Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Richard Hakluyt]

I have to wonder how many leave votes that man was worth 

[Valmy]

Pretty much makes it toxic for the UK yeah.

Toxic enough for Scotland to decide to stay in the UK?

[Zanza]

I think the bit about Northern Ireland is just the EU honoring a stipulation in the Good Friday Agreement.

[Tamas]

Zanza the British government is still very much trying to hide the fact that there's going to be trade offs.

[Zanza]

I know. That's a big part of why this will fail. It will in the end be easier for the British government to claim that the EU was unreasonable and out for blood and that the British held their head high and walked away rather than admit that they were clueless and dishonest during the Leave campaign and up till now. Cameron botched the referendum, May will botch Brexit. This will lead to at least a generation of both sides being salty.

[garbon]

I think the bit about Northern Ireland is just the EU honoring a stipulation in the Good Friday Agreement.

The NI bit is about the Irish government pushing to have clarity on the Good Friday Agreement added to the framework for the negotiations.

[garbon]

I know. That's a big part of why this will fail. It will in the end be easier for the British government to claim that the EU was unreasonable and out for blood and that the British held their head high and walked away rather than admit that they were clueless and dishonest during the Leave campaign and up till now. Cameron botched the referendum, May will botch Brexit. This will lead to at least a generation of both sides being salty.

Yes, it'll be just as easy for the Europeans to think they were being overly fair and the failure was solely the fault of the pig headed British.

[garbon]

I have to wonder how many leave votes that man was worth 

Probably a fair amount. Exactly the caricature of a European that many leavers had in their minds.

[Zanza]

I know. That's a big part of why this will fail. It will in the end be easier for the British government to claim that the EU was unreasonable and out for blood and that the British held their head high and walked away rather than admit that they were clueless and dishonest during the Leave campaign and up till now. Cameron botched the referendum, May will botch Brexit. This will lead to at least a generation of both sides being salty.

Yes, it'll be just as easy for the Europeans to think they were being overly fair and the failure was solely the fault of the pig headed British.

Sure, everybody has their own perspective that makes the own actions look favorable.

Which of the guidelines as set out by the EU council are unreasonable in your opinion?

[Duque de Bragança]

I have to wonder how many leave votes that man was worth 

Ask Cameron. Didn't he threaten the EU with "consequences" if Juncker was elected?
Cameron only managed to get Orban, of all people, in a vote against Juncker. 

[garbon]

I know. That's a big part of why this will fail. It will in the end be easier for the British government to claim that the EU was unreasonable and out for blood and that the British held their head high and walked away rather than admit that they were clueless and dishonest during the Leave campaign and up till now. Cameron botched the referendum, May will botch Brexit. This will lead to at least a generation of both sides being salty.

Yes, it'll be just as easy for the Europeans to think they were being overly fair and the failure was solely the fault of the pig headed British.

Sure, everybody has their own perspective that makes the own actions look favorable.

Which of the guidelines as set out by the EU council are unreasonable in your opinion?

Sure, here are my detailed thoughts on that. I'd preface things by the way as saying that I don't think any of these guidelines have been drafted as punishment and I think in a pinch, I can understand why EU is pressing for these things. I think at the same time, in their totality, they decrease the likelihood of an actual settlement.

1. Primacy of place given to rights for EU citizens who currently reside in the UK
Noted as priority in negotiations with notation of "such guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, including the right to acquire permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence."

Meaning UK has no say in who is allowed to stay and who isn't and is forced to accept those who want to stay as permanent residents in 5 years time. Statements from EU official also seem to suggest that EU expects UK to settle matters for any resident EU citizens in UK at ECJ (rather than UK supreme court) once UK is its own separate state.

2. Primacy in place in negotiations about GFA and Gibraltar
I think I've already said my peace on GFA, but also special veto for Spanish directly on Gibraltar? Is that really necessary? Is a population of 30k that important?

3. Resolving of outstanding financial contributions (aka Brexit bill)
I think enough said there - at least in terms of pushing how UK will have to pay for all contributions without any early text on specifics of those. (Which of course then allows spiraling rhetoric on both sides on unfairness of each other's positions) Additionally the seeming proviso that if EU allows continuance of 2019 deadline on talks for trade deal, UK still on hook for additional contributions.

4. Core principle that nothing is settled (aka no aspects can be settled) till all is settled and that negotiations will  pursued with transparency
I know this comes off the back of May asking for talks in secret and when she was trying to divide and conquer the EU states, but I have to wonder how well will any deals work out if they are routinely carried out under the observation of the public (which is how I read some of that transparency in contrast to May's planned secrecy). Is that wise with emotions running high in UK and EU public?

Also, bit about nothing being settled till all is settled isn't so bad, in general, though it does seem odd given how there had been clamoring for UK to unilaterally declare that it would let resident EU citizens maintain all their rights.  Additionally when coupled with the next:

5. No discussions work on trade deal sufficient progress/agreements made on withdrawal terms - EU to determine when sufficient work has transpired on withdrawal terms.
While I get why the EU wants to divorce the two, they really are related matters. UK government is supposed to agree on a financial settlements and terms around other withdrawal items before getting any sort of work accomplished on what trade situation will look like post agreement? So give up its already very weak hand in hopes that it gets a nice trade deal?

Also those very terms where substantial progress needs to be made for GFA, Gibraltar, resolving of financial contributions and resident EU citizen status. No big deal.

Oh and EU is the partner that decides when enough has been done on withdrawal terms front.

6. Stance on trade deal
From guidelines basically looks like EU plans that it'll determine what the trade deal looks like and what EU regulations the UK will be need to keep.

Basically, to me, it looks like EU stance to UK  'is be prepared to do exactly what we tell you to'. Which, again, is the EU's prerogative as they hold the cards. Does seems like such will require quite a savvy operator to push through in the UK and I'm not quite sure May is up to that task. After all, Brexit was voted in by people who were tired of Europe telling them what to do.

[garbon]

I have to wonder how many leave votes that man was worth 

Ask Cameron. Didn't he threaten the EU with "consequences" if Juncker was elected?
Cameron only managed to get Orban, of all people, in a vote against Juncker. 

I'm not sure what's to laugh about times when EU took actions that alienated EU citizens. But maybe aftermath of Brexit will scare EU citizens of all other states into 'wanting' to stay in the EU.

[Zanza]

1. Primacy of place given to rights for EU citizens who currently reside in the UK
Noted as priority in negotiations with notation of "such guarantees must be effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive, including the right to acquire permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence."

Meaning UK has no say in who is allowed to stay and who isn't and is forced to accept those who want to stay as permanent residents in 5 years time. Statements from EU official also seem to suggest that EU expects UK to settle matters for any resident EU citizens in UK at ECJ (rather than UK supreme court) once UK is its own separate state.

The goal itself is something they need to go for and prematurely giving up any rights that their citizens currently enjoy is not something democratic governments can realistically do. I guess there is plenty of room for compromise when it comes to "comprehensive" though. The enforcement via ECJ is completely unrealistic though, but that's not part of the official guidelines.

I think I've already said my peace on GFA, but also special veto for Spanish directly on Gibraltar? Is that really necessary? Is a population of 30k that important?

The "veto" only pertains to the future framework for free trade, not the exit settlement. And realistically, Spain always had that veto, as all the comprehensive FTAs of late are mixed, meaning they need national parliament approvals in addition to EU level approvals. It's rather tone-deaf by the EU to include it though as it was predictable that the Brexit-press would explode over it.

I think enough said there - at least in terms of pushing how UK will have to pay for all contributions without any early text on specifics of those. (Which of course then allows spiraling rhetoric on both sides on unfairness of each other's positions) Additionally the seeming proviso that if EU allows continuance of 2019 deadline on talks for trade deal, UK still on hook for additional contributions.

That goes both ways though: You have plenty of Conservative politicians saying that the UK is not willing to pay anything at all and I have not read even the slightest bit about a possible British counterargument. They just seem to wait until the EU presents its calculation, but don't seem to do their own.

I know this comes off the back of May asking for talks in secret and when she was trying to divide and conquer the EU states, but I have to wonder how well will any deals work out if they are routinely carried out under the observation of the public (which is how I read some of that transparency in contrast to May's planned secrecy). Is that wise with emotions running high in UK and EU public?

The UK could probably conduct their deal in private, but the EU cannot. They will have to share it with the 27 members, with MEPs etc. anyway, so then they can just do it publicly. There has been huge backlash over the secrecy around TTIP, so the EU has bad experience with secret negotiations. Not sure if it will be helpful.

5. No discussions work on trade deal sufficient progress/agreements made on withdrawal terms - EU to determine when sufficient work has transpired on withdrawal terms.
While I get why the EU wants to divorce the two, they really are related matters. UK government is supposed to agree on a financial settlements and terms around other withdrawal items before getting any sort of work accomplished on what trade situation will look like post agreement? So give up its already very weak hand in hopes that it gets a nice trade deal?

Also those very terms where substantial progress needs to be made for GFA, Gibraltar, resolving of financial contributions and resident EU citizen status. No big deal.

Oh and EU is the partner that decides when enough has been done on withdrawal terms front.

That's what Article 50 is and the procedure that Britain agreed upon when it signed the Lisbon Treaty. Resolving the past before discussing the future seems appropriate, although it of course runs against British interests.

From guidelines basically looks like EU plans that it'll determine what the trade deal looks like and what EU regulations the UK will be need to keep.

I don't think so. It just states what the EU will try to achieve in such a trade deal and what its red lines are. If Britain does not want to meet those red lines, there will just be no trade deal at all, which is the default position with third countries.

[Josquius]

Who was it posted that great but Kafkaesque diagram of the EU government?
I cant find it.

On Garbon's list:
Number 1 is very important. I fully support the EU side on this one. The Tories are being simply criminal in their refusal to recognise the rights even of people who have been in the UK for 5 years. People who have chosen to make their lives elsewhere in the EU don't deserve to have their lives shattered like this.
Even when the Soviet Union broke up there weren't mass deportations.

2, yeah, a weird thing to include since it was true anyway.

3.... the UK is behaving ridiculous again. Refusing to recognise there are liabilities to pay and choosing to scream and shout about this rather than just getting to work in calculating them.

4...meh, also logical to sort out the divorce before talking about the future situation. Especially given May has expressed no interest on remaining in the EEC or the like.

5, yes, the EU has the UK bent over. But...what else was expected?
We all knew the EU was the side with all the power.

6...well, it is the EU's place to say really. The UK is the desperate party. Without the EU the UK is utterly fucked. Without the UK the EU is mildly inconvenienced.

[garbon]

I was asked why Europe will shoulder some of the blame if things fail to get resolved, not make case for why the UK is behaving responsibly (as we all know they are not).