[Merged]Brexit stuff (part 2)

[GB9]

It not profound at all, the EU is pretty flexible when it comes to treaties. Switzerland is different to Norway. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but also has bilateral agreements with the EU as well which are not subject to any court. There would be no point in setting up a court for a transitional deal, it would simply be a bilateral treaty. It's also pretty clear that a transitional deal will involve an agreement on the freedom of movement similar to Switzerland. Of course the UK government could claim they have sovereign control, but as soom as they introduce changes to restrict immigration it will be met with punitive trade sanctions from the EU commission.

Yes, of course. Everything you say.

Who do we negotiate with exactly?

EU leaders not following the script.

[BlasterBates]

Yes, of course. Everything you say.

Who do we negotiate with exactly?

EU leaders not following the script.

Absolutely.

Brexit deal could take 10 years and still fail, UK ambassador warns | The Independent

This looks like the outcome will be a transitional deal which keeps the status quo.

[jamesbrown]

It not profound at all, the EU is pretty flexible when it comes to treaties. Switzerland is different to Norway. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but also has bilateral agreements with the EU as well which are not subject to any court. There would be no point in setting up a court for a transitional deal, it would simply be a bilateral treaty. It's also pretty clear that a transitional deal will involve an agreement on the freedom of movement similar to Switzerland. Of course the UK government could claim they have sovereign control, but as soom as they introduce changes to restrict immigration it will be met with punitive trade sanctions from the EU commission.

You're wrong, both technically and politically. To cite Davis' precise argument yesterday:

Taking back control is quite an important issue. The Swiss thought they had control of their own migration via an emergency brake, which, when they tried to exercise it, they were unable to do. We have to pay respect to the outcome of the referendum – therefore it has to be clear control by this parliament.

The Swiss have the right to accept or reject legislation, nothing more. The relationship is based on sectoral bilateral agreements that were set-up (at various times, and under the instigation of both sides) to stand or fail together. Switzerland has absolutely no direct control over EU legislation, so the parallel to the argument I'm making couldn't be weaker. There is no (effective) dispute resolution mechanism, because the Swiss accept what they're given and, not only that, they accept all agreements together . The only reason it vaguely "works" for Switzerland is that they specifically design much of their law with the EU in mind, in order to minimise disputes. When disputes do arise, I think we've established what happens You're really not following the argument that Davis is making. There's a big difference between, on the one hand, a negotiated settlement on migration that is subsequently ratified by the UK Parliament and, on the other hand, returning power (rule making and jurisdiction) to the UK Parliament and Supreme Court to decide for itself. As Davis has indicated, immigration control will not be part of the A50 discussion at all.

[BlasterBates]

You're wrong, both technically and politically. To cite Davis' precise argument yesterday:



The Swiss have the right to accept or reject legislation, nothing more. The relationship is based on sectoral bilateral agreements that were set-up (at various times, and under the instigation of both sides) to stand or fail together. Switzerland has absolutely no direct control over EU legislation, so the parallel to the argument I'm making couldn't be weaker. There is no (effective) dispute resolution mechanism, because the Swiss accept what they're given and, not only that, they accept all agreements together . The only reason it vaguely "works" for Switzerland is that they specifically design much of their law with the EU in mind, in order to minimise disputes. When disputes do arise, I think we've established what happens You're really not following the argument that Davis is making. There's a big difference between, on the one hand, a negotiated settlement on migration that is subsequently ratified by the UK Parliament and, on the other hand, returning power (rule making and jurisdiction) to the UK Parliament and Supreme Court to decide for itself. As Davis has indicated, immigration control will not be part of the A50 discussion at all.

Even Nigel Farage is predicting a Norway style agreement. It doesn't matter how the treaty is framed, basically not adhering to it means trade restrictions and the UK "falling off a cliff" (not my words), i.e. the economic power of a much larger EU. Check out the news on 40% of US companies resident in the UK considering moving.

[jamesbrown]

Even Nigel Farage is predicting a Norway style agreement. It doesn't matter how the treaty is framed, basically not adhering to it means trade restrictions and the UK "falling off a cliff" (not my words), i.e. the economic power of a much larger EU. Check out the news on 40% of US companies resident in the UK considering moving.

That sounds awfully like someone giving up on their argument.

[BlasterBates]

That sounds awfully like someone giving up on their argument.

David Davis says UK would accept Brexit transition deal 'if necessary'

What do you think will be in a "transitional deal"? By definition it's going to be cr*p otherwise it wouldn'rt have to be defined as transitional.

Do you seriously believe the EU will agree to full control on immigration ?

The government is preparing the ground for a really sh*te deal that will be accepted with gnashing teeth by being "transitional". I think "humiliating" is a more appropriate term.

[sasguru]

That sounds awfully like someone giving up on their argument.

There are two things in conflict here here: Davies' (and Brexiters in general) goals and the reality of the dependence of a large chunk of the economy on activities in the EU.
We can argue about it till the cows come home, but some of us suspect the latter may scupper the former.

[sasguru]

David Davis says UK would accept Brexit transition deal 'if necessary'

What do you think will be in a "transitional deal"? By definition it's going to be cr*p otherwise it wouldn'rt have to be defined as transitional.

Not necessarily.
A "transitional deal" may well be superior, in economic terms, to a hard Brexit, but unpalatable to Brexiters.
Hence the need to label it "transitional".

[BlasterBates]

German and French economies powering ahead, which won't be good for the UK's negotiating position.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...gauge-improves

[sasguru]

German and French economies powering ahead, which won't be good for the UK's negotiating position.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...gauge-improves

TBH quoting these highly variable stats does you no favours. They rise and fall like yo-yos.
Suffice it to say there's no comparison between the German and UK economy in exporting prowess, Debt/GDP ratio, personal debt, deficits versus surpluses. The UK is much worse on every count.