Brexit Schmexit

[russycarps]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't disagree.

But if we're leaving and the tories are the ones in control of making us leave, this sounds like it's heading for about the best result. 

Within that context - and of how opinions are split in so many different directions - I'm pretty happy with it. May seems to have managed the almost-impossible.

 

I agree. But no-brexit is now absolutely certainly not going to happen. I (along with a lot of people) had been clinging on to a shred of hope that the whole thing will be called off. It's gutting to see that last bit of hope dashed. Today is a dark day.

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

Personally, I'm quite happy to lose some bankers, if other parts of the economy still have about the same EU ties.

Things aren't going to change while bankers remain such a big part of the economy.

 

There's a lot more to financial services than just gangster bankers to be fair.

I agree that it's loathesome that our country is now built on the back of financial services. But that's how it is. Do you really think a complete rebalancing of our economy is possible? What else can this country do? I've no confidence that any of our leaders are capable of such a thing. 

Our country is a load of shit, but without the financial sector it would be even worse.

 

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

But only for some rules by the look of things. Not as many as the EU would hand down to the UK as things are now.

I guess we'll see. I havent studied the documents that deeply yet. I hope your optimism proves right.

 

[zahidf]

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep. It's some of the SM/CU rules applying - but not all of them - and the UK gets to write the wording of the rules that do apply (rather than have the EU give us the wording).

Switzerland has an integrated ad-hoc deal. This would be something similar, but with the joined up bits in different places.

My reading of it is that its only bespoke if we agree a deal which would set out the areas of difference. Otherwise, the default is SM/CMU rules 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I agree. But no-brexit is now absolutely certainly not going to happen. I (along with a lot of people) had been clinging on to a shred of hope that the whole thing will be called off. It's gutting to see that last bit of hope dashed. Today is a dark day.

I'd given up sooner than you. Cos Jez.

 

2 minutes ago, russycarps said:

There's a lot more to financial services than just gangster bankers to be fair.

yup - but the shrinking of those financial services has to happen ultimately, I reckon. For all the while they're so important, policies will favour them - and London/SE - rather than serve the country more evenly.

 

2 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I agree that it's loathesome that our country is now built on the back of financial services. But that's how it is. Do you really think a complete rebalancing of our economy is possible? What else can this country do? I've no confidence that any of our leaders are capable of such a thing. 

It's possible, whether it'll happen is another thing.

The problem with fin services is that they're a sacred cow that no one is prepared to damage - and they have to be damaged *before* economic focus can move elsewhere, i reckon.

The damage from brexit probably won't be huge initially (no one seems to think it will be) but it does put the writing on the wall that we can no longer depend on them to prop everything else up. 

So focus will move elsewhere by default - including for the tories. That can't be a bad thing, i reckon.

 

2 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Our country is a load of shit, but without the financial sector it would be even worse.

yeah, but no one is killing them stone dead.

 

2 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I guess we'll see. I havent studied the documents that deeply yet. I hope your optimism proves right.

It's not optimism, so much. It's trying to find the good things in the shit outcome.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

My reading of it is that its only bespoke if we agree a deal which would set out the areas of difference. Otherwise, the default is SM/CMU rules 

that's what today's doc says.

Today's doc is an agreement about a future agreement, and an agreement that might be negotiated or signed off by a different UK govt.

It's just sweet words for today, to get past the Ireland hurdle to talks. I wouldn't go taking that as guaranteed just yet.

[lost]

18 minutes ago, russycarps said:

 

I agree that it's loathesome that our country is now built on the back of financial services. But that's how it is. Do you really think a complete rebalancing of our economy is possible?

 

Well thats what the leavers on the left argue that when are are not tied to rules such as state aid that we can subsidise other areas of the economy. I'm not sure if this regulation aliment deal puts stuff like that to bed or even Corbyns nationalisation plans.. Does it protect European owned assets for companies such as E.on or EDF?

Edited December 8, 2017 by lost

[zahidf]

42 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's what today's doc says.

Today's doc is an agreement about a future agreement, and an agreement that might be negotiated or signed off by a different UK govt.

It's just sweet words for today, to get past the Ireland hurdle to talks. I wouldn't go taking that as guaranteed just yet.

No, but at the same time, whilst not binding, id say going against it would make the UK look like a party you cant make these agreements with. And that is also important for future trade deals

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, zahidf said:

No, but at the same time, whilst not binding, id say going against it would make the UK look like a party you cant make these agreements with. And that is also important for future trade deals

it would be judged within the context of failing to get a detailed agreement and why.

Don't forget, SM/CU membership isn't ours to give ourselves. And it would be on terms the EU dictated.

It doesn't default back to the UK being a bad actor if it wasn't followed thru on.

Edited December 8, 2017 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

49 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'd given up sooner than you. Cos Jez.

 

yup - but the shrinking of those financial services has to happen ultimately, I reckon. For all the while they're so important, policies will favour them - and London/SE - rather than serve the country more evenly.

 

It's possible, whether it'll happen is another thing.

The problem with fin services is that they're a sacred cow that no one is prepared to damage - and they have to be damaged *before* economic focus can move elsewhere, i reckon.

The damage from brexit probably won't be huge initially (no one seems to think it will be) but it does put the writing on the wall that we can no longer depend on them to prop everything else up. 

So focus will move elsewhere by default - including for the tories. That can't be a bad thing, i reckon.

 

yeah, but no one is killing them stone dead.

 

It's not optimism, so much. It's trying to find the good things in the shit outcome.

I just feel financial services are just now too vital, if it shrinks I don't know what is there to replace it. Income from financial services is not something that can be replaced by manufacturing. Though perhaps some kind of drastic hi-tech advance might come along I suppose.

47 minutes ago, lost said:

Well thats what the leavers on the left argue that when are are not tied to rules such as state aid that we can subsidise other areas of the economy. I'm not sure if this regulation aliment deal puts stuff like that to bed or even Corbyns nationalisation plans.. Does it protect European owned assets for companies such as E.on or EDF?

I'm not entirely sure what the rules are on nationalisation, but I presume existing state-owned enterprises will not be forced to privatise will they? EDF and E.on are not wholly-owned by the state - France owns about 85% of EDF I think, and I think E.on is fully privatised now isnt it - so maybe that is part of it. 

Wasnt the new EU law specifically directed at railways? I have never really researched it much to be honest.

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

 

3 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I'm not entirely sure what the rules are on nationalisation, but I presume existing state-owned enterprises will not be forced to privatise will they?

Nope. There's no forced privatisation.

But there are requirements to open up areas to competition, so (for example) they'd have to be private trains allowed to operate on rail lines on the same terms as the nationalised entity was allowed to.

 

3 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Wasnt the new EU law specifically directed at railways? 

every now and then the EU adds a sector that has to be opened up to competition.

[lost]

6 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I'm not entirely sure what the rules are on nationalisation, but I presume existing state-owned enterprises will not be forced to privatise will they? EDF and E.on are not wholly-owned by the state - France owns about 85% of EDF I think, and I think E.on is fully privatised now isnt it - so maybe that is part of it. 

 

 

 

 

No I think the issue is the price set by the government part though again thats open to interpretation as the only thing we've heard form Mcdonnell is its "free" to the tax payer.

[russycarps]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

Nope. There's no forced privatisation.

But there are requirements to open up areas to competition, so (for example) they'd have to be private trains allowed to operate on rail lines on the same terms as the nationalised entity was allowed to.

 

every now and then the EU adds a sector that has to be opened up to competition.

 

1 hour ago, lost said:

No I think the issue is the price set by the government part though again thats open to interpretation as the only thing we've heard form Mcdonnell is its "free" to the tax payer.

 

Gotcha.

I should probably read more about it, but it is tedious as hell!

 

 

[eFestivals]

just went and took a peek at the comments at the hate mail.

Unsurprisingly they're all steaming. And reckon they've been sold out by the tories. I predict calls for the return of Farage and a rise in the UKIP vote.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with vote shares, cos Labour have the potential to lose voters here too, depending where they stand towards the deal.

[eFestivals]

We will be seeking clarity on how the UK government intends to deliver full alignment with the rules of the Single Market and Customs Union. 

If Sturgeon can't pick up on political subtleties after all this time in politics, she's an incapable politician.

Or she's abusing the political subtleties in order to create false grievance when May doesn't deliver what Nicola is pretending she'll deliver.

You decide.

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

just went and took a peek at the comments at the hate mail.

Unsurprisingly they're all steaming. And reckon they've been sold out by the tories. I predict calls for the return of Farage and a rise in the UKIP vote.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with vote shares, cos Labour have the potential to lose voters here too, depending where they stand towards the deal.

not just daily fail

 

"paedo ted"!

guess the uk will be bent over the desk as well!

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by zahidf

[eFestivals]

Interestingly, when you stop and think about it....

1. the uk didn't want an irish border. It has an agreement of no irish border - and between Ireland and the UK (which means by implication, no border between UK and mainland Europe).

2. the uk didn't want to be in the single market or CU, or be under the ECJ. It has an agreement that has it out of the SM & CU and not under the ECJ.

3. money. The 'sane' amount was always reckoned to be £40-50Bn. A few EU people talked of 'more like £100Bn'. The agreement has the UK paying the sane amount.

4. the uk wanted a 2 year transition period, and the process is now essentially recommending it.

5. the EU have backed down on the ECJ having rights over EU citizens in the UK.

6. everything of the agreement is subject to there being a final agreement, exactly as May said she wanted.

The UK has conceded on full SM rules for the transition period (no biggie), and has given the ECJ a time-limited more-background role over EU citizens in the UK (a fair compromise, everything considered).

I'm struggling to see the cave-in by the UK that some are saying.

Have I missed something?

It's a fudge, but a fudge that admits to what the real parameters are for a future relationship.

Edited December 8, 2017 by eFestivals

[bunique]

I think if by UK you mean theresa May and maybe DD, then it’s a good result. But for the headbanger Brexiters it’s nowhere near enough. 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, bunique said:

I think if by UK you mean theresa May and maybe DD, then it’s a good result. But for the headbanger Brexiters it’s nowhere near enough. 

Nothing would be enough for the headbangers.

I've not heard of anyone significant kicking off badly, tho, and Gove has gone back on some previous words to give May tentative backing.

So I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they're going to be manageable, if perhaps still too noisy.

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Interestingly, when you stop and think about it....

1. the uk didn't want an irish border. It has an agreement of no irish border - and between Ireland and the UK (which means by implication, no border between UK and mainland Europe).

2. the uk didn't want to be in the single market or CU, or be under the ECJ. It has an agreement that has it out of the SM & CU and not under the ECJ.

3. money. The 'sane' amount was always reckoned to be £40-50Bn. A few EU people talked of 'more like £100Bn'. The agreement has the UK paying the sane amount.

4. the uk wanted a 2 year transition period, and the process is now essentially recommending it.

5. the EU have backed down on the ECJ having rights over EU citizens in the UK.

6. everything of the agreement is subject to there being a final agreement, exactly as May said she wanted.

The UK has conceded on full SM rules for the transition period (no biggie), and has given the ECJ a time-limited more-background role over EU citizens in the UK (a fair compromise, everything considered).

I'm struggling to see the cave-in by the UK that some are saying.

Have I missed something?

It's a fudge, but a fudge that admits to what the real parameters are for a future relationship.

Irish question has been moved to later hasnt it?

Money yes, less than what was proposed (though i always thought 100 billion and zero were just silly anyway)

point 6:  default is 'full mirroring of SM/CU regulations' isnt it ? (cant remember exact phase as to mirroring).

 

I think 8 year ECJ jurisdiction is a lot longer than the UK wanted ( 2 years was the red line)

But yeah, for phase 1 stuff its fine. Of course, phase 2 will be a LOT harder when it comes to trade

 

[zahidf]

Not THAT astonished. Seems par for the course

[eFestivals]

14 hours ago, zahidf said:

Irish question has been moved to later hasnt it?

Yup. As May said (and i'd said, before her i think) the Irish issue can't really be settled until the new trade deal issue is sorted. That trade deal defines how the border works.

 

Quote

point 6:  default is 'full mirroring of SM/CU regulations' isnt it ? (cant remember exact phase as to mirroring).

Nope.

"the United Kingdom will maintain full alignmet with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."

And to be read alongside; "... as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union's Internal Market and Customs Union."

It's very clearly about mirroring the regulations necessary for an open border, but not mirroring the full rules.

As i've already pointed out as an easy example, right to settle and work is SM rules, but is not something which is strictly necessary to keep open borders.

(side note: interesting use of "all island". It might be said that someone said nothing like that was used)

Quote

I think 8 year ECJ jurisdiction is a lot longer than the UK wanted ( 2 years was the red line)

Care to show me something about a 2 year red line for ECJ over-sight of citizens rights? It's not something I'm aware of.

But whatever, that 8 years might be thought of as a 'lose' for the UK from one angle, but not from another. The EU (essentially) wanted the EU to be sovereign over UK law forever .It was the 'sovereignty over British law and forever' parts that made it objectionable, and it's now neither of those.

 

Quote

But yeah, for phase 1 stuff its fine. Of course, phase 2 will be a LOT harder when it comes to trade

the real work starts now, but in many ways the trade part is a breeze because everything is already aligned - so it just becomes an issue of identifying and agreeing which things have to remain aligned for open borders to work, and which things don't.

I'm not pretending that'll be easy, but it's far easier than if things currently differed as they always do when making a more-standard trade deal.

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I had a good read around of comments yesterday, and the one that had me laughing my arse off was the number of remainers saying that NI had got a special deal because NI-ers were being given a right to retain EU citizenship and the rest of the UK wasn't.

Some went on into detail, and said NI-ers got that right via the GFA.

I was also astounded by the numbers of people who think their 'EU citizenship' is a "human right" that shouldn't be allowed to be removed. They might as well be saying that it's a human right of the rich to pay no more in tax than they do now.

But it's the brexiters who are thickos and all the remainers are smart, right?

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I had a good read around of comments yesterday, and the one that had me laughing my arse off was the number of remainers saying that NI had got a special deal because NI-ers were being given a right to retain EU citizenship and the rest of the UK wasn't.

Some went on into detail, and said NI-ers got that right via the GFA.

I was also astounded by the numbers of people who think their 'EU citizenship' is a "human right" that shouldn't be allowed to be removed. They might as well be saying that it's a human right of the rich to pay no more in tax than they do now.

But it's the brexiters who are thickos and all the remainers are smart, right?

some daily mail readers have started to plot domestic terrorism over it...

 

 

[eFestivals]

27 minutes ago, zahidf said:

some daily mail readers have started to plot domestic terrorism over it...

i didn't say no brexiters were thick

And anyway, I expected to see that sort of stuff while I didn't expect to see the stuff about NI-ers getting EU citizenship and others demanding the same, believing that NI-ers had got that as a part of the EU deal.

[zahidf]

 

[ThomThomDrum]

DD doing his darnedest to make the UK look more foolish than voting for Brexit has thus far.... idiot