Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

Status
Not open for further replies.
mcfc1632 said:
Len, with regard your comment:

"and you failed to mention the transition phase of probably an additional three years still fully or closely aligned to the EU which will be another compromise too far for many leavers"

I feel that this was covered implicitly by my view that I could see us paying contributions for up to 7 years - so long as we actually leave in a manner that reflects full separation.

I appreciate that there will almost certainly be a transition phase - in fact I would go as far as to say that I hope there is one so long as we really leave.

There is much to analyse and plan to unpick/replace with regard all the regulations and processes. If there is no transition phase I would assume that would mean that we have 'crashed out'. Whilst leaving by crashing out is OK by me as it means we have left, it is my fallback option rather than my preferred one. A jointly managed transition would reflect leaving on jointly agreed terms. That is better - so long as we actually leave.

Re your comment:

"And finally on immigration we will as a minimum have to give preferential access to EU workers." I disagree - you state it as a fact - I really doubt we will do that.

Re my comment on a couple of decades of rebuilding that you pick up on. I am really cool about that - so long as we have left, but is was not meant to imply that the UK will be serving some sentence for 20 years. Some good things, such as independent trade deals, will happen much sooner, I am just recognising the scale of the task represented by the Great Repeal bill - there are a lot of regulations to go through and we will need to either confirm/amend/replace them.

Finally, with regard your view that my comments reflect me being in the 'soft Brexit camp' - I can understand that suggestion but if you read my comments in a different light you could also see I am potentially in the hardest of hard Brexit camp.

My preferred option is that we negotiate, plan and manage full separation without causing damage to the EU - I would even pay to see us separate harmoniously. But I can well accept the UK crashing out early with no deal at all and I would absolutely prefer that happened if the EU game playing in negotiations was seeking to see us operating within a model that did not reflect clear separation.

For me, this is why I will be pleased to see May get a majority from the election that essentially gives her a free hand - free from the machinations of the Remain schemers and also the Brextremists. She can then shoot for the harmonious deal whilst being able to walk away if the EU continue the intransigence that is reflected in their current negotiating mandate. Also, as I have suggested many times, from a negotiating POV, the EU are more likely to act consistent with achieving an harmonious deal if they can see that they are facing off against a UK free of the Westminster machinations that would have been the case without an election.

I personally view these terms of hard and soft to actually be unhelpful - for me how the terms of the deal are shaped all depends on how the negotiations go. It follows that I tend to focus on the 'intended outcome' rather than stipulate Red Lines - at the level you seem to be wanting. When I say 'level, there is not implied criticism - I just see Red Lines described as:
  • not more than £xx pa
  • Immigration to be less than xx pa etc.
To be setting up hostages to fortune that can actually get the parties locked in and possibly falling out over outputs rather than focussing on the intended outcome.
Click to expand...
Please stop pretending that 'crashing out' without a deal is an option.
Leaving without a deal in a managed way over a transition period will be bad enough, but to just leave suddenly would impact on the whole of our trade with the EU and would result in economic meltdown. The reasons have been gone through before in this thread, I could repeat them but you know them.
May is a risk averse politician, do you honestly think she would risk the economic well being of this country , the seventh largest economy in the world with a population of 65 M based on wishful thinking that 'crashing out' might be alright? No she would never do that and her opponents know it, and if you're not prepared to carry out a threat it carries no weight in negotiations.
 
mcfc1632 said:
This post for me shows your bias and frustrations that things have not panned out the way Remainers had thought they would. You absolutely are not as blinkered as some but even you always seem to see things as the EU being very strong and having the whip hand and the UK being weak and will need to cower and give in to all and every demand the EU make.

You say: Your proposed settlement of a comprehensive trade deal for an annual cash settlement ( phased out over a number of years) is cloud cuckoo land.

That is just your opinion. Also I did not say 'a comprehensive trade deal'. Negotiations need to take place and what will come out of those negotiations is subject to a host of factors. I cannot and certainly would not say we will end up with a 'comprehensive trade deal' - equally you simply dismissing that we will get a good trade deal as cloud cuckoo land is, IMO, equally invalid.

And anyway, what does that mean? What constitutes a comprehensive trade deal will vary in people's minds. For me what is entirely possible is that the two parties agree that we continue to trade in the manner in which we currently do - tariff-free. This could be badged as a framework for a number of years whilst the final detail of a replacement TA is negotiated/finalised. So both parties save face. The chances of that happening, from a negotiating POV will be greater if the UK's team are strongly backed and therefore the EU have to give up on stalling.

They really need our money far more that you are willing to acknowledge. I remember you once posting something like 'get over it - they can soon replace.....'

It is becoming increasingly clear that my view that access to our money is a key factor is/was indeed accurate.

When you say: "Best of luck though to Teresa if she can get away with that and I would applaud her for doing so but in reality she will have to concede much more and when she does so I would see it as incumbent on Brexiters to give her their full patriotic support and not shout betrayal from the roof tops."

You are implying that there will be a mass of Leave voters unhappy. I am not sure that you are right at all. Remainers seem to think that there is a range of packages that we can select from with pre-determined conditions - this is just plain wrong and all the banging on from Keir Starmer, Tim Farron and Remain posters on here does not make it anything other than being just plain wrong.

The shape of the deal will evolve from the negotiations and the more that the EU are in a strong position and supported by their acolytes in Westminster the less we will get - it follows that the stronger May's hand is and the greater the freedom exists for her to play 'trump cards' like access to our money - then the more we will get.

I will certainly "....give her my full patriotic support and not shout betrayal from the roof tops."

As I say my outcome is that we are clearly out - I think that you will be surprised that for so many of us that is the same. Of course there will be compromises - but on both sides - that is negotiating.

Finally, when you say: "By the way your twenty year 'adjustment' period in the event of us crashing out seems about right but the notion that this will be a gentle low pain process is far too optimistic."

IMO, you simply have no valid/credible position from which you can make this statement. Until the negotiations have progressed and we start to know what the shape of the deal is then we will not know. If we crash out there might be impacts lasting 20 years - if we secure a good deal then it might be pretty (well relatively) smooth - you are again just looking at it from the doom-mongering Remain perspective.
Click to expand...
You suggest a transition period in which the EU and the U.K. trade tariff free while a final TA is sorted out.
The trade in that transition period will be made subject to conditions, the most onerous of which will be that it will be subject to full EU conditions of membership. Otherwise the transition period would represent the dream scenario to the UK of free trade with no obligations. No one is going to give us a transition deal more favourable than the one that will be finally agreed.
 
cibaman said:
The German car makers will make sure that she's kicked out if she sticks to that line.
Click to expand...
Not really.
They fully support Merkel in her stance on Brexit.
They know what side their bread is buttered on. The EU market with a common currency rather than an overvalued Deutschmark is crucial to them. The risk to their U.K. Market would be unwelcome but would be accepted as a necessary price of preserving the EU.
 
Len Rum said:
Please stop pretending that 'crashing out' without a deal is an option.
Leaving without a deal in a managed way over a transition period will be bad enough, but to just leave suddenly would impact on the whole of our trade with the EU and would result in economic meltdown. The reasons have been gone through before in this thread, I could repeat them but you know them.
May is a risk averse politician, do you honestly think she would risk the economic well being of this country , the seventh largest economy in the world with a population of 65 M based on wishful thinking that 'crashing out' might be alright? No she would never do that and her opponents know it, and if you're not prepared to carry out a threat it carries no weight in negotiations.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion - it cannot actually be true though, in fact, IMO, it is a daft thing to say.

I agree that not only is a crash out unlikely but also totally undesirable.

But..............

You cannot simply give free rein to the people that you are negotiating with to screw you over - there has to be a point at which you will be pushed no further and you need to know what you would do if that limit was reached.

If I was planning on behalf of the EU to get the best win I would recognise that the only real risk that we (the EU) face is funding in the coming years. I would take actions to mitigate that risk and secure UK commitments to as big a pot of their money as I could.

I would have people examining every way to make the bill as big - biggest - as possible - no matter how tenuous the justification for including elements was.

I would start with an insistence that the UK were liable for their contributions for every investment plan that the EU had made in 'our' 7 year plan - this is what leads to their £60bn bill. I would then seek to beef that up a bit more with anything and everything that I could claim was an already planned commitment and therefore a UK liability.

I would then try to use the power of my negotiating position to demand that there will be no negotiations until commitment to pay this big - biggest - bill.

In this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-scope-britains-brexit-bill-include-refugees/

you can see some of this in action - with a reported attempt to make us liable for paying the costs, for years to come, of the payments to Turkey for the Refugee deal on a pro-rata basis.

Your attitude, IMO, is frankly naïve and if the UK government was to be equally so naïve then we would be bent over taking it with no way to break out of it.

This is what would have happened with the veto clause that the Remainers wanted to squeeze in - it really is gullible of you IMO to keep on this tack.

May might be ultra cautious - but she is also wanting to stay attuned to the public opinion. She cannot present herself as a PM that has succumbed to the most outrageous demands of the EU - to avoid that she absolutely needs a walk-away option.

We never intend to use a nuclear response - but we spend an awful lot on money to have the deterrent. May will not want to walk away - I absolutely would not want that either - but she needs to have a powerful deterrent - think about it

Frankly, your statement:

"Please stop pretending that 'crashing out' without a deal is an option.."

Is, IMO, just plain daft and ill-thought through.
 
Len Rum said:
You suggest a transition period in which the EU and the U.K. trade tariff free while a final TA is sorted out.
The trade in that transition period will be made subject to conditions, the most onerous of which will be that it will be subject to full EU conditions of membership. Otherwise the transition period would represent the dream scenario to the UK of free trade with no obligations. No one is going to give us a transition deal more favourable than the one that will be finally agreed.
Click to expand...

You are clearly in a rush and posting without thinking - at least I hope that is the case.
 
Len Rum said:
Regarding UK crashing out of EU with no transition period, never ceases to amaze me how people who consider themselves to be the most patriotic will risk the future of their country for ideological reasons
Click to expand...
This is the Article 50/Brexit negotiations thread. It is intended...... well there is a clue in the title.

I am not saying what I would sacrifice for idelogical reasons etc. - although how someone on the far left and that is also an 'extreme Remainer' can comment on others being idelogical is really laughable.

I am talking,about the preparation for and conduct of negotiations. I have said before that I would post exactly the same about managing the negotiating phase if I was an adamant Remainer.

Anyway, you are clearly not at your best tonight so I will leave it until tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
mcfc1632 said:
That is your opinion - it cannot actually be true though, in fact, IMO, it is a daft thing to say.

I agree that not only is a crash out unlikely but also totally undesirable.

But..............

You cannot simply give free rein to the people that you are negotiating with to screw you over - there has to be a point at which you will be pushed no further and you need to know what you would do if that limit was reached.

If I was planning on behalf of the EU to get the best win I would recognise that the only real risk that we (the EU) face is funding in the coming years. I would take actions to mitigate that risk and secure UK commitments to as big a pot of their money as I could.

I would have people examining every way to make the bill as big - biggest - as possible - no matter how tenuous the justification for including elements was.

I would start with an insistence that the UK were liable for their contributions for every investment plan that the EU had made in 'our' 7 year plan - this is what leads to their £60bn bill. I would then seek to beef that up a bit more with anything and everything that I could claim was an already planned commitment and therefore a UK liability.

I would then try to use the power of my negotiating position to demand that there will be no negotiations until commitment to pay this big - biggest - bill.

In this article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-scope-britains-brexit-bill-include-refugees/

you can see some of this in action - with a reported attempt to make us liable for paying the costs, for years to come, of the payments to Turkey for the Refugee deal on a pro-rata basis.

Your attitude, IMO, is frankly naïve and if the UK government was to be equally so naïve then we would be bent over taking it with no way to break out of it.

This is what would have happened with the veto clause that the Remainers wanted to squeeze in - it really is gullible of you IMO to keep on this tack.

May might be ultra cautious - but she is also wanting to stay attuned to the public opinion. She cannot present herself as a PM that has succumbed to the most outrageous demands of the EU - to avoid that she absolutely needs a walk-away option.

We never intend to use a nuclear response - but we spend an awful lot on money to have the deterrent. May will not want to walk away - I absolutely would not want that either - but she needs to have a powerful deterrent - think about it

Frankly, your statement:

"Please stop pretending that 'crashing out' without a deal is an option.."

Is, IMO, just plain daft and ill-thought through.
Click to expand...

Do you think the British government understands the mindset of EU politicians? (It's all about the EU and not about the European people)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.