Brexit, aka, the UK Becomes a Clown Car of the Highest Order

Meanwhile, inflation in the UK jumped to 3.1%

A breakdown of the ONS data showed food prices up by 4.1% on a year ago, with transport costs rising by 4.5% and clothing and footwear up by 3%.

The fall in the value of the pound since the EU referendum in June 2016 has been the main factor behind the jump in the annual inflation rate from 1.2% in November 2016 to its highest level since March 2012.

Brexit is going to be at best short term pain for long term profit. So, there are no other solutions on the table other than “straight worse for the UK” at least in the short term.

Once new deals get made, institutions rearrange, etc, etc, insert solutions here, in the fullness of time, Britain rules, EU drools?

Non Brexiteers I think look at that insert solutions here step and see “magic happens”. :D

They don’t like the transition concept because they don’t think it’s necessary. If I hate my current job but need the money, a transition phase of “Going to work while looking for another job” is sensible. If I hate my current job, am independently wealthy and actually my current boss owes me money, makes the transition phase less attractive. :D

Slight difference of opinion of which situation the UK is currently in…

Unfortunately while this is what the government keeps saying, the EU say it’s impossible. So who knows how this plays out?

It would have been possible, since the A50 period + transition period would have provided ample time. Although Davis is being hopelessly optimistic on what such a pact might entail, a CETA-style deal would be entirely plausible, and sufficiently clearly inferior to single market access to be palatable. However the EU has repeatedly refused to begin any kind of discussion, despite Article 50 requiring them to conduct negotiations on the framework for the future relationship. Effectively it’s impossible because the EU negotiators(*) don’t want it to happen not because it’s actually impossible.

(*: I suspect most members of the council would actually be quite happy with such a trade deal, as it would clearly benefit the EU economically tremendously relative to “no deal”. I didn’t realise how completely the commission would take control of the process - and frankly the way it has does make me think the Brexiteers had a point when they talked about sovereignty)

I’m unsure there would be time; the EU is following its internal rules to the letter. That means that first there is the withdrawal arrangements - effectively all the same steps a member takes to join, but in reverse - before any sort of trade is discussed. A transition deal which might or might not happen doesn’t provide sufficient time for what I imagine will be quite lengthy and involved negotiations on trade. A ‘framework for a future relationship’ will never be very meaty - I expect little more than nice adjectives (‘special partnership’) and a statement of intent on trade.

The EU is also keen to keep those two things entirely separate for its own good reasons. They don’t want Britain to have any sort of leverage on how much of its commitments it fulfills by wrapping it up with a trade deal. Stuff like that has been shut down quickly every time Davis brings it up. The Irish border, in particular, is a specific mess that the EU wants to see Britain sort before it starts using it as part of a trade negotiation.

The council agreed to this timetable, didn’t they?

Of course it’s not impossible. Nothing stopping the EU from going “You get all the benefits and none of the drawbacks. And cause we like you so much, we’ll even throw in a pony!”.

But since the EU actually wants to keep existing and doesn’t think the UK is quite as necessary as all that, instead decided to extract as much as possible from the UK. The fiends, actually doing what people expect them to do.

BTW, I live in Portugal and my read on the situation is that a hard Brexit will be painful for our economy. However a “better out than in” Brexit will wreck it completely (EU fractures), so… “Go, go, Michel!”

Did you even read my post? A CETA-style deal is hardly “all of the benefits and none of the drawbacks”.

I didn’t mean to imply a CETA-style deal was “all of the benefits none of the drawback”, but I see how it could be read that way. Sorry, English no is being first language. :D

It’s just that it’s not something the EU is required to agree to, or to offer, so, it was not offered, if for no other reason than “we don’t wanna”, just like the EU didn’t offer a “all you want” deal. Not because it’s impossible, but because we didn’t want to (we being several different countries and institutions, etc, etc).

ETA:

Besides, would the UK even agree to a straight CETA-style deal? Services need more, I’m expecting a whole bunch of negotiations in the future to try and achieve more than that, no idea on what the end will be…

Barnier is following the negotiating mandate, including the two-stage process, set by the Council and endorsed by the Parliament. And as far as I can tell much of the opposition to moving to the second stage came from individual member states like Germany, France and of course Ireland.

I’d also point out that Article 50 does not require them to negotiate a framework for the future relationship. It requires them to negotiate a “arrangements for its withdrawal”, taking into account the framework.

Also, the UK has said it doesn’t want CETA. It wants “Canada plus plus plus”, according to our illustrious Brexit secretary. Barnier has repeatedly said a CETA-like deal is possible (though it’s not his to deliver).

Would the UK agree to a straight CETA-style deal? Well, that would be the negotiation. But the “If you want to be outside the union, this is what an outside the union trade deal looks like” is a pretty coherent negotiating position and any extension (to services say), would be an oppurtunity to extract concessions on the EU side.

Anyway you seem to have ended up agreeing with me on the key point.
(“It’s just that it’s not something the EU is required to agree to, or to offer, so, it was not offered, if for no other reason than “we don’t wanna””).

This 337 page document is an example of what the EU refers to as a “framework” regarding a close relationship with non-members.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:22009A0428(02)&rid=1

See Stabilisation and Association Agreement - European Commission where it is referred to as a framework.

I can believe that is a framework. I’m not sure it’s the sort of framework the EU has in mind for the purposes of Article 50, which as @Ginger_Yellow has pointed out, isn’t required to be set out. Just ‘taken into account’. (Arguably it is hard to take into account something that has not been set out, which is why I think something will be set out - but not 300 pages. More like 3.)

I don’t disagree that the EU could. I disagree that it should, that it was a good idea, at least for the EU at the time. Maybe it’s a good idea now, I’m unsure on that.

This is coming from a POV that the UK needs a deal more than the “EU” (it’s not the same for every member), that a good deal for the UK endangers the EU, and that hard Brexit while painful for the EU is perfectly manageable and actually an opportunity to move forward (nothing like an existential threat to focus the mind).

Pretty good cabinet shaping up there, if you ask me.

Seems pretty clear it’s not the just the EU delaying discussions of a trade deal:

The entire jumping before looking the British government pulled off makes me think they really thought the EU would just give in or try and fudge it in the usual EU way so things kept going pretty much as they always did, with Britain leaving, but not really, just leaving enough to allow the Sun and others to claim victory, not realizing that Brexit was actually a big fucking deal for the EU and that business as usual was not on the table, could not be on the table.

I hope I’m still alive and interested whenever we get historical perspective on this whole thing, a Ken Burns like documentary should be amazing…