Is the United Kingdom Leaving the European Union - Two Years On
I really do not write that much it seems. This is mainly a therapeutic pleasure, given the humdrum of one's working livelihood (dare I say it). And yet it was interesting that my director said upon the result of the vote that we would have to work harder, because that has not happened, and I would even say that individuals are using methods to look as if they are doing more whilst doing less. There is a loss of control of what you can do, the influence of technology in doing what you do; analysis being almost automated (but that has always been the case - I read a financial report written by someone I used to know at a company where I used to work and it was written in the same way that it was over 20 years ago and that to most people is incomprehensible).
So just over two years ago I wrote a short piece about what I thought Brexit as it is commonly referred to meant. Looking back at it I still think it was a reasoned effort although the unrushed move to invoke Article 50 was soon to be not the case. That I think was a mistake. It has set a so called line in the sand whereas the response should have been - we negotiate and when everything is then agreed then we invoke the Article and we effectively have up to two years to complete.
As others have written, what has been offered is a major compromise. Agreement on what follows is allegedly been left with the House of Commons. So what are the choices and what is the probability of which choice will be made. Yes there may be a document but there are at least two concrete choices.
1 Make the respective payments on an ongoing basis and ensure open North/Republic border with temp to perm trading agreement.
2 No deal so in short term refer to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules on trade, but effectively then have to negotiate trade deals on individual basis and EU deems all borders are "hard".
3 Remain in EU but not sure if current status would continue.
If politicians that really take an interest in this (and that should be all of them), then the deal document compromise is probably worse than the Norway/Switzerland/Canada solutions. I am going to have to assume that this document will not be agreed to with a majority. Additionally, it can be argued that the point of Brexit was to force change to make the EU a more efficient and transparent organisation (MEPs are remote and lacking in many respects - Farage is a very good example), it's scope, aims and objectives seem to be broadening all the time and yet is it really contributing to the global issues of the day or is it geographically dependent.
No deal is possible. There will be no hard border with the Republic, it is the remit between the UK and Irish governments that matters and there are precedents, the border between Sweden and Norway is one that I personally know of. So let's called it the UKI Trading Bloc just to call it something. So how do we get around transactions that need to cross borders where there is water between us or where a tunnel provides a direct connection. I feel that there is only certain obstructions with one to one agreements here, and that is really around Agriculture and Fisheries - especially France. However, it is in all countries interest to continue as it is today. Tax is very much a collection on behalf of the selling country and is increasing becoming technology driven with monthly reporting and debits and credits checks.
Remain is possible especially if Donald Tusk is not taking the Michael. Why could this be possible. Fundamentally, and this follows historical precedents, the UK has been the middle man between the differences between the other "great powers" of Germany and France (excluding Russia). In many respects the British culture of being that mediator has helped the smaller nations to have a profile and voice within the organisation and yet the UK has been seen as important to them in the greater scheme of what the European Union is deemed to be. This is not just about the pure historical context of defence but also in other areas where the UK was the innovator and brought things to the world in a reasoned way. The issue with this is that the UK is seeing a lack of willing to change as we would see to "improve, become efficient" and that "despair" is a reason behind this. Would there be a commitment to this by the EU? Unlikely.
So just over two years ago I wrote a short piece about what I thought Brexit as it is commonly referred to meant. Looking back at it I still think it was a reasoned effort although the unrushed move to invoke Article 50 was soon to be not the case. That I think was a mistake. It has set a so called line in the sand whereas the response should have been - we negotiate and when everything is then agreed then we invoke the Article and we effectively have up to two years to complete.
As others have written, what has been offered is a major compromise. Agreement on what follows is allegedly been left with the House of Commons. So what are the choices and what is the probability of which choice will be made. Yes there may be a document but there are at least two concrete choices.
1 Make the respective payments on an ongoing basis and ensure open North/Republic border with temp to perm trading agreement.
2 No deal so in short term refer to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules on trade, but effectively then have to negotiate trade deals on individual basis and EU deems all borders are "hard".
3 Remain in EU but not sure if current status would continue.
If politicians that really take an interest in this (and that should be all of them), then the deal document compromise is probably worse than the Norway/Switzerland/Canada solutions. I am going to have to assume that this document will not be agreed to with a majority. Additionally, it can be argued that the point of Brexit was to force change to make the EU a more efficient and transparent organisation (MEPs are remote and lacking in many respects - Farage is a very good example), it's scope, aims and objectives seem to be broadening all the time and yet is it really contributing to the global issues of the day or is it geographically dependent.
No deal is possible. There will be no hard border with the Republic, it is the remit between the UK and Irish governments that matters and there are precedents, the border between Sweden and Norway is one that I personally know of. So let's called it the UKI Trading Bloc just to call it something. So how do we get around transactions that need to cross borders where there is water between us or where a tunnel provides a direct connection. I feel that there is only certain obstructions with one to one agreements here, and that is really around Agriculture and Fisheries - especially France. However, it is in all countries interest to continue as it is today. Tax is very much a collection on behalf of the selling country and is increasing becoming technology driven with monthly reporting and debits and credits checks.
Remain is possible especially if Donald Tusk is not taking the Michael. Why could this be possible. Fundamentally, and this follows historical precedents, the UK has been the middle man between the differences between the other "great powers" of Germany and France (excluding Russia). In many respects the British culture of being that mediator has helped the smaller nations to have a profile and voice within the organisation and yet the UK has been seen as important to them in the greater scheme of what the European Union is deemed to be. This is not just about the pure historical context of defence but also in other areas where the UK was the innovator and brought things to the world in a reasoned way. The issue with this is that the UK is seeing a lack of willing to change as we would see to "improve, become efficient" and that "despair" is a reason behind this. Would there be a commitment to this by the EU? Unlikely.
Comments
Post a Comment