Brexit View

[Angelina]

The EU officials are really showing their true colours.

[JoeLeg]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The EU officials are really showing their true

> colours.

What? Taking every opportunity to build up their negotiating position and dominate the talks?

Yes, I suppose we all expected them to roll over and invite us to scratch their belly...

Why on earth wouldn?t they take every chance they can get? It?s us that was in no way prepared for the negotiations, not them. They were ready.

[Angelina]

Dominating talks and negotiating are not the same thing.

They are not negotiating.

[JohnL]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dominating talks and negotiating are not the same

> thing.

>

> They are not negotiating.

As the former Greek Finance minister said they do a form of negotiating that is very like telling you what to do.

Am I wrong to want an organisation like that to be working in my interests though - or is that just selfish :)

4 mins or so into this video ...

[rendelharris]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The EU officials are really showing their true

> colours.

They've said that in the event of a no-deal if we want them to keep paying out for research projects etc in the UK currently funded by the EU, we'll have to keep putting money in. That's not only perfectly reasonable but sensible, otherwise current projects will be cut off without funding and concomitant loss of expertise, waste of work already done etc. What else do you expect them to say? If you leave without a deal of course we'll keep funding projects in your country with our own money?

If you look at the bottom of the article John linked to even May has said this is an issue on which she could move.

[Alan Medic]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dominating talks and negotiating are not the same

> thing.

>

> They are not negotiating.

What are you talking about? They agreed a deal with the UK. What would you like them to do?

[JoeLeg]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dominating talks and negotiating are not the same

> thing.

>

> They are not negotiating.

I?m genuinely amazed at people who think the EU wasn?t going to play hardball.

It just shows up our lack of readiness even more clearly.

Of course, if you?d like to blame the EU for our own failings then carry on. It?s hardly new.

[diable rouge]

If and when we Brexit, Leavers are in for a shock when we have to start negotiating as a single country with big hitters like the US and China...

[Angelina]

There is flexibility / elasticity of treaties/ rules and this has been applied on a number of occasions so it is not unreasonable to say that they are being rigid.

Presumably you are happy with TM / EU agreement?

[robbin]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Angelina Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Dominating talks and negotiating are not the

> same

> > thing.

> >

> > They are not negotiating.

>

> What are you talking about? They agreed a deal

> with the UK. What would you like them to do?

Actually, Alan, they didn't agree a deal with the UK. The 'deal' you refer to (the WA) was entirely conditional on approval and ratification by UK Parliament and therefore was never a 'deal' in the sense of it being any sort of concluded agreement. It was and is, no more than a proposed deal (which has now been comprehensively rejected by Parliament). The EU continues to refer to it as a deal which is not open for renegotiation, but in truth it is not a deal, because one side has never agreed to it. It is not therefore a matter of re-opening a deal. The EU should just be honest and say they are not prepared to negotiate something new, instead of suggesting there is some sort of binding agreement which the UK is seeking to re-open.

The fault may lie with the incompetence of TM and her 'negotiating' team for having signed up to the proposed deal before asking Parliament, but there is no escaping the fact that it was an entirely provisional agreement between the EU and a person who they knew did not have the power to unequivocally conclude an agreement.

What I find unacceptably disingenuous on the EU side at the moment, are the sound bites that there will be no further negotiation, coupled with the repeated criticism that the UK has not put forward a concrete proposal. If the EU is truly not prepared to countenance any negotiation (presumably because they want to batter the UK as much as possible whatever the cost to themselves) then why repeatedly ask for concrete proposals from the UK (which they are elsewhere saying would never be the subject of negotiation)? Those appear to be mutually exclusive positions.

The real answer lies, I suppose in not taking public statements of negotiating parties at face value and certainly not treating them as fact, as many people appear to do on the EDF.

[diable rouge]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Actually, Alan, they didn't agree a deal with the

> UK. The 'deal' you refer to (the WA) was entirely

> conditional on approval and ratification by UK

> Parliament and therefore was never a 'deal' in the

> sense of it being any sort of concluded agreement.

It's also conditional on being ratified by the European Parliament.

> It was and is, no more than a proposed deal

> (which has now been comprehensively rejected by

> Parliament). The EU continues to refer to it as a

> deal which is not open for renegotiation, but in

> truth it is not a deal, because one side has never

> agreed to it. It is not therefore a matter of

> re-opening a deal. The EU should just be honest

> and say they are not prepared to negotiate

> something new, instead of suggesting there is some

> sort of binding agreement which the UK is seeking

> to re-open.

To be fair, both sides as well as the press and commentators alike have constantly been referring to it as 'the deal' for quite some time now. It's a Withdrawal Agreement, a roadmap if you like for the 'actual deal' negotiated during the agreed transition period...

[robbin]

The EU negotiators must have laughed their heads off when TM agreed the proposed WA - I bet they could hardly believe their luck that they were set against a team of such incompetent negotiators/politicians. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see that the WA as drafted completely emasculated any negotiating position the UK would otherwise have, when it came to trying to agree a trade deal. Put simply, the EU could simply not agree a trade deal and the UK would be indefinitely stuck in the EU but without all of the UK's existing rights and exemptions. Hence, no motivation whatsoever for the EU to agree a trade deal and no means at the UK's disposal to force them to do so. Madness, pure madness - even the UK's own legal advice was that this was the ultimate effect of the WA (legal advice supressed until a finding of contempt forced its disclosure).

Yet, still TM is at the helm and still she is using Oliver Robbins (a civil servant with no trade negotiation experience who must have thought the WA was a good idea) in preference to Crawford Falconer, in 'negotiations'. Falconer is the head of UK trade negotiations at the DIT and a very experienced trade negotiator. I can't see how it can be a good idea for the same people who previously agreed the now busted/discredited WA to be approaching the EU on a different basis. Apart from their demonstrable incompetence and lack of relevant experience, it would surely be better for different negotiators to take up any new position?

[JoeLeg]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is flexibility / elasticity of treaties/

> rules and this has been applied on a number of

> occasions so it is not unreasonable to say that

> they are being rigid.

>

> Presumably you are happy with TM / EU agreement?

I voted Remain so I?m not happy with any of it.

[robbin]

diable rouge Wrote:

>

> To be fair, both sides as well as the press and

> commentators alike have constantly been referring

> to it as 'the deal' for quite some time now. It's

> a Withdrawal Agreement, a roadmap if you like for

> the 'actual deal' negotiated during the agreed

> transition period...

Agreed, but the fact remains that it is not a 'deal' in the sense the EU keep suggesting. TM repeatedly referred to it as a 'deal' because of her attempts to blackmail Parliament into accepting it - so it suited her to try to present it as a done deal, when all it was in reality was her (incompetent) idea of what should be acceptable. The press were encouraged to use that language and ran with it.

I still remain in a state of extreme frustration coupled with disbelief that anybody with half a brain (and with the benefit of legal advice) could ever have thought what they negotiated in the WA would be anything other than complete economic and political suicide. I read the WA carefully several times, but it was on the first quick scan through that it became readily apparent that it was utter nonsense. I read it more than I needed to, mostly because it was so stupid I thought I must have missed something, so had to keep double checking!

[JohnL]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If and when we Brexit, Leavers are in for a shock

> when we have to start negotiating as a single

> country with big hitters like the US and China...

My thoughts exactly - If we struggle with the Brexit talks we'll be steamrollered by the US and China (and others)

[Angelina]

One would strongly hope we get May moved out and get decent negotiators in

[JohnL]

Ahh a twist from yesterday I didn't notice.

Some in the EU are suggesting that the backstop issue can be resolved ... by committing to a permanent Customs Union. That might bring Jeremy Corbyn and Labour on board to support Mays deal thus over-riding the ERG (and now she's talking to him). May could sell it as something a future PM could rescind to allow UK independent trade negotiations.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/ministers-think-a-permanent-customs-union-with-the-eu-is

[alex_b]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yet, still TM is at the helm and still she is

> using Oliver Robbins (a civil servant with no

> trade negotiation experience who must have thought

> the WA was a good idea) in preference to Crawford

> Falconer, in 'negotiations'. Falconer is the head

> of UK trade negotiations at the DIT and a very

> experienced trade negotiator.

The same Crawford Falconer was previously funded by the Legatum Institute, an opaque 'think thank' funded at least in part by foreign billionaires who expect to make significant money by the damage Brexit will do to the UK economy? At the very least he has an apparent conflict of interest that makes him unsuitable to be a UK negotiator.

[alex_b]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The EU does not need to have completed an adequacy

> assessment of the UK's (obviously) GDPR compliant

> position before any personal data can flow -

> individual users of the data in question will need

> to show they are GDPR compliant - which as you

> will have seen over the last year or more has been

> something of a national obsession and now

> businesses are compliant (or should be by now).

> They should be able to satisfy the GDPR issues by

> amending their contracts, but that is a small

> issue and can be very quickly taken care of. There

> are EU compliant (accepted by the EU as compliant)

> model contractual clauses which can be used for

> that purpose (or so I understand).

It looks like TechUK disagree with you too (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/31/no_deal_brexit_smes/) and they should be pretty expert in these matters. "Companies are not required to open existing contracts in order to add these clauses in ? and that the EU firms are using this as leverage to renegotiate other elements of the terms." and also "The legality of SCCs are also being challenged in the Court of Justice of the European Union, which poses a potential risk for firms planning to switch to them."

Both of these were points I made in my first and follow up posts.

The points about adequacy are also not in your favour, absent the presumption of compliance by being an EU member our domestic surveillance programme is likely to get significant scrutiny. Which is also addressed in this article.

[JohnL]

Very softly softly Lithuania is after our FinTechs

"In particular, the Lithuanian delegation led by Marius Jurgilas, a board member at the Bank of Lithuania ...

'We are not saying that we will be attracting top firms from the fintech hub of the world, which is and always will be London, to the new booming financial sector in Lithuania, no,? he said. ?But there is a huge flow of firms ? and we want to participate in that flow ? who want to hedge the risk of Brexit.'"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalleneurope/2018/10/28/how-has-lithuania-become-one-of-europes-most-exciting-fintech-hotspots/

[robbin]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Yet, still TM is at the helm and still she is

> > using Oliver Robbins (a civil servant with no

> > trade negotiation experience who must have

> thought

> > the WA was a good idea) in preference to

> Crawford

> > Falconer, in 'negotiations'. Falconer is the

> head

> > of UK trade negotiations at the DIT and a very

> > experienced trade negotiator.

>

> The same Crawford Falconer was previously funded

> by the Legatum Institute, an opaque 'think thank'

> funded at least in part by foreign billionaires

> who expect to make significant money by the damage

> Brexit will do to the UK economy? At the very

> least he has an apparent conflict of interest that

> makes him unsuitable to be a UK negotiator.

Odd that this notion of conflict hasn't been mentioned before. What is your source for alleging he was 'funded by' the Legatum Institute (also do you say he continues to be funded by them)?

On the issue of conflict, are you at all troubled by Olly Robbins having been a member of the Oxford (University) Reform Club - a club that promoted a federal European Union, or is conflict only a conflict if it exists on the side you disagree with?

To be clear - I don't care whether it would be Falconer or some other expert in international trade negotiation representing the UK, so long as they are experts and have proper real world experience in trade negotiations. Robbins plainly falls short on that (quite apart from his well known EU federalist leanings). After studying PPE at Oxford he graduated and went straight into the civil service. He's a career Sir Humphrey, yet he is leading this shambles. Does it not concern you that he thought the WA was acceptable (when it plainly wasn't)? Do you not question whether he is the right person to carry on with the shambolic negotiations, having already proved that's the best he could do?

[snowy]

It's not hard to google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Crawford+Falconer+was+previously+funded+by+the+Legatum+Institute&rlz=1C1GCEU_en-gbGB834GB834&oq=Crawford+Falconer+was+previously+funded+by+the+Legatum+Institute&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[robbin]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> >

> It looks like TechUK disagree with you too

> (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/31/no_deal_

> brexit_smes/) and they should be pretty expert in

> these matters. "Companies are not required to open

> existing contracts in order to add these clauses

> in ? and that the EU firms are using this as

> leverage to renegotiate other elements of the

> terms." and also "The legality of SCCs are also

> being challenged in the Court of Justice of the

> European Union, which poses a potential risk for

> firms planning to switch to them."

>

> Both of these were points I made in my first and

> follow up posts.

>

I'm sure you can find lots of interested groups that would express a different opinion. Check out what the Daily Mail says - I think one of their journalists disagreed with what I have said as well. But, that doesn't make them right.

I was basing some of my views on the information produced by the Information Commissioner (and my knowledge of the law)- I would hope the IC has a decent handle on Brexit's effect on information flows, even if I don't.

TechUK makes some interesting points but they are often skewed by political views, rather than focussing on the law and the facts. Don't overlook the fact that TechUK is basically a lobbying group for the IT industry. It is also a vocal supporter for 'remain', so although stressing all the problems the UK might have, there is precious little coverage given to the other side of the equation - that EU companies/countries will want/need data to flow just as much as we do, so will be motivated to sort things out.

It is that blinkered approach to debate that frustrates me - some of my fellow remainers (i.e. most on EDF, but not those you meet in the real world) obsess over dangers/obstacles as they affect the UK, but will completely ignore the other side's similar problems. To do that is na?ve and ignores the fact that businesses on both sides are motivated to sort things out, whether there is a deal or no deal.

[alex_b]

It?s pretty widely known ?Falconer, who works in Liam Fox?s Department for International Trade, was previously New Zealand?s representative to the World Trade Organization. He worked with pro-Brexit thinktank the Legatum Institute before being brought into government.? (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/30/theresa-may-under-pressure-to-revamp-brexit-negotiating-team). I was not aware of Robbin?s history but I think there?s a qualitative difference between being a member of a club at Uni and being paid by foreign billionaires directly before joining government. I cannot believe that he?s still funded by them, but the appearance of conflict is still there. If you show me an equivalent conflict then of course I?ll criticise it.

I?m a remainder so I think the WA is terrible and the political declaration is even worse. Brexit is a moronic idea that will always leave us worse of, so any Brexit deal will be unacceptable to me. However, given May?s red lines I?m at a loss to see how we would have reached a better outcome. Since you?re a leave me, why don?t you sketch out a WA and PD that you think would be better and also acceptable to both sides.

[robbin]

alex-b wrote:

"Since you?re a leave me, why don?t you sketch out a WA and PD that you think would be better and also acceptable to both sides."

Yawn. First of all your blinkers have led you to the wrong conclusion. Just because everyone doesn't hold the same extreme views as you, doesn't mean they are a "leave me" [sic]. As I have pointed out a number of times (latterly in my last post before yours) I voted to remain. It's just that my mind is not closed to every other viewpoint and I don't think everything in the debate is black or white (as you seemingly do). In fact, I think overall there is much more grey than black or white combined. Smouldering resentment and anger tends to cause people to see things more in terms of black and white absolutes - something which continues to hinder proper debate to this day on this issue (on both sides).

So no, I hope you will forgive me for not responding to the stock invitation one hears from annoyed remainers (to set out my own WA and PD). That said, if push comes to shove I would accept the WA and PD as they are but without any mechanism (i.e. the 'backstop') for keeping the UK tied up forever while simultaneously removing any bargaining power for the UK and removing any motivation for the EU to agree a trade deal. There - having said I wouldn't do it - I have.