Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

That sort of conceptualize though is why people voted leave.

Damn Jake. Way to break up the EU.

It's kind of like saying "THIS is why I wanted a divorce" once the lawyers start getting hostile during the division of assets. Like... who cares if you can find extra reasons to justify the divorce now? That decision has already been made. Similarly, your obstinacy is frustrating to us, but that's rather to be expected at this point of the process. Whining about it changes nothing.

As I said, I think talks will collapse. The EU seems terrible enough at actually getting things past all its member states these days. Don't see how everyone adopting the position of feuding separating spouses makes it anymore likely that a deal will actually be hashed out.

Certainly they won't be done in two years with a nice neat trade deal.
Hopefully this should mean Britain gets a stay of execution rather than just being unceremoniously dumped out to become a 3rd world basket case.
Though given the insanity of the brexiters....

Only if a stay of execution gets passed by the remaining membership.

[The Larch]

What was the original source of this 100 billion anyway?
Certainly I know it was up to 100 billion, not 100 billion for certain.
A quick google suggests it came from financial times calculations based on data they'd gathered.

Yes, it's an estimation from the FT guessing things from the information that has been known about what each country wants to include. i believe it comes from this article:

https://www.ft.com/content/cc7eed42-2f49-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

At this point everything is guesswork and speculation, as not even the formula to calculate the payment has been greed.

[The Minsky Moment]

£14bn and the net payment is lower because we benefit from many EU programs.

But that doesn't matter, I'm interested in why the number is being presented in a way that is bound to annoy many people.

Well it will annoy people in the UK, but that's not the only target audience here.
Barnier looks out from his desk and sees that over 40% of voters in his home country are set to vote for an anti-EU presidential candidate.
The EU is in a tricky position because they are caught between the desire for a smooth departure for the UK that doesn't disrupt cross-border trade and logistics chains, and the desire to send the message that Exit Doesn't Pay. With populists surging on the continent, the latter influence may loom ever larger.

Unfortunately, Tamas has it right about relative bargaining position.  Bad Brexit would be bad news for Ireland, but basically an inconvenience for the EU writ large.  Is there any major politician in the EU worried about the political impact on them if Brexit goes south?   I doubt it.  The UK is banking on the EU pols to be mature and do the "right thing" despite the lack of any real consequence for failing to do so.  It could happen but it's a dicey assumption.  Situation is fluid but right now it looks there is also little room for divide et impera and the UK seems to have figured out that would just backfire.  In the face of Brexit it's only natural for the remaining states to circle the wagons and the charts posted on this thread back that up.

I do think if the folks that matter in Europe were put into a room they would come to some consensus that it's worth the EU's while to make some compromises to soften Brexit and a reasonable deal could be hammered out.  Alas real life doesn't work that way. 

[Josquius]

What was the original source of this 100 billion anyway?
Certainly I know it was up to 100 billion, not 100 billion for certain.
A quick google suggests it came from financial times calculations based on data they'd gathered.

Yes, it's an estimation from the FT guessing things from the information that has been known about what each country wants to include. i believe it comes from this article:

https://www.ft.com/content/cc7eed42-2f49-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

At this point everything is guesswork and speculation, as not even the formula to calculate the payment has been greed.

So Europe has never mentioned 100 billion and this whole thing is just the Tories trying to bang the "sod you Johnny foreigner" drum?

That.... Makes things even more pathetic

[Gups]

What was the original source of this 100 billion anyway?
Certainly I know it was up to 100 billion, not 100 billion for certain.
A quick google suggests it came from financial times calculations based on data they'd gathered.

Yes, it's an estimation from the FT guessing things from the information that has been known about what each country wants to include. i believe it comes from this article:

https://www.ft.com/content/cc7eed42-2f49-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

At this point everything is guesswork and speculation, as not even the formula to calculate the payment has been greed.

So Europe has never mentioned 100 billion and this whole thing is just the Tories trying to bang the "sod you Johnny foreigner" drum?

That.... Makes things even more pathetic

No. It's the Financial Times analysis of the impact of statements made by the EU. As Larch just said. And as I said earlier. Try to keep up.

[Agelastus]

What was the original source of this 100 billion anyway?
Certainly I know it was up to 100 billion, not 100 billion for certain.
A quick google suggests it came from financial times calculations based on data they'd gathered.

Yes, it's an estimation from the FT guessing things from the information that has been known about what each country wants to include. i believe it comes from this article:

https://www.ft.com/content/cc7eed42-2f49-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

At this point everything is guesswork and speculation, as not even the formula to calculate the payment has been greed.

So Europe has never mentioned 100 billion and this whole thing is just the Tories trying to bang the "sod you Johnny foreigner" drum?

That.... Makes things even more pathetic

Depends on whether or not you consider the sources of a paper that a former Tory cabinet minister described on TV last night as the "Daily Remainer"* as being likely to be accurate or not.

The link appears to be to the same article that Gupta kindly posted an excerpt of a page or so ago for the benefit of those blocked by the FT's paywall.


*A comparison I didn't particularly consider to be accurate or appropriate, mind, but it was made.

[The Minsky Moment]

Churchill spoke of magnanimity in victory, his party has fallen far, far from the tree.  I've never seen a bigger bunch of sore winners until Trump came around.

[Zanza]

How the UK government is making a successful Brexit difficult

Here is a thought experiment: what would it take, in practice, for a UK government to self-sabotage a "successful" Brexit? And how would that differ from current policy?

   We all know the government's position is that "Brexit means Brexit" and that Britain will make "a success of it". We also know that, now Article 50 has been triggered, the UK will not be a member of the EU in two years' time (unless something happens which cannot currently be foreseen). Brexit will therefore take place, whether it is to be a success or not.

There are perhaps at least three ways in which a "successful" Brexit could be sabotaged. But the curious thing about each one is that it seems to describe what the current prime minister and her government are doing in practice. This is odd as presumably the intention of the government is that Brexit will be successful. But there are reasons for those who want Brexit to be a success to be concerned.

Wasting time

The first way that a successful Brexit would be sabotaged is by wasting time.

Time is crucial because of the way Article 50 is structured. The two-year time limit is both strict and consequential. The exit date can only be changed as part of the exit agreement or by the unanimous agreement of all 28 EU member states.

But what is the government doing in the critical first few months of the two years? It has decided not to get on with the job but to have a general election instead. This means it will be June before any proper negotiations can start.

This general election is likely to benefit the governing Conservative party in domestic political terms, but in respect of the exit period, the effect can only be negative. There is not time to waste, but the government is wasting it anyway. The supposed justification that the election is needed to strengthen the government's negotiating position does not wash: the European Council's guidelines are now in place and the size of any UK government majority makes no difference to what the EU's negotiating team can accept or not accept.

This is not the first time the government has wasted time with Brexit. In the months just after the referendum result, when the EU was swiftly getting its act together (see my posts here, here and here), the government decided to have the distraction and disruption of a major departmental reorganisation, creating two new departments from scratch. And when the High Court held (correctly) that an act of parliament was needed for the Article 50 notification, the government again wasted time and resources appealing to the Supreme Court (where it lost), rather than passing a bill straight away.

Lack of any grasp of issues and process

The second way the outcome can be sabotaged is by the government having no firm idea what to achieve or how to achieve it.

On the EU side, the negotiating position has been clear since the hours after the referendum and the process has been mastered (again, see here, here and here). The EU appears to have been ready to deal with Brexit since last year. The negotiation "guidelines" were adopted quickly at the last European Council meeting because of the detailed preparatory work. The European Commission's negotiating team TF50 is well briefed and well resourced.

And Britain? On the basis of publicly available information, the UK appears not to have any developed view on what it wants to achieve or how it is going to get there. The few published statements are not impressive: a flimsy white paper and a rhetorical notification letter. The country can only complain about the EU's insistence on the phased approach and the priority to be given to an "orderly" Brexit. A week before the UK even issued its notification letter, the EU's chief negotiator was setting out the methods and procedure that he expected to be followed.

The impression is that the UK is at a loss over how to go about the negotiation process. Of course, it may well be that Britain knows what exactly it is doing but has just chosen not to disclose this yet. But one must feel gullible nodding-along with such a reassuring thought. The leaks of what was said at the now-infamous Downing Street dinner will not provide comfort to those wanting to feel the government is on top of the job as well as (supposedly) getting on with the job.

Needlessly closing down options

The third way means of sabotage is by closing down options prematurely.

The referendum provided a mandate for the UK to leave the EU but not for any particular model of Brexit. There are many ways in which a country can be not a member of the EU but still have a close relationship: ask Norway, or Turkey or Switzerland. And there are many ways in which the referendum mandate could be achieved. The only outcome that the vote result prescribes is that the UK not be a member of the EU.

But in her October speech to the Conservative party conference (and in her Lancaster House speech in January), Theresa May, the prime minister, closed down any option that meant the UK would continue to be part of the single market and the customs union, or accepting any jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The UK therefore combined not knowing what it positively wanted from Brexit with ruling out various potentially viable ways in which a successful exit could be achieved. There is, of course, an argument that these possibilities were never real options: but the country ruling them out so completely at an early stage means we will never find out.

Would a committed Remainer government be able do more than the current government to sabotage a successful Brexit?

There are no doubt further ways in which a successful Brexit can be sabotaged by a UK government: being needlessly confrontational and accusatory, failing to carry all the home nations and stoking unrealistic expectations in the media, for example.

And with these ways also, you can see a case for saying the government is sabotaging a successful Brexit. It is almost as if it is doing what it can not to make Brexit a success, despite claiming otherwise. This is a strange conclusion but that is where the evidence seems to point.

Many in favour of Brexit will stoutly defend the government's handling of the matter. But beyond the partisanship that means your preferred leaders can never be wrong, there is little concrete for a supporter of the government to show that it is guiding the UK to a successful exit. For example: there is little or nothing to show that time has been (or will be) used well, there is little or nothing to show the government has a grasp of the issues or of the process, and the government has loudly closed down various options.

Brexit can be a success, and the UK can be successful outside the EU (I have no objection in principle to Brexit). But neither eventuality is bound to happen, just as neither is bound not to happen. A great deal will come down to how the government approaches the negotiations.

As it stands, however, it is hard to see how even committed Remainers could do more than the current government in sabotaging the UK's prospect of a successful Brexit.

https://www.ft.com/content/ea5c01f1-3aca-3517-a42b-4cfe439243f3

Fits with my perception. The UK government seems to be rather incompetent in handling this. Or deliberately mishandling it.

[garbon]

I think the EU is doing all that it can to help the UK has to bumble about.

[Zanza]

How so? By being transparent in what it wants and defining the process to get there? I agree that this is an inconvenient truth for the UK government because it seems to lack any sort of coherent response but I am not sure how you can blame the EU for that.

[garbon]

How so? By being transparent in what it wants and defining the process to get there? I agree that this is an inconvenient truth for the UK government because it seems to lack any sort of coherent response but I am not sure how you can blame the EU for that.

That's anot odd tactic for negotiations. Stating that you are out for blood on day one? Pretty much makes it toxic for the UK yeah.

[Jacob]

That's anot odd tactic for negotiations. Stating that you are out for blood on day one? Pretty much makes it toxic for the UK yeah.

Not really. It's pretty normal to start out by staking out a strong position.

[Zanza]

How so? By being transparent in what it wants and defining the process to get there? I agree that this is an inconvenient truth for the UK government because it seems to lack any sort of coherent response but I am not sure how you can blame the EU for that.

That's anot odd tactic for negotiations. Stating that you are out for blood on day one? Pretty much makes it toxic for the UK yeah.

The reason Brexit is toxic is that first the Leavers and now the British government promise completely unrealistic things and have never been willing to tell their people that there will be tradeoffs and disadvantages to Brexit too. And now they can't hide that harsh reality anymore.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/04/eu-irish-unity-brexit-europe-northern-ireland

EU backing for Irish unity after Brexit is a big deal – but it's not a solution

Europe doesn't mess with national borders, but Brexit is pushing the question of unity faster than we are prepared for, on either side of the border

Just before European Union leaders agreed their guidelines for the Brexit negotiations last week, the president of the EU council, Donald Tusk, said: "It is clear that progress on people, money and Ireland must come first." It was rather startling to find Irish concerns up there on the list of fundamental priorities, with the rights of EU citizens in Britain and with the settling up of the final bill. And when the guidelines were agreed, it was clear that this was more than rhetoric. EU governments have essentially committed themselves to allowing Northern Ireland to rejoin the EU if Ireland is united.

This is a very big deal. It suggests at one level that Brexit really does mean Brexit – in the very literal sense that the entity that is exiting is Great Britain and not the United Kingdom. There has been a habit of using Britain and the UK as synonymous terms, but of course they are not. The very name of the state – the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – acknowledges a distinction.

Now, suddenly, the difference is stark. The EU has just done what the Brexiteers steadfastly refused to do – acknowledge that Northern Ireland is not just another British region. The 27 remaining member states have signed up to treat Northern Ireland as a place of its own.

Britain's departure from the EU is (in principle) to be final; Northern Ireland's is now contingent. Britain is getting a divorce; Northern Ireland is being offered a trial separation. For Britain, there is a one-way ticket; for Northern Ireland, there is an automatic right of return. The implicit offer is two unions for the price of one: unite Ireland and you reunite with Europe.

We should not downplay the significance of this. Even with the glaring exception of German unity, the EU is not inclined to mess with existing national borders. Spain, in particular, can't be comfortable with conceding that regions within existing states might be able to forge their own future relationships with the EU.

But in a diplomatic coup for the Irish government, these hesitations have been overcome.

The EU has just done something it has never done before: it has offered an incentive to part of an existing European state to join another state. The language may be quiet but the message is pretty loud. People in Northern Ireland have just been told that if Brexit is a disaster for them (which it may well be), they can vote to rejoin. They will be let back in without conditions or negotiations. Nobody else in the UK has this offer of satisfaction with Brexit or your EU passport back. Perhaps for the first time in its troubled history, being from Northern Ireland is a distinct advantage.

We have to be careful about this, however. What's just happened is that Brexit has pushed the question of a united Ireland further and faster than the vast majority of Irish people, nationalist as well as unionist, really want to go. Ireland and Europe have been forced into a kind of time travel – we have to delve into a future for which no one is prepared.

Everyone – even Sinn Féin – knows that it is foolish to talk about a united Ireland without talking about a united Northern Ireland first. Forcing a million unionists into a new Irish state without their consent is in nobody's interest. And it can't be assumed that even a bad Brexit will suddenly make unionists change their minds about wanting to stay in the UK: political and religious identity often trump economic self-interest.

As for nationalist Ireland, the thing to understand is that there is a vast difference between wanting something in principle and wanting it now. The rubric that should be attached to the aspiration to a united Ireland is St Augustine's prayer: "Lord, make me pure – but not yet." Polls have consistently shown support for a united Ireland – but not yet. When asked in November 2015, if they would like to see a united island in their lifetime, 66% of respondents in the republic answered yes. But, asked if they would like the island to be unified in the short to medium term, that figure was cut in half. And in the same RTÉ/BBC poll, just 27% of those surveyed from a Catholic background in Northern Ireland said they wanted a united Ireland in the short-to-medium term.

Striking as it is, therefore, the EU's implicit support for the possibility of Irish unity should not suck attention away from some much more important words in its negotiating guidelines: "in view of the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, flexible and imaginative solutions will be required".

Giving Northern Ireland the right to opt back into the EU through a united Ireland is a good thing. But long before we get to that possibility, there are the negotiations themselves. They can't be conducted on the vague assumption that a united Ireland will solve the horrendous political, economic and social dilemmas that Brexit creates for the island of Ireland.

"Flexible and imaginative solutions" are exactly what Ireland needs – and relying on a 19th-century concept of a unitary state is neither flexible nor imaginative enough. The EU has taken a huge conceptual leap in explicitly recognising Northern Ireland as a different kind of place. It needs to follow through on that by thinking about what actually makes Northern Ireland different. It is not just its history of violence. It is that stopping the violence meant creating an ambiguous space that is neither quite one thing nor the other: neither simply Irish nor simply British.

What the EU and Britain both need to recognise when the negotiations begin is that this ambiguity is not just a possibility. It is a necessity. Europe is already halfway towards a recognition of Northern Ireland as a place that might still be attached to the EU after Brexit.

It needs to go all the way, and commit itself to the fruitful ambiguity of a Northern Ireland that is both still in the UK and still in the EU. After all, if people in Northern Ireland are being told they can vote to rejoin the EU, why ignore their vote not to leave it in the first place?

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/05/brexit-english-is-losing-its-importance-in-europe-says-juncker

Brexit: English is losing its importance in Europe, says Juncker

The English language is losing importance in Europe, the president of the European commission has said amid simmering tensions over the Brexit negotiations.

Speaking to an audience of European diplomats and experts in Florence, Jean-Claude Juncker also described the UK's decision to leave the EU as a tragedy.

"Slowly but surely English is losing importance in Europe," Juncker said, to applause from his audience. "The French will have elections on Sunday and I would like them to understand what I am saying." After these opening remarks in English, he switched to French for the rest of the speech.

...

"These negotiations are difficult enough as they are," he said. "If we start arguing before they even begin, they will become impossible. The stakes are too high to let our emotions get out of hand because at stake are the daily lives and interests of millions of people on both sides of the Channel."