Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Based on yesterday's news from the Chancellor, it looks like we  (ie the UK's HMG) are aiming for Brexit on the dot of 2 years........followed by an extended Transitional  period of......5 years.......10 years.......20 years.

Good news ? Indifferent ? Bad news ?

Realistic ?

Is the Government canvassing MPs of ALL persuasion on their (and their constituents) expectations of Brexit.

I don't mean an open debate in Parliament, where the whole of Europe could see at a glance what we might be aiming for. Rather a "behind the scenes" survey, so that the Gov steers its negotiation preparations in the direction "The People" want.

I have been invited to an open constituency meeting set up by my MP to discuss Brexit. And wondered how many other MPs are canvassing electorate views. I'm not sure how much notice the Gov will take of my MP even though he is a Conservative. Even less sure what chance Jeremy Corbyn's constituents will have in getting their voices heard !

Don Atkinson posted:

Based on yesterday's news from the Chancellor, it looks like we  (ie the UK's HMG) are aiming for Brexit on the dot of 2 years........followed by an extended Transitional  period of......5 years.......10 years.......20 years.

Good news ? Indifferent ? Bad news ?

Realistic ?

 

 

I'd say pragmatic, Don.  On the one hand it will allow politicians to say they've implemented Brexit as they promised. On the other the UK's many attachments to the EU will take years to untangle and untie.  

Maybe it's a bit like buying a house. On the day you exchange contracts you can say you bought it, even if it takes another 25 years to pay off the mortgage before the house really becomes yours.

Not a bad analogy Mike. And pragmatic about sums it up. Thanks.

I can see us untangling these inherited "Rules" and laws over a future 25 year period. I imagine we will simply transfer the whole lot into some sort of UK "Rules of Governance" then spend 25 years gradually amending or adapting them to suit our needs.

I'm not clear on how we might "transition" from the Single Market. Do we remain part of the Market (and pay £xxx pw for this privilege) and gradually reduce payments as we sort out industry specific deals month by month. Or are we planning to retain membership of this community ?

And the EU Court of Justice. I presume we just leave on Day 1

The whole thing still looks like a nightmare to me, but many I speak to give me the impression they are still sleepwalking.

Hi Mike - I say its pragmatic - as no one has ever exited the EU before its an unknown path. I just hope in the transition period we can start the negotiation of our non EU trade agreements - but perhaps not activating them until we do leave the EU

Simon, the Transition Period that Hammond referred to, starts after  we leave the EU. eg

We invoke A.50 31/03/17

We leave the EU 01/04/19

The transition Period starts 01/04/19 and lasts c. 5, or 10 or 20 or......years

I would be happy to remain part of the Single Market for c. 20 years or so, but I doubt if Australia, Canada, China or Zimbabwe (to pick 4 at random) would wish to put a trade agreement on hold for 10 or 20 years. A lot can happen in 20 years !!

I am unsighted as to what Hammond has in mind when he talks about this Transition Period. The concept sounds pragmatic (using Mike's word, which I like), but i'd like to see more clarity as to what the process would involve.

Don Atkinson posted:

Rather a "behind the scenes" survey, so that the Gov steers its negotiation preparations in the direction "The People" want.

I don't buy that the govt is trying to get a deal that represents what the people want, for two reasons. One, it's virtually impossible to state what the people want, given how disparate people's views are. For a start, virtually half of the people don't even want to leave. And two, more importantly, the govt is more interested in internecine matters, the results of which they can force through under the disingenuous heading of 'the people's will'. That's certainly how it seems to me, and I'd suspect that the govt's somewhat desperate attempt to avoid parliament having a say (ie the current Supreme Court battle) is evidence of that.

But anyway, on the chancellor's comments, has there been any coverage of what the Europeans have to say about it? If they see things the same way, then it seems a healthy bit of pragmatism. If not, it sounds like exceedingly naive arrogance, given that any such measures are entirely dependent on both parties agreeing. For all the posturing and rhetoric about the extent to which the UK can dictate anything (eg blustering about how we can get free trade with no freedom of movement), the eurocrats can just say 'no, sod off'.

Don - thanks for the clarity - I had assumed - perhaps incorrectly - that there would be various EU obligations and commitments during the transition period - which might possibly include the inability to negotiate non EU trade agreements - which seems to be a sensitive issue with the EU.

Hi Simon, I think we are all pretty much in the dark at the moment.

I for one, am struggling to get a clear picture of what our options (for leaving) might be.

Trying to foresee the outcome of negotiations is even more difficult, but I think HMG is being too optimistic at present.

I am hoping that my MP's planned meeting will provide enlightenment as to other people's views and his perception of the way things might develop.

In the aviation world at the moment, a number of UK based airlines are planning to re-locate to Ireland so as to avoid another lengthy period of Regulation and Licensing uncertainty if we leave EASA.

I doubt if HMG (or us) are yet aware of even half  the problems that lie ahead.

You are probably right - but on balance i think opportunistic  optimism can carry one forward better than cautious pessimism... as indeed as you say I am sure HMG can't possibly envisage all the future obstacles that will need to be over come. 

The move of companies is interesting - i am trying to work out the appeal and increased momentum form US tech (big and small - and yes mostly to London) and other US non finance companies moving to the UK currently... I am not complaining but i don't understand the motivation - I think Brexit is far more complex in terms of pros and cons that some simplistic commentators would have us believe...

Hi Simon, when I said that HMG was probably unaware of more than half the problems that lie ahead, I didn't simply mean that the problems were unpredictable, (some will be) what I was implying was that the Gov were failing to look and identify potential problems.

By identifying potential problems you can develop strategies for dealing with them or avoiding them. The Gov is sleepwalking !

In aviation we take Threat & Error Management (TEM) very seriously. It's a better strategy than Optimistic Hope (Oh !)

 Has this come up here yet? Another vain attempt to divert the inevitable but any straw is worth clutching at the moment. Remove the quotes to use it.

"https://www.change.org/p/do-you-want-personal-eu-citizenship-send-a-message-to-the-european-parliament?recruiter=41831046&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-md-share_petition-reason_msg"

David Davis shows yet again that he (and the government?) don't really understand the EU and how it works ...

"He revealed the government was looking at the Norway-Sweden border as a possible model for how the border could work between Ireland and Northern Ireland."

... should someone tell him that both Norway and Sweden are in the Schergen Area; especially as he also said that as part of the negotiations they ...

"will refuse to allow the EU any control over the UK’s immigration policy"

Surely those two points are in conflict?

So, Deloitte has apologised for leaking a memo that suggested Ministers had no plan for Brexit. Neither side says the memo was inaccurate, merely that is caused disruption to the Government. You bet ! So..........

Has the government now properly considered the 500 or so projects that it was considering? if so

 Is it still in our best interest to leave the EU ?

Will it need an extra 30,000 Civil Servants to implement Brexit ? and

Will these people be needed for 2 years, or 10 years or for ever ?

Don Atkinson posted:

I posted this in the HiFi Forum regarding Naim's January price increase.

I wasn't sure whether to post in the Padded Cell under "Brain Teasers" or "Sleepwalking"

"Sleepwalking" won............

Don,

Your foreign cost analysis omits the foreign distributor charges - Naim do their own distribution in the UK - however, the foreign distributor determines local prices and there is no correlation to the UK prices, just a hefty premium - charged "because they can". The local retailers have no say in pricing.

regards

Hi YNWA,

You make a very valid comment about foreign distributors and their retailers. I live in Canada for part of each year and am probably more aware of these arrangements than many on this forum. It always seems to me as if the Distributors put their prices up like a rocket, let them fall like a feather - if at all. And of course it's not just hifi distributors, it's virtually any commodity !

My example above was deliberately simplified viz - "Simon, let's take a simple example". Of course what I should have said was "Simon, let's take a simplified example". There is nothing "simple" when it comes to design, manufacture, distribution, sales and after-sale support. Especially in home entertainment.

Many thanks for your contribution.

Britain’s Ambassador to the EU resigns. He considers that his information and advice to HMG falls on deaf ears. He urges his staff to continue with their diligent work and to tell the truths, as they are, to TM and her Government.

Is he being unhelpful or even spiteful in his action or its timing ? Is this bad news for the UK ?

Or is his departure, as he suggests,  an opportunity for a more optimistic, enthusiastic, clear-thinker-of-new-ideas person to take over. Will such a person be more aggressive or a bridge-builder in our relationship with the EU. Is this good news for the UK ?

Don, I think the answers to your questions are much like that given by Chinese premier Zhou Enlai in 1972 when he was asked if the French revolution could be considered a success: 'It's too early to say'.

Chris

I don't know about his resignation George whcih could be either of what you suggest but his email certainly seems designed to stick the knife in a little bit as I'm pretty sure he would have expected it to be leaked to the press.  Whether him going or not is a good thing we are unlikely to ever find out.

Chris, IMHO Brexit is already a disaster.

Not a disaster-in-waiting or a potential disaster, nor a situation that in 400 years might be seen as a disaster. It already is a disaster. It's more a case of just how disasterous the disaster is. How deep. How widespread. (of course there will be a few true winners, and people like Farage who will claim to be winners regardless).

Sir Ivan's assessment of the mood in the EU reflects the visual discourtesy displayed by Junkers towards TM and the UK and the associated difficulties that lie ahead. IMHO, we should stay and sort out the EU properly, from within. It would be a lot easier.

Given that those in power are determined to take us out of the EU, I am determined to protest and resist but at the same do what I can to minimise in the avaiation industry the effect of leaving and maximise any possible glimmer of benefit that might emerge.

I could have done without this sodding burden at my time of life !

dayjay posted:

I don't know about his resignation George whcih could be either of what you suggest but his email certainly seems designed to stick the knife in a little bit as I'm pretty sure he would have expected it to be leaked to the press.  Whether him going or not is a good thing we are unlikely to ever find out.

I agree. I think he is laying the foundation so that in a couple of years, he'll be saying "I told you so !"

HMG needs to get a good cross-section of cool-headed people into their (gigantic) forward-planning team and take their advice. It's no good just recruiting enthusiastic, Brexit optimists !

Don Atkinson posted:

Chris, IMHO Brexit is already a disaster.

Not a disaster-in-waiting or a potential disaster, nor a situation that in 400 years might be seen as a disaster. It already is a disaster. It's more a case of just how disasterous the disaster is. How deep. How widespread. (of course there will be a few true winners, and people like Farage who will claim to be winners regardless).

Sir Ivan's assessment of the mood in the EU reflects the visual discourtesy displayed by Junkers towards TM and the UK and the associated difficulties that lie ahead. IMHO, we should stay and sort out the EU properly, from within. It would be a lot easier.

Given that those in power are determined to take us out of the EU, I am determined to protest and resist but at the same do what I can to minimise in the avaiation industry the effect of leaving and maximise any possible glimmer of benefit that might emerge.

I could have done without this sodding burden at my time of life !

 

"Those in power" are simply responding to the outcome of a democratic event - what else would you have them do?

Thanks Don, for your considered response. Your 'at my time of life' comment, prompts me to say that my 81yo Leaver Dad favours hard Brexit, out by the end of April. I feel compelled to add he's a working class ex-grammar school boy from West Yorkshire, Telegraph reader of 58 years, former Naval officer, dentist, church-goer. I voted Remain but entirely accept we must leave. But I have started to wonder if hard Brexit, out by the end of April might actually be the right way to go....

C.

ynwa250505 posted:

 

"Those in power" are simply responding to the outcome of a democratic event - what else would you have them do?

1. Make it clear that triggering A50 is reversible (*) in the event that Parliament confirms we should aim to leave. (*) (this is a most significant factor - it strengthens the UK negotiating position beyond belief. Regardless of Items 2 to 5 below we should establish this situation).

2. Recognise that the Vote was very close and that the Leave Campaign contained a Pack-of-Lies.

3. Carefully consider the Opportunities and Threats of Leaving v Remaining. (IMHO this has yet to happen !)

4. Seek consent from our elected representatives, ie a free vote in the Commons concerning the best way forward, based on Items 1 to 3.

5. Dissolve Parliament and hold a General Election in which the outcome of Item 4 would be a key issue in forming a Government to Take us Out of the EU or a Government that would Strengthen our Position within the EU.

6. Trigger A50 if appropriate. Providing a suitable deal is reached, Leave.

Items 4 and 5 could follow Item 6.

Brexiteers might consider Items 4 and 5 to be undemocratic and should be deleted.

Anybody who considers Items 1,2,3 and 6 to be unnecessary might as well jump off a cliff without first checking the tide is in and the water is deep enough !

Reading Sir Ivan's note to his staff it looks clear to me that his main reason for resigning was to give his successor time to prepare and then see through what will be long and difficult negotiations.  In other words he saw the value to the UK of continuity. Sir Ivan was due to depart towards the end of 2017 anyway which would have meant his successor taking over mid-negotiations.  To my mind that is not the act of someone who is in the wrong side of the argument, rather someone who is putting the needs of the UK first. It is a pity people like Farage don't recognise that. Indeed, if Farage is right and Sir Ivan is, personally, a 'remainer' and wanted to pursue a personal preference he could have stayed in the job and advanced those arguments from the inside. But he hasn't.

The Press has focussed on some stuff towards the back end of Ivan's note.  One of UKREP's primary roles is to get close to their counterparts in other member states (OMS) to best understand their views and the likely positions that they might take in formal negotiations.  This is very important intelligence in shaping the UK's position and negotiating tactics.  My reading of the situation is that Sir Ivan has not been saying that in his personal view it could take 10 years to negotiate, rather that the intelligence that UKREP has picked up from OMS is that that is their view.  As such, it is UKREPs duty to pass on such intelligence to ministers.  It's alleged that this advice has been labelled as "unhelpful". Well it may be inconvenient to HMG current position but that doesn't make it any less real and therefore relevant.