Reply to: EU unhappy with UK have cake and eat it proposal

[northernladyuk]

This might be a tough one. I started out writing this:



before trying to figure out what regulatory alignment means for people.

FoM of people (regardless of whether for labour or not) means no border, and could be achieved by pushing the "labour" requirement onto businesses by, say, having them check eligibility at the time of employment. No border, but imposing additional requirements on business to check eligibility to work in the UK (including NI).

But what part of this is regulatory, and requires alignment with the EU? For example, if regulatory alignment between the RoI and NI means that RoI nationals can work across the border, then by extension this means that RoI citizens must be able to work in rUK.

And if this applies to RoI nationals, then by extension that means that all EU nationals should be able to work in NI and therefore rUK?

Is this "regulatory"? Or are there some other semantics that they are using that somehow includes FoM of labour between RoI and NI for RoI and NI nationals, but excludes other EU nationals (that are perfectly entitled to live and work in RoI)?

Or, more likely, is May saying one thing to Varadkar / the DUP / Barnier, and another to the Ultras in the Tory party to try to play both along and kick the can further down the road? It's only taken 24 hours for it to start to unravel anyway:

Cabinet Brexit truce threatens to unravel as Leavers 'told concession to EU meaningless'

The rights of Irish nationals to live and work in the UK predate eu membership and the principles underpinning them derive largely from the Ireland Act 1949 which enshrines in British law that 'Ireland is not a foreign country'. The rights are almost all reciprocated. There is no reason to think that continuing the rights of Irish citizens in the UK would imply any rights for other EU citizens.

[BlasterBates]

Again, you’re projecting your preferred outcome, but a Swiss-style deal is absolutely not on the table. It has always been extremely clear that this wasn’t an option. The EU isn’t BSing on this. They don’t even want it for the Swiss. Remain is far more likely than a Swiss pattern when the EU offers EEA or CETA.

Not my preferred outcome, I don't really have one, why should I be bothered I don't live in the UK

It is however so evident particularly after the divorce cave in that a Swiss style deal is the most likely outcome.

May's government reportedly now wants a Swiss-style Brexit deal - Business Insider Deutschland

[jamesbrown]

Not as equal as MF. He eats it all.

Yeah, in the set theory of cake, MF eats cake union.

[BrilloPad]

I’m equal opportunities on cake.

Not as equal as MF. He eats it all.

[jamesbrown]

The cake the UK will get will be a black forest gateau. Can we not have a UK cake?

Or even a Swiss roll.....

I’m equal opportunities on cake.

[BrilloPad]

The cake the UK will get will be a black forest gateau. Can we not have a UK cake?

Or even a Swiss roll.....

[jamesbrown]

Indeed, it will be a Swiss style deal. This was obvious from even before the referendum was called. It's all in Theresa May's Lancaster house speech, confirmed in her speech in Florence and her Commons statement where she explicitly stated the agreement will go further than CETA, much further and it won't be EEA. She has consistently also always avoided any reference to Switzerland, which means she hasn't excluded it.

Again, you’re projecting your preferred outcome, but a Swiss-style deal is absolutely not on the table. It has always been extremely clear that this wasn’t an option. The EU isn’t BSing on this. They don’t even want it for the Swiss. Remain is far more likely than a Swiss pattern when the EU offers EEA or CETA.

[jamesbrown]

Absolutely. No freedom of movement of labour means no EEA type agreement. So CETA it is. Which means a hard border in Ireland. If Ireland is to ratify that, the UK had better get a move on at explaining the new plan.

Yep. I wouldn’t totally rule out remain, because remain is clearly better than EEA, and HMG hasn’t really prepared the public for the implications of CETA. Still, HMG will be aiming for CETA plus, and will soon find that the “plus” isn’t an option.

[BlasterBates]

Switzerland has open borders with the rest of the EU, so anyone in the EU can wander over as they wish, it doesn't do them any good because they won't be able to rent any apartment or get a job unless they have paperwork.

[meridian]

Indeed, it will be a Swiss style deal. This was obvious from even before the referendum was called. It's all in Theresa May's Lancaster house speech, confirmed in her speech in Florence and her Commons statement where she explicitly stated the agreement will go further than CETA, much further and it won't be EEA. She has consistently also always avoided any reference to Switzerland, which means she hasn't excluded it.

CETA including services:

Britain should sign a Canada-style trade deal with the European Union after Brexit, David Davis says

Within a year, apparently, even though the Canada deal took 7 years.

[meridian]

Absolutely. No freedom of movement of labour means no EEA type agreement. So CETA it is. Which means a hard border in Ireland. If Ireland is to ratify that, the UK had better get a move on at explaining the new plan.

This might be a tough one. I started out writing this:

I don't think that removal of FoM of labour necessarily means a hard border; the border applies to goods (which will mean "regulatory alignment" of tariffs, standards, country of origin, etc - SM+CU in all but name) and people, which means...

before trying to figure out what regulatory alignment means for people.

FoM of people (regardless of whether for labour or not) means no border, and could be achieved by pushing the "labour" requirement onto businesses by, say, having them check eligibility at the time of employment. No border, but imposing additional requirements on business to check eligibility to work in the UK (including NI).

But what part of this is regulatory, and requires alignment with the EU? For example, if regulatory alignment between the RoI and NI means that RoI nationals can work across the border, then by extension this means that RoI citizens must be able to work in rUK.

And if this applies to RoI nationals, then by extension that means that all EU nationals should be able to work in NI and therefore rUK?

Is this "regulatory"? Or are there some other semantics that they are using that somehow includes FoM of labour between RoI and NI for RoI and NI nationals, but excludes other EU nationals (that are perfectly entitled to live and work in RoI)?

Or, more likely, is May saying one thing to Varadkar / the DUP / Barnier, and another to the Ultras in the Tory party to try to play both along and kick the can further down the road? It's only taken 24 hours for it to start to unravel anyway:

Cabinet Brexit truce threatens to unravel as Leavers 'told concession to EU meaningless'

[BlasterBates]

It’ll be somewhere in the middle. Less access than Norway, more costly than Canada. And the government will spin it as a bespoke deal that only the UK could have got.

Indeed, it will be a Swiss style deal. This was obvious from even before the referendum was called. It's all in Theresa May's Lancaster house speech, confirmed in her speech in Florence and her Commons statement where she explicitly stated the agreement will go further than CETA, much further and it won't be EEA. She has consistently also always avoided any reference to Switzerland, which means she hasn't excluded it.

[northernladyuk]

Remainers and leavers in Cabinet are equally deluded on this. Remainers think they can start with EEA and trade-off access for control (EEA-). Leavers think they can start with CETA and do the same (CETA+). It’s EEA or CETA, end of story, so CETA.

Absolutely. No freedom of movement of labour means no EEA type agreement. So CETA it is. Which means a hard border in Ireland. If Ireland is to ratify that, the UK had better get a move on at explaining the new plan.

[vetran]

Rebranding exercise now going on...

well we can do the corruption

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ption-evidence


though it only costs 3 EU divorces a year. I reckon we can go lower than that,

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDat...)608687_EN.pdf


we are out of practice at clubbing people at ballot boxes or having a world empire but I suppose we could give it a go, we used to be quite good at it.

We are world leaders at raiding pensions and taxing till they squeak.

[Paddy]

Gove reported to be saying the public can vote on the brexit outcome at the next general election if they don't like the terms.

Unless the next general election is sooner than he thinks.

So yes, Labour landslide at next election. Their lack of vocalisation on brexit recently is a smart move. tulip sticks so why volunteer for a tar and feathering. Let May and her incompetent cronies suffer that.

I imagine that Corbyn arrives home every day thinking; I am so happy that I lost the election.