Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We shouldn't agree to pay some vast some of money to the EU just to access the next step of negotiations that might benefit us, its got to be part of a package of give and take. Otherwise there's no reason to think it will get an ounce of goodwill going forward and they'll have our money. If we give up on the 'divorce bill' and free movement on the border and citizenship rights for all EU nationals, they could simply turn around and say they're not interested, or only offer something ridiculous, knowing they have the majority of what they want. There are clearly people in the EU who want Brexit to be a disaster for us, so while we don't want to crash out with nothing, we shouldn't be giving anything away free to with hollow promises it might help trade deals, etc.

 reds8n wrote:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en

Published EU papers -- IIRC they started releasing them in April, or there abouts.

It includes their initial breakdown of how to calculate what we should pay.

If you look closely at your link, you'll see most of those are internal documents. So for example, the instructions to the negotiating team, policies for goods placed on the market before Brexit, adjusting personnel appointments, and so on. They're about how the European structure will adapt to Brexit, as opposed to Brexit negotiations themselves. The ones that do relate to the negotiations are mostly things like agendas of discussion. A timetable ain't really much a of a policy document! Even the ones directly linked to the matter are sparse. The one on security co-operation post brexit, is only 4 pages long!

Their position is self evident : if you are not in the EU then you have the same rights/duties etc etc as everyone else.

If we want more than that then it's up to us to prove/show/whatever we want is workable instead.

Given the Visegrad group's needs, trying to pass the buck doesn't fly even internally. They need some form of enhanced immigration, and that means it's something both parties have to work on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37396805
The EU has to represent their interests as well as anybody else in Paris or Greece. Trying to say 'Ah, it's all Britain's department' won't fly with them.

Indeed.
In other words
http://ukbusinessinsider.com/david-davis-caves-into-eu-timetable-demand-on-first-day-of-brexit-talks-2017-6
the first thing we already agreed to settle .
So all we're doing -- with our "impressive" 3 hour filibuster YMDC RAW worthy attack on their position is hold our own ground, at best, and manage to make no progress in any other area.
One notes what you refer to as the Uks " fat stack of documents"
..wellll
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/article-50-and-negotiations-with-the-eu#position-papers-
it's not exactly a stack is it ?
WE've released 7 papers with regards to our position(s).
.. Which, TBF, is quite impressive considering that our main one is "bent over

Still bigger than the EU's pile, both in scope and depth.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that'll last forever, nor I do I think that it's about quantity at the end of the day. I reckon that the EU will now adjust their position from 'We expect a total walkover and don't have to do any work' to move to 'Oooer, best get cracking then'. This is just the opening salvoes as everything starts to get down to business.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
We shouldn't agree to pay some vast some of money to the EU just to access the next step of negotiations that might benefit us,

I believe the idea is that these will, ultimately benefit both sides is it not ?

its got to be part of a package of give and take. Otherwise there's no reason to think it will get an ounce of goodwill going forward and they'll have our money. If we give up on the 'divorce bill' and free movement on the border and citizenship rights for all EU nationals, they could simply turn around and say they're not interested, or only offer something ridiculous, knowing they have the majority of what they want. There are clearly people in the EU who want Brexit to be a disaster for us, so while we don't want to crash out with nothing, we shouldn't be giving anything away free to with hollow promises it might help trade deals, etc.

Bit dumb to agree to do that first of then really wasn't it ?

As opening salvos go it was hardly shock and awe was it ?

So instead we're now trying to negotiate having already masterfully showed that we're either A : idiots or B : untrustworthy with regards to what we've already agreed upon.

they could simply turn around and say they're not interested

Yes, it's funny how little coverage that possibility gets in the press over here.

It's almost like they have their own agency ( meaning here in the actorial sense not organisational, although they do, of course have that too ! ), and therefore own goals etc etc and might not simply cow down down to whatever fearsome array of increasingly desperate politicians we throw at them.

trying to pass the buck doesn't fly even internally.

It's nothing to do with "passing the buck".

It's already a known proposition how borders work with regards to Eu and non EU countries.

The default position already exists as a legal reality.

If any country/faction/group wants something different here than the default then it needs to be negotiated.

I agree entirely that the EU wants or would like something other than that, I'm pointing out that the actual reality is somewhat "binary" -- if you follow -- and the alternative is already known, ie it will automatically revert to what it was prior to the existing agreements.

 reds8n wrote:

It's nothing to do with "passing the buck".
It's already a known proposition how borders work with regards to Eu and non EU countries.
The default position already exists as a legal reality.
If any country/faction/group wants something different here than the default then it needs to be negotiated.
I agree entirely that the EU wants or would like something other than that, I'm pointing out that the actual reality is somewhat "binary" -- if you follow -- and the alternative is already known, ie it will automatically revert to what it was prior to the existing agreements.

I'm afraid I don't quite see the point you're trying to make then. Having agreed that the EU wants something different from the default, and that it needs to be negotiated, it would therefore be entirely reasonable to expect the EU to produce documents featuring proposals of different ways it could work. Certainly, it's as relevant to their negotiating team as it is ours, possibly moreso. Now things are taking off, they'll produce one shortly, of that I have little doubt.

 Ketara wrote:


(ii) Again, EU's media strategy is something of public record. We have the daft things like the Davis 'no documents' photo doing the round, 'leaks' coming off Juncker's desk three hours after phone calls, conversation with Juncker about the power he believes the British press have over the government, and so forth.

We have on record what Rupert Murdoch said to Anthony Hilton at the Evening Standard (and note never asked to be retracted)...."I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.” so the latter part is almost certainly true that the press do have a lot more say in UK politics (and hence by a few powerful rich people). The no documents photo was an official press release by both parties. It wasn't the EU that took a sneaky photo and then released it. It was more twitter that picked up the comparison. As for Juncker I think he is playing a game. He knows the irrational hatred aimed at him by certain parts of the UK populace and press so why not play up to it? That makes the rest seem more reasonable.

The one notable exception to above is the settlement bill. At the moment, the EU has presented Britain with a short document containing generalised subheadings, and a statement that effectively says 'Do you agree all of this stuff is things you should be paying for?'. Britain, on the other hand (it not being their place to draw up a costing of the EU) has countered with 'Can I see a detailed breakdown from the bottom up of what you'd like me to pay for?' It's a case of a request for a blank cheque being met with a demand for a detailed invoice. I understand why both are doing what they are doing, and it makes sense from both perspectives. The EU wants as much jam as it can extract, Britain wants a detailed invoice so it can point to various items and haggle or dismiss them.

I think it is more likely that the UK gave a list of things to the EU at the last meeting they wanted to remain a part of (which may well have been everything and the kitchen sink with little real thought), and the EU has now come back with the summary costs (and which to point out the UK might have only asked for at the last meeting). Now I can understand people wanting to look at the fine details, but in the end it probably won't make that much to the overall value. A few million may shaved off here or there might get it down to £10 billion or so. But overall if the UK wants to remain in the things it asked for then it will have to pay for a fair share of it. There will be a bottom line for things already committed to and the rest is what the UK want to remain party of (so things like staying part of the EU version of GPS etc).

The second noticeable feature has been the lack of paperwork from Barnier's negotiating team. In line with their media strategy, they have blitzed the British proposals with varying levels of denigration and insults. Some of it rightly so, others not so much. But whilst Britain has now laid its first hand on the table and said, 'Let's see yours', Barnier's team is still trash talking as if it wasn't there. There is no set of EU proposals on the Irish border. There isn't a single EU proposal on travel arrangements post Brexit. The only EU proposal on the table regarding citizen's rights post-Brexit was a headline grabber that no sane country would ever accept. The only EU proposal on the table regarding the Brexit bill is a vague four page document. I could go on, but the point is made.

It's not really the position of the EU to tell the UK what it wants about Ireland's border though. That is totally in the remit of the UK. The EUs position is already clear on this one. They would happily keep open borders and freedom of movement for all EU citizens. It is the UK that has gone down the "fear (hate for some) the stranger route" and hence it is for the UK to tell the EU what it wants with all of the borders. The EU can then respond to the UKs position. If the UK wants an open border for UK and Irish citizens how does that work with that all EU citizens have the same rights? The EU may then propose that it can't be just Irish and UK citizens but all EU citizens can pass freely through the Irish border. The UK needs to decide what it wants; we already know the EUs position on this...

Now some of the above has a good reason for it. Barnier doesn't want to put anything on the table relating to post-Brexit trade because he wants to keep that sort of thing uncertain until he extracts a fat wodge of cash, for example. But that only explains away so much. This lack of paperwork from the European side is again, more or less a matter of information very clearly in the public domain, so there's not a huge amount to disagree on.

There is a lot of negotiating sense to this however both internally and externally. It stops the UK trying to 'bribe' some countries with offers to get through a more lenient agreement on movement/debts and so on. As negotiating position if you are in a position of strength you never want to mix dealings of the 'old' with the dealings with the 'new'. If you are in a weaker position you do as that allows you to mitigate some of your losses against ideas of potential gains (birds in the bush). Even contractors at home will do this...if things aren't working out correctly they will deflect the conversation onto 'new' items to offset the impact. Barnier is playing a perfectly sensible negotiating game.

Another observation noticeable by its absence is the lack of headlines talking about the new department's need for staff. The most recent ones I've seen actually, have been decrying how much they're paying the staff that they have hired (whatever they wanted in a nutshell). The conclusion I'm therefore drawing, is that they have now assembled a team of reasonable size, who will now be beavering away on the matter. Given we're six months in and the above, I don't believe that's an unreasonable conclusion to make.

That could simply be though that May has plugged all the leaks rather than anything substantially changing. Those that disagreed with Empress May have either resigned or been pushed out. There are articles where May specifically stated this was a priority. Silence doesn't mean things have changed...

 Whirlwind wrote:

We have on record what Rupert Murdoch said to Anthony Hilton at the Evening Standard (and note never asked to be retracted)...."I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. “That’s easy,” he replied. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.”.....

The media also backed May to win a landslide.

Yeah, British media may well be more influential than their European counterparts, I couldn't say. And heck, I'm not having a go at it as a strategy. I don't really have an issue with any part of the European strategy so far (although I find Juncker personally objectionable). I'm simply noting that it was crafted on the basis of an assumed walkover, and so now needs revising, and fast.

I think it is more likely that the UK gave a list of things to the EU at the last meeting they wanted to remain a part of....

Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just speculating?

It's not really the position of the EU to tell the UK what it wants about Ireland's border though. That is totally in the remit of the UK.

As I said above to Red, there are sufficient interests on both sides of the fence that both sides need to be making proposals. It's no more specifically the remit of the UK than the EU(representing Ireland), as the border has two sides.

That could simply be though that May has plugged all the leaks rather than anything substantially changing. Those that disagreed with Empress May have either resigned or been pushed out. There are articles where May specifically stated this was a priority. Silence doesn't mean things have changed...

You can see the departmental layout and names here if you want to go and look.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/609968/Untitled_presentation__2_.pdf

 Ketara wrote:

Indeed.
In other words
http://ukbusinessinsider.com/david-davis-caves-into-eu-timetable-demand-on-first-day-of-brexit-talks-2017-6
the first thing we already agreed to settle .
So all we're doing -- with our "impressive" 3 hour filibuster YMDC RAW worthy attack on their position is hold our own ground, at best, and manage to make no progress in any other area.
One notes what you refer to as the Uks " fat stack of documents"
..wellll
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/article-50-and-negotiations-with-the-eu#position-papers-
it's not exactly a stack is it ?
WE've released 7 papers with regards to our position(s).
.. Which, TBF, is quite impressive considering that our main one is "bent over

Still bigger than the EU's pile, both in scope and depth.

The problem is most of the UK's is meaningless position statements without any real effort or thought.

For example just examining the Nuclear safeguards and issues paper we have:-



It's literally just a shopping list amounting to:-

We want to continue working together, we don't know how, can't tell you how we are going to safeguard anything, but you'll work with us yes?
Tell businesses it will be OK despite the fact the UK can't provide any assurances of what its systems will look like afterwards
We still want the benefit of the EU funding nuclear research and use it when appropriate (noting financial implications to the UK)
Minimise barriers, not defining which ones they are interested in, which they think are a barrier. Are we talking less safeguards? Who handles the material? Remove the yellow stop barrier at the entrance to Euratom. It's not specific and therefore useless as negotiating point (noting financial implications to the UK)
Ensure the UK can still poach EU skilled staff - just they won't get the same rights they currently do. The UK already are talking about visas, controls and so on. Without more context on this how can you even think about this specific issue? (Noting financial implications for the UK as the EU will want to keep its skilled staff)
Collaborating on endeavours (again the UK wants to benefit from the EU funding). (again noting the financial implications to the UK).

Assurance to the industry again (but again not what that relates to) - maybe they just want to send them a card and stress ball in the post?
Provide legal certainty on immediate issues. The thing is from the EU there is legal certainty; it is the UK that doesn't. What are the "immediate" issues they refer to? Again there are no specifics, nothing to discuss or agree or negotiate on because no one has any idea what the UK is referring to.

And despite the complete lack of detail, that most of the issues the UK need to define as how they are going to deal with in the future to give the EU an idea of how Euratom might be able to deal with the UK, they simply state, well here's the list now it's up to the EU to sort it out. Can anyone rightfully here think that a nuclear agency would be able to agree anything concrete before a government has told them how they are going to deal with nuclear material (after all the Tories might legislate to say that all nuclear waste from now on should be stored under social care tower blocks because they don't care about such people). Does anyone think Euratom would agree anything if that was the proposal?

Simply any of us could have written a better document than this. It's loose woolly nonsense with nothing anyone could negotiate specifics on. It is no surprise that the EU is rather baffled by the approach...

If anybody want my hand on heart, gut instinct viewpoint of how this will turn out, then here it is:

I honestly think Britain is wasting its fething time with these negotiations.

A few pages back, I recommended that people should watch some youtube videos of what Yanis Varoufakis has to say on talking to the EU, and with each passing day, his words are becoming spot on.

The EU have no intention of negotiating. They are pretending, and Barnier will remain rigid and hide behind his limited remit, because it was a deliberate EU ploy.

They're letting him drive 30mph, but 80mph is needed here.

Barnier is like Agent Smith from the Matrix, guarding the doors. If Britain wants real progress, then by pass this charade and go straight to computer central: Macron and Merkel.

 Whirlwind wrote:

The problem is most of the UK's is meaningless position statements without any real effort or thought......

The European ones are similarly devoid of detail, only they tend to be considerably shorter to boot if you go and look. You'd see the same on both sides if you went and looked at the first batch of documents between the EU and Japan or Canada.

This is the 'feeling out' phase, the bit where they lay out in vague cloaked language what they'd like to talk about, and what sort of direction they'd like to go in. Kind of like a regurgitated Mission Statement from a Fortune 500 company. It's not meant to be legible, for heaven's sake! That would spoil everything!

Nah, we'll see a thicker batch of equally vapid crap from the EU, and then we'll lock them in a room together for a year and see how ugly the baby that comes out is. Such is international treaty negotiation.

 Ketara wrote:

The media also backed May to win a landslide.

Yeah, British media may well be more influential than their European counterparts, I couldn't say. And heck, I'm not having a go at it as a strategy. I don't really have an issue with any part of the European strategy so far (although I find Juncker personally objectionable). I'm simply noting that it was crafted on the basis of an assumed walkover, and so now needs revising, and fast.

That was a media prediction though...Murdoch actually said this so is a reported statement, not an assumption/guess by a reporter.

I think it is more likely that the UK gave a list of things to the EU at the last meeting they wanted to remain a part of....

Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just speculating?

Speculation, hence the "I think" but seems a reasonable assumption when you consider the released UK documents

As I said above to Red, there are sufficient interests on both sides of the fence that both sides need to be making proposals. It's no more specifically the remit of the UK than the EU(representing Ireland), as the border has two sides.

Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement. It is the UK that wants to change this and hence it is the one responsible to bringing something to the table to discuss. The EU could spend thousands of pointless hours going "what about this option" because it needs the UK first to define its position. If the UK states it wants open borders and free movement then the EU can respond in how that effects them constitutionally. If the UK states it wants open borders between Ireland and the UK then the EU can then say their constitution would then require all borders to be open and allow free movement as that they have an obligation to provide the same to all EU citizens.

You can see the departmental layout and names here if you want to go and look.

That's not really the point; name tags doesn't mean something isn't woefully understaffed. I could probably point out locations where you can find nursing departments in the NHS. That doesn't mean either aren't woefully understaffed, just that someone in admin has been kept busy. Silence could just mean that people are too fearful of speaking out in case May brings out a firing squad and shoots them.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

The problem is most of the UK's is meaningless position statements without any real effort or thought......

The European ones are similarly devoid of detail, only they tend to be considerably shorter to boot if you go and look. You'd see the same on both sides if you went and looked at the first batch of documents between the EU and Japan or Canada.

This is the 'feeling out' phase, the bit where they lay out in vague cloaked language what they'd like to talk about, and what sort of direction they'd like to go in. Kind of like a regurgitated Mission Statement from a Fortune 500 company. It's not meant to be legible, for heaven's sake! That would spoil everything!

Nah, we'll see a thicker batch of equally vapid crap from the EU, and then we'll lock them in a room together for a year and see how ugly the baby that comes out is. Such is international treaty negotiation.

The EU doesn't need to be specific though and can't really be until the UK provides clarity on what it wants. It is the UK that is leaving the EU not vice versa. It is for the UK to decide the specifics it wants and the EU to respond. It is more sensible to have general position statements from the EUs perspective as agreed 'red lines not to cross'. Otherwise they could put together 1000's of pages of documents on (for example), protection of birdlife in Europe only to find the UK has no issue with the current arrangements and wants to remain as is. That just wastes the EUs time. I repeat it is the UK that is leaving. It is for the UK to be specific as to what it wants to keep and what not to keep. Then the EU can be more specific in the negotiations on the issues the UK wants to talk about whilst not overstepping the red lines.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.

That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.

The EU doesn't need to be specific though and can't really be until the UK provides clarity on what it wants. It is the UK that is leaving the EU not vice versa. It is for the UK to decide the specifics it wants and the EU to respond.

I'm sorry, but this is a bizare position to take on negotiations.

If you and I want to trade a set of pokemon cards (to build a somewhat nostalgic analogy), I have ones you want, and you have ones I want. Whilst you could sit there and listen purely to my offers and proposals, accepting or turning down as you like, it's a daft way to negotiate. You might think of something I forget, or come up with a counteroffer that hasn't occurred to me. I also might misinterpret what you want, and offer poor value, when an exchange of information could allow us to more accurately gauge each others priorities better.

Likewise, if all the EU does is sit there as a passive recipient to proposals made by the UK. Their members have needs and desires as well which need to be voiced. Negotiations are give and take, offer and counter-offer. They want things, we want other things back. By all means open negotiations with 'Make me an offer', but after that the horse trading needs to start. If you just say 'Yes' or 'No' to everything the other side says, it'll be a short negotiation! The EU is fully capable of tailoring a new deal outside of the existing membership. Crafting it will require such talks.

If they refuse to dicker, then we'll end up having a hard brexit, I suppose. Something none of the countries involved actually want.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.

That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.

Why would they want a change? Everything works fine now as it is for the UK and the EU. The EU were and are quite happy with open movement for all EU citizens (including UK citizens). That's not going to change because of a divisive vote in the UK. They didn't vote for the change, there is no need for the change and UK citizens are still free to come and go as they see fit. The EUs position is therefore "no change". It is hence for the UK to define if it wants to change this. If the UK wisely decided that free movement isn't an issue and didn't bring it to the table then there would wisely be no change for either party and nothing to discuss.

I'm sorry, but this is a bizare position to take on negotiations.

Not really, every negotiation starts with one party approaching another with something it wants, where that is a change to a contract, a cut in costs etc. The other party then goes away and considers what the first party wants. The party that is content and is happy as is has no need to make a change and will only implement change because the other party wants to.

If you and I want to trade a set of pokemon cards (to build a somewhat nostalgic analogy), I have ones you want, and you have ones I want. Whilst you could sit there and listen purely to my offers and proposals, accepting or turning down as you like, it's a daft way to negotiate. You might think of something I forget, or come up with a counteroffer that hasn't occurred to me. I also might misinterpret what you want, and offer poor value, when an exchange of information could allow us to more accurately gauge each others priorities better.

Except it is a poor analogy (as we already both share the pack and have equal hands). A better one would be where both parties own something (lets say a shared road access). One party thinks it can build a new access cheaper (forgetting there is a cliff before the road) and hence wants to get out of the shared access agreement. They also want to put a fence up at the boundary to stop people from the other house using their exit (not that they would because it means driving off a cliff). One party is fine with how things are, so it is for the other party to approach them. They have no need to approach the party that wants the change because they are happy as is. This party does need to consider what the leaving party wants however. They are proposing a fence, but it is a butt ugly and hence they are opposed. If the leaving party wants that on their side that's fine, but the content party would prefer a nice wooden fence. What about the maintenance costs of the road. The leaving party has signed a 25 agreement to help maintain the road. It is not the content party's fault that they want to close it off. The leaving party is the terminating party hence they have to buy out their part of the contract..

Likewise, if all the EU does is sit there as a passive recipient to proposals made by the UK. Their members have needs and desires as well which need to be voiced. Negotiations are give and take, offer and counter-offer. They want things, we want other things back. By all means open negotiations with 'Make me an offer', but after that the horse trading needs to start. If you just say 'Yes' or 'No' to everything the other side says, it'll be a short negotiation! The EU is fully capable of tailoring a new deal outside of the existing membership. Crafting it will require such talks.

There is no debate that there won't be offers and counter offers. But it is still for the UK to be specific as to what it wants first. The EU can then study these and propose a counter offer on the area in question and so on (or other areas up for negotiating).

If they refuse to dicker, then we'll end up having a hard brexit, I suppose. Something none of the countries involved actually want.

Depends on which part of the UK press you read (or the BBC comments sections!)

I'm sorry Whirlwind, but when it comes to the basics of how negotiation works here, I think we're not so much on different pages but entirely different books! Likely because to me, I see it as a fresh negotiation between two parties with tradeable assets (as Brexit is happening regardless, wiping the slate clean and resetting things back to 0), whereas you think that due to Britain leaving, Britain now has to individually propose all aspects for renegotiation irregardless of Brexit? Or somesuch?

Nah, I'll leave that one there and save us both some time I think.

To me, this whole negotation is more about a divorce than a trade of pokemon cards. There is no tradeable asset here. It's just about separation of what was previously under the household.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

The problem is most of the UK's is meaningless position statements without any real effort or thought......

The European ones are similarly devoid of detail, only they tend to be considerably shorter to boot if you go and look. You'd see the same on both sides if you went and looked at the first batch of documents between the EU and Japan or Canada.

This is the 'feeling out' phase, the bit where they lay out in vague cloaked language what they'd like to talk about, and what sort of direction they'd like to go in. Kind of like a regurgitated Mission Statement from a Fortune 500 company. It's not meant to be legible, for heaven's sake! That would spoil everything!

Nah, we'll see a thicker batch of equally vapid crap from the EU, and then we'll lock them in a room together for a year and see how ugly the baby that comes out is. Such is international treaty negotiation.

And the UK team, who have essentially no time left, should be trying to lead discussions and jump forward to the actual discussion instead of wasting time on this slow game.

 Ketara wrote:
[

The one notable exception to above is the settlement bill. At the moment, the EU has presented Britain with a short document containing generalised subheadings, and a statement that effectively says 'Do you agree all of this stuff is things you should be paying for?'. Britain, on the other hand (it not being their place to draw up a costing of the EU) has countered with 'Can I see a detailed breakdown from the bottom up of what you'd like me to pay for?' It's a case of a request for a blank cheque being met with a demand for a detailed invoice. I understand why both are doing what they are doing, and it makes sense from both perspectives. The EU wants as much jam as it can extract, Britain wants a detailed invoice so it can point to various items and haggle or dismiss them.

A 4 page document that has been available for two months and a half? And the UK reply has been "I need more details" when, as a current EU member, can access the numbers themselves? That's textbook stalling.

In any case, there's a nice summary of the whole thing on today's Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/31/eu-divorce-bills-to-citizens-rights-six-things-we-learned-about-brexit-this-week

4. The UK thinks it is more flexible

The Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) could make “flexible and imaginative” its official motto. Fittingly, it has been copied from the EU and was used several times by Davis this week. The Brexit secretary called on Barnier to be imaginative by not allowing the EU’s strict timetable to stop any discussions about the future. EU negotiators, however, are being strict about the timetable, even correcting themselves if they mention an issue that is being held over until the second phase.

British negotiators believe they are more nimble than the EU in other ways. British officials worry their EU counterparts do not have the ability to negotiate the most complex issues because their hands are tied by the EU mandate, drawn up and controlled by 27 countries.

5. But the EU thinks it is more serious

The EU team counters that a lack of flexibility is not the problem. For Brussels negotiators, the persistent stumbling block is the lack of clarity about what the UK wants. For instance, having studied the UK paper on how to govern any future trade relationship, the EU team concludes that London has not taken any position at all. EU officials have been positive about the publication of British position papers, as evidence of a more serious turn from the government. But EU diplomats find them vague, overly long and weighed down by excessive background details, while lacking firm or feasible proposals.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry Whirlwind, but when it comes to the basics of how negotiation works here, I think we're not so much on different pages but entirely different books! Likely because to me, I see it as a fresh negotiation between two parties with tradeable assets (as Brexit is happening regardless, wiping the slate clean and resetting things back to 0), whereas you think that due to Britain leaving, Britain now has to individually propose all aspects for renegotiation irregardless of Brexit? Or somesuch?

Nah, I'll leave that one there and save us both some time I think.

Traditionally, it's the party that wants the change that has to (a) propose the change and (b) get agreement. The incumbent party has no obligations other than to stick to the law.

We know the eu stance on pretty much everything as the status quo. We still don't really know the UK stance on anything as they haven't produced any substance yet.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.

That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.

Why would they want a change? Everything works fine now as it is for the UK and the EU. The EU were and are quite happy with open movement for all EU citizens (including UK citizens). That's not going to change because of a divisive vote in the UK. They didn't vote for the change, there is no need for the change and UK citizens are still free to come and go as they see fit. The EUs position is therefore "no change". It is hence for the UK to define if it wants to change this. If the UK wisely decided that free movement isn't an issue and didn't bring it to the table then there would wisely be no change for either party and nothing to discuss.

Except that isn't what happens if they don't get a deal. It's not a case that no deal means it stays as it currently is - no deal means an end to what is now and possibly a hard border, they therefore do need to come up with other suggestions.

And in all fairness we have come up with a suggestion, free movement for Irish nationals, and an electronic border. Now the EU may not like that (indeed it probably doesn't for the reason that it treats Irish citizens different to other EU citizens) but if they don't like our offer then they need to work with us to make a better one - not simply say 'go away and re do it' for the exact reason you state they shouldn't go off and come up with stacks of paper on something we might not want to change - Without their input we cannot be sure that our next offer won't be just as unacceptable as this one

Stranger83 wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.

That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.

Why would they want a change? Everything works fine now as it is for the UK and the EU. The EU were and are quite happy with open movement for all EU citizens (including UK citizens). That's not going to change because of a divisive vote in the UK. They didn't vote for the change, there is no need for the change and UK citizens are still free to come and go as they see fit. The EUs position is therefore "no change". It is hence for the UK to define if it wants to change this. If the UK wisely decided that free movement isn't an issue and didn't bring it to the table then there would wisely be no change for either party and nothing to discuss.

Except that isn't what happens if they don't get a deal. It's not a case that no deal means it stays as it currently is - no deal means an end to what is now and possibly a hard border, they therefore do need to come up with other suggestions.

And in all fairness we have come up with a suggestion, free movement for Irish nationals, and an electronic border. Now the EU may not like that (indeed it probably doesn't for the reason that it treats Irish citizens different to other EU citizens) but if they don't like our offer then they need to work with us to make a better one

The UK proposal is not workable for several reasons. You named the most important one and that's that all EU nationals are treated equal for freedom of movement purposes. That's non negotiable, and the UK as a soon to be former member knows it.

Why the EU can't put forward a proposal on the Irish border? Basically because it hinges on what exactly does the UK want from the whole EU. The Irish border is going to be an external EU border so of course the kind of border is there will depend the kind of model the UK wants. Norwegian-like border? Serbian? Turkish? Russian? each one of them is very different but you can't work the minutiae if you don't know what the big picture looks like. And the UK so far refuses to say what the big picture is going to be.

Once the EU-UK relationship is established then and only then Irish specific kinks can be smoothed.

The EU position on a lot of stuff is largely dependent on the UK's proposals and what's agreed - it can only be reactive at this stage, but has nothing to react to.

Take the Eire border, there are (from a EU precident) 2 options:

If free movement across the border => no border.
If no free movement across the border => border.

So if the UK concede to free movement, it's a non issue.

Now the smugglers border is also a possibility, depending on how much the UK deviates from the EU in terms of things like tax, tariffs, law and safety standards. If you've got a soft border, and everything is more or less the same on both sides, it's not really a big deal.
But if you've got a soft border and something is illegal or more expensive on one side but not the other, then you're going to have a real issue with smuggling and all of the economic side effects. As I understand it, this already happens with some goods where it's cheaper to drive across the border to buy stuff, especially with currency fluctuations, but depending on what the UK team turns Brexit into that could become an awful lot worse and can potentially be devastating to one or both sides of the border or even further afield.
It'd give a direct route to move illegal goods and people from UK <-> Mainland Europe.

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Yes but we know the EUs position already, it is open borders and free movement.

That is their position on countries within the EU. It is not their position on a Britain outside of the EU. What sort of immigration relationship they want to have with us after that is as much their bailiwick as it is ours.

Why would they want a change? Everything works fine now as it is for the UK and the EU. The EU were and are quite happy with open movement for all EU citizens (including UK citizens). That's not going to change because of a divisive vote in the UK. They didn't vote for the change, there is no need for the change and UK citizens are still free to come and go as they see fit. The EUs position is therefore "no change". It is hence for the UK to define if it wants to change this. If the UK wisely decided that free movement isn't an issue and didn't bring it to the table then there would wisely be no change for either party and nothing to discuss.

Except that isn't what happens if they don't get a deal. It's not a case that no deal means it stays as it currently is - no deal means an end to what is now and possibly a hard border, they therefore do need to come up with other suggestions.

And in all fairness we have come up with a suggestion, free movement for Irish nationals, and an electronic border. Now the EU may not like that (indeed it probably doesn't for the reason that it treats Irish citizens different to other EU citizens) but if they don't like our offer then they need to work with us to make a better one

The UK proposal is not workable for several reasons. You named the most important one and that's that all EU nationals are treated equal for freedom of movement purposes. That's non negotiable, and the UK as a soon to be former member knows it.

Why the EU can't put forward a proposal on the Irish border? Basically because it hinges on what exactly does the UK want from the whole EU. The Irish border is going to be an external EU border so of course the kind of border is there will depend the kind of model the UK wants. Norwegian-like border? Serbian? Turkish? Russian? each one of them is very different but you can't work the minutiae if you don't know what the big picture looks like. And the UK so far refuses to say what the big picture is going to be.

Once the EU-UK relationship is established then and only then Irish specific kinks can be smoothed.

Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work - now we should be working together to come up with a solution, not having the EU say 'go away and try again' because we have stated our position and now we should negotiate.

The EU can claim that we are not being clear all they want, but we have stated what we want in most areas - the fact they disagree does not constitute a lack of clarity on our part - it just means we need to negotiate.

Stranger83 wrote:


Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work

The UK has said they want seamless trade and a magic-eye invisible border for people.

Is that free trade and free movement? Because that's the opposite of what the Brexit vote meant.

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work

The UK has said they want seamless trade and a magic-eye invisible border for people.

Is that free trade and free movement? Because that's the opposite of what the Brexit vote meant.

Clearly you didn't follow the referendum.

Brexit was all about free trade, indeed it was a driving point of the leave side that outside of the EU we could strike far more free trade deals than we could inside of it, the UK position outside of the EU is far more in favour of free trade than the EU is.

As for free movement, there is a clear difference here - feel free to come to England, only the extreme far right have any issue with this, but restrict the rights to live/work/claim benefits/access free health care - something that isn't allowed within the EU. If someone from Ireland (or Spain, France, Poland, etc) wants to come to England and visit the sites or buy things then feel free, if they want to come to work or take advantage of our free healthcare system then outside the EU we can stop them.

Having the freedom to travel into a country without being stopped at the border is a massively different thing to what the EU considers 'free movement', to claim otherwise is simply wrong. Since they won't have a National Insurance Number, needed to get a job/buy or rent a house or claim benefits - and outside the EU we can say that they cannot have a National Insurance number we can control all that fairly easy.

Stranger83 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


Except we have said what we want - yes the EU has said no, but we have stated how we would like that to work

The UK has said they want seamless trade and a magic-eye invisible border for people.

Is that free trade and free movement? Because that's the opposite of what the Brexit vote meant.

Clearly you didn't follow the referendum.

Brexit was all about free trade, indeed it was a driving point of the leave side that outside of the EU we could strike far more free trade deals than we could inside of it, the UK position outside of the EU is far more in favour of free trade than the EU is.

As for free movement, there is a clear difference here - feel free to come to England, only the extreme far right have any issue with this, but restrict the rights to live/work/claim benefits/access free health care - something that isn't allowed within the EU. If someone from Ireland (or Spain, France, Poland, etc) wants to come to England and visit the sites or buy things then feel free, if they want to come to work or take advantage of our free healthcare system then outside the EU we can stop them.

Having the freedom to travel into a country without being stopped at the border is a massively different thing to what the EU considers 'free movement', to claim otherwise is simply wrong. Since they won't have a National Insurance Number, needed to get a job/buy or rent a house or claim benefits - and outside the EU we can say that they cannot have a National Insurance number we can control all that fairly easy.

And the EU will give the UK free trade and movement in exchange for what exactly? In the words of Macron, the EU is not a supermarket where you can pick and choose the bits you want. If you want to use the club pool you still have to pay the dues.

But of course the UK could expel or refuse to pay benefits to EU migrants. They just chose not to and blamed the EU for that.

You can cut benefits to unemployed EU residents
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/14/uk-can-refuse-benefits-to-unemployed-eu-migrants-judges-rule

You can expel EU citizens
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36449974

Actually other countries do it too
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.1388657

I don't always agree with Ketara, but his comments on Bojo and Fox being marginalised, were spot on, because lo and behold, up pops Fox to spout gibberish at the EU

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41119870

what an attention grabbing

Can we not make full use of British Antarctic Territory and exile people there for good?

.. that's disgraced minister Liam Fox mind !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10442231/Atos-G4S-paid-no-corporation-tax-last-year-despite-carrying-out-2billion-of-taxpayer-funded-work.html

Atos, G4S paid no corporation tax last year despite carrying out £2billion of taxpayer-funded work
Two of the country’s biggest private contractors paid no corporation tax in Britain last year, despite carrying out billions of pounds of taxpayer funded work for the Government, an official audit finds

Two of the country’s biggest private contractors paid no corporation tax in Britain last year, despite carrying out billions of pounds of taxpayer funded work for the Government, an official audit has found.
A report by the National Audit Office, published today, disclosed for the first time how much Government work is now outsourced to the private sector.
It found that the four biggest suppliers - Atos, Capita, G4S and Serco - carried out £6.6billion-worth of work for the public sector and central Government last year.
Yet two of them – Atos and G4S which carried out £2billion-worth for work for the Government and public sector – paid no corporation tax at all in the UK in 2012. Capita paid between £50million and £56million, while Serco paid £25million in tax.
Atos and G4S were criticised by Margaret Hodge MP, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.
She said: “Everyone has a duty to pay their fair share in tax, but there is something particularly galling about the idea of company who gets its income from the public purse not putting its rightful contribution back in.
“Of course, we don’t actually know how much profit Atos and G4S made in the UK last year because this remains an area where there is a total lack of transparency.
“We need to lift that veil of secrecy – and again, that duty of transparency should apply particularly to those who derive their income from taxpayers’ money.”
G4S sources said that the company did not pay any corporation tax last year because it had carried one-off losses over from the previous year. Overall it said it paid around £400million in PAYE-related taxes.
An spokesman for Atos, which is carrying out fit for work tests on sick and disabled benefits claimants, said: “We don’t undertake any aggressive tax planning and everything booked in the UK is also billed here which is why HM Revenue and Customs has classified us as low risk.
“However, due to significant investment in the UK to maintain our business here as well as pension contributions, we did not make enough profit last year to qualify for Corporation Tax.”

and they've all been so successful too

The impression I have gathered over the past couple of months is that May fought the election on a hard Brexit platform hoping to capture the UKIP vote. She failed, and provoked a significant backlash (Labour vote up from 26 to 40%!)

May now is paying a lot more attention to the wide body of opinion that favours the softest possible Brexit (if not actually sticking in the EU, which is what a lot of Business actually wants.) This includes international Business, e.g. the Japanese and Germans as well as our own people.

This development coincided with a general realisation and acceptance by a lot of people like David Davis, despite being keen Brexiteers, that a sudden hard Brexit on 20th March 2019 would be a colossal disaster. It would be bad for the EU, but much worse for the UK.

Whilst it would be possible to mitigate this disaster by preparing for it, firstly we're running out of time. 18 months is cutting it very fine in terms of preparation for big businesses and governments. Secondly, serious preparations for hard Brexit will make it a lot harder to continue work for a soft Brexit.

Therefore we are having a lot less "Brexit means Brexit" rhetoric and a lot more production of actual position papers and proposals. Criticise them if you will but they are coming out steadily and form at least the basics for consultation and negotiation.

This is also why most people on the UK side have come to accept the concept of a transitional arrangement. It's a way of prolonging the negotiation for several years to get the time needed to do it properly.

@reds8n

Years ago I would have been angry, then disillusioned, but now I'm beyond anger and disillusionment.

News like that does not surprise me in the least.

I'm intentionally not commenting much on this, but on which team is negotiating in good faith, I'd say to an extent neither are.

That said, we will see soon enough the results of the negotiations, as the clock is ticking on a fixed timeframe.
Personally, I fear the worst, and I think Ireland is going to be caught in between it's neighbour and it's trading block, and squeezed to feth.

This makes me pretty annoyed, because we were happy enough with the status quo but now this change is being forced on us against our will. But that's the way of the world when you're a small, weak country. That's why we consider it better to have a seat at the big table, I suppose.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The impression I have gathered over the past couple of months is that May fought the election on a hard Brexit platform hoping to capture the UKIP vote. She failed, and provoked a significant backlash (Labour vote up from 26 to 40%!)

May now is paying a lot more attention to the wide body of opinion that favours the softest possible Brexit (if not actually sticking in the EU, which is what a lot of Business actually wants.) This includes international Business, e.g. the Japanese and Germans as well as our own people.

This development coincided with a general realisation and acceptance by a lot of people like David Davis, despite being keen Brexiteers, that a sudden hard Brexit on 20th March 2019 would be a colossal disaster. It would be bad for the EU, but much worse for the UK.

Whilst it would be possible to mitigate this disaster by preparing for it, firstly we're running out of time. 18 months is cutting it very fine in terms of preparation for big businesses and governments. Secondly, serious preparations for hard Brexit will make it a lot harder to continue work for a soft Brexit.

Therefore we are having a lot less "Brexit means Brexit" rhetoric and a lot more production of actual position papers and proposals. Criticise them if you will but they are coming out steadily and form at least the basics for consultation and negotiation.

This is also why most people on the UK side have come to accept the concept of a transitional arrangement. It's a way of prolonging the negotiation for several years to get the time needed to do it properly.

On the subject of Japan, May has promised the Japanese that HMS Argyll, one of our destroyers, will be patrolling Japan sometime in the future as part of Britain's commitment to Japan's defence against North Korean aggression or something.

From what I've heard, those destroyers are plagued with mechanical problems and would be lucky to make it past the Isle of Wight, never mind reach the Sea of Japan


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm intentionally not commenting much on this, but on which team is negotiating in good faith, I'd say to an extent neither are.

That said, we will see soon enough the results of the negotiations, as the clock is ticking on a fixed timeframe.
Personally, I fear the worst, and I think Ireland is going to be caught in between it's neighbour and it's trading block, and squeezed to feth.

This makes me pretty annoyed, because we were happy enough with the status quo but now this change is being forced on us against our will. But that's the way of the world when you're a small, weak country. That's why we consider it better to have a seat at the big table, I suppose.

As I've said before, and no disrespect to Irish dakka members, I sort of shrug my shoulders at Ireland these days, and that's not meant as an insult. I like Ireland and the Irish.

I appreciate the long and complicated history, and the border problems etc etc

But the Republic of Ireland is an independent nation, and so is the UK. We've made a peaceful, democratic decision to leave the EU.

For me, and again, I stress I mean no disrespect to Ireland, but I'm not really that bothered about what happens to the Republic. They will have to stand on their own two feet like the rest of us.

I hope people can see what I'm getting at here. I voted leave because I believed it was in the UK's best interests. What happened afterwards to Ireland, USA, North Korea, whoever, didn't factor into it at all.