Sounds like the EU is making it as difficult as they can for the Brits to leave the EU.

https://www.adn.com/nation-wor...es-stiff-opposition/

EU leaders approve Brexit plan, setting up vote in British Parliament, where it faces stiff opposition

Author: Michael Birnbaum, William Boot

BRUSSELS - European leaders on Sunday signed off on their split from Britain, approving a deal that would set the United Kingdom on a new, if uncertain, road, independent from the European Union after more than four decades of membership in the political and economic powerhouse.

The agreement - "historic," according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel - will cut Britain out of the European Union, marking the first time a nation has ever sought to depart. But the deal must still weather Britain's political storms ahead of the official March 29 exit date, with the key test next month when the U.K. Parliament puts it to a vote amid violent opposition.

No matter the uncertainty in Britain, it was a momentous occasion in Britain's 45-year-long membership in the European club and its torturous two-year effort to depart it.

The deal will almost certainly come with steep costs for both sides, leaving leaders in the extraordinary position of negotiating a split that they almost all believe will harm their citizens. Some E.U. leaders said they felt Sunday's deal was a tragedy. The deal, approved unanimously Sunday by the remaining 27 E.U. leaders, would leave Britain in legal limbo - obligated to follow most E.U. rules but no longer a member - until the end of 2020, as leaders haggle over the relationship to come. The assent came after less than an hour of discussion.

"Today has been a historic day," Merkel said after the meeting, a rare and unusual gathering of European leaders on a chilly Sunday morning in Brussels. "My feelings are very divided. I feel very sad, but at the same time I feel a sense of relief."

British Prime Minister Theresa May, asked if she shared the unhappiness, said, "No, but I recognize that others do."

May said the British Parliament will now face "one of most significant votes Parliament has had in many years," and that she would campaign for it with all her heart.

"This is the deal on the table," she said. "It is best possible deal. It is the only deal."

Under the terms of the deal, Britain will face a $50 billion bill to pay its financial commitments on its way out the door. It will be tied to E.U. laws and regulations for years in some areas, and its ability to negotiate its own trade deals - a key demand of the Brexiteers who led a successful rebellion against the established order in 2016 - could be tightly limited. But it will no longer be obligated to allow E.U. citizens to live and work within its borders, and May has sought to promote that as a major win, even as other leaders shake their heads about the situation.

"The cost we discussed in recent months is massive," said French President Emmanuel Macron. "Those who said to the British they would save several dozens or hundreds of billions pounds lied to them."

British and E.U. negotiators will still have to work out the terms of their future relationship, and although a 36-page declaration also approved Sunday set out some of the guidelines, much remained unresolved, including Britain's freedom to control large parts of its own economy.

Arriving at this point in the divorce has been a struggle: 17 months of fraught negotiations, marked by nonstop bickering within May's own leadership team, including a string of high-profile resignations from her cabinet.

May's headaches are far from over. Her limits as vote-wrangler will be tested in her own Parliament, where pro-Brexit lawmakers have hammered the plan as failing to break decisively enough from Brussels and pro-E.U. forces have condemned it as a self-inflicted wound that hurts British voters.

According to the British press, as many as 90 lawmakers of May's own Conservative Party have said they plan to vote against it, alongside members of the opposition Labour Party.

The plan seeks to avoid a hard border between the Republic of Ireland, which is remaining in the E.U., and Northern Ireland, which will depart. It also seeks to prevent an internal split between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. To do so, the two sides agreed that if they fail to come up with a better plan before the end of Britain's transition period, London would remain locked inside the European customs union, obligated to respect most E.U. regulations on goods that would pass between the two sides, including tariffs with the rest of the world.

In addition to the divorce deal, May and her European counterparts approved a political declaration on the future relationship between the two partners. Unlike the withdrawal agreement, which will be legally binding after it is approved by British and European parliaments, the political document is loosely worded and aspirational, an outline for future talks, which will likely take years to complete. It contains a list of hoped-for outcomes on trade, customs inspections, tariffs, fisheries rights, aviation, and the ability of citizens to visit and live in the other's territory.

Even the vague aspirations, however, are likely to disappoint British business interests. For example, while May has long sought to replicate the "frictionless" trade that exists today between members of the European Union, a post-Brexit Britain will face "separate markets and distinct legal orders," according to the political declaration, while aligning with E.U. rules. London's financial center, one of the largest in the world, will also see its access to Europe diminished when it surrenders its "passport" rights to move money.

Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary and lead campaigner for Brexit, said on Saturday that Britain was "on the verge of a historic blunder." He said May's withdrawal deal surrenders too much power to Brussels.

What will happen to the withdrawal agreement if it is voted down by the British Parliament is unclear. May could put it up for a vote again. She could face a leadership challenge or new elections. Britain could even re-run their referendum, although few analysts believe this is realistic.

Brexiteers want negotiators to return to Brussels to amend the deal, but European leaders have said that they have little room to improve it and that there is nothing more to talk about. They advised British lawmakers to take what is on the table.

The disagreements have left the two sides staring into the abyss, as British opponents to the deal say they want to come up with something better. E.U. leaders say the alternative is a chaotic no-deal departure - a development that could ignite economic crisis and could even lead to shortages of medicine in Britain.

Europe has largely held united through the negotiations, vowing that if Britain leaves their club, it must no longer benefit from club benefits. Leaders generally dislike the departure but now want to pin down the deal to free them to focus on other, more pressing problems such as populism, struggling economies and Russia.

Their main goal on Sunday appeared to be to try to move on from the bitter breakup.

“Nobody is winning. We are all losing because of the U.K. leaving,” Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte said.

quote:

Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary and lead campaigner for Brexit, said on Saturday that Britain was "on the verge of a historic blunder." He said May's withdrawal deal surrenders too much power to Brussels.

Yep. May, regardless of the words that fall out of her face, is not a proponent of Brexit, as is evidenced by the current 'deal' that does little to help Britain. The EU is terrified that if Britain leaves and prospers in any way, others will follow, insuring the collapse of the EU, which I believe to be inevitable at this point anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by 2000Z-71:
Sounds like the EU is making it as difficult as they can for the Brits to leave the EU.

Actually the basic problem of the whole sorry mess is that both sides are argueing about an already-defined end state, and neither has the means to make the other deliver what they really want. Next May, the UK will leave the UK, barring a highly unlikely 180 of the British stance. The EU would like them to stay in, but cannot force them. The UK OTOH would like to continue with all the advantages of the European Single Market and none of the obligations, but has nothing to offer that would make the EU grant them. If neither side gives anything, there will be simply a "hard" Brexit with no agreement on further mutual relations in trade etc.

That could still happen if any of the (as of yet) 28 EU members doesn't ratify the agreement. Spain already threatened to hold up even today's decision over the Gibraltar issue; though the real test will be to get it through British parliament, where various camps oppose it for different reasons. In that case the problem for the UK becomes one of scale - being much smaller than the rest of the EU's, its economy is going to suffer much more from being torn out of the Single Market with its deeply integrated just-in-time supply chains across open borders, no tariffs and common standards.

That's why it has been in the weaker position versus the EU's united stance in the negotiations on what comes after Brexit. I think Theresa May actually got the best, maybe the only possible result considering the impossible mandate she was given by the British referendum - take the UK out of the EU, but without any economic backlash.

I guess I just don’t understand. My version of Brexit would be simple, short, and sweet. “So long, wish I could say it was fun. You guys do you and we’ll do us. See ya.”

I’d imagine a good part of the problem is British politicians who really don’t want Brexit and are doing everything they can to make it as unpalatable as possible...

quote:

I guess I just don’t understand. My version of Brexit would be simple, short, and sweet. “So long, wish I could say it was fun. You guys do you and we’ll do us. See ya.”

Yes, exactly!
We are a sovereign nation!
You guys continue to surrender your sovereignty to a multi-national organization if you want, but we're out.

I am a bit confused about the whole time thing. The article repeatedly mentions that the UKs membership has been longer than four decades. But the EU is less than three decades old itself. What am I missing?

I am also curious to what role, if any, the Queen has played in this. One might think that given the massive delays after the referendum vote to leave, she would simply step in and put the will of the people into effect by decree. I am made to believe she isn't powerless so much as chooses not to excercise power, but the people voted and the politicians are twiddling their thumbs, would that serve as a call to action?

Looking forward to getting Tac's insight on this.

Most of the UKs economic activity is with the the rest of the EU. If they get locked out of the EU, they're pretty well fucked.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I guess I just don’t understand. My version of Brexit would be simple, short, and sweet. “So long, wish I could say it was fun. You guys do you and we’ll do us. See ya.”

I’d imagine a good part of the problem is British politicians who really don’t want Brexit and are doing everything they can to make it as unpalatable as possible...

The EU was a successor the the European Common Market, which started not long after WWII. I think the UK was a charter member.

quote:

Originally posted by Ianfiniti:
I am a bit confused about the whole time thing. The article repeatedly mentions that the UKs membership has been longer than four decades. But the EU is less than three decades old itself. What am I missing?

I am also curious to what role, if any, the Queen has played in this. One might think that given the massive delays after the referendum vote to leave, she would simply step in and put the will of the people into effect by decree. I am made to believe she isn't powerless so much as chooses not to excercise power, but the people voted and the politicians are twiddling their thumbs, would that serve as a call to action?

Kind of tells me that Merkle and company (read the EU) are really pushing for a USE nation.

I.e. United States of Europe.

With Merkle as president/dictator.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Most of the UKs economic activity is with the the rest of the EU. If they get locked out of the EU, they're pretty well fucked.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I guess I just don’t understand. My version of Brexit would be simple, short, and sweet. “So long, wish I could say it was fun. You guys do you and we’ll do us. See ya.”

I’d imagine a good part of the problem is British politicians who really don’t want Brexit and are doing everything they can to make it as unpalatable as possible...

That's my understanding. The big hang-ups are trade issues, namely tariffs, import/export stipulations, capitol flight as London is the financial center of Europe.

Posted by Ianfiniti:

I am a bit confused about the whole time thing. The article repeatedly mentions that the UKs membership has been longer than four decades. But the EU is less than three decades old itself. What am I missing?

The UK joined the European Common Market of fourteen independent TRADING nations back in 1971, when the nation went over to decimal coinage. That evolved into the European Union, and went down the pan, as far as the UK was concerned, from then on. There are now 27 nations in the EU - only a very small number of which have any interest at all in the fishing that goes on around the two island members, UK and the Republic of Ireland. However, that does not prevent Poland, and Croatia, for instance, from having a vote as to how much fish the Brits or Irish can catch. Just an example, you understand.

I am also curious to what role, if any, the Queen has played in this.

None whatsoever. The monarchy has NO role in government and can only 'give assent' to Laws and Acts that are put to her by the government. That's why there IS a government. She can, and does, offer her best advice, and with 66 years of experience, it's usually the best there is. The days of the monarch suspending her parliament ended in 1642, and a bloody civil war ensued for over seven years, tearing the country in half and dividing families and territories down the years right up to the present day. But being an American, you are more than familiar with that, right?

One might think that given the massive delays after the referendum vote to leave, she would simply step in and put the will of the people into effect by decree.

Not since 1649, when the Republicans cut off the king's head and set up a Commonwealth. It lasted until 1660.

I am made to believe she isn't powerless so much as chooses not to excercise power.

You are mistaken in your belief, Sir.

but the people voted and the politicians are twiddling their thumbs, would that serve as a call to action?

Nope. The UK is a parliamentary democracy that just happens to have monarch as the Head of State - a common state of affairs here in Europe. Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden all have a similar set-up - I include Monaco here as it is a Principality. The monarch is Queen Elizabeth II, who has reigned since 1952, making her the longest-serving current head of state.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
That's my understanding. The big hang-ups are trade issues, namely tariffs, import/export stipulations, capitol flight as London is the financial center of Europe.

To understand the problems of Brexit it's always good to imagine a state peacefully seceding from the US. Texas is an obvious choice, because it actually was a sovereign country at a point, and there's even a bit of an independence movement today. Moreover, like the UK in the EU, Texas has the second-biggest economy in the Union; certainly bigger than than a lot of nations in the world.

However - how many products are actually made start to finish in the state, or even from locally manufactured components? How much of the industry is dependent upon just-in-time deliveries from out of state, upon trucks, trains, manpower and talent moving freely across its borders as needed without being delayed by controls, without deliveries either way made more expensive by tariffs, upon product standards being the same, and certified for use in the entire US? Beyond goods, how much services and capital business in Texas are dependent upon a common legal base with the rest of the US? How much more expensive will goods become in Texas, and how much less competitive is its economy going to be with no appropriate agreements in place the day after they say "well, see ya"?

Further: Does Texas have the capacities to take over public tasks previously in the federal realm - financially, personally, administratively and legally? How much previous federal legal code and regulations need to be incorporated into Texas law? What about the state's previous share in federal tasks and their cost, about healthcare and pensions for federal servants in Texas, and Texans in federal service? What will be the status of self-identified Texans living in the rest of the US, and vice versa (nearly 300,000 British citizens live in Spain alone, a popular retirement location for them)?

Here's an example I'm somewhat familiar with. Who is going to certify the airworthiness of Texan aircraft, aircraft maintenance and air control the day after the state drops out of the FAA with no replacement? The European equivalant is EASA, one of the world's major aviation safety agencies which recognize each other's standards for safe aircraft operations. All EU members have a seat on its management board. Like in the FAA, there are also non-EU members, but they have no voting rights. The final arbiter of any of the agency's, like of all other EU regulations is the European Court of Justice. Now getting out of the ECJ's jurisdiction has been one of the chief aims of Brexiteers, so naturally they thought they would return to national regulation under their own Civil Aviation Authority, as it was before 2002.

Except that those national agencies are now mere adjuncts to EASA with few personnel, since EU-wide regulation is done by the latter at much better economy of scale, like in most other fields. In fact a disproportionally large share of EASA's staff in Cologne, Germany is British - but their jobs there will still exist after Brexit, and they don't necessarily want to return home. It wouldn't be enough to cope with all future tasks of the CAA anyway, and the latter agency has advised they will need five to ten years to build up the required capacities. Now ask any of the resident airline pilots or mechanics what would happen to a nation's aviation after its internationally recognized certifications run out.

The UK is of course in a better position in many areas than Texas would be, since it is after all still a sovereign nation with the attendant apparatus, even if much has been moved to the EU level for aforementioned reasons of economy of scale; not as much as in most other EU members though, since the Brits have traditionally secured more opt-outs on common policies than those. In other respects it's probably worse off, however. For instance, a disproportionally large share of its economy is financial services, which depend upon "passporting" to be offered across the EU. Other European cities would be happy to snap up some of the business so far concentrated in London as the EU's premier financial trading location.

In fact both British and international banks and brokers are already moving capacities to the continent to maintain access to the Single Market, just like industrial producers. In the end it again comes out to the UK hurting much more from a "hard" Brexit than the EU due to respective size. It's nothing that can't be rectified by mutual trade agreements, but those take time to negotiate. CETA between Canada and the EU took seven years; TTIP with the US had been going on for three when negotiations were suspended due to rejection by Trump. That's why Theresa May has consented to a two-year transition period after Brexit, in which EU regulations will still apply to the UK, even if it has no say in them as before.

And then there's the issue of the Irish border ...

Thanks Tacfoley. As usual your insights are very helpful for those of us on the other side of the pond.

My very amateurish observation is while it is very complicated two of the biggest hurdles are the Ireland, Northern Ireland border situation and the fact that London is the "Wall Street" of Europe.

I was in London a few months ago and was surprised with all the high dollar residential and business construction that I saw (High rise condo's going for 3-20 million dollars each). If the financial business sector would have to move out of London to some place in Europe I would expect a full blown collapse of the high end construction in the London area and if people thought that was a possibility then why would you risk millions of Pounds on such a venture?? Clearly some people higher up in the financial food chain know more than I do....

Edit:
Bansheeone thanks for your comments while I was typing. Where do you see segments of the financial market moving to? I have heard talk but not seen any actual movements...

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
Thanks Tacfoley. As usual your insights are very helpful for those of us on the other side of the pond.

My very amateurish observation is while it is very complicated two of the biggest hurdles are the Ireland, Northern Ireland border situation and the fact that London is the "Wall Street" of Europe.

I was in London a few months ago and was surprised with all the high dollar residential and business construction that I saw (High rise condo's going for 3-20 million dollars each). If the financial business sector would have to move out of London to some place in Europe I would expect a full blown collapse of the high end construction in the London area and if people thought that was a possibility then why would you risk millions of Pounds on such a venture?? Clearly some people higher up in the financial food chain know more than I do....

Edit:
Bansheeone thanks for your comments while I was typing. Where do you see segments of the financial market moving to? I have heard talk but not seen any actual movements...

I think a lot of folks in the UK and U.S. aren't really aware of the nature of international investment in tangible commodities, like real estate.

There is a lot of money sloshing around the world with nowhere to go. Most folks, like those of us on this forum, realize that there is a high probability of a major "adjustment" occurring. There are a lot of people looking for a safe place to park their fortunes where they will remain safe.

I'm told that there are a lot of foreigners that own houses in the U.K., houses that there's nobody living in. I'm sure there's a lot of interest in commercial properties as well.

There's a lot of money floating around the world, looking for someplace to go. Let your imagination run wild as to the possibilities.


V

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
Bansheeone thanks for your comments while I was typing. Where do you see segments of the financial market moving to? I have heard talk but not seen any actual movements...

The top contenders have been Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin. I know that Frankfurt has seen some influx (driving local living cost even higher); I have a cousin who has long worked for a big British law firm specializing in the business sector there, and is now a partner in another. Paris will be the new location of the European Banking Authority when it moves out of London after Brexit. Dublin has of course the advantage of being in an English-speaking country next to the UK for British staff (also, Irish passports are easy to get for many Brits if they or their family have lived in either Northern or the Republic of Ireland, obviating any problems of being a non-EU citizen after Brexit).

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
That's my understanding. The big hang-ups are trade issues, namely tariffs, import/export stipulations, capitol flight as London is the financial center of Europe.

To understand the problems of Brexit it's always good to imagine a state peacefully seceding from the US. Texas is an obvious choice, because it actually was a sovereign country at a point, and there's even a bit of an independence movement today. Moreover, like the UK in the EU, Texas has the second-biggest economy in the Union; certainly bigger than than a lot of nations in the world.

However - how many products are actually made start to finish in the state, or even from locally manufactured components? How much of the industry is dependent upon just-in-time deliveries from out of state, upon trucks, trains, manpower and talent moving freely across its borders as needed without being delayed by controls, without deliveries either way made more expensive by tariffs, upon product standards being the same, and certified for use in the entire US? Beyond goods, how much services and capital business in Texas are dependent upon a common legal base with the rest of the US? How much more expensive will goods become in Texas, and how much less competitive is its economy going to be with no appropriate agreements in place the day after they say "well, see ya"?

Further: Does Texas have the capacities to take over public tasks previously in the federal realm - financially, personally, administratively and legally? How much previous federal legal code and regulations need to be incorporated into Texas law? What about the state's previous share in federal tasks and their cost, about healthcare and pensions for federal servants in Texas, and Texans in federal service? What will be the status of self-identified Texans living in the rest of the US, and vice versa (nearly 300,000 British citizens live in Spain alone, a popular retirement location for them)?

Here's an example I'm somewhat familiar with. Who is going to certify the airworthiness of Texan aircraft, aircraft maintenance and air control the day after the state drops out of the FAA with no replacement? The European equivalant is EASA, one of the world's major aviation safety agencies which recognize each other's standards for safe aircraft operations. All EU members have a seat on its management board. Like in the FAA, there are also non-EU members, but they have no voting rights. The final arbiter of any of the agency's, like of all other EU regulations is the European Court of Justice. Now getting out of the ECJ's jurisdiction has been one of the chief aims of Brexiteers, so naturally they thought they would return to national regulation under their own Civil Aviation Authority, as it was before 2002.

Except that those national agencies are now mere adjuncts to EASA with few personnel, since EU-wide regulation is done by the latter at much better economy of scale, like in most other fields. In fact a disproportionally large share of EASA's staff in Cologne, Germany is British - but their jobs there will still exist after Brexit, and they don't necessarily want to return home. It wouldn't be enough to cope with all future tasks of the CAA anyway, and the latter agency has advised they will need five to ten years to build up the required capacities. Now ask any of the resident airline pilots or mechanics what would happen to a nation's aviation after its internationally recognized certifications run out.

The UK is of course in a better position in many areas than Texas would be, since it is after all still a sovereign nation with the attendant apparatus, even if much has been moved to the EU level for aforementioned reasons of economy of scale; not as much as in most other EU members though, since the Brits have traditionally secured more opt-outs on common policies than those. In other respects it's probably worse off, however. For instance, a disproportionally large share of its economy is financial services, which depend upon "passporting" to be offered across the EU. Other European cities would be happy to snap up some of the business so far concentrated in London as the EU's premier financial trading location.

In fact both British and international banks and brokers are already moving capacities to the continent to maintain access to the Single Market, just like industrial producers. In the end it again comes out to the UK hurting much more from a "hard" Brexit than the EU due to respective size. It's nothing that can't be rectified by mutual trade agreements, but those take time to negotiate. CETA between Canada and the EU took seven years; TTIP with the US had been going on for three when negotiations were suspended due to rejection by Trump. That's why Theresa May has consented to a two-year transition period after Brexit, in which EU regulations will still apply to the UK, even if it has no say in them as before.

And then there's the issue of the Irish border ...

Great post, Sir, and far better than I could have done, being a simple hick redneck-y kind of person.

The Anglo-Irish border is a true PITA. Back in the days of the Troubles - '69 until last week or so, it was impossible to police, and that was with permanent and unsightly watchtowers to 'help out' as well as Army patrols. It really is a place where one step over the road centreline can take you into another country, and bullets, of course, pay no heed to borders.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Irish passports are easy to get for many Brits if they or their family have lived in either Northern or the Republic of Ireland, obviating any problems of being a non-EU citizen after Brexit).

Indeed they are. I have one myself in addition to my UK and Canadian passport.

Yeah, I have a close British friend who served a tour with military intelligence in NI during the early 70s, in between being posted to BAOR. He has stories to tell.

I guess sticking to the Texas analogue, this would translate to six counties on the state line with New Mexico in the El Paso area having been embroiled in on-off civil war since statehood, with terrorist campaigns between loyalist Anglo protestants and Spanish-speaking Catholics who want to join New Mexico; eventually pacified at a superficial level by a power-sharing agreement not least based upon the fact that everybody can freely cross the border back and forth anyway, and all are US citizens. Imperfect comparison, but outlines the problem.

My friend spent the last 30 years of his professional life working for the European Patent Office in Berlin, BTW (not a EU institution, but established by multi-national agreement in 1977). Like many resident Brits, his answer to the Brexit problem was naturalizing last year while the UK was still a EU member and German law thus permitted him dual citizenship.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
Yeah, I have a close British friend who served a tour with military intelligence in NI during the early 70s,

Can you/would you PM me, or ask him to PM me? I'll leave it up to him to decide if he cares to talk to me. My first tour there was over Christmas 1969, and last in 1996.

My dad, who died in late '71, told me that it was likely that I'd never see the end of it.

And it's STILL not over.