BREXIT Mega Thread (The Saga Begins?)

[Dumb Ideologies]

Passive-aggressive strops because a fantasy straw Brexiter in Vass's head said that if Brexit happened there'd be no bad economic news ever again.

didn't major figures in the leave campaign say that the banks wouldn't leave and brexit would be good economically

edit: and downplay remain claims that many of the things that are happening now would happen has scaremongering, hyperbolic lies

Remain were veritable Chicken Littles throughout the campaign. Unfortunately some people here are continuing this rhetoric despite the evidence not backing it up.

Leave's claim was that in the long run Brexit would be better for the British economy. Everyone was aware that there'd be some bumps on the way.

For every bit of positive economic news you'll proclaim it "would have happened anyway", "nothing to do with Brexit", or "the pain hasn't started yet". But for every bit of bad news you will perversely gloat about how HERE IT IS, THE BREXIT DISASTER IS COMING (brexaster?). Basically, for you every piece of good news is "despite Brexit" or "because Brexit effects haven't kicked in yet", and all bad news is HERE COMES THE BREXIT DEPRESSION (brexpression?) With that sort of cognitive bias, I'm not surprised that your rhetoric teeters towards that of the man on the street corner with the "end is nigh" sign.

Let's be realistic. There'll probably be some shrinkage of the financial sector. Not a collapse - there's no evidence of such a thing being on the cards - it'll still be a significant part of the British economy, but perhaps not as much as before. It's a quite widespread view that the overdominance of this sector contribute​d towards Britain being relatively badly hit by the last recession - we're still paying back the money borrowed to prop up the "too big to fail" - this rebalancing could easily be seen as good for the economy, encouraging politicians to bite the bullet and adopt an economic program for diversified growth rather than putting all the eggs in the London banker basket case.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

You'd think. But it's actually a contract dispute, not an accounting exercise. HMG's position is that no bill is legally enforceable; any bill is a point to be negotiated and presumably traded for something. The EU's position seems to be that there actually is a bill.

If this is litigated it's well possible we won't know if there even is a bill or not for decades after Brexit is completed. Since that effectively means there isn't a bill, whether or not to litigate must itself be negotiated...

Well if they're going to "trade" it for something, probably the only useful thing to trade it with would be favourable concessions regarding future terms of trade with the union - but I doubt the sums would ever be high enough to ever buy us anything there, and still apparently we're not even allowed to talk about trade yet. So I'd rather we just accept the bills and get on with it, the figures aren't that huge from what I've seen.

Huh? If we get nothing for accepting the bill, we should reject it. It's if we would get major concessions that we should pay it.

[Great Nepal]

No, the ball is in British court - they're the one who's calling for change to the status quo. The liabilities is rather obviously not a simple accounting exercise but a political one as evidenced by British reaction to the issue, not to mention the payment schedules need to be agreed unless Britain is giving a single cheque to EU. Beyond this, there is question about expats - Britain seems to be pushing for equal rights for those before Mar 17, EU is pushing for until UK is fully out of EU. Question about borders need to be addressed in that time period - management of Irish border wrt customs and people, same with Gibraltar also the bases in Cyprus. Oversight for any existing contracts between EU and British based companies. The issue of untangling decades of relationship between UK and EU is not a simple accounting exercise, and quite frankly these are issues that you'd be hard pressed to complete within two years.
I'm not sure why this is a surprise - the process of negotiations of trade deal wasn't any sort of secret. This was fully known by the referendum and given there was no duress presumably UK agreed to the process when agreeing to brexit.

Leaving the issue of liabilities/bills to one side for a second, we absolutely cannot discuss coherently many of the other issues you mention, such as customs or business contracts without knowing what our future trade relationship & migration policy with the EU will look like - we absolutely certainly cannot "untangle decades of relationship" without knowing what the overwhelmingly most important aspect of the relationship will be after Brexit.

Of course we can. We know there is going to be custom points since UK is leaving the customs union; therefore we can discuss the implementation of the custom points in Ireland and Gibraltar independently of whether we strike an agreement in the future wrt tariffs. We know UK is withdrawing from freedom of movement, therefore we know we will need border controls on those borders independent of any future agreement which may provide visa waivers to subset of the population etc.

As for the process, when I quoted that negotiations must take into account "the country's future relationship with the Union", I was quoting specifically from the text of article 50. This is what the bill states - again there is no way we can talk about the country's future relationship with the Union, and therefore follow the procedures of Article 50 in good faith, without talking about what the new terms of trade and policies regarding movement of people will be. I cannot think of a single reason to expect reasonable negotiations from reasonable parties to omit these utterly essential factors for any reason other than the most cynical, politicized or masochistic motives.

You were misquoting article 50. What it actually says in the relevant clause is:

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

Framework of the future relationship =/= point by point free trade agreement to be negotiated in parallel to exit negotiations.
Framework of the future relationship merely means the basic structure of what relationship UK will have after Brexit - if UK was pursuing the membership of EFTA quite naturally the exit negotiations would be different. Negotiations of the external borders, negotiations of the expats etc all stem from "taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union" - ie. third nation framework.

To interpret 'framework of future relationship' to mean comprehensive free trade agreement requires rather silly definition of 'framework' and further would require FTA agreement between UK and EU be concluded prior to starting of the A50 negotiations as no one negotiating A50 can take into account an agreement that hasn't been agreed to yet. Idea

[Free Amazons]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/15/britain-set-to-lose-eu-crown-jewels

Wait, what? That's like saying that if you resign from a club, you can't stuff your pockets full of the silverware on your way out. Silverware that YOU PAID FOR WITH YOUR MEMBERSHIP DUES.

[Vassenor]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/18/denmark-to-contest-uk-efforts-to-take-back-control-of-fisheries?CMP=fb_gu

So looks like they're not rolling over and giving us everything we want.

[Eredion]

Yay and new elections for the UK, that won´t waste time needed for the Brexit negotiations at all...

[Souseiseki]

didn't major figures in the leave campaign say that the banks wouldn't leave and brexit would be good economically

edit: and downplay remain claims that many of the things that are happening now would happen has scaremongering, hyperbolic lies

Remain were veritable Chicken Littles throughout the campaign. Unfortunately some people here are continuing this rhetoric despite the evidence not backing it up.

Leave's claim was that in the long run Brexit would be better for the British economy. Everyone was aware that there'd be some bumps on the way.

For every bit of positive economic news you'll proclaim it "would have happened anyway", "nothing to do with Brexit", or "the pain hasn't started yet". But for every bit of bad news you will perversely gloat about how HERE IT IS, THE BREXIT DISASTER IS COMING (brexaster?). Basically, for you every piece of good news is "despite Brexit" or "because Brexit effects haven't kicked in yet", and all bad news is HERE COMES THE BREXIT DEPRESSION (brexpression?) With that sort of cognitive bias, I'm not surprised that your rhetoric teeters towards that of the man on the street corner with the "end is nigh" sign.

Let's be realistic. There'll probably be some shrinkage of the financial sector. Not a collapse - there's no evidence of such a thing being on the cards - it'll still be a significant part of the British economy, but perhaps not as much as before. It's a quite widespread view that the overdominance of this sector contribute​d towards Britain being relatively badly hit by the last recession - we're still paying back the money borrowed to prop up the "too big to fail" - this rebalancing could easily be seen as good for the economy, encouraging politicians to bite the bullet and adopt an economic program for diversified growth rather than putting all the eggs in the London banker basket case.

show me it. show me the big leave campaigners before and shortly after the referendum spelling out that brexit will lead to years of economic shrinkage in the short term as we exit with no trade deals and try to negotiate new ones from a position of massive disadvantage. show me leave campaigners saying that yes many of the banks will probably leave.

[Great Nepal]

Home office considering special visas for hospitality industry so that they continue to function. I guess we can add hospitality to list of healthcare, the banks, the technical industry, the universities, and farmers who need special exemptions on the whole 'reduce immigration' bit of leave campaign - almost as if immigration is actually necessary or something.

[Hydesland]

Of course we can. We know there is going to be custom points since UK is leaving the customs union

Last I checked, we don't actually know if UK leaving the customs union. Indeed, some might find it desirable to remain in the customs union - even if that means we have to make major concessions elsewhere (e.g. accepting all EU regs, free movement etc).

; therefore we can discuss the implementation of the custom points in Ireland and Gibraltar independently of whether we strike an agreement in the future wrt tariffs.

What do you mean "discuss the implementation of the custom points", what is there to discuss here? Surely the discussion is extremely dependent on what the tariff schedules will be.

We know UK is withdrawing from freedom of movement

Do we? We've just had a snap election, who knows what we might request.

To interpret 'framework of future relationship' to mean comprehensive free trade agreement requires rather silly definition of 'framework' and further would require FTA agreement between UK and EU be concluded prior to starting of the A50 negotiations as no one negotiating A50 can take into account an agreement that hasn't been agreed to yet. Idea

I never said it requires as "comprehensive" FTA, it requires whatever is most practical to disentangle us smoothly from the European Union. It turns out that maybe, just maybe, the only way to do this is with an accompanying FTA - but perhaps an agreement to a "framework" will work, so long as there is a temporary transitional deal that will keep us along until the full FTA is agreed to. What's unacceptable is imposing autarky, or the WTO option (which is a total disaster as has been explained several times before). To impose this on a nation is both unnecessary and cruel.

[Hydesland]

Well if they're going to "trade" it for something, probably the only useful thing to trade it with would be favourable concessions regarding future terms of trade with the union - but I doubt the sums would ever be high enough to ever buy us anything there, and still apparently we're not even allowed to talk about trade yet. So I'd rather we just accept the bills and get on with it, the figures aren't that huge from what I've seen.

Huh? If we get nothing for accepting the bill, we should reject it. It's if we would get major concessions that we should pay it.

If we reject the bill, it's lousy optics for us, and probably unhelpful during negotiations.

[Risottia]

if you resign from a club, you can't stuff your pockets full of the silverware on your way out.

If that comes like a surprise to you, your club must have some weird rules.

[Great Nepal]

Of course we can. We know there is going to be custom points since UK is leaving the customs union

Last I checked, we don't actually know if UK leaving the customs union. Indeed, some might find it desirable to remain in the customs union - even if that means we have to make major concessions elsewhere (e.g. accepting all EU regs, free movement etc).

We do know that. In the whitepaper which May cited as outlying British objectives, it states quite clearly "8.43 After we have left the EU, [..] We will not be bound by the EU’s Common External Tariff or participate in the Common Commercial Policy" and EU has not objected to UK not being member of the customs union.

; therefore we can discuss the implementation of the custom points in Ireland and Gibraltar independently of whether we strike an agreement in the future wrt tariffs.

What do you mean "discuss the implementation of the custom points", what is there to discuss here? Surely the discussion is extremely dependent on what the tariff schedules will be.

We know UK is withdrawing from freedom of movement

Do we? We've just had a snap election, who knows what we might request.

Of course we do; unless British position changes in which case it can notify change in its negotiating position.

To interpret 'framework of future relationship' to mean comprehensive free trade agreement requires rather silly definition of 'framework' and further would require FTA agreement between UK and EU be concluded prior to starting of the A50 negotiations as no one negotiating A50 can take into account an agreement that hasn't been agreed to yet. Idea

I never said it requires as "comprehensive" FTA, it requires whatever is most practical to disentangle us smoothly from the European Union. It turns out that maybe, just maybe, the only way to do this is with an accompanying FTA - but perhaps an agreement to a "framework" will work, so long as there is a temporary transitional deal that will keep us along until the full FTA is agreed to. What's unacceptable is imposing autarky, or the WTO option (which is a total disaster as has been explained several times before). To impose this on a nation is both unnecessary and cruel.

The framework already exits - third nation, why'd anyone create a whole new framework when an existing one suffices rather well?
As for transitional agreement, I'm pretty certain the only noise in opposition is coming from this side of the channel not from Europe where EU parliament stated their stance rather clearly - upto two years long transitional agreement where status quo can continue.

[Hydesland]

We do know that. In the whitepaper which May cited as outlying British objectives, it states quite clearly "8.43 After we have left the EU, [..] We will not be bound by the EU’s Common External Tariff or participate in the Common Commercial Policy" and EU has not objected to UK not being member of the customs union.

Of course we do; unless British position changes in which case it can notify change in its negotiating position.

As far as I know the whitepaper is not legally binding, I see it as very possible the British position could change.

The framework already exits - third nation, why'd anyone create a whole new framework when an existing one suffices rather well?
As for transitional agreement, I'm pretty certain the only noise in opposition is coming from this side of the channel not from Europe where EU parliament stated their stance rather clearly - upto two years long transitional agreement where status quo can continue.

Okay and during that transitional agreement we can negotiate a new FTA yes? And would you object to extending this transition if we need more time to negotiate the FTA?

[Great Nepal]

We do know that. In the whitepaper which May cited as outlying British objectives, it states quite clearly "8.43 After we have left the EU, [..] We will not be bound by the EU’s Common External Tariff or participate in the Common Commercial Policy" and EU has not objected to UK not being member of the customs union.

Of course we do; unless British position changes in which case it can notify change in its negotiating position.

As far as I know the whitepaper is not legally binding, I see it as very possible the British position could change.

UK stated whitepaper was an accurate representation of its objectives when it sent letter triggering A50; I suppose future events could result in that not being the case but then it'd be upto UK to amend its earlier statement and say its objectives has changed. Until that happens, taking UK's statement at face-value seems reasonable.

The framework already exits - third nation, why'd anyone create a whole new framework when an existing one suffices rather well?
As for transitional agreement, I'm pretty certain the only noise in opposition is coming from this side of the channel not from Europe where EU parliament stated their stance rather clearly - upto two years long transitional agreement where status quo can continue.

Okay and during that transitional agreement we can negotiate a new FTA yes? And would you object to extending this transition if we need more time to negotiate the FTA?

I believe so, and I dont think there would really be any reason why FTAs couldn't be negotiated during that period since UK wouldn't be a EU member anymore. Personally I'd not really have an issue with extending it as long as UK wasn't using it to cheese the system but I can see why EU would want it to be more strictly limited rather than just allow UK to be in 'transition' for an undetermined period of time for sake of certainty.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Huh? If we get nothing for accepting the bill, we should reject it. It's if we would get major concessions that we should pay it.

If we reject the bill, it's lousy optics for us,

Why? If I "bill" you for 10k right now is it lousy optics for you to refuse to pay it?

and probably unhelpful during negotiations.

You said we'd get nothing for paying the bill, so paying it is going to be unhelpful during negotiations.

[Distruzio]

Good on you, citizens of the UK. Im happy for you. My opinion of the EU lies somewhere between my opinion of the legislature here in the US and cleaning my sons diapers. Which is to say, not very high at all.

[Vassenor]

Good on you, citizens of the UK. Im happy for you. My opinion of the EU lies somewhere between my opinion of the legislature here in the US and cleaning my sons diapers. Which is to say, not very high at all.

Any particular reason why?

[Distruzio]

Good on you, citizens of the UK. Im happy for you. My opinion of the EU lies somewhere between my opinion of the legislature here in the US and cleaning my sons diapers. Which is to say, not very high at all.

Any particular reason why?

The manner in which it was foisted on the European peoples is repugnant. The manner in which it treats Greece. The manner in which it addresses mass migration from the middle east. The manner in which it usurps national sovereignty. Etc etc.

[Ifreann]

Any particular reason why?

The manner in which it was foisted on the European peoples is repugnant. The manner in which it treats Greece. The manner in which it addresses mass migration from the middle east. The manner in which it usurps national sovereignty. Etc etc.

I don't recall anything being foisted upon me.

[Vassenor]

Any particular reason why?

The manner in which it was foisted on the European peoples is repugnant. The manner in which it treats Greece. The manner in which it addresses mass migration from the middle east. The manner in which it usurps national sovereignty. Etc etc.

So the usual set of buzzwords then.

Also fun fact: The UK voted to join the EU. It wasn't forced on us.

[Souseiseki]

The manner in which it was foisted on the European peoples is repugnant. The manner in which it treats Greece. The manner in which it addresses mass migration from the middle east. The manner in which it usurps national sovereignty. Etc etc.

I don't recall anything being foisted upon me.

it was all fine and dandy until juncker broke the four finger rule

[Distruzio]

The manner in which it was foisted on the European peoples is repugnant. The manner in which it treats Greece. The manner in which it addresses mass migration from the middle east. The manner in which it usurps national sovereignty. Etc etc.

So the usual set of buzzwords then.

Also fun fact: The UK voted to join the EU. It wasn't forced on us.

Buzzwords?

[Vassenor]

So the usual set of buzzwords then.

Also fun fact: The UK voted to join the EU. It wasn't forced on us.

Buzzwords?

Perhaps you can explain how sovereignty is being violated then.

[Dumb Ideologies]

So the usual set of buzzwords then.

Also fun fact: The UK voted to join the EU. It wasn't forced on us.

Buzzwords?

In the post-factual world of the remoaners, the words "migration" and "sovereignty" have been creatively detached from the real concepts they refer to in an effort to pretend that they weren't pressing issues that people could legitimately have opinions on; everyone who voted Brexit was just racist, stupid or whatever other snarl word is the order of the day.

They've trained themselves only to hear buzzing when the words are said, or perhaps that's just the swarm of bees in their bonnets.

[Great Nepal]

Buzzwords?

In the post-factual world of the remoaners, the words "migration" and "sovereignty" have been creatively detached from the real concepts they refer to in an effort to pretend that they weren't pressing issues that people could legitimately have opinions on; everyone who voted Brexit was just racist, stupid or whatever other snarl word is the order of the day.

They've trained themselves only to hear buzzing when the words are said, or perhaps that's just the swarm of bees in their bonnets.

Even the British government disagrees with you wrt to its sovereignty.