are the "device of dictators and demagogues".

Actually polls show support for revocation of article 50 at around 20%. The majority of Remain voters are democrats who accepted the result and expect the will of the nation to be implemented.

If you can find me a recent high-quality poll supporting that statement it would be helpful. Given that revocation of art. 50 has not been seriously discussed until recently--in relation to Callanan's lie and subsequent apology--I doubt there has been much polling done on the question.

[gogobongopop]

GDP growth slashed for the next 3 years - a measly 1.3% in 2019 and 2010.

UK now the 6th largest economy in the world.

EU membership used to cost us about £3.84 a week. The average household is already £7.75 worse off per week since Brexit.

But at least we're in control

[Aimless]

GDP growth slashed for the next 3 years - a measly 1.3% in 2019 and 2010.

UK now the 6th largest economy in the world.

EU membership used to cost us about £3.84 a week. The average household is already £7.75 worse off per week since Brexit.

But at least we're in control

Hammond is promising around £8 to some people for buying avocados so it all evens out in the end.

[Hazir]

So you confirm that the EU are unreasonable but just more polite about it?

No, it means that as long as you want something we don't want, it's up to you to make it worth our while. So far you haven't.

[RandBlade]

A trade deal already is worth your while. Frictionless trade in Ireland is already worth your while. Trying to extort more because you think you can doesn't change that.

[Aimless]

As you've demonstrated, there is no possibility of that frictionless trade.

[RandBlade]

GDP growth slashed for the next 3 years - a measly 1.3% in 2019 and 2010.

UK now the 6th largest economy in the world.

EU membership used to cost us about £3.84 a week. The average household is already £7.75 worse off per week since Brexit.

But at least we're in control

Something weird is happening with the government's figures. For the last few years whether or not growth has done better or not than predicted the deficit has consistently fallen by less than predicted.

This year growth is falling compared to what is predicted but the deficit has shrank dramatically more than predicted.

Normally tax receipts go up when we grow and down when we don't and vice-versa for spending but this year for the first time in nearly twenty years the tax receipts are actually going up much faster than predicted yet we're slowing down. It doesn't make much sense.

[RandBlade]

As you've demonstrated, there is no possibility of that frictionless trade.

I've not demonstrated that, I've said we can't know that until we know what trade deal we have. If we get a trade deal that permits frictionless trade then problem solved.

[LittleFuzzy]

Contrary to popular British myth, Hazir is not the EU.

I used to think that. After watching you (and several Americans) start posting in lock-step with him when the UK's apostasy finally sunk in, I'm not so sure anymore.

[Khendraja'aro]

I used to think that. After watching you (and several Americans) start posting in lock-step with him when the UK's apostasy finally sunk in, I'm not so sure anymore.

Hark, Thy Prophet Hath Spoken!

[Aimless]

I used to think that. After watching you (and several Americans) start posting in lock-step with him when the UK's apostasy finally sunk in, I'm not so sure anymore.

*shrug* as usual you're mostly mistaken about what other people say and believe, and I'm beginning to think you've lost the ability to distinguish between individual posters on this forum. My commentary has been based on my interpretation of what I've read about the subjects this debate has touched on. If that happens to have closely matched Hazir's statements then it largely reflects our commonality of sources and reasoning. To some extent, the non-factual content reveals our shared frustration and disgust, but given that those feelings appear to also be shared by a large portion of the British public--including some of our resident Brits--I'm not sure it supports your case. As it so happens, on the legal and political matters, our statements have also matched reality.

At the end of the day, no matter how you cut it, Hazir isn't the EU. Neither am I, for that matter, in case you were confused about my identity as well. In further shocking news, Khen isn't the EU. Steely, Tim and Gogo aren't the EU. Loki may or may not be a cat; he is, however, not the EU. If there's something objectionable about any of our individual posts, then that reflects only on us, not on the EU. At most we relay statements from the EU that have been reported on the media or by insiders who've chosen to share that information with the public.

[Hazir]

I used to think that. After watching you (and several Americans) start posting in lock-step with him when the UK's apostasy finally sunk in, I'm not so sure anymore.

This made me chuckle, too bad you didn't ask yourself as to why that observation could be made