The UK is not Greece and there are downsides for a fair few people in the EU27 if there is no deal. A constructive, friendly UK that was seen to be reaching out might have had a chance to use that to shape public opinion in other countries so as to put some pressure on governments to strike a deal. But we have carried on being what we have been for a number of years when it comes to the EU: surly and largely hostile in tone. making Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad might have made sense to Theresa May politically, but the big problem was that it made Boris Johnson the UK's public face abroad.
No, David Davis, not Boris Johnson, is clearly the face of the negotiations, and Johnson seems so far to have been pretty well marginalised.
There are two parties to these negotiations. One side has clearly entered them in a reasonably constructive manner wishing to talk about everything and published lots of detail on its stance in the hope of gaining some response from the other. The other side has though insisted on an absurd sequencing for those talks clearly designed to try and push the opposing where at the 11th hour it has little option to accept the gruel on offer and has published next to nothing of substance of its own. Its motivation for that stance seems to me to be more guided by a desire to punish than to reach a rational settlement for the benefit the citizens on whose behalf its unaccountable elites are supposedly acting.
So, faced with that, I'm quite content that the UK government has now decided to give greater emphasis to planning for a parallel, alternative course that gives it a viable option involving tariffs. That will both by extra leverage that might still avoid that course, and might yet influence elite opinion within EU states facing the prospect of a barriers to their net exports to UK markets.
Incidentally, what are the options as to how the UK government might use the revenues from import tariffs on EU goods?
Tariffs on imports and exports, plus queues who knows how long for who knows what kind of produce and products at our ports.
That'll show the EU.
Spanish fresh food exports will rot at the ports as they queue to enter. Should the Spanish Government sit back and watch Barnier negotiate this position?
Yes - it's for the greater good of the wonderful EU project.
BTW, as a veteran EU observer, I predicted at the start of the talks that there would be periodic crises, breakdowns, midnight emergency sessions, clock-stopping and more, but that there would be a deal in the end. I still think so.
The problem though, is that a deal 'in the end' is a deal too late. Many businesses, such as airlines, banks and car manufacturers, need at least 18 months to plan. Governments need to know what customs and administrative systems they will need. Therefore, if there is not substantive progress very soon indeed, we could slide into severe disruption almost accidentally.
Also, a deal "in the end", if it happens, is likely to be fairly minimal.
I stand by my "Russian train mobilisation" thread:
The way the EU have structured their approach to Brexit negotiations is a big part of the problem.
Lets not waste more time on pointless negotiations and go straight to WTO plus negotiating trade deals with non EU countries (and the EU if they are interested).
And how does WTO work? Assuming that we can get the physical and IT infrastructure in place - oh that's right. We can't even do that. At least that's what the people who run the ports and logistics and even HMRC say. 18 months is utterly impossible.
But "what do these doomsaying Remoaner experts know" I keep reading. As if our physical inability to "go straight to WTO" doesn't matter. Where we might get to 5 or 10 years after Brexit, or the principle of our courts having primacy are irrelevant if "straight to WTO" means empty shelves
Don't worry. Stock up on canned food, and buy an air rifle, so you can shoot squirrels and pigeons for meat.
Britain could join a formal trade alliance with the US, Canada and Mexico if Britain is unable to secure a post-Brexit deal with the EU under plans being considered by ministers.
The Telegraph understands that the Government is examining the possibility of joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as part of its planning for a “no deal” scenario.
Joining Nafta would enable the UK to boost its trade with three of the world’s economic powerhouses, which have a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of £17.2 trillion, compared with the EU’s GDP of £15.7 trillion.
Lol - Just how much of the world's wealth does George OsborneBlackrock manage. Just checked and I have 65% of my pension pot with them !
A hell of a lot - $5.7 trillion.
(I believe around a quarter of that is in index funds, though)
What proportion of the total market does Black Rock manage though?
They seem to have sufficient to have a strong influence on which investments do well and which do less well, especially for the large tech companies like Amazon and Tesla where profits are negligible but valuations extremely high and based on future expectations rather than fundamentals. Black Rock may control expectations and thus valuations.
Britain could join a formal trade alliance with the US, Canada and Mexico if Britain is unable to secure a post-Brexit deal with the EU under plans being considered by ministers.
The Telegraph understands that the Government is examining the possibility of joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as part of its planning for a “no deal” scenario.
Joining Nafta would enable the UK to boost its trade with three of the world’s economic powerhouses, which have a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of £17.2 trillion, compared with the EU’s GDP of £15.7 trillion.
Good idea. Cheaper and less salmonella-infested chicken, too.
My hope on all this is that it turns out a little like the Y2K forecast apocalypse... everyone is unprepared for the deadline, but sufficiently prepared to avert massive damage.
At this point, who knows ?
The Y2K apocalypse was avoided because a lot of people worked hard at eliminating it.
If we did nothing we would have been lambasted for failure.
If we succeeded we would be lambasted for scare-mongering.
It was an no-win scenario but nonetheless, a lot of remediation work was needed.
I agree with the general point, but the Y2K bug was very over-hyped. Business chiefs heard of the problem and feared being sued for negligence and so got the business lawyers involved. This led to every bit of work done using a computer being checked and signed for. Those with a just a little bit of nous about coding and software knew what could be vulnerable and what measures needed to be taken. The extent of the risk was nowhere near as extreme as was made out.
Britain could join a formal trade alliance with the US, Canada and Mexico if Britain is unable to secure a post-Brexit deal with the EU under plans being considered by ministers.
The Telegraph understands that the Government is examining the possibility of joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as part of its planning for a “no deal” scenario.
Joining Nafta would enable the UK to boost its trade with three of the world’s economic powerhouses, which have a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of £17.2 trillion, compared with the EU’s GDP of £15.7 trillion.
Good idea. Cheaper and less salmonella-infested chicken, too.
Where does the Nafta parliment sit ? Do they have 2 like the EU and is there a Nafta court of justice ?
And we'll get no deal with Australia until it is, of course.
The whole point of leaving is to negotiate our own
Yes, but the UK's attractiveness as a country with which to do an FTA will depend upon our relationship with the EU - and on the relationships other countries have with the EU.
I'm sorry but that is simply not true, if Australia want to trade with us they won't take Malta into account, nor will they want Malta to stall the process of selling us koala skin or whatever it is they're flogging.
You are myopic.
Australia already trades with us. What we want from them is better trading arrangements than we have already. That means them opening up their market even further. They will not do that until they know exactly what we can offer them. And they will not know that until both we and they have a deal with the EU.
Plus, the Aussies won't negotiate trade deals with the UK until after Brexit as that is against the trade agreement made with the EU, in that no country within the EU can negotiate a more favourable deal. That's the same for all the other countries and blocs. The punishment for breaking the rules is expensive. And until March 2019, we will be full members of the EU.
So it makes sense for the EU to ask themselves *why* we left, and how they can alter or finesse the way they do things to prevent what I fear is inevitable in the medium term - another country leaving.
But as far as I can tell, they are not asking those difficult questions.
Crudely I think the analysis is that we voted to leave because we didn't understand it, because we had a press and political class that didn't understand it and preferred to lie about it. The negotiation is seen as a process of education, and not helping us paper over the contradictions is essential to aid in understanding the practical benefits we are deriving from EU membership right now.
I think that's absolutely their analysis. But a political mindset that simply assumes the fault it with everyone else is a toxic one. For all the bitterness in the UK, we are having a debate on what the UK issue doing wrong and arguing reasons back and forth. The EU has not had any debate or reflection on self-criticism at all. It was one of the reasons I reluctantly voted for Leave, but I thought the third most populous member leaving would shake up the groupthink. That it hasn't just confirms we were right to leave, in my opinion.
The biggest mistake the Brexit government has made, and continues to make, is to assume that the EU27 are naturally on our side and the Commission is naturally against us. They completely misread the politics, as well as the geopolitics, of the situation.
Britain could join a formal trade alliance with the US, Canada and Mexico if Britain is unable to secure a post-Brexit deal with the EU under plans being considered by ministers.
The Telegraph understands that the Government is examining the possibility of joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as part of its planning for a “no deal” scenario.
Joining Nafta would enable the UK to boost its trade with three of the world’s economic powerhouses, which have a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of £17.2 trillion, compared with the EU’s GDP of £15.7 trillion.
Good idea. Cheaper and less salmonella-infested chicken, too.
We should just get on with it and sign up as the 51st, 52nd, 53rd and 54th States.
Britain could join a formal trade alliance with the US, Canada and Mexico if Britain is unable to secure a post-Brexit deal with the EU under plans being considered by ministers.
The Telegraph understands that the Government is examining the possibility of joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as part of its planning for a “no deal” scenario.
Joining Nafta would enable the UK to boost its trade with three of the world’s economic powerhouses, which have a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of £17.2 trillion, compared with the EU’s GDP of £15.7 trillion.
Good idea. Cheaper and less salmonella-infested chicken, too.
Where does the Nafta parliment sit ? Do they have 2 like the EU and is there a Nafta court of justice ?
What proportion of the total market does Black Rock manage though?
They seem to have sufficient to have a strong influence on which investments do well and which do less well, especially for the large tech companies like Amazon and Tesla where profits are negligible but valuations extremely high and based on future expectations rather than fundamentals. Black Rock may control expectations and thus valuations.
They are very big, but not so big as to distort the market, I think:
On any specific investment, hedge funds, activist investors, Berkshire Hathaway, pension funds, and hundreds of other asset-management firms may be market participants.
I asked downthread for someone to explain their position. Despite a number of very vocal pro-EU people on here, no-one has ventured a suggestion. To me, that is telling.
The EU doesn't really have to explain its position. That is the irritating, but entirely predictable thing.
If .
To use a sporting analogy, you might say the ball is in our court.
It's .
Hmm. A few things the EU could have done:
(1) Kept Dave's deal on the table, in case we changed our mind (why on earth not?) (2) Launched a full internal dispassionate enquiry into why the UK voted to Leave, and what the EU might be getting wrong in how it came across (Jossias Jessop first suggested this) (3) Demanded Juncker's resignation since he was "elected" on a platform that included solving the British problem inside the EU (4) With suitable exit payments, offered an alternative "associate" membership of the EU (less benefits, but more independence) (5) Launched a strategic review into the future of Europe, including all EU, EFTA and EEA states - it's not just us who are disillusioned - that might include free movement, for example
There are, of course, a number of missteps the UK made as well. But, the vast majority of what I've seen and heard from the EU since the vote has been very defensive and that they see Brexit as entirely our problem, and nothing to do with them.
In the long-term, that alone won't save them.
Brexit is essentially the UK's problem. There will be a short-term financial impact on the EU, but it remains structurally sound and will be able to progress more easily to its objective of ever closer union once its most recalcitrant member leaves on 29/3/2019.
And it's all the fault of the UK tabloid press.
Seriously, this won't really wash. Such "la la la, I'm not listening and nor do I need to!" attitudes are how Empires fall.
Why did its second largest member by economy/net contribution/military vote to Leave after 43 years?
Future historians will marvel at nothing more sophisticated than "because of the Daily Mail".
All of which might, or might not be the case... sometime down the line. In the meantime, Brexit really is the UK's problem far more than it is the EU's.
Since we voted to Leave, yes, but if the EU was sensible it might be asking itself how it came to pass to avoid a similar problem in future.
€60 billion (€2.5 billion a month) may seem like a lot for a short term transition. The EU won't talk about new arrangements without it,. This will apply equally if we crash out with no deal and subsequently look to come to terms with the EU and third countries. We can see this fee as the cost of Brexit. In any case, Brexit will be an expensive exercise. Money is our currency to buy back some of the influence we lose by no longer having a direct say in European affairs.
Edit I expect there to be a deal on these lines by next autumn: €60 billion for the two year no change extension.
The problem with your analysis is that they aren't offering anything in exchange. They are saying 'agree to pay us megabucks and if we think it's enough megabucks (but we're not telling you how much that might be) then we might condescend to consider whether we want to do anything else, but we won't say what'. It's barmy beyond belief as a position.
It is not a charity donation, it is money for things that are already budgeted. Just as an example, a medical researcher having his salary paid by an EU funded project for the next three years.
If you have agreed to pay for something in 12 monthly installments then change your mind after 6 months, you are still liable to the financial commitment.
Britain could join a formal trade alliance with the US, Canada and Mexico if Britain is unable to secure a post-Brexit deal with the EU under plans being considered by ministers.
The Telegraph understands that the Government is examining the possibility of joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as part of its planning for a “no deal” scenario.
Joining Nafta would enable the UK to boost its trade with three of the world’s economic powerhouses, which have a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of £17.2 trillion, compared with the EU’s GDP of £15.7 trillion.
Is this the NAFTA that the Trump administration wants to tear up and renegotiate to make it more advantageous to the Americans?
Since we voted to Leave, yes, but if the EU was sensible it might be asking itself how it came to pass to avoid a similar problem in future.
I would argue that that's what they're doing. A national political class's sense of exceptionalism was pandered to for too long until it grew out of of control. They're learnt their lesson.
Fans of the EU don't seem keen on NAFTA which is surely just a similar "trading family" ?
Weird...
The EU is a political union and is far superior to a dysfunctional 'trade bloc' that can't even prevent disputes like we saw with the Canadian firm Bombardier.
It is not a charity donation, it is money for things that are already budgeted. Just as an example, a medical researcher having his salary paid by an EU funded project for the next three years.
If you have agreed to pay for something in 12 monthly installments then change your mind after 6 months, you are still liable to the financial commitment.
The EU budget is agreed until 2020. Our share of that, even if we pay the entire subscription for the period after we leave until the end of the budget period, is nothing like the sums the EU has been bandying about, and would be more than covered by the transition deal we're seeking.
In any case, Article 50 effectively gives us the option to stop paying with two years notice. That's kinda the idea of Article 50 - to define the notice period.
"The European Commission has decided to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to recover from Apple illegal State aid worth up to €13 billion, as required by a Commission decision."
Fans of the EU don't seem keen on NAFTA which is surely just a similar "trading family" ?
Weird...
NAFTA is fine. Just beware that we'd be at the mercy of what the US decides. In the EU we are one of the big fish in the pool. In NAFTA, we would be a minnow.
Britain could join a formal trade alliance with the US, Canada and Mexico if Britain is unable to secure a post-Brexit deal with the EU under plans being considered by ministers.
The Telegraph understands that the Government is examining the possibility of joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as part of its planning for a “no deal” scenario.
Joining Nafta would enable the UK to boost its trade with three of the world’s economic powerhouses, which have a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of £17.2 trillion, compared with the EU’s GDP of £15.7 trillion.
Good idea. Cheaper and less salmonella-infested chicken, too.
And chicken coated with exactly the same thing we coat our children in when they go to the local swimming baths.
Presumably they would have to change the First A in NAFTA to state Atlantic not American. Send Wills, Kate and George over to Canada on Harry and his US girlfriend to the US to seal the deal. Sorted!
"The European Commission has decided to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to recover from Apple illegal State aid worth up to €13 billion, as required by a Commission decision."
I think they are asking these questions. Most Europeans think the EU needs reform. The thing is, they disagree about what those reforms should be, so it is likely to stay largely as it is. I don't think British people understand that the EU is the way it is because it needs consensus.
I'm far from convinced that they're asking these questions. And as for your last sentence: I;m unsure the consensus they're heading towards is a consensus of the peoples of the EU; rather it is a consensus of the political elite.
The two are very different.
The alienation between citizens, not just in the UK, and the EU and an over-reliance by that organisation on rules rather than unity are problems. They aren't easy to solve however and certainly not by the atomisation that people in Britain assume the solution to be. Personally I am a europhile on the principle of the EU and a eurosceptic on the functioning of it, but the two can't be separated. Circles are difficult to square.
Mr. 43, I think a lot of people like the idea of the EU whilst disliking the way it actually works.
A problem is that, as Machiavelli wrote (in Discourses, I think), a confederation of states larger than 4-6 members cannot function properly without power drifting from the state to the confederation itself.
To try and work, the EU has to integrate more, but the enormous divergence of culture, scale, economy, and demographics means that tension will arise between harmonisation of policies and the individual needs of each nation-state.
"Plus, the Aussies won't negotiate trade deals with the UK until after Brexit as that is against the trade agreement made with the EU" - do we know what proportion of Australia EU trade is actually Australia - UK trade?
Mr. 43, I think a lot of people like the idea of the EU whilst disliking the way it actually works.
A problem is that, as Machiavelli wrote (in Discourses, I think), a confederation of states larger than 4-6 members cannot function properly without power drifting from the state to the confederation itself.
To try and work, the EU has to integrate more, but the enormous divergence of culture, scale, economy, and demographics means that tension will arise between harmonisation of policies and the individual needs of each nation-state.
In short, the EU is destined to break.
By your logic, the UK is also destined to break.
In the last century the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland broke.
Mr. Eagles, ahem. I said 4-6 members could work. And the UK isn't a confederation.
Honestly, if you paid more attention you wouldn't make such silly mistakes.
Still only about a quarter into Caesar's bio (reading rate's been very slow of late) but amused how many silly errors he's been making. He's a bit Cameronish. Good when his back's against the wall, which happens a lot due to lack of foresight.
Mr. 43, I think a lot of people like the idea of the EU whilst disliking the way it actually works.
A problem is that, as Machiavelli wrote (in Discourses, I think), a confederation of states larger than 4-6 members cannot function properly without power drifting from the state to the confederation itself.
To try and work, the EU has to integrate more, but the enormous divergence of culture, scale, economy, and demographics means that tension will arise between harmonisation of policies and the individual needs of each nation-state.
In short, the EU is destined to break.
By your logic, the UK is also destined to break.
In the last century the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland broke.
We know in the case of Bombardier - the US Department of Commerce, whose remit it is to promote US trade.
NAFTA dispute resolution is via ICSID - the dispute mechanism under the World Bank, arbitrating under the rules of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Rules).
Mr. Eagles, ahem. I said 4-6 members could work. And the UK isn't a confederation.
Honestly, if you paid more attention you wouldn't make such silly mistakes.
Still only about a quarter into Caesar's bio (reading rate's been very slow of late) but amused how many silly errors he's been making. He's a bit Cameronish. Good when his back's against the wall, which happens a lot due to lack of foresight.
We have four members in this union, and my OED says union is an acceptable synonym for confederation.
Surely you must know from your readings that small towns/cities joined together to form countries from things like city states to full blown countries, and some of them haven't broken.
Fans of the EU don't seem keen on NAFTA which is surely just a similar "trading family" ?
Weird...
When was the last time any EU member state imposed 300% tariffs on a UK company?
The question you really need to ask is whether Bombardier has broken WTO and NAFTA rules on state aid. If they have, there is a strong case that this would have been deemed a similar breach under EU law had it occurred in the UK. so the UK would have been the subject of an ECJ case. We also know that the ECJ has recently fined US companies for breaches of its own regulation in tax deals (state aid) and other issues.
Since we voted to Leave, yes, but if the EU was sensible it might be asking itself how it came to pass to avoid a similar problem in future.
I would argue that that's what they're doing. A national political class's sense of exceptionalism was pandered to for too long until it grew out of of control. They're learnt their lesson.
The EU debates have become tedious. It's either someone proclaiming Brexit as the next coming or williamglenn arguing for full integration with the EU
"BAE is facing an order gap for the Typhoon so wants to slow production before an expected order from Qatar."
"BAE needs a clear signal from its main customer, the Ministry of Defence, as to what comes next after the F-35. Unions have already criticised the government for buying more military equipment from the US.
While the UK now has an industrial strategy to sustain the production of warships in the UK, it does not appear to have a similar strategy for the air defence sector."
Mr. Eagles, sometimes countries evolve that way (such as Germany, with its many regional capitals). Others are far more centralised, such as England/the UK.
In this instance the union is a nation-state and the confederacy is supra-national, composed of nation-states. The two are fundamentally, and obviously, different.
We know in the case of Bombardier - the US Department of Commerce, whose remit it is to promote US trade.
NAFTA dispute resolution is via ICSID - the dispute mechanism under the World Bank, arbitrating under the rules of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Rules).
Fair cop! It's more a question of NAFTA not preventing the USA from taking unilateral action is the same way as the EU would do. The US sanctions against Canada probably run counter to WTO rules but it will be years (a decade maybe) before there is a remedy. During which time the sanctions will stay in place and stifle or kill Bombardier.
"BAE is facing an order gap for the Typhoon so wants to slow production before an expected order from Qatar."
"BAE needs a clear signal from its main customer, the Ministry of Defence, as to what comes next after the F-35. Unions have already criticised the government for buying more military equipment from the US.
While the UK now has an industrial strategy to sustain the production of warships in the UK, it does not appear to have a similar strategy for the air defence sector."
You should know by now that every job loss or company closure is entirely down to Brexit and every new job or new company formed is entirely down to our EU membership,
Because no one ever got made redundant prior to 23 June 2016 did they!
Mr. 43, I think a lot of people like the idea of the EU whilst disliking the way it actually works.
A problem is that, as Machiavelli wrote (in Discourses, I think), a confederation of states larger than 4-6 members cannot function properly without power drifting from the state to the confederation itself.
To try and work, the EU has to integrate more, but the enormous divergence of culture, scale, economy, and demographics means that tension will arise between harmonisation of policies and the individual needs of each nation-state.
In short, the EU is destined to break.
The EU might break. It's a real risk. The degree of risk is an evaluation. I can't see it being greater than maybe 10% in the next fifteen years, which is as far ahead as we can reasonably look, I think.
People often underestimate the self denying prophecy effect of polls -ie voters voting in a certain way to prevent the perceived outcome that the polls otherwise accurately forecast. Because the polls were forecasting at first a Tory landslide, -which would give May a mandate for a hard Brexit and the dementia tax, voters deliberately came out to prevent it. Many older Tories confident that May would get a landslide stayed at home in protest at May's policies towards the old believing that their votes were not needed for a Tory win.
This is why Labour is heading for a fall. Next time people will expect a Labour win, even if the polls are against them. This will ensure a maximum anti Corbyn turnout -and probable comfortable Tory victory.
I'd have thought the problem was not that it says she can or can't, but that it says "we're not sure, possibly".
Get five lawyers in a room and you might get 10 answers on the question. The Supreme Court doesn't always vote as one - it's a matter of interpretation.
Surely politics trumps this all anyway - it doesn't matter because the government has no intention to withdraw it due to the referendum result and because an act of Parliament approved its triggering. And 85 per cent of voters backed parties committed to not revoking it in the general election.
And even if we did the EU and the other 27 member states would need to agree to take us back - on the same terms or possibly not? It would be a humiliation and they might as well get their pound of flesh to see how desperate we are to stay.
A different government might wish to change tack - but this DUP Tory one isn't going to change tack on leaving. It's not if but how - and it's time people accepted that.
The only positive I can take from this is that I hope it provides the UK government a road map of what not to do if the SNP decide to hold an unconstitutional second referendum
Fans of the EU don't seem keen on NAFTA which is surely just a similar "trading family" ?
Weird...
The EU is a political union and is far superior to a dysfunctional 'trade bloc' that can't even prevent disputes like we saw with the Canadian firm Bombardier.
I think the EU economic bloc would kill to have the dysfunctional levels of unemployment and GDP per capita of NAFTA.
We know in the case of Bombardier - the US Department of Commerce, whose remit it is to promote US trade.
NAFTA dispute resolution is via ICSID - the dispute mechanism under the World Bank, arbitrating under the rules of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Rules).
Fair cop! It's more a question of NAFTA not preventing the USA from taking unilateral action is the same way as the EU would do. The US sanctions against Canada probably run counter to WTO rules but it will be years (a decade maybe) before there is a remedy. During which time the sanctions will stay in place and stifle or kill Bombardier.
Here's the big issue though - the appeals process is such that the Tariffs will be escrowed until a final outcome at the WTO (if it goes that far - it probably won't).
First step might be to appeal to the US Federal Court. Or actually, more likely they will use the NAFTA dispute resolution service. If they fail to get a good judgement they will go to WTO, and of course you're right that could take years.
But Boeing can't forget that the UK has a large order for Helicopters outstanding. I'd expect that order to be cancelled if this doesn't get overturned or reduced significantly at NAFTA.
More interestingly, is there anything to stop us revoking it, and subsequently invoking it again ?
The ability to do that might (?) significantly strengthen our negotiating position...
It certainly would - no nonsense about having to beg them for a transition deal.
But, it's a nonsense. Even if you can find some lawyers who say if might be possible to revoke it, there would never be sufficient certainty to rely on it - and, after all, at the end of the day it's the EU which decides.
More interestingly, is there anything to stop us revoking it, and subsequently invoking it again ?
The ability to do that might (?) significantly strengthen our negotiating position...
We discussed that extensively previously. I don't see it. If we revoke, then invoke again, we are in the same position of having to agree an exit bill before discussing less favourable trade terms.
In any case, we might only revoke if it becomes clear to even the dimmest Brexiteer that their pet project is a shitshow. The appetite to invoke after that would be slim
People often underestimate the self denying prophecy effect of polls -ie voters voting in a certain way to prevent the perceived outcome that the polls otherwise accurately forecast. Because the polls were forecasting at first a Tory landslide, -which would give May a mandate for a hard Brexit and the dementia tax, voters deliberately came out to prevent it. Many older Tories confident that May would get a landslide stayed at home in protest at May's policies towards the old believing that their votes were not needed for a Tory win.
This is why Labour is heading for a fall. Next time people will expect a Labour win, even if the polls are against them. This will ensure a maximum anti Corbyn turnout -and probable comfortable Tory victory.
I never understand the assumption that the oldies who abstained (which weren't even that many incidentally; there was only a modest drop-off in pensioner turnout from 2015) were all dyed-in-the-wool Tories put off by the dementia tax.
To my mind, it's just as likely that an oldie who abstained was one of the lifelong tribal Labour voters who just were put off by Corbyn's views on defence, the monarchy, etc.
More interestingly, is there anything to stop us revoking it, and subsequently invoking it again ?
The ability to do that might (?) significantly strengthen our negotiating position...
We discussed that extensively previously. I don't see it. If we revoke, then invoke again, we are in the same position of having to agree an exit bill before discussing less favourable trade terms.
In any case, we might only revoke if it becomes clear to even the dimmest Brexiteer that their pet project is a shitshow. The appetite to invoke after that would be slim
The properly expressed will of the people is a "shitshow". Good to know your personal disappointments top trump democracy every time.
More interestingly, is there anything to stop us revoking it, and subsequently invoking it again ?
The ability to do that might (?) significantly strengthen our negotiating position...
It certainly would - no nonsense about having to beg them for a transition deal.
But, it's a nonsense. Even if you can find some lawyers who say if might be possible to revoke it, there would never be sufficient certainty to rely on it - and, after all, at the end of the day it's the EU which decides.
Couldn't it be taken to the ECJ if the EU politicians were to refuse?
Since one of the very people who drafted Article 50 says it was intended to be revocable, it would seem to me to be pretty legally watertight.
The only positive I can take from this is that I hope it provides the UK government a road map of what not to do if the SNP decide to hold an unconstitutional second referendum
I think the view outside of Spain is very different from the perceptions inside. The chattering classes in the UK are focused on alleged police brutality to a 'brutally oppressed Catalan people under the thumb of a Spanish fascist state'. Inside the country there is a much stronger concern for the rule of law being upheld and a better appreciation of reality.
The only positive I can take from this is that I hope it provides the UK government a road map of what not to do if the SNP decide to hold an unconstitutional second referendum
I think the view outside of Spain is very different from the perceptions inside. The chattering classes in the UK are focused on alleged police brutality to a 'brutally oppressed Catalan people under the thumb of a Spanish fascist state'. Inside the country there is a much stronger concern for the rule of law being upheld and a better appreciation of reality.
I know that's kinda the point I was trying to make, if not very well.
Couldn't it be taken to the ECJ if the EU politicians were to refuse?
Yes, but how long would that take? And, realistically, would the ECJ ever rule against the EU political consensus on this? I don't see it, and in any case the legal position (that Article 50 can't be unilaterally revoked) does look pretty clear.
The 52% did not buy into this insanity. 100% sovereignty, at any cost, is an impossible fantasy.
Literally impossible for a country like Britain in the 21st century.
The US is able to do it, China will be able to do it.
Not us. We don't have the demographic and economic might.
I would see that post as a Devil's Advocate argument for Remain: present the alternative argument, see how it stacks up and in this case clearly reject it. Pete North goes through the steps until he baulks at the logical conclusion.
Mr. 43, I think a lot of people like the idea of the EU whilst disliking the way it actually works.
A problem is that, as Machiavelli wrote (in Discourses, I think), a confederation of states larger than 4-6 members cannot function properly without power drifting from the state to the confederation itself.
To try and work, the EU has to integrate more, but the enormous divergence of culture, scale, economy, and demographics means that tension will arise between harmonisation of policies and the individual needs of each nation-state.
In short, the EU is destined to break.
The EU might break. It's a real risk. The degree of risk is an evaluation. I can't see it being greater than maybe 10% in the next fifteen years, which is as far ahead as we can reasonably look, I think.
I wouldn't think we can get near 5 years, let alone 10 years.
Trump, Corbyn, Merkel, Macron, to name a few. And we are only at the start of a phase. It may accelerate. Poland, Hungary, Russia, Spain, Catalonia and many more that are not on our doorstep, Korea....Iran....
And even if we did the EU and the other 27 member states would need to agree to take us back - on the same terms or possibly not? It would be a humiliation and they might as well get their pound of flesh to see how desperate we are to stay.
Yes, I'm sure they would. I mean, it's just possible that someone might play silly buggers trying to get concessions about fish or whatever but peer pressure is quite strong in situations like this.
However, what they're not going to be up for is a can kick where the UK doesn't definitively stay in, but also doesn't actually leave; This would prolong the uncertainty, and also probably reduce their leverage, which is very strong since the British foolishly decided to activate Article 50 before getting their shit together. This makes it practically difficult at the British end, because a can kick would be the easiest way to back away from Brexit without anyone losing too much face.
So basically you need a new referendum, which involves clearing three separate hurdles in a tight time period: PM, parliament, voters. It's not quite impossible, but it would be quite tricky to choreograph.
People often underestimate the self denying prophecy effect of polls -ie voters voting in a certain way to prevent the perceived outcome that the polls otherwise accurately forecast. Because the polls were forecasting at first a Tory landslide, -which would give May a mandate for a hard Brexit and the dementia tax, voters deliberately came out to prevent it. Many older Tories confident that May would get a landslide stayed at home in protest at May's policies towards the old believing that their votes were not needed for a Tory win.
This is why Labour is heading for a fall. Next time people will expect a Labour win, even if the polls are against them. This will ensure a maximum anti Corbyn turnout -and probable comfortable Tory victory.
I never understand the assumption that the oldies who abstained (which weren't even that many incidentally; there was only a modest drop-off in pensioner turnout from 2015) were all dyed-in-the-wool Tories put off by the dementia tax.
To my mind, it's just as likely that an oldie who abstained was one of the lifelong tribal Labour voters who just were put off by Corbyn's views on defence, the monarchy, etc.
On the other side, many of the lifelong tribal Labour voters actually voted Labour again for the first time in 15 years, excited that there was someone who actually represented their views rather than the Blairittes .....
And even if we did the EU and the other 27 member states would need to agree to take us back - on the same terms or possibly not? It would be a humiliation and they might as well get their pound of flesh to see how desperate we are to stay.
Yes, I'm sure they would. I mean, it's just possible that someone might play silly buggers trying to get concessions about fish or whatever but peer pressure is quite strong in situations like this.
However, what they're not going to be up for is a can kick where the UK doesn't definitively stay in, but also doesn't actually leave; This would prolong the uncertainty, and also probably reduce their leverage, which is very strong since the British foolishly decided to activate Article 50 before getting their shit together. This makes it practically difficult at the British end, because a can kick would be the easiest way to back away from Brexit without anyone losing too much face.
So basically you need a new referendum, which involves clearing three separate hurdles in a tight time period: PM, parliament, voters. It's not quite impossible, but it would be quite tricky to choreograph.
It's worse than that, because whilst the EU might appear to be happy for us to change our minds, it would require the unanimous formal consent of the EU27, and you couldn't be sure in advance you were going to get it.
1 - Response rates have been getting worse for years. A core assumption of opinion polling is that you get a representative sample; if those who respond to political polls are not completely representative of the rest of the population, you introduce an unknown systematic error. 2 - Defining and then obtaining a representative sample of who is going to actually vote (versus those who say they will) is more and more difficult.
These require polling companies to come up with various adjustments and models to get them closer to the last campaign. Unfortunately, the great British public change how they act between campaigns, meaning that the adjustments may or may not be in the right direction and in the right amount and the modes may or may not be appropriate.
All of this adds an unknown systematic error (different from each company) onto the inevitable random error inherent in statistical samples. Unlike the random error, it's not rectifiable by use of larger samples. In effect, they're throwing darts at an unknown target. That they get as close as they do is quite impressive.
Afterwards, we look at the dart board and pick whichever dart got closest to the target and crown that one as the Gold Standard. It was - for the previous election. The next one will, of course, be different.
1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?
2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?
3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?
The politics of all this are another matter, of course.
I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?
1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?
2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?
3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?
The politics of all this are another matter, of course.
I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?
"The prominent lawyer Jessica Simor QC, from Matrix chambers, has written to May asking her to release the legal advice under the Freedom of Information Act. Simor says she has been told by “two good sources” that the prime minister has been advised “that the article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29 March 2019 resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current favourable terms. " https://www.markpack.org.uk/151728/theresa-may-pressed-publish-secret-legal-advice-stopping-brexit/
And even if we did the EU and the other 27 member states would need to agree to take us back - on the same terms or possibly not? It would be a humiliation and they might as well get their pound of flesh to see how desperate we are to stay.
Yes, I'm sure they would. I mean, it's just possible that someone might play silly buggers trying to get concessions about fish or whatever but peer pressure is quite strong in situations like this.
However, what they're not going to be up for is a can kick where the UK doesn't definitively stay in, but also doesn't actually leave; This would prolong the uncertainty, and also probably reduce their leverage, which is very strong since the British foolishly decided to activate Article 50 before getting their shit together. This makes it practically difficult at the British end, because a can kick would be the easiest way to back away from Brexit without anyone losing too much face.
So basically you need a new referendum, which involves clearing three separate hurdles in a tight time period: PM, parliament, voters. It's not quite impossible, but it would be quite tricky to choreograph.
It's worse than that, because whilst the EU might appear to be happy for us to change our minds, it would require the unanimous formal consent of the EU27, and you couldn't be sure in advance you were going to get it.
Exactly, would we be in exactly the same situation with our opt-outs , rebates etc. We were eating the cake and having it...
Whilst Theresa May is a joke, TMay is Mike's way making sure it is clear that he's talking about Theresa May, because May is also a month and a modal verb.
So it is to avoid confusions like May may call a May election.
My hope on all this is that it turns out a little like the Y2K forecast apocalypse... everyone is unprepared for the deadline, but sufficiently prepared to avert massive damage.
At this point, who knows ?
The Y2K apocalypse was avoided because a lot of people worked hard at eliminating it.
If we did nothing we would have been lambasted for failure.
If we succeeded we would be lambasted for scare-mongering.
It was an no-win scenario but nonetheless, a lot of remediation work was needed.
I agree with the general point, but the Y2K bug was very over-hyped. Business chiefs heard of the problem and feared being sued for negligence and so got the business lawyers involved. This led to every bit of work done using a computer being checked and signed for. Those with a just a little bit of nous about coding and software knew what could be vulnerable and what measures needed to be taken. The extent of the risk was nowhere near as extreme as was made out.
There is a fairly comprehensive list of things that went wrong because of Y2K out there.
It includes - two abortions in Sheffield, unexplained alarm at a nuclear power plant in Japan and some trains in Norway being put on the previous months schedule.
It happened, albeit on a much reduced scale, as companies did something about it.
1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?
2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?
3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?
The politics of all this are another matter, of course.
I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?
"The prominent lawyer Jessica Simor QC, from Matrix chambers, has written to May asking her to release the legal advice under the Freedom of Information Act. Simor says she has been told by “two good sources” that the prime minister has been advised “that the article 50 notification can be withdrawn by the UK at any time before 29 March 2019 resulting in the UK remaining in the EU on its current favourable terms. " https://www.markpack.org.uk/151728/theresa-may-pressed-publish-secret-legal-advice-stopping-brexit/
Presumably as a prominent lawyer she knows in advance that Mrs May will invoke s.42 of the FOIA and refuse to disclose the advice. So this is really just a wind up.
It's worse than that, because whilst the EU might appear to be happy for us to change our minds, it would require the unanimous formal consent of the EU27, and you couldn't be sure in advance you were going to get it.
I think that part would be OK - it's just the leaders, right, at least if it's formally a delay until the year 3019?
Prime Minister Dorries says, "I'd like to ask my voters if they want to change their minds, but I can only do it if you will assure me that you would consent if they agree". Estonia says "We have some concerns about sausage quotas we would like to see addressed first", everyone turns around and glares at them, they say, "Sorry, never mind" and it's agreed. Then the British would vote, assuming parliament would let them, and if they voted re-remain then nobody would renege.
Lots of enormous ifs there, but they're almost entirely on the British side.
Comments
U.K. Is Said to Study Joining Nafta If No EU Deal: Telegraph
Lordy...
Britain could join a formal trade alliance with the US, Canada and Mexico if Britain is unable to secure a post-Brexit deal with the EU under plans being considered by ministers.
The Telegraph understands that the Government is examining the possibility of joining the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as Nafta, as part of its planning for a “no deal” scenario.
Joining Nafta would enable the UK to boost its trade with three of the world’s economic powerhouses, which have a combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of £17.2 trillion, compared with the EU’s GDP of £15.7 trillion.
They seem to have sufficient to have a strong influence on which investments do well and which do less well, especially for the large tech companies like Amazon and Tesla where profits are negligible but valuations extremely high and based on future expectations rather than fundamentals. Black Rock may control expectations and thus valuations.
We should just get on with it and sign up as the 51st, 52nd, 53rd and 54th States.
I hope it isn't foreign courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asset_management_firms
On any specific investment, hedge funds, activist investors, Berkshire Hathaway, pension funds, and hundreds of other asset-management firms may be market participants.
If you have agreed to pay for something in 12 monthly installments then change your mind after 6 months, you are still liable to the financial commitment.
Weird...
Hence why Remain lost.
In any case, Article 50 effectively gives us the option to stop paying with two years notice. That's kinda the idea of Article 50 - to define the notice period.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-3702_en.htm
"The European Commission has decided to refer Ireland to the European Court of Justice for failing to recover from Apple illegal State aid worth up to €13 billion, as required by a Commission decision."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/09/government-faces-eu-scrutiny-illegal-state-aid-bt-push-ultrafast/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-eu-taxavoidance/eu-court-says-spanish-tax-breaks-may-infringe-eu-state-aid-laws-idUSKBN14A15R
Presumably they would have to change the First A in NAFTA to state Atlantic not American. Send Wills, Kate and George over to Canada on Harry and his US girlfriend to the US to seal the deal. Sorted!
No, me neither, but I suppose it's worth a try. It doesn't cost anything to float a story in the Telegraph.
Also, in the EU the rules are set out in advance, rather than being at the whim of what the US decides any given morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41566841
https://twitter.com/Ladbrokes/status/917710073970995200
A problem is that, as Machiavelli wrote (in Discourses, I think), a confederation of states larger than 4-6 members cannot function properly without power drifting from the state to the confederation itself.
To try and work, the EU has to integrate more, but the enormous divergence of culture, scale, economy, and demographics means that tension will arise between harmonisation of policies and the individual needs of each nation-state.
In short, the EU is destined to break.
In the last century the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland broke.
Honestly, if you paid more attention you wouldn't make such silly mistakes.
Still only about a quarter into Caesar's bio (reading rate's been very slow of late) but amused how many silly errors he's been making. He's a bit Cameronish. Good when his back's against the wall, which happens a lot due to lack of foresight.
Surely you must know from your readings that small towns/cities joined together to form countries from things like city states to full blown countries, and some of them haven't broken.
If they have, there is a strong case that this would have been deemed a similar breach under EU law had it occurred in the UK. so the UK would have been the subject of an ECJ case. We also know that the ECJ has recently fined US companies for breaches of its own regulation in tax deals (state aid) and other issues.
"BAE is facing an order gap for the Typhoon so wants to slow production before an expected order from Qatar."
"BAE needs a clear signal from its main customer, the Ministry of Defence, as to what comes next after the F-35.
Unions have already criticised the government for buying more military equipment from the US.
While the UK now has an industrial strategy to sustain the production of warships in the UK, it does not appear to have a similar strategy for the air defence sector."
In this instance the union is a nation-state and the confederacy is supra-national, composed of nation-states. The two are fundamentally, and obviously, different.
Because no one ever got made redundant prior to 23 June 2016 did they!
This is why Labour is heading for a fall. Next time people will expect a Labour win, even if the polls are against them. This will ensure a maximum anti Corbyn turnout -and probable comfortable Tory victory.
Surely politics trumps this all anyway - it doesn't matter because the government has no intention to withdraw it due to the referendum result and because an act of Parliament approved its triggering. And 85 per cent of voters backed parties committed to not revoking it in the general election.
And even if we did the EU and the other 27 member states would need to agree to take us back - on the same terms or possibly not? It would be a humiliation and they might as well get their pound of flesh to see how desperate we are to stay.
A different government might wish to change tack - but this DUP Tory one isn't going to change tack on leaving. It's not if but how - and it's time people accepted that.
First step might be to appeal to the US Federal Court. Or actually, more likely they will use the NAFTA dispute resolution service. If they fail to get a good judgement they will go to WTO, and of course you're right that could take years.
But Boeing can't forget that the UK has a large order for Helicopters outstanding. I'd expect that order to be cancelled if this doesn't get overturned or reduced significantly at NAFTA.
The ability to do that might (?) significantly strengthen our negotiating position...
6/1 Trump https://twitter.com/postpolitics/status/917717455895744512
But, it's a nonsense. Even if you can find some lawyers who say if might be possible to revoke it, there would never be sufficient certainty to rely on it - and, after all, at the end of the day it's the EU which decides.
In any case, we might only revoke if it becomes clear to even the dimmest Brexiteer that their pet project is a shitshow. The appetite to invoke after that would be slim
To my mind, it's just as likely that an oldie who abstained was one of the lifelong tribal Labour voters who just were put off by Corbyn's views on defence, the monarchy, etc.
The properly expressed will of the people is a "shitshow". Good to know your personal disappointments top trump democracy every time.
Since one of the very people who drafted Article 50 says it was intended to be revocable, it would seem to me to be pretty legally watertight.
Just cos people voted for it doesn't make it a good idea.
Trump is a democratically elected shitshow*.
Brexit is a democratically mandated shitshow*
*Russian hackers notwithstanding...
Trump, Corbyn, Merkel, Macron, to name a few. And we are only at the start of a phase. It may accelerate. Poland, Hungary, Russia, Spain, Catalonia and many more that are not on our doorstep, Korea....Iran....
However, what they're not going to be up for is a can kick where the UK doesn't definitively stay in, but also doesn't actually leave; This would prolong the uncertainty, and also probably reduce their leverage, which is very strong since the British foolishly decided to activate Article 50 before getting their shit together. This makes it practically difficult at the British end, because a can kick would be the easiest way to back away from Brexit without anyone losing too much face.
So basically you need a new referendum, which involves clearing three separate hurdles in a tight time period: PM, parliament, voters. It's not quite impossible, but it would be quite tricky to choreograph.
1 - Response rates have been getting worse for years. A core assumption of opinion polling is that you get a representative sample; if those who respond to political polls are not completely representative of the rest of the population, you introduce an unknown systematic error.
2 - Defining and then obtaining a representative sample of who is going to actually vote (versus those who say they will) is more and more difficult.
These require polling companies to come up with various adjustments and models to get them closer to the last campaign. Unfortunately, the great British public change how they act between campaigns, meaning that the adjustments may or may not be in the right direction and in the right amount and the modes may or may not be appropriate.
All of this adds an unknown systematic error (different from each company) onto the inevitable random error inherent in statistical samples. Unlike the random error, it's not rectifiable by use of larger samples. In effect, they're throwing darts at an unknown target. That they get as close as they do is quite impressive.
Afterwards, we look at the dart board and pick whichever dart got closest to the target and crown that one as the Gold Standard. It was - for the previous election. The next one will, of course, be different.
1. If it can be revoked, on what basis is it said that other countries have to agree to the revocation?
2. Until March 2019, Britain is a full member of the EU. If Britain were to revoke the Article 50 notification, why wouldn’t we revert to the status quo ante i.e. a full EU member?
3. Is there any provision in the Lisbon Treaty or elsewhere that permits a country to be expelled? If there is, shouldn’t that be the route used if, say, Britain were to change its mind with other states disagreeing?
The politics of all this are another matter, of course.
I wonder whether, if - and I know this is a huge “if” - Britain were to change its mind, the rest of the EU would welcome this. In short, has Britain’s relatively narrow vote to Leave last year, irrevocably changed the rest of the EU’s views on the desirability or otherwise of having Britain as a member. Or is it Britain’s behaviour since the vote? Or a combination of both?
https://www.markpack.org.uk/151728/theresa-may-pressed-publish-secret-legal-advice-stopping-brexit/
So it is to avoid confusions like May may call a May election.
It includes - two abortions in Sheffield, unexplained alarm at a nuclear power plant in Japan and some trains in Norway being put on the previous months schedule.
It happened, albeit on a much reduced scale, as companies did something about it.
Prime Minister Dorries says, "I'd like to ask my voters if they want to change their minds, but I can only do it if you will assure me that you would consent if they agree". Estonia says "We have some concerns about sausage quotas we would like to see addressed first", everyone turns around and glares at them, they say, "Sorry, never mind" and it's agreed. Then the British would vote, assuming parliament would let them, and if they voted re-remain then nobody would renege.
Lots of enormous ifs there, but they're almost entirely on the British side.