Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

Detailed (if perhaps not entirely impartial) critique of issues with EFTA membership

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/peter-mandelson-why-a-norway-style-brexit-would-be-a-disaster-for-britain-1-5808510

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I voted Remain.

I met a Romanian lawyer friend in the City for lunch recently - well half-Romanian, half English - who voted Leave - one of the reasons being she objected to the brain drain in Romania as a result of Romania joining the EU. She was also against Romania joining the EU because she didn't want EU money going to Romanian government officials due to the high levels of corruption in Romania that prevent the money being spent on improving infrastructure or the people who actually need it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/30/romanians-uk-tragedy-homeland-corruption-poverty

So by voting Remain I seem to be supporting short-term benefits to the British economy from cheap labour, at the cost of stripping resources from poorer economies in Europe. Cheap foreign labour also seems an easy political win for the government compared to investing in increasing home-grown productivity, assuming it is even possible to motivate enough local people to be more productive - as many don't appear to see any benefit to them by being more productive - and it may be that businesses will have to increasingly rely on AI and hope that enough profitable businesses and investors pay enough tax to sustain British infrastructure, healthcare, policing and welfare.

The current fall in the pound, which increases the price of imports, seems to have led to the Bank of England signalling its intention to raise interest rates to try to curb inflation, so cost of borrowing for consumers and home-owners will go up. However a lower pound would reduce our export prices, which could increase demand for our exports, so could be a boost for the economy eventually once we spend a few months/ years finalising new trade deals. Unless of course our wages go up, which pushes up prices.

IMO people who think that leaving the EU is worth the short-term cost to the economy should have done  the hard job of becoming involved in politics and persuading other people to support their view and taken on the responsibility of being publicly held accountable for their decisions. I have no interest in letting the unaccountable many dictate what happens to the economy if they aren't going to be actually doing the work of formulating and implementing national strategies and being held accountable for increases in the cost of living, which will impact poor people much harder than richer people.

Businesses and the public sector could rely on non-EU un-skilled and skilled labour (non-EU migrant numbers have increased) if they can't recruit local people. It's also possible the government thinks they and /or businesses don't have the funds or ability to devise, implement and monitor training schemes for local people. It depends on if you subscribe to the idea that immigrant employees tend to be more resilient, resourceful and flexible because they were prepared to take the risk of moving out of their comfort zone to an alien country. 

We manage our recruitment shortages by using foreign labour but they stay in their country and work on our servers in the Cloud. But I realise this is not an option where a business or the public sector needs its workforce to be physically present in this country.

[jakswan]

Not exactly sure what you are saying here.

May's deal is the only deal on the table agreed by both the UK and the EU for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU and the arrangements for the immediate period post-29th March (so called transitional period) during which a final deal between the EU ad the UK is expected to be negotiated and agreed (based on the aspirational political statement).

Joining EFTA cannot be the withdrawal arrangement for obvious reasons that I have stated previously. The UK cold propose that is becomes a member of EFTA for the final arrangement, but cannot do this unilaterally - firstly (and obviously the EFTA 4 would need to agree this) but secondly the EU would need to be convinced that the arrangement satisfied the internationally legally binding agreement  of the withdrawal agreement - specifically on Northern Ireland.

And of course finally EFTA membership would need to be politically acceptable to the government, parliament and in the country at large. As I've pointed out previously I'd imagine that a proposed EFTA permanent solution would rank very highest on the 'betrayal' scale - bringing together brexiteers who would feel betrayed that this was 'Brexit in name only' (requiring freedom of movement, EJC involvement, payments to the EU etc etc), plus also remainers who would feel that remain would have won the referendum, if the choice was EU membership or EU membership-lite (i.e. EFTA).

Plus I'm not convinced it would be considered politically or democratically acceptable to join EFTA without a specific referendum on membership.

So, yes EFTA membership is a possibility, but it is fraught with complexities, so it isn't a simple solution.

As far as I can tell this has to get through Parliament and EFTA is the only thing that can.

[jakswan]

I have no interest in letting the unaccountable many dictate what happens to the economy if they aren't going to be actually doing the work of formulating and implementing national strategies and being held accountable for increases in the cost of living, which will impact poor people much harder than richer people.

The unaccountable many always indirectly dictate what happens to the economy. They elected the politicians (Labour - LibDem - Tories) that in turn gave the many the referendum. 

[ProfessorDavey]

As far as I can tell this has to get through Parliament and EFTA is the only thing that can.

But as I keep saying what we are discussing in parliament at the moment is a withdrawal agreement with the EU - it matters not whether 650 out of 650 MPs support ultimate EFTA membership - it is a current irrelevant to the agreement for withdrawal from the EU. Sure parliament can suggest EFTA membership in the longer term but that isn't in their whim - the decision lies with 4 completely separate countries that aren't either the UK or the other EU27.

To use an analogy - it is a bit like being in the middle of a divorce involving lawyers on both sides deciding who get the kids, the house, the cat, payment etc etc. And saying the way to solve the divorce is to marry someone else. You might do that once divorced, but that is for the future and your desire to do that butters no parsnips in terms of agreeing the divorce settlement.

[Udayana]

On the withdrawal agreement itself, can anyone explain which bits Labour think need re-negotiating that couldn't be negotiated as part of the long term trade agreement?

[jakswan]

But as I keep saying what we are discussing in parliament at the moment is a withdrawal agreement with the EU - it matters not whether 650 out of 650 MPs support ultimate EFTA membership - it is a current irrelevant to the agreement for withdrawal from the EU. Sure parliament can suggest EFTA membership in the longer term but that isn't in their whim - the decision lies with 4 completely separate countries that aren't either the UK or the other EU27.

If May promises to allow Parliament to dictate the terms after leaving or at least give them a veto then they could vote through May's deal, knowing that they can probably get EFTA.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The unaccountable many always indirectly dictate what happens to the economy. They elected the politicians (Labour - LibDem - Tories) that in turn gave the many the referendum.

I have heard a few people on LBC who voted Leave say that they are not going to bother voting in the next election if they can't get the Brexit they were promised.

I would be ok with them not voting if they can't make a choice from what's on offer or if they don't want to get involved in politics themselves to influence election manifestos so that something that they claim has widespread public support is put forward. Currently, it's hard to tell what form of Brexit, if any, has the most public support.

I'm fine with trying the experiment of leaving with May's deal or no deal as the short-term economic costs won't affect me too much - my mortgage is paid off, I have no loans, and even if food prices and cost of goods rise or there are supply shortages, I am used to budgeting and keeping my expenses low and fasting during Ramadan. Higher energy and fuel prices would be the main problem but not cripplingly so. I would be interested to see what kind of trade deals Brexiters could pull off if we left with no deal.

But I can see why May's government is taking a more cautious, less cavalier attitude to negative economic considerations, since the public aren't going to let them off with "I told you so" if there are shortages and loss in economic resources due to the logistical problems of inspections and implementing regulations.

[Aruntraveller]

I'm saying something quite disparaging about people.

I could be wrong but I get the impression that you sit on your left leaning high horse with an air of moral superiority and sneer at those evil tories, ignorant it seems that you are but one vote. If all the other votes start going into another dangerous direction its nothing to do with you right?

Yes you are wrong.

Next.

[Udayana]

...
I'm fine with trying the experiment of leaving with May's deal or no deal as the short-term economic costs won't affect me too much - my mortgage is paid off, I have no loans, and even if food prices and cost of goods rise or there are supply shortages, I am used to budgeting and keeping my expenses low and fasting during Ramadan. Higher energy and fuel prices would be the main problem but not cripplingly so. I would be interested to see what kind of trade deals Brexiters could pull off if we left with no deal.
...

Oh yeah, could be a rerun of the 70's when we all had so much fun. Cosy evenings around the fire when the power was off, friendly chats around the stand pipes. Strikes, not having to work and neo-nazi gangs roaming the streets!

[jakswan]

Yes you are wrong.

Next.

Doesn't sound like I'am.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Oh yeah, could be a rerun of the 70's when we all had so much fun. Cosy evenings around the fire when the power was off, friendly chats around the stand pipes. Strikes, not having to work and neo-nazi gangs roaming the streets!

The 3 day week was around the time I came to the UK, and was too young to remember the experience. But i do remember the 'Winter of Discontent'. Though the current winter seems quite warm compared to that.

Yes the short-term impact seems likely to be high - for some people more than others, especially the poorer sectors of society.

The impact on import and export of pharmaceuticals is the most worrying for me - this is a highly regulated sector and stuff can't come in or go out without adhering to an agreement about standards. If there is no deal is there a process waiting to be put into motion to replicate the current agreements that the EU has about standards and regulations - so it will be as if we haven't left? Or do we have to wait and go without medicines while those regulatory agreements are signed?

More than 80% of the UK's economic output is from services. I am wondering about the proposed terms of trade agreements that Brexiteers hope to negotiate and secure for the service sectors in order for them to continue operating if we exit without a deal. What, if any, changes do the Brexiteers want to see to existing agreements, and why do they think other countries or the EU will agree to them?

Some of the Brexiteers say it is still better to accept WTO rules but I have not seen the detail on what the non-tariff barriers such as regulations and standards will look like in the event of no deal. How long will agreements on this take to negotiate and what happens until they are negotiated? If tariffs and quotas means our economic output drops and cost of imports rises not sure the public will be sanguine about it. No doubt some will be looking for a sector of society to blame for the negative impact and not sure they will ever get the trade deal they want in the future either, so will they keep looking for someone to blame or will they be pragmatic and make the best of the situation?

[Aruntraveller]

Doesn't sound like I'am.

Have it your own way. You clearly have mind reading abilities the rest of us lack. I wouldn't call you a fantasist or a liar, but it doesn't sound like I'm wrong.

 

[jeremyp]

Do they, you sure about that, wrong in 2015, 2016, 2017 of the top of my head.

The last few polls have shown Remain with a clear majority that exceeds the error bars of most of them.

Also, you should read the article PD posted about how the numbers are inevitably going towards Remain.

So what, if many start to vote for the far right, that is a price worth paying is it?

How would you vote for the Far Right in a referendum on Brexit?

For a democracy to survive it has to be about compromise and to have a healthy majority they have to feel its fair.

Currently, the two extremes don't want to compromise and their failure to do so is dangerous.

The problem is that the compromise position i.e. Norway is a deal that nobody really likes. It basically leaves USA in the EU but with no say on how the rules are made.

[jakswan]

The last few polls have shown Remain with a clear majority that exceeds the error bars of most of them.

Really?

https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/daily-express-voting-intention-and-brexit-poll-2018/

Also, you should read the article PD posted about how the numbers are inevitably going towards Remain.

Which one?

How would you vote for the Far Right in a referendum on Brexit?

They would not be on the ballot paper.

The problem is that the compromise position i.e. Norway is a deal that nobody really likes. It basically leaves USA in the EU but with no say on how the rules are made.

Assume you mean us, we would be out of EU and in EFTA, end of political union. A compromise is what is needed now.

[jakswan]

Oh yeah, could be a rerun of the 70's when we all had so much fun. Cosy evenings around the fire when the power was off, friendly chats around the stand pipes. Strikes, not having to work and neo-nazi gangs roaming the streets!

Little do with EU, rest assured Corbyn will bring those times back.

[ProfessorDavey]

Assume you mean us, we would be out of EU and in EFTA, end of political union. A compromise is what is needed now.

The hard line brexiteers are in no mood to compromise and they would undoubtedly consider EFTA membership not to be brexit.

And EFTA membership fails on just about all of the 'red lines' of both the current UK government and the EU, e.g.:

Frictionless border in Ireland - fail
End freedom of movement - fail
End jurisdiction of EJC - fail
No payments to EU - fail
It is also no implementable by the negotiating parties, i.e. the UK and EU27, so effectively cannot be part of the withdrawal agreement

Now don't get me wrong, as a remainer, of all the brexit scenarios around EFTA is probably the best as it is closest to what we currently have (although of course being a member of the EU is better). However I'm not naive enough to think that EFTA is some magic bullet politically - it isn't.

You are actually beginning to sound as if you have a guilty conscience - realising that that you made an awful mistake voting leave and trying to salve your guilt by proposing EFTA as a kind of back door way to remain rather than perhaps admitting that you made the wrong choice in 2016. Why on earth would you prefer EFTA membership to EU membership?

[jakswan]

The hard line brexiteers are in no mood to compromise and they would undoubtedly consider EFTA membership not to be brexit.

So we shouldn't compromise because some won't compromise?

And EFTA membership fails on just about all of the 'red lines' of both the current UK government and the EU, e.g.:

Frictionless border in Ireland - fail backstop added
End freedom of movement - fail does freedom of movement of workers
End jurisdiction of EJC - fail only applies to goods
No payments to EU - fail much less

It is also no implementable by the negotiating parties, i.e. the UK and EU27, so effectively cannot be part of the withdrawal agreement

Agreed but possible post Brexit.

Now don't get me wrong, as a remainer, of all the brexit scenarios around EFTA is probably the best as it is closest to what we currently have (although of course being a member of the EU is better). However I'm not naive enough to think that EFTA is some magic bullet politically - it isn't.

Never claimed a magic bullet claimed it was the only thing that could get through parliament. Take three people, centre ground leaver, remainer and hard line Brexiteer and instruct them to come up with consensus, the only way forward is EFTA.
 

You are actually beginning to sound as if you have a guilty conscience - realising that that you made an awful mistake voting leave and trying to salve your guilt by proposing EFTA as a kind of back door way to remain rather than perhaps admitting that you made the wrong choice in 2016. Why on earth would you prefer EFTA membership to EU membership?

Check back I think you will find I have always favoured EFTA the biggest issue I have with EU is political union.

[ProfessorDavey]

Frictionless border in Ireland - fail backstop added

In other words also adding customs union (e.g. as we have now single market and customs union)

End freedom of movement - fail does freedom of movement of workers

Nope - actually EFTA/Nowray model is more relaxed still on freedom of movement as Schengen is also required.

End jurisdiction of EJC - fail only applies to goods

Nope - we would be in EEA and therefore signed up to single market which applies to goods and services.

No payments to EU - fail much less

How much will depend on level of access, but not zero.

Point being that the Norway/EFTA/EEA model fails many of the red lines of the UK and EU (I'm not saying I agree with those red lines merely reflecting their existence in reality).  Norway/EFTA/EEA+customs union gets over the NI issue but moves even further from the UK's red lines.

Interesting segment on this on Today/radio 4 just now. Beyond confirming the points I've made above the contributors raised a further point. The EU is comfortable with small/tiny countries in EFTA/EEA, precisely because they are small and have no meaningful destabilising effect on the core EU - there is no guarantee that the EU would agree to the UK being in that situation, and that is in addition to the fact that the EFTA4 might not agree and it seems that 3 of the 4 countries are lukewarm at best.

[jakswan]

Interesting segment on this on Today/radio 4 just now. Beyond confirming the points I've made above the contributors raised a further point. The EU is comfortable with small/tiny countries in EFTA/EEA, precisely because they are small and have no meaningful destabilising effect on the core EU - there is no guarantee that the EU would agree to the UK being in that situation, and that is in addition to the fact that the EFTA4 might not agree and it seems that 3 of the 4 countries are lukewarm at best.

As I understand it EU effectively offered UK Norway or Canada.

I wouldn't go in too hard on EFTA because that is your preferred option.

Lets you and me come to a consensus with the help of a hypothetical hard line Brexiteer, let's call him Larry.

Another referendum - loses 2 votes to 1
No Deal - loses 2 to 1
EFTA - Larry still wants leave accepts this isn't the Brexit he wanted but at least it's leaving so might vote for it, I vote for it.

By the way I think another referendum is more damaging than no deal, besides the way EU countries are going we could see the hard right running France and Germany soon, so unless you support EFTA that is what is coming.

Post EFTA we move on, you and Larry have had to make compromises I get what I want.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I understand it EU effectively offered UK Norway or Canada.

Where on earth do you get that from. The EU have offered the current deal - it is what they have signed up to and ratified.

Lets you and me come to a consensus with the help of a hypothetical hard line Brexiteer, let's call him Larry.

Another referendum - loses 2 votes to 1
No Deal - loses 2 to 1
EFTA - Larry still wants leave accepts this isn't the Brexit he wanted but at least it's leaving so might vote for it, I vote for it.

Not sure I understand your argument, but there are plenty of hard line brexiteers for whom EFTA/Norway is the worst of all possible outcomes - in their minds it isn't really leaving the EU but also means we have no say in the rules that still apply to us.

By the way I think another referendum is more damaging than no deal, besides the way EU countries are going we could see the hard right running France and Germany soon, so unless you support EFTA that is what is coming.

Hypothetical non-sense - we've had scaremongering that the hard right will take over France (LePen), Germany, Netherlands, Austria etc etc for years - it never happens. And even if it were to happen in some future period, a referendum would need to be held in the next 6 months or so (if after 29th March we'd need a limited extension to article 50, which the EU would be happy to give on the basis of allowing a referendum to take place). The referendum would need to include deliverable and/or agreed options - so at maximum May's deal, no deal, remain. Whichever way the public votes the option is deliverable - we sign the May deal, we revoke article 50 or we do neither of the above and leave without a deal.

The EU can no more tweak the deal they have ratified than we can.

Post EFTA we move on, you and Larry have had to make compromises I get what I want.

And when will that be, pray tell. We cannot even apply to EFTA until we have left, and therefore we have to have a transitional agreement. Remember all we are discussing in parliament is the transitional (withdrawal agreement) - if this is ratified we will be onto discussion on the final landing point - the permanent arrangement. There is not a cat in hell's change that Farage, JRM, Boris etc etc are simply going to say, 'sure EFTA, fine with me' - we will start the whole debate once again on the final deal, and sorting that out will take years - I'd say perhaps 4 years with a decent following wind (Canada took 7 years).

The sad truth is that if we leave we will not be able to move on from the endless debate about final situation until probably 2024 at the earliest.

And I don't mean the notion that whatever is decided there will be a very substantial minority who hate it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

By the way I think another referendum is more damaging than no deal, besides the way EU countries are going we could see the hard right running France and Germany soon, so unless you support EFTA that is what is coming.

If the argument is that the will of the people should be taken into consideration, another referendum is inevitable. I don't understand the argument that the will of the people at a particular point in time is the only feedback that should be taken into consideration. The majority decision or "will of the people" presumably can change if new information becomes available that wasn't available when they voted previously. Presumably Brexit or Remain aren't dogmatic beliefs regardless of new information.   

I can understand the argument that some Brexit supporters (especially those with a big wallet) have a bigger appetite for risk than other Brexit supporters or Remain supporters  - so in a potential economic conflict situation such as leaving with no deal, some Brexit supporters will calculate that the EU as well as the UK will be economically damaged and that it is worth taking the risk that the EU may eventually be inclined to negotiate different terms once they have felt the economic impact of trade disruption.

I am not sure if those Brexit supporters who say they don't care about post-Brexit (deal or no deal) economic hardship and deprivation see the issue as one of national pride and resilience against deprivation in the face of the enemy circa. 1939. They presumably see the EU as failing to deliver enough of what is of value to them, whereby it makes it worth the price of membership. But a lot of the issues they blame on the EU are actually failures of the UK government to invest in infrastructure or the result of administrative incompetence, especially when it comes to border controls. 

[jakswan]

Where on earth do you get that from. The EU have offered the current deal - it is what they have signed up to and ratified.

In initial negotiations it was either Canada or Norway, Norway was taken off the table because of May's red lines.

Tusk said:-
"The EU cannot grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Canada"

https://euobserver.com/uk-referendum/141238

 

Not sure I understand your argument, but there are plenty of hard line brexiteers for whom EFTA/Norway is the worst of all possible outcomes - in their minds it isn't really leaving the EU but also means we have no say in the rules that still apply to us.

They do not have a veto on where end up, it is impossible to come out of this situation with everyone happy. Both extremes Hard Brexiteers and Remainiacs have to compromise.

You don't seem to even want to contemplate compromise.

Hypothetical non-sense - we've had scaremongering that the hard right will take over France (LePen), Germany, Netherlands, Austria etc etc for years - it never happens.

Did you forget to mention Hungary and Poland, or Italy where the far right are in a coalition and have a Deputy Prime Minister?

https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-and-poland-say-no-to-lgbtiq/

France is in flames, Merkel is in trouble, Italy on the brink of recession.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44168602

And even if it were to happen in some future period, a referendum would need to be held in the next 6 months or so (if after 29th March we'd need a limited extension to article 50, which the EU would be happy to give on the basis of allowing a referendum to take place). The referendum would need to include deliverable and/or agreed options - so at maximum May's deal, no deal, remain. Whichever way the public votes the option is deliverable - we sign the May deal, we revoke article 50 or we do neither of the above and leave without a deal.

So lets gets this straight you now want the options on the Losers Vote (Peoples Vote my arse), to be:-

1. Remain
2. No Deal
3. May's Deal

Simple the question should be EXACTLY the same as last one but with options in the event of No result, Norway or Canada / EFTA - Free Trade.

So we are voting on the transition deal? Why would we do that, surely the most democratic way would be to vote on the direction of travel, e.g. Norway or Canada. May's deal doesn't rule out either as I understand it. Not that I think another referendum is the way to go.

The EU can no more tweak the deal they have ratified than we can.

The deal isn't ratified.

And when will that be, pray tell. We cannot even apply to EFTA until we have left, and therefore we have to have a transitional agreement. Remember all we are discussing in parliament is the transitional (withdrawal agreement) - if this is ratified we will be onto discussion on the final landing point - the permanent arrangement. There is not a cat in hell's change that Farage, JRM, Boris etc etc are simply going to say, 'sure EFTA, fine with me' - we will start the whole debate once again on the final deal, and sorting that out will take years - I'd say perhaps 4 years with a decent following wind (Canada took 7 years).

Yes take May's deal then go for Norway, there will be debates over that, the majority in Parliament will dictate which direction we go in. 

The biggest stumbling block on a trade deal is alignment, we are currently 100% aligned. Norway with a backstop can be done in no time at all if all parties agreed.

The sad truth is that if we leave we will not be able to move on from the endless debate about final situation until probably 2024 at the earliest.

And I don't mean the notion that whatever is decided there will be a very substantial minority who hate it.

I think you will find once we leave, Norway will become the majority view in Parliament and the country.

Imagine we have left, this debate runs to 100+ pages and I would guess biggest contributors have been us two.

We leave in March 2019, our debate is over since we both agree that next we should go for Norway.

[jeremyp]

Really?

https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/daily-express-voting-intention-and-brexit-poll-2018/

Yes

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/12/05/latest-yougov-tracker-finds-the-brexit-wrong-lead-over-right-in-double-figures-at-record-level/

Which one?

It's quite a few pages back now, but yougov analysed the breakdown of people who have likely died since the vote and people who have come of age i.e. reached their 18th birthday and how they would likely vote. Even if nobody changed their minds, by January of next year, the figures of the referendum will be reversed.

They would not be on the ballot paper.

Huh?

You were the one claiming people would be voting far right. I want to know how they would vote far right given that a far right option would not be on any ballot paper for the referendum. I'm not sure what a far right option is anyway.

A compromise is what is needed now.

A sane option is what we need now, one that doesn't damage our economy or destroy our relationships with the other EU nations and gives us some influence over the direction Europe moves in the future. The only option that firs those criteria is Remain.

[jeremyp]

So we shouldn't compromise because some won't compromise?

You can't compromise if some won't compromise. That's the definition of "won't compromise". In my opinion, the hardline Brexiteers should have been told to shove it up their arses a while ago. Unfortunately, that would cause the collapse of May's government, so she won't do it.