Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

Roughly how would you see that comparing to what we pay now? Presumably, you would see regulatory oversight continuing.

Now that we're committed to stop free movement, I don't see that deal being available. Now we'll probably have to offer a good bit more to get the free trade.

Obviously if we're selling goods and services into a market, those goods and services will have to comply with the regulations of their destination - same as with anywhere else in the world. I don't expect EU overreach into our environmental and employment law to continue.

 

[scaramanga]

https://twitter.com/x/status/847736263322906625

Are we going to have to win it back again?

Bet those fudgers still haven't learned how to sail.

 

[scaramanga]

Ok what would be a "win" then - going into the talks what do we all want out of it and consider we have done well?

At the moment it appears we (gov) are saying they want a thing and the EU are staying steadfast. i.e. lets talk before Article 50 - lets do parallel talks trade & divorce etc.

For me from the EU it would be free movement of services - working in the city this is the one that will likely hit me the hardest.
From the UK side I would want them forced to accept EU laws on pollution and employment benefits.

Free movement of services is massively important even if the politicians are having to play it down.

For me, any deal that allows us to trade freely with the rest of the world, keep free movement of services and end EU interference into laws that don't involve products sold to the EU would be good.

I still think we should offer free movement though, we'll suffer without it even ignoring the cost in terms of our deal.

 

[milo]

Now that we're committed to stop free movement, I don't see that deal being available. Now we'll probably have to offer a good bit more to get the free trade.

Obviously if we're selling goods and services into a market, those goods and services will have to comply with the regulations of their destination - same as with anywhere else in the world. I don't expect EU overreach into our environmental and employment law to continue.

I agree that the government has unnecessary narrowed its negotiating position and that the cost will be higher the further we move from the four freedoms.

The EU have also ruled out sectorial deals which has been the government's preferred route. We're going to have to see some movement here.

There is some more encouraging news. By saying that a trade deal cannot be negotiated until after we have left, it has been pushed past the next election. This depoliticises it slightly. The government has also retreated on reducing immigration, contributions to the EU and regulatory oversight, this probably won't please leave voters but makes a deal more likely.

The biggest risks to a deal I see at the moment are Tory backbench headbangers and the Eurosceptic press.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Free movement of services is massively important even if the politicians are having to play it down.

For me, any deal that allows us to trade freely with the rest of the world, keep free movement of services and end EU interference into laws that don't involve products sold to the EU would be good.

I still think we should offer free movement though, we'll suffer without it even ignoring the cost in terms of our deal.

I don't disagree, but I can't see any way in which free movement will be accepted by 'the people', or how it can be included in any deal.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't disagree, but I can't see any way in which free movement will be accepted by 'the people', or how it can be included in any deal.

The people are fudging idiots.

 

[milo]

I don't disagree, but I can't see any way in which free movement will be accepted by 'the people', or how it can be included in any deal.

Polls have consistently shown that people only want controls on immigration if it does not cost them financially.

The barrier to a deal on this is it being accepted that ending freedom of movement will damage the economy. Even without this, i think that remain voters and soft Brexiteers form a solid majority.

The danger to this then is a small number of Tory MPs who want us to end all links to the EU, the Eurosceptic press and how scared of both the Prime Minister is.

 

[milo]

This opinion piece from the Economist fits nicely with our current discussion

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-offs-ahead-britains-brutal-encounter-reality

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/847747223978860544

 

[scaramanga]

https://twitter.com/x/status/847747223978860544

Of course it's being underplayed. That's their position, ours will be that we want it done faster.

Neither side gets to absolutely rule anything out.

 

[milo]

Of course it's being underplayed. That's their position, ours will be that we want it done faster.

Neither side gets to absolutely rule anything out.

There will be some give and take over the next few weeks whilst the terms are being discussed but A50 is very clear that the EU27 set the rules.

 

[milo]

Article 50(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.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

 

[scaramanga]

Article 50(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.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/th.../title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

I'm not a lawyer but I spend enough time around them to work my way through legalese.

That reads to me like the Union is given guidelines within which it negotiates by the Council. That certainly doesn't say that the Council can make rules that bind both sides.

May is bound by Parliament and the electorate but she can still negotiate her own terms.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[milo]

I'm not a lawyer but I spend enough time around them to work my way through legalese.

That reads to me like the Union is given guidelines within which it negotiates by the Council. That certainly doesn't say that the Council can make rules that bind both sides.

May is bound by Parliament and the electorate but she can still negotiate her own terms.

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

I wasn't suggesting that the Council makes rules that bind both sides. What they do control is the terms that the negotiations are carried out under and the timetable.

There will, of course, be give and take from both sides over the next two years. The EU needs a deal that they can present as being worse than EU membership and May needs something that she can get through parliament and that she can sell in an election (although the latter is less of an issue without an effective opposition).

 

[scaramanga]

I wasn't suggesting that the Council makes rules that bind both sides. What they do control is the terms that the negotiations are carried out under and the timetable.

Again, not a lawyer but I'd be fairly confident in arguing that the clause you quoted doesn't say that at all.

I'd bet a real lawyer could make an even better case.

 

[milo]

Again, not a lawyer but I'd be fairly confident in arguing that the clause you quoted doesn't say that at all.

I'd bet a real lawyer could make an even better case.

I haven't seen an interpretation by a lawyer that agrees with you (and I have read a lot of legal opinion on A50) and is the British government going to test it by eating up months of the two year period by going to the ECJ? The consensus is overwhelmingly that the EU27 have sole control over the rules of engagement.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Polls have consistently shown that people only want controls on immigration if it does not cost them financially.

The barrier to a deal on this is it being accepted that ending freedom of movement will damage the economy. Even without this, i think that remain voters and soft Brexiteers form a solid majority.

The danger to this then is a small number of Tory MPs who want us to end all links to the EU, the Eurosceptic press and how scared of both the Prime Minister is.

But I thought it was 'indivisible' to be out of the union AND have free trade and free movement?

We may well want that but I thought it was a non-starter?

And don't a fair whack of the people equate free movement to them (the 'indigenous') being the reason that they have been less prosperous?

I just don't think it'll fly.

 

[milo]

But I thought it was 'indivisible' to be out of the union AND have free trade and free movement?

We may well want that but I thought it was a non-starter?

And don't a fair whack of the people equate free movement to them (the 'indigenous') being the reason that they have been less prosperous?

I just don't think it'll fly.

Countries in the EEA have close to that and I think that could still be on the table if we chose to ask for it. I think that the closer that we get to maintaining the four freedoms, the easier a trade deal will be and the less that it will cost us.

Some people do think that European migration has had an adverse impact on wages in the UK because they have been lied to.

 

[Hotshot-Tottenham]

Countries in the EEA have close to that and I think that could still be on the table if we chose to ask for it. I think that the closer that we get to maintaining the four freedoms, the easier a trade deal will be and the less that it will cost us.

Some people do think that European migration has had an adverse impact on wages in the UK because they have been lied to.

Maybe it's just a bargaining position but didn't the govt say that we were coming out of the EEA?

 

[milo]

Maybe it's just a bargaining position but didn't the govt say that we were coming out of the EEA?

Yes. We have unnecessarily tied our hands in order to appease Tory backbenchers.

That decision is a long way down the road though. If an interim arrangement means that we have to continue to accept the four freedoms, I do not think that it is unreasonable for us to ask for continued access to the market on EEA terms. Based on the current timetables, a free trade agreement would not be concluded until at least two or three years after the next election, that gives plenty of time for our position to change.