There is no 'aspect of transition'. There is transition or there is not transition. I am arguing for transition, as I've explained. You and many others in the minority are arguing for the current date to be met and the transition not extended. I think transition is the only solution, which polling indicates is now a majority opinion. It's not that confusing. I don't care whether you think it's because I have a good idea about what the best thing for the country is or because I 'don't like Brexit'.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
COVID 19 - Brexit Implications
- Thread starter Starmill
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Its "the majority opinion" because a handful of polls during a pandemic have given people a binary choice between changing absolutely nothing and huge change. You are stating that the transition as defined by the withdrawal agreement i.e. defacto EU membership without voting rights, is the only possible temporary agreement, in a process that has been defined by last minute fudging. Having some sort of agreement that is 90% the same as extending the transition allows both sides to sell progress in difficult circumstances and would be simpler for EU planning for the next two years. For the Tories any disentanglement with the EU on January 1st, however small, helps to crush the will of remainers / rejoiners and would inevitably get an over reaction for remain / rejoin politicians about changes that might not be noticable to the general public. Why are you so sure that the 1st July deadline will not be fudged to bank what has been agreed by then and avoid both an extension and a permenant deal?
I support a very close relationship with the EU, far closer than a brexiteer could, but I don't think a pandemic in spring 2020 must determine our fishery policy and farming in subsidises in Autumn 2022! The transition is merely a legal text cobbled together that both sides could tolerate. I don't think either side has any closer attachment to it than that, especially if they can agree on some stuff by 1st July.
I'm not trying to claim it's impossible. I'm saying it's foolish.
The most likely outcome is still that the transition will expire without an agreement. It's far from impossible.
Indeed - this is a highly undesirable outcome. But thanks to the government it is also now necessary.
If the core parts of our economic relationship remain unchanged i.e. single market and customs union, then why would banking areas of agreement and moving forward be any more foolish than doing that pre Covid-19? Businesses can for instance adapt to us having a Norway style agreement on fishing and farming, there isn't that much difference.
Is it necessary or do you just want it be? If we went down the extension route specified in the withdrawal agreement then it has to be until either 31st December 2021 or 31st December 2022. Why, based on the limited information about Covid-19 we have now, can anyone be sure that it will make it necessary for it to be the latter? No decisions need to be made on brexit until June. Talks are taking place on a low level via video conferencing and the EUs draft treaty has shown the two teams are not miles apart. Lets see if they cook up some fudge over the next 10 weeks.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think the problem here is that if you start unpicking the agreement you get back into negotiation and also all the people with different opinions will weigh in and it becomes impossible to do anything in a sensible length of time...
...which actually isn't very long at all considering what has to be done.
The transition is a temporary arrangement specifically for a limited time window with one option to extend for one of two dates. Negotiating something that would follow on from it wouldn't be unpicking it. A temporary agreement wouldn't need to alter a single letter of the withdrawal treaty. There is nothing in the withdrawal treaty that states future trade agreements cannot have an expiry date.
The EUs draft FTA is not miles off being acceptable to the Tories. A few alterations and implementing it on 1st January 2021 could be more acceptable to the Tories than an extension of the transition, especially for 2 years. Some of the mechanisms in the EU draft treaty e.g. level playing field could be provisional and subject to further negotiation. If new mechanisms were not agreed by x date then the agreement could expire.
In terms of getting a final agreement you are right. Deciding whether to not extend, extend by 12 months or 24 months doesn't require that much work. If one or both sides think there is no real chance of agreement then no extension. If there is reasonable basis for a long term agreement then the two sides are picking between two options. If they decide none of those three options are viable then the limited amount of time would mean an off the shelf solution would be necessary. With a FTA ruled out the only off the shelf solutions the EU could agree to would be single market, customs union or both.
This has at no point been on the table. Not since 2016. Are you predicting reversal of that? Government policy expressly forbids this, and the law contains many deliberate blockers. It would also have almost all of the downsides such as the requirement to follow the regulations you so wish to be free from.
A free trade agreement and single market membership (that is to say, transition) are very nearly as far apart economically as it's possible to get. Basic goods-only tariff free trade deals are worth almost nothing over WTO terms, which apply to almost all possible transactions, unless we're going to be looking for our new trading relationships with North Korea.
Last edited:
Again, not on the table. It can't be 'cancelled'. There could be accession negotiations in theory, but that's obviously something this government will never do.
For a short term deal yes such a reversal is possible, better from a Tory perspective to do a deal that keeps us in single market and customs union for a specific period e.g 1 or 2 years than potentially be pressured into extending the transition, which is that plus more. Extending the transition by the maximum length is worst option out of any possible option for the Tories. The process has been fudged at multiple stages and I think the 1st July deadline will be another fudge of some sort.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Theoretically. The EU is going to be rather short of money going forward, and so I suspect if we decided to cancel Brexit it would agree to let us back in on previous terms.
I doubt, however, that that would happen.
Political implications too great to do that - or at least how it would appear to the non-doms who've bankrolled Brexit through their newspapers.
Business will truly dictate this. Short term Covid-19 will help the Tories given there's an excuse at the ready for when the economy implodes. However, in the long run, I think this situation will actually help the argument for rejoining, and even bring it forward several years.
Reality is, there's going to be a deep recession. If Small Business' can survive the Pandemic and Brexit is the final nail in their coffin, then BoJo and the Tories could be looking at a crushing defeat in 2024.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I still think there is a very high chance of the EU imploding (not in a war, just in a collapse). There is no way the German public will be accepting bankrolling Italy and Spain when their own economy is in a poor state.
In my view the Euro (currency union, not the EU as a trading bloc) needs to end. That way, like we did last time and will do this time too (I strongly believe it "saved our bacon" in the banking crisis), countries can "print money" (quantitative easing/inflation) and adjust interest rates to solve their own situation internally. The need for it is massively reduced with electronic payments. If it doesn't, I think a number of countries will leave it voluntarily.
Bantamzen
Established Member
It probably won't, but quite frankly I'm just going to come out and state that it should be cancelled. Covid is going to ravage our economy, we don't need to add an incomplete or no deal EU deal to that mix.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm sure I recall it being said that the ability to revoke Article 50 actually lasts until the end of the transitional period.
I'm pretty sure Article 50 is no longer legally relevant? There is now a new international treaty.
Correct. The transition is in practical terms the same as non voting membership because the withdrawal treaty states swathes of EU law that still apply to the UK. It is the legal basis of our relationship with EU, not any treaty that we signed as a member. Those parts of the treaty are voided by 1st January 2023 at the latest in all circumstances, its not like the debate over extending article 50 when it was possible to stop the process. Article 50 has absolutely no relevance to the UK now.
The process for the UK joining the EU is the same as if we had never been a member. It would much faster than Albania's ongoing application because we already meet EU standards but the legal hoops are identical. Rejoining means agreeing to join the Euro and Schengen when ready. For many members the Euro is an absolutely fundemental part of being in the EU, the chances of unanimous agreement on a new opt out from it are almost zero. Schengen is a smaller problem and could be dealt with but the Euro is a deal breaker. Too many remainers are in denial and persuading themselves that brexit can be stopped because of the pandemic, despite appearences brexit has already happened! Norway / Swiss relationship is probably the best Europhiles can get now but too many aren't in the headspace required to tolerate even this, let alone campaign for it.
In 2015 the then president of the European Parliament Guy Verhofstadt pushed for the creation of associate membership. For countries not already in the EU, they would have gone for that and only get full member rights if they choose to join the Euro, Schengen and other stuff. Associate membership would have been similar to Norway / Swiss level of intergration but with some voting rights. Its a shame that it never got anywhere, it would have suited the UK well, a looser relationship than we had but not leaving. A core of brother and sister countries based around suitability to share a currency and fiscal union with France and Germany, with a strong relationship with cousin countries surrounding them would have been a much more sustainable setup than the currency union today. Unfortunately Euro members are too invested to separate the EU and Euro on a more than temporary basis.
There's good news on the accession front anyway. France have dropped their objection to any new negotiations, though not in time to prevent the forced resignation of the North Macedonian Prime Minister, when were the only barrier to negotiations last year. He had agreed the unpopular name change as quid pro quo with EU Accession. Albania are also on the way. Montenegro and Serbia have been on the way for a while. A short timeline of less than 10 years after a pro-EU membership government comes to power in the UK might even be possible. If this happens in 2029, we may be members again before 2040, which would be a pretty remarkable turnaround from such a disaster.
Only if we agreed to join the Euro. The Euro is a fundamental part of being an EU member, Denmark is the only one of the 8 EU members outside the Eurozone with an opt out. Multiple countries have joined the Euro since the crash. The membership we had is gone and will never come back, the options are rejoining including currency union, Norway/Switzerland, a FTA or no trade agreement.
Would you support us joining the euro, the associated banking union and any potential fiscal union?
Why not? There's no good reason to rule it out. Monetary union in itself isn't necessarily the cause of the Eurozone's problems. It's also likely to be possible to buy out of the requirement, it just might be very expensive now that we gave our rights away for nothing.
Between our currency exemption and the rebate, it was obvious we already had the best deal of any of the Members, which was something I pointed out at the time. There is no chance of that returning.
There is no chance of a buy out, the euro is the heart of the EU. Our opt out (and Denmark's) was only provided because we refused to ratify the treaty without one so the EU had no choice, its gone and is not going to be given if we rejoined. It would be an insult to the 6 countries that were obligated to join the Euro to become EU members and have. Some of the remaining 6 that have joined the EU since the Euro started have made considerable progress to joining the Euro. I don't know how you can look at the current eurozone situation and say there is no good reason to rule it out. It needs top to bottom reform into a fiscal union to do more than stagger on.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed, it was jokingly (but accurately) referred to as "Germany+" by some.
I would rather not join than join the Euro, though, it's a project that has had its time (it doesn't matter what currency you're spending now, your bank just converts it for you). By retaining control of our currency and interest rates we avoided being another Italy/Portugal during the banking crisis.
But then to me what the EU needs to be is a trading bloc and loose alliance, not a megastate.
I agree with you but thats not on offer. We have 5 choices:
1) No trade deal
2) Free trade agreement
3) A Customs Union
4) Norway / Swiss model
5) Rejoin on condition of joining the Euro and Schengen
Most remainers are Eurosceptics by the standards of continental Europe, they really, really hate brexit but want to be in the EU with one massive cherry pick! My preference is the fourth option, its the closest relationship that is plausible but too many remainers are in denial that brexit has happened to rally around and push for it.
Because monetary union has been a broadly successful project of soft and social integration and means that Europe's currency can rival the world leader for foreign exchange? It's a lot like Schengen, it's got some serious flaws because of bad behaviour by opportunists abd free-riders , but it's proven to people that the border free area has more alike than apart. Closer fiscal union is undoubtedly required, but this is a generational process which has moved forward through technical integration (e.g finally moving to a permanent interoperable VAT regime) rather than on a political level.
Going rather off topic I think your idea that there's no possibility of buy-out is kind of defeated by your admission that a significant number of members have been able to get around around it. Sweden has been "obliged" to join the Euro when conditions are met since 1994. They haven't joined in 26 years of membership, and aren't going to be any time soon. Denmark will probably continue to enjoy the best of the best, but the others will probably end up in a reformed Union a decade from now where they are given a choice between inner and outer orbit. The outer orbit will come with more costs and fewer benefits than the inner one, but no monetary union. This idea is still nascent but it holds a lot of promise, distasteful as it may be to some. It solves the twin problem of those who are cautious and suspicious of the ever closer union (not that the UK was required to adhere to that) and the well-to-do German public opinion that their governing parties are so concerned about.
None of this is really relevant to extension though.
Because pushing for it would be genuinely pointless. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't exist.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
With hindsight it would have been better for the core countries around France and Germany to have adopted the Euro themselves but not encouraged/insisted on the weaker economies of southern Europe doing so. Then they could have managed exchange rates to mitigate the effects of 2008, rather than expecting the sort of assistance that Germany in particular wasn't prepared to provide. That would have played into the idea of a formal two-speed or associate membership option.
delt1c
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,125
If the UK does have to ask for an extension for Brexit, then it is up to the EU whether it agrees or not. Who is then holding the power?
Greybeard33
Established Member
I think the thread has drifted away from the specific implications of Covid-19, which are that there is simply no political "bandwidth" to conclude a complex trade negotiation this year while both sides are preoccupied with the pandemic.
The only "oven ready" options available are those that have already been negotiated in the exit treaty, namely WTO terms from the end of 2020 (i.e. no deal), or extension of the transition period on the existing terms. Any sort of temporary "halfway house" deal between these extremes is unrealistic because it would still involve complex and time consuming negotiations. For example, the EU side would never agree to extend transition terms minus the common fishing and agriculture policies, because that would be regarded as "cherry picking". The EU fishing countries want to use market access as a lever to maintain their fishing rights in UK waters.
Covid-19 will make no deal even more chaotic and economically disruptive than it would have been anyway. Neither side will have the time or resources to put in place the systems and border checks needed - customs, immigration, rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary checks etc.. Some of the buffer stocks that were built up to protect supply chains against no deal have now been used to mitigate Covid-19 disruption - e.g. medical supplies.
An extension to transition would only need the UK government to amend the domestic legislation, with Covid-19 providing a ready made justification for this policy change. The only real downside would be continued contributions to the EU budget for another year or two - small change compared with the cost of Covid-19. The delay would give the breathing space needed to negotiate a deal that would be much more advantageous to both sides than WTO terms.
The only "oven ready" options available are those that have already been negotiated in the exit treaty, namely WTO terms from the end of 2020 (i.e. no deal), or extension of the transition period on the existing terms. Any sort of temporary "halfway house" deal between these extremes is unrealistic because it would still involve complex and time consuming negotiations. For example, the EU side would never agree to extend transition terms minus the common fishing and agriculture policies, because that would be regarded as "cherry picking". The EU fishing countries want to use market access as a lever to maintain their fishing rights in UK waters.
Covid-19 will make no deal even more chaotic and economically disruptive than it would have been anyway. Neither side will have the time or resources to put in place the systems and border checks needed - customs, immigration, rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary checks etc.. Some of the buffer stocks that were built up to protect supply chains against no deal have now been used to mitigate Covid-19 disruption - e.g. medical supplies.
An extension to transition would only need the UK government to amend the domestic legislation, with Covid-19 providing a ready made justification for this policy change. The only real downside would be continued contributions to the EU budget for another year or two - small change compared with the cost of Covid-19. The delay would give the breathing space needed to negotiate a deal that would be much more advantageous to both sides than WTO terms.
- Status