Crosswords8 mins ago
No Deal Implications For Europe?
What are the implications of a possible No Deal from the European point of view?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Thursday. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We clearly *should* care about what happens to the rest of Europe, because it will materially affect the UK -- the fates of the two are tied together, so to speak.
At the moment the most likely scenario seems to be something of an interim "deal", avoiding the chaos of a literal "no deal" situation, followed by the actual negotiations in the two-year transition.
At the moment the most likely scenario seems to be something of an interim "deal", avoiding the chaos of a literal "no deal" situation, followed by the actual negotiations in the two-year transition.
I didn’t suggest you cared, Thursday.
Perhaps I only gave a personal opinion there and didn’t answer you question very well.
I think a no deal for Europe would possibly end up costing them even more than the loss of our contributions, and they need to realise that we need an amicable trade agreement instead of trying to have everything their own way.
Perhaps I only gave a personal opinion there and didn’t answer you question very well.
I think a no deal for Europe would possibly end up costing them even more than the loss of our contributions, and they need to realise that we need an amicable trade agreement instead of trying to have everything their own way.
//I thought Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control of our own borders?//
Taking control of our own borders includes having an open one wherever we so choose. If the EUSSR insists that Eire closes the border then they must take that up with Brussels. Perhaps they will send the infamous negotiating teams that were once operational?
Taking control of our own borders includes having an open one wherever we so choose. If the EUSSR insists that Eire closes the border then they must take that up with Brussels. Perhaps they will send the infamous negotiating teams that were once operational?
First, to briefly address the border issue: both sides want an open border. Both sides also accept that an open border requires the rules on either side, with respect to customs arrangements, to be the same. The UK wants to set its own rules. This necessarily creates a contradiction -- one that the UK is perfectly entitled to create, but is responsible for all the same. So far, the only ways to resolve this contradiction rely on either as-yet nonexistent technology or the UK acting as a de facto tax collector on behalf of the EU. Understandably, the EU is not keen on relying on us to collect its taxes. In any case, this problem arises entirely because of the UK's decision to leave the EU, and then to try and rush through this without sorting out the practical details. Blaming the EU for merely pointing out a logical contradiction is misguided.
Returning to the original question: No Deal entails all sorts of different things depending on the preparedness of both sides for the failure of negotiations. As far as I can tell, both sides understand this and have contingency plans in place, or are in the process of setting up these contingencies, so the worst-case scenarios of No Deal are likely to be avoided. But it's hard to say specially what the implications are.
One thing that may help the UK is that, being a separate country, it will at least have the liberty to act unilaterally in responding to crises as they occur, whereas the EU is obliged to consult all countries on interim arrangements. On the other hand, in percentage terms the UK is more dependent on EU trade than vice versa.
I suppose I should have just stuck to "I don't know, but probably unpleasant". It's in both sides' interests to avoid a no-deal, but that doesn't mean that either side should accept any old guff instead.
Returning to the original question: No Deal entails all sorts of different things depending on the preparedness of both sides for the failure of negotiations. As far as I can tell, both sides understand this and have contingency plans in place, or are in the process of setting up these contingencies, so the worst-case scenarios of No Deal are likely to be avoided. But it's hard to say specially what the implications are.
One thing that may help the UK is that, being a separate country, it will at least have the liberty to act unilaterally in responding to crises as they occur, whereas the EU is obliged to consult all countries on interim arrangements. On the other hand, in percentage terms the UK is more dependent on EU trade than vice versa.
I suppose I should have just stuck to "I don't know, but probably unpleasant". It's in both sides' interests to avoid a no-deal, but that doesn't mean that either side should accept any old guff instead.
The ploy the EU is using is seeking an overall 'package'. Nobody on either side, as far as I can see has any history of negotiation. What should happen in any negotiation is to find common ground; the things you can agree on, and put to one side those you can't.
So far we have no agreement on anything it's an enormous shambles being played out by inexperienced amateurs.
So far we have no agreement on anything it's an enormous shambles being played out by inexperienced amateurs.
Try this:
Having repeatedly applied for membership and ultimately succeeded, a club member who has bitched and moaned about club rules throughout since joining decides to leave/resign. He/she suggests to the club that after his/her departure new rules which he/she may or may not decide will be adopted and that, by the way, the clubhouse should be left open at all times so he/she can store the bike there, borrow some chairs, etc.
How do you expect the club to react - say "Sure, why didn't we think of that" ? When that is not on offer the departing member then goes into a huff and screams that the club is and always has been obstreperous, obstructive and obnoxious. Naturally, the member expects the rest of the world to agree with him/her. He/she has, after all, always felt he/she was the only member of the club with the smallest iota of sense.
What hope is there ?
Having repeatedly applied for membership and ultimately succeeded, a club member who has bitched and moaned about club rules throughout since joining decides to leave/resign. He/she suggests to the club that after his/her departure new rules which he/she may or may not decide will be adopted and that, by the way, the clubhouse should be left open at all times so he/she can store the bike there, borrow some chairs, etc.
How do you expect the club to react - say "Sure, why didn't we think of that" ? When that is not on offer the departing member then goes into a huff and screams that the club is and always has been obstreperous, obstructive and obnoxious. Naturally, the member expects the rest of the world to agree with him/her. He/she has, after all, always felt he/she was the only member of the club with the smallest iota of sense.
What hope is there ?
“I thought Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control of our own borders? “
(Takes a deep breath and says for the 94th time) No it wasn’t. It was about resuming the control of our borders in a way we think fit. There has not been an effective border on the island of Ireland for around 100 years. Ireland has no intention of imposing one, the UK has no intention of imposing one so that leaves just one party in the debate who has neither the resources nor the authority to impose one. The UK currently complies with all EU standards. It has no intention, at least in the short term, of departing from those standards. Billions of pounds worth of goods arrive into the EU, including into the UK, from outside its borders every year. The EU has no issue with that (despite the fact that not every item of cargo is ticked off and calibrated against EU standards). Why should it have any issue with the piffling amount of goods that cross the Irish border from the UK after we have left? Answer: because the Irish border is being used as a lever to screw even more “concessions” (i.e. capitulations) from the UK.
I agree with Karl. The UK has never wholeheartedly embraced the “European Project” and quite honestly, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, I don’t know why we ever joined. But you live and learn. It could be, of course, that what we have now is not what we joined. The club’s rules have changed beyond recognition since we joined and we’re leaving because it no longer suits as to remain as members. We should not expect to continue to enjoy the benefits of a club that we have left and if no mutually agreeable terms can be agreed then we leave (not “crash out”) with no deal at all. This will cause the remaining 27 members considerable problems as well as us so we’ll all have to cope with them. That's what happens when you allow a supra-national organisation to dictate the way your country is run.
(Takes a deep breath and says for the 94th time) No it wasn’t. It was about resuming the control of our borders in a way we think fit. There has not been an effective border on the island of Ireland for around 100 years. Ireland has no intention of imposing one, the UK has no intention of imposing one so that leaves just one party in the debate who has neither the resources nor the authority to impose one. The UK currently complies with all EU standards. It has no intention, at least in the short term, of departing from those standards. Billions of pounds worth of goods arrive into the EU, including into the UK, from outside its borders every year. The EU has no issue with that (despite the fact that not every item of cargo is ticked off and calibrated against EU standards). Why should it have any issue with the piffling amount of goods that cross the Irish border from the UK after we have left? Answer: because the Irish border is being used as a lever to screw even more “concessions” (i.e. capitulations) from the UK.
I agree with Karl. The UK has never wholeheartedly embraced the “European Project” and quite honestly, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, I don’t know why we ever joined. But you live and learn. It could be, of course, that what we have now is not what we joined. The club’s rules have changed beyond recognition since we joined and we’re leaving because it no longer suits as to remain as members. We should not expect to continue to enjoy the benefits of a club that we have left and if no mutually agreeable terms can be agreed then we leave (not “crash out”) with no deal at all. This will cause the remaining 27 members considerable problems as well as us so we’ll all have to cope with them. That's what happens when you allow a supra-national organisation to dictate the way your country is run.
//“I thought Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control of our own borders? “
(Takes a deep breath and says for the 94th time) No it wasn’t. It was about resuming the control of our borders in a way we think fit.//
Save you doing it 95 times, there isn't a lot of difference in those two statements.
(Takes a deep breath and says for the 94th time) No it wasn’t. It was about resuming the control of our borders in a way we think fit.//
Save you doing it 95 times, there isn't a lot of difference in those two statements.
I find it quite ironic that the border question, you know the Irish border, yes the one that seperates N from S is no longer controlled by them but buy a dictatorial organisation trying to set up an empire some hundreds of miles away...they do not control their lands, now that is funny...
now if ireland escaped from the eussr it could decide for itself, make its own decisions without the meddling tentacles of the dictators of europe
now if ireland escaped from the eussr it could decide for itself, make its own decisions without the meddling tentacles of the dictators of europe
There's sufficient difference. We can opt to not apply control to a border if we wish to.
The UK doesn't insist to set its own rules. It merely points out the obvious options and makes sensible suggestions that are rejected by an EU wanting to cause problems where need need be and to stir up the remainers and the Irish.
The UK doesn't insist to set its own rules. It merely points out the obvious options and makes sensible suggestions that are rejected by an EU wanting to cause problems where need need be and to stir up the remainers and the Irish.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.