Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What’s next over Brexit? The question that no one is asking
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What’s next over Brexit? The question that no one is asking
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Citation required.
Because right now, your charm school skills suck.
Self awareness required.
It should not be seeking to cru
Editing required.
when the more delusional demands from London
You mean like, extra-territorial jurisdiction?
In any negotiation, particularly one that is designed to produce a longterm relationship, it’s always a good idea to leave something on the table. A measure of generosity is likely to pay for itself in the goodwill generated.
Glad to see that you have finally got there. This is what many of the Brexiteers have been advocating and working for behind the scenes. The EU isn't going away; it's not the right fit for us; but we can't ignore it. And the UK government is trying to find a good working relationship - not helped by either the ludicrous media mavens misrepresenting virtually every change in stance (on either side of the debate). Barnier is a grown up as well - Verhofstat is a liability.
As for freedom of movement: setting aside the bureaucratic challenges (which are not small, but also can be solved) why is control of your own immigration policy a bad thing? It doesn't a priori mean a reduction (although in practice that is likely). But I don't see why saying that you want visas to be handed out to those who can contribute most to the UK rather than to anyone of 270m people who want to live here is a bad thing.
We, in the UK, allow the NATO court to rule on whether we are acting in accordance with our treaty obligation. Under the terms of our treaties joining the International Telecoms Union, we accept rulings. EFTA members are bound by the EFTA court in their relations with the EU. And at a more extreme level, if we were to ever join NAFTA, we would have to accept US ISDS tribunals ruling on whether our laws were compatible with the treaty obligations.
The question is one of scope. The NATO court, and their equivalents at the ITU or EFTA all have limited scope. (NAFTA is rather more invasive.)
Should the ECJ be able to have an impact on whether - for example - EU citizens have certain rights in the UK? Absolutely not.
Should the ECJ be able to adjudge, following a complaint from a Spanish firm, whether UK product regulations acted as a NTB to Spanish firms? (Or that Belgian regulations restricted the ability of a British firm to sell in Brussels?) I would err towards "No". But I also recognise that this is somewhat irrational: if we entered into NAFTA or any FTA with the US, we'd have to accept US suzerainty. Based on historic evidence, the ECJ would almost certainly be more impartial than a US ISDS tribunal.
Of course, for example, where EU law has been incorporated into British law then judges may consider interpretations by European judges if they so wish.
Similarly you need an arbitrator - I think the EFTA court makes sense - on NTBs. (Or for the ECJ to have a role in the EMA, for instance, if we stay within that).
None of these are issues of sovereignty.
But why the EU wastes time demanding the ECJ has a role in protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK, I don't know. They may think they are playing a clever game by making it a "big thing" they can give up later, but I think they are over-reaching. It's simply not acceptable, and when you have an unreasonable counterparty there's only limited progress that can be made in negotiations.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/25/six-things-we-learned-about-the-tories-strategy-for-brexit
Personally, I want a good and constructive relationship with the EU. I want free trade (no tariffs and a means of controlling NTBs). I want regulatory equivalence in areas such as financial services so businesses in the UK can trade freely in Europe whilst being regulated by London and vice versa. I want the ability to control immigration from the EU but control is very different from stopping. I want continued engagement in security issues, criminal justice, mutual enforcement of decrees and recognition of patents. I want continued co-operation on areas like air travel, research, pollution, possibly even fisheries. I am quite happy to pay something towards the costs of maintaining bureaucracies to ensure these areas work tolerably well.
I think the government also wants almost everything on that wish list. What I am less clear about is what the EU wants. The UK is and will remain an important trading partner to them. At the moment there seems to be some aspirations on the part of some members to seek to gain from events, the French are deluded enough to think that they may gain some of London's cake for example, but there seems very little focus on what they want going forward. Unless this changes in a material way we risk a less than optimal outcome to the present discussions. Wasting months arguing about the pennies has not been a good or a constructive start. One can only hope that some clearer thinking is going on behind the scenes.
None of this gives the CJE any jurisdiction over the UK. Whether the CJE has a more formal role as arbiter in respect of any agreement between the EU and the UK is a matter of negotiation and agreement. If we agree to them being arbiter that is our decision as long as we remain a party to that agreement. I think it unlikely we will do this but the compromises available, such as the EFTA court, are not that different because when you look at their decisions they are based very heavily on decisions of the CJE.
The idea that the CJE will determine the rights of EU citizens in the UK is of course nuts.
Instead of channelling Julie Andrews' favourite things, EEA Leavers need to reflect on the mess that they must take prime responsibility for, consider what leaving the single market will mean in practice and identify how the barriers that the EU will need to keep a single market coherent. This in turn means coming out with a positive statement about what immigration policy they propose.
They aren't going to get anything like everything they want. They will get slightly more if they stop cowering behind other people with very different aims.
Just not telling you what's going on behind closed doors.
Of course, Germany doesn't obey *any* of the rules in child abduction anyway. I read a fascinating book - they are my children too - 15 years ago (by the now Lady Meyer)
Let's assume Britain gets your ideal deal. You then have a deal that 90% of the population did not vote for and have not been prepared for. Your contempt for democracy disgusts me.
Quite apart from anything else, there's a substantial chance such a deal would get voted down in the House of Commons if it is not publicly advocated for now.
When one of my colleagues from the British government went to Berlin in January and told me ‘Peter, let’s try to make a win-win situation out of this mess’ I said ‘yes, but can you imagine when you have a couple, man and wife, and two children, the house, the boat, the car, they are married for 30 years, and then they are going to divorce? Can you imagine how to make a win-win situation out of that mess?’ It will be a win-win situation for the lawyers of course, but certainly not for the family concerned,” he said.
I know more than a few divorced couples happier all round - sometimes it is better to get out than to soldier bravely on - the fact that he can't see this speaks volumes.....
Whilst the referendum was marketed by the snake oil salesmen who sold it as about Britain taking back control, as Ian Dunt has pointed out that's nonsense. This is about whether we pursue an Atlanticist or European future. Which cultural and philosophical orbit does the UK come into? The Foxes and Johnsons are clearly all about making the UK in the shape of the USA. And in a nutshell, that's why I choose Europe every time. But either way we will be subject to laws made by more powerful partners.
Watching the pound slide, how about a prediction comp on the day that one pound is worth less than one euro. I reckon early next year, and believe me that will be a wake up day for many.
We would want the ability of EU citizens to come here to do a job. If BMW wants someone to come to their engine plants in the UK to solve a problem there must be no impediment to that. We need to keep mutual recognition of qualifications where that exists and conversion courses where it doesn't. Personally, I would give those that come here for a job time to find a new one once they are here.
We need to think constructively about how we facilitate such freedom of movement. Will such EU workers have the right to bring their families? (Yes) Will they have the right to have their children educated in our schools? (yes). Will they have the right to free use of the NHS? (probably, subject to mutuality). Will they have the right to vote? (probably not). Will they have the right to in work benefits including support for children not here? (my guess would be yes for those here, no for those not).
I would be opposed to quantitative restrictions on EU immigration. If they can find jobs they can do they should be able to come. That may be a minority view.
I always really liked that line for how ridiculous it was. Personally, if the UK were submerged underwater I would consider that to qualify as 'much' changing.
And I agree that sensible negotiations would be nice. Ho hum.
F1 returns today. Huzzah! Practice commences at 9am.
As you point out the generations will have changed. There is one further electoral factor. Many, and possibly the majority, of the 3 million EU residents here will have been through an accelerated naturalisation process, and gained the right to vote.
By 2030 there will be a powerful rejoin movement with the backing of at least one of the major parties, and it is very likely that an application process would be backed by a majority of voters.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41036909
Meanwhile, at home:
PARIS (Reuters) - France’s jobless total rose last month to the highest level in nearly a year as the labor market struggles to take advantage of the improving economy, Labor Ministry data showed on Thursday.
The ministry said the number of people registered as out of work in mainland France rose in July by 34,900 to 3,518,100, the highest level since August of last year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-economy-unemployment-idUSKCN1B420E?il=0
HuffPost UK revealed that while she was Tory Minister, Altmann had remained a member of the Labour Party.
Some of us have been absolutely clear about what the immigration policy should be. Unfortunately that doesn't fit with your biased narrative so you chose to ignore it.
I did laugh at this.
I think in the long-term, the UK will move from half-in/half-out, to half-out/half-in, which would respect the balance of opinion in the UK if nothing else.
What do I mean by that?
I mean that rather than the UK being a formal member, with several important opt-outs, but still being dragged on the journey, the UK will no longer be a formal EU member, and maintain its political independence with additional freedom of action in trade and regulation, but will probably end-up in EFTA and playing a strong role via the Council of Europe and/or as an observer via the European Council, with strong bilateral relationships on top - including on energy, transport, education, cross-European customs alignment, defence and security.
And the UK is always going to be a bit like that. We are an island off the continent of Europe, that has both European interests and Global/Maritime interests.
Our relationship always needed to, and was going to be, different.
But, it happens for a reason: the couple simply have irreconcilable differences.
In the long-term, as you say, its often the right thing to do and both sides end up happier.
No independent country can accept that.
It is absolutely certain that a future govt will do things which contravene current EU legislation. At every General Election we see manifesto promises that are either contrary to EU law or push the limits when its obvious they want to go further. Nationalisation, VAT and immigration are three obvious examples.
Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.. No deal.
What they mean by that is this: compelling the UK to accept almost all the same obligations for a deal, but with no say in either making the rules, or adjudicating on them.
The way they will treat the UK (as an ex-EU member) is notably different from other nations to which they've struck deals, that have never been.
'It shows the “empty” seats were actually occupied, with some passengers only visible when they move into frame, or taken up by small children not shown.'
The photos released by Virgin initially must have been deliberately selected at specific frames to make it look like Corbyn was lying... wonder if he could or should sue.
A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old canons and laws of the church, by hand. He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript. So, the new monk goes to the Old Abbot to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up! In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies.
The head monk, says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son."
He goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held as archives, in a locked vault that hasn't been opened for hundreds of years. Hours go by and nobody sees the Old Abbot. So, the young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing. We missed the R...We missed the bloody R!" His forehead is all bloody and bruised and he is crying uncontrollably.
The young monk asks the old Abbot, "What's wrong, father?" With a choking voice, the old Abbot replies, "The word was ....CELEBRATE
Which is why we must negotiate and be clearly open to walking
As AMeeks is on, I feel an outrageous analogy brewing to wind him up. He will Nazi it coming.
If they want identical rights to UK Permanent Residents - which is what the UK government is offering - then they should stay here permanently.
Why should 'Permanent Residents' from the EU have superior rights to 'Permanent Residents' from the US, Canada or South Africa?
If the Brexiteers in cabinet are finally starting to wake up to the realities, how long will it take the diehard fantasists here to catch up?
Why should EU citizens suffer?
Hope that doesn't happen, of course.
If and when we get a moderate Labour PM again we may in time also rejoin the EEA but for now the desire of Leave voters to reduce immigration as a priority means that will not happen in the short term
I would think it reasonable of our government to agree, with a time limit of say 10 years after which the European court loses its jurisdiction.
In the case you mention, I have no doubt it would have been corrected by the UK courts, had it got that far.
I don't think it unreasonable from the EU's POV to push the money issue. They are damaged by Brexit too, they don't owe us any favours, and are attempting to ensure the damage as far as possible falls on our side rather than theirs. I agree with you that it is in the EU's interest to keep us on their side. There is a distinction between being hard headed and businesslike and crushing people into the dust just because you can. As third parties we will have to get used to the first. One of the many ironies of Brexit is that we were never more beholden to the EU than when leave. To be fair to the EU they have been businesslike so far and Barnier has warned against pushing things too far. But it's a risk.
I don't agree that the referendum mandates restrictions on immigration. It was a profoundly stupid referendum where we got to choose what we didn't want (membership of the EU) without considering the alternatives. No business would operate that way. Even stupid referendums have to be respected. We need to leave, nothing more; nothing less.