Sir Ivan Rogers Resigns.

There are many making the case that the EU will charge us for market access.

Only if the UK wants 'more access than' WTO MFN (or an 3rd party FTA at a later time) permits.

 

i.e. a similar or better level access as EEA/EFTA member states enjoy. And for the privilege (and yes, it is a privilege: you're accessing a 350m+ market on preferential terms) of which they pay (and have long paid) their dues.

If they want their court to rule on us, then our courts will surely gain the power to rule on them. Since that is impractical neither of these powers will be useable.

I just don't understand where that argument comes from.

 

This issue only arises where the UK remains in the EEA after exiting the EU. My understanding is that the UK doesn't want to stay in the EEA anymore than it wants to stay in the EU.

 

So where is this "EU courts want to rule the UK" coming from?

We need to stop thinking of ourselves as a supplicant asking for a favour or privilege. They need us at least as much as we need them. I don't think Mr Rogers understands this and he threw his toys out when our government would not accept the standard EU narrative.

The UK is not a supplicant if it is not remotely interested in maintaining near EU-like levels of access to the Single Market.

 

Equally, it needs to stop thinking of itself as irreplaceable. Both because there is nothing of substance that it does, so much manufacturing as services, which cannot be transposed into one or more EU member states if and as required (refer my cost/benefit comment earlier), and because there is a non-trivial political dimension to the exercise for the EU27, which no amount of testiculating in No.10 can overcome: the EU simply cannot allow the UK to enjoy the same level of access to the Single Market once outside the EU, that it has been enjoying as a EU member, without a budgetary contribution commensurate with the changed status. That would be the death knell of the EU, and Brussels and each of the EU27 (you need to start paying attention to Continental politicians' speak: EU über alles) know it. So does No.10.

 

It's the UK who decided it wants to exit, not the EU who decided it wants to kick the UK out. So the UK doesn't get to dictate conditions: it gets to propose first, and then offers and counter-offers will follow. If agreement about exit conditions is struck by March 2019, all good, roll on FTA negotiations, whilst -most probably- business carries on as normal under a transition agreement. If agreement remains far from being struck on March 01, 2019, and the 2 year period is not extended (and it most likely wouldn't be extended) the UK is automatically out and that's that. WTO rules overnight (which is what you seem to want, so that's all good, right?)

Edited January 5, 2017 by L00b

Only if the UK wants 'more access than' WTO MFN (or an 3rd party FTA at a later time) permits.

 

i.e. a similar or better level access as EEA/EFTA member states enjoy. And for the privilege (and yes, it is a privilege: you're accessing a 350m+ market on preferential terms) of which they pay (and have long paid) their dues.

I just don't understand where that argument comes from.

 

This issue only arises where the UK remains in the EEA after exiting the EU. My understanding is that the UK doesn't want to stay in the EEA anymore than it wants to stay in the EU.

 

So where is this "EU courts want to rule the UK" coming from?

The UK is not a supplicant if it is not remotely interested in maintaining near EU-like levels of access to the Single Market.

 

Equally, it needs to stop thinking of itself as irreplaceable. Both because there is nothing of substance that it does, so much manufacturing as services, which cannot be transposed into one or more EU member states if and as required (refer my cost/benefit comment earlier), and because there is a non-trivial political dimension to the exercise for the EU27, which no amount of testiculating in No.10 can overcome: the EU simply cannot allow the UK to enjoy the same level of access to the Single Market once outside the EU, that it has been enjoying as a EU member, without a budgetary contribution commensurate with the changed status. That would be the death knell of the EU, and Brussels and each of the EU27 know it. So does No.10.

 

 

 

Nobody is irreplaceable, but replacing us has a cost. The EU is not irreplaceable for us either. Every argument you can make as to what we will lose from reduced market access works at least as well in reverse.

You seem to be suggesting that the EU nations will sacrifice the wellbeing of their peoples to protect the project. Are all the heads of government planning on resigning before their next elections?

 

Most of the EU27 believe in the project itself. They want to be part of a single federation. At last this is what the Europhiles tell me. Why then would it collapse?

 

Enhanced (better than WTO) access to the EU market is beneficial for the UK. Enhanced access to the UK market is even more beneficial to the EU.

There is no reason for us to pay them for this arrangement any more than they have reason to pay us.

 

Are you telling me that the European project depends on pragmatic support from those who are against its ideals?

Nobody is irreplaceable, but replacing us has a cost. The EU is not irreplaceable for us either. Every argument you can make as to what we will lose from reduced market access works at least as well in reverse.

I will readily accept that the EU is not irreplaceable for the UK either, but as regards the reciprocity of arguments I'd say no more than "works as well", and I'd put a time limit on that: once you factor in the respective market size and volume effects, time favours the EU.

You seem to be suggesting that the EU nations will sacrifice the wellbeing of their peoples to protect the project. Are all the heads of government planning on resigning before their next elections?

You seem to be suggesting that the EU peoples are as dissatisfied with the EU project as 17m British voters. Is May planning on re-election in 2020?

 

Most of the EU27 believe in the project itself. They want to be part of a single federation. At last this is what the Europhiles tell me. Why then would it collapse?

Because granting an ex-member the same prerogatives as remaining members without contribution, as enjoyed by these remaining members with contribution, represents an opportunity of national interest to each of the EU27, to require a reduction of their respective contributions, and a corresponding erosion of the EU mechanisms, initiatives, programs, investments and other commitments, eventually killing off the project through financial strangling and opportunistic divestment.

 

You don't need to be an economics or geopolitics major to understand the issue, surely?

Enhanced (better than WTO) access to the EU market is beneficial for the UK. Enhanced access to the UK market is even more beneficial to the EU.

That's your assertion extrapolated from trade statistics. Senior continental politicians and boardroom members of EU multinationals have gone on record to disagree. In fairly unequivocal terms. Including German automakers

There is no reason for us to pay them for this arrangement any more than they have reason to pay us.

I understand the logic of your argument, rest assured. It still completely abstracts the political dimension, and the medium- to long-term opportunities created by, the event.

Are you telling me that the European project depends on pragmatic support from those who are against its ideals?

Not in the least.

I will readily accept that the EU is not irreplaceable for the UK either, but as regards the reciprocity of arguments I'd say no more than "works as well", and I'd put a time limit on that: once you factor in the respective market size and volume effects, time favours the EU.

You seem to be suggesting that the EU peoples are as dissatisfied with the EU project as 17m British voters. Is May planning on re-election in 2020?

 

Because granting an ex-member the same prerogatives as remaining members without contribution, as enjoyed by these remaining members with contribution, represents an opportunity of national interest to each of the EU27, to require a reduction of their respective contributions, and a corresponding erosion of the EU mechanisms, initiatives, programs, investments and other commitments, eventually killing off the project through financial strangling and opportunistic divestment.

 

You don't need to be an economics or geopolitics major to understand the issue, surely?

That's your assertion extrapolated from trade statistics. Senior continental politicians and boardroom members of EU multinationals have gone on record to disagree. In fairly unequivocal terms. Including German automakers

I understand the logic of your argument, rest assured. It still completely abstracts the political dimension, and the medium- to long-term opportunities created by, the event.

Not in the least.

 

 

This doesn't add up to me. If the EU can function on a much smaller budget it should. If the outcome of this is that the remaining 27 have to pay less into the EU central system, then all the better.

Politics rarely overrules enlightened self-interest in practise.

Forecast based rhetoric from those who are invested in the status quo is unimpressive to me. They've yet to get anything right on this matter.

This doesn't add up to me.

It's your right not to agree.

Politics rarely overrules enlightened self-interest in practise.

And you can type that and keep a straight face after last year?

Forecast based rhetoric from those who are invested in the status quo is unimpressive to me. They've yet to get anything right on this matter.

That's another argument which works at least as well in reverse, so far

It wouldn't move to Frankfurt or Paris. If it moved at all it would go to another genuine major financial centre like New York or Singapore.

Everybody outside the EU bubble can see what a basket-case the Eurozone is.

 

The UK is doing great (contrary to the Europhile predictions) and the EU is lurching from one crisis to the next. We're not small or weak and you can't talk us becoming so.

 

Yeah how is that going. The value of UK companies has been falling despite the FTSE rising (because in currencies that matter like the Euro and dollar the values are much less).

 

Whats your pump prices like yet? You managed to go up over 120p a litre yet? Funny that - almost as if you had to pay dollars for crude oil...

 

Singapore isn't where the business is though. London is where it is cos it's close to Europe and they don't speak funny languages. But we can cope with the funny languages and it's quick to travel in the EU so... it'll move to the Dax or Cac

Yeah how is that going. The value of UK companies has been falling despite the FTSE rising (because in currencies that matter like the Euro and dollar the values are much less).

 

Whats your pump prices like yet? You managed to go up over 120p a litre yet? Funny that - almost as if you had to pay dollars for crude oil...

 

Singapore isn't where the business is though. London is where it is cos it's close to Europe and they don't speak funny languages. But we can cope with the funny languages and it's quick to travel in the EU so... it'll move to the Dax or Cac

 

Could not disagree more with your last paragraph.

Could not disagree more with your last paragraph.

 

how about the middle ground

 

a third of the financial business done in the UK is euro related business and will go into the eu if we lose passporting rights

 

of the remaining two thirds, a large chunk is essentially foreign business transactions which are concluded in the uk because we have a large network of solicitors, accountants, drug dealers, prostitutes and other people who are needed to make these deals work available at a moments notice.

 

there is no particular need for many of these deals to be conducted here and they could be conducted in any of the worlds bigger financial centres and the risk/worry is that by reducing the size of our financial sector by 33% damages the remainder to an extent which makes these other centres more attractive to the people doing these deeds.

Brexit was about quitting the single market...

 

Brexit was about a lot of things. Leaving the Single Market was fairly low on the list for most people.

Brexit was about a lot of things. Leaving the Single Market was fairly low on the list for most people.

 

Once the result came in,'most people' have no more input into what happens,that's why everybody is standing around waiting to see if 'their' particular Brexit happens..............a bit like waiting for the lottery numbers to come out.

Could not disagree more with your last paragraph.

 

I'm still waiting for you to convince me why it's wrong. I'm sat here watching it move away already to Frankfurt....