Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Raheem]

I'm not seeing why Lichtenstein having limits on FoM is "in the interest of a functioning union". Or at least not in the context of why the UK having limits would be against the unions interest.*

*Just woke from a nap - maybe i'm missing the obvious.

Limiting fom for Lichtenstein (I thought it was Luxembourg - maybe it's both) is negligible in terms of overall EU migration. That's probably the main difference.

 

[pocketscience]

Limiting fom for Lichtenstein (I thought it was Luxembourg - maybe it's both) is negligible in terms of overall EU migration. That's probably the main difference.

The article from Winot states why Liechetenstein got a concession on FoM:

Prior to the principality of Liechtenstein joining the EEA on 1 May 1995, the EEA Council – one of the formal structures set up under the agreement – on 10 March 1995 looked at its vulnerability to excessive migration.

It concluded that this microstate could easily be swamped by immigrants if unrestricted free movement of workers was permitted. A territory with a population of 37,000 spread over an area of 61 square miles – less than half the area of the Isle of Wight – would not be able to absorb unlimited numbers.

The Council recognised that Liechtenstein had "a very small inhabitable area of rural character with an unusually high percentage of non-national residents and employees. Moreover, it acknowledged the vital interest of Liechtenstein to maintain its own national identity". It thus concluded that the situation "might justify the taking of safeguard measures by Liechtenstein as provided for in Article 112 of the EEA Agreement".

I'm just wondering why that reason (Liechtenstein potentially being overwhelmed by immigrants) is "in the interest of a functioning union". Yet here we have a huge trading partner potentially breaking away from the union and suddenly the FoM is a non negotiable principle - one that's taking negotiations to a brink that could lead to a crash-out - therefore a bigger threat to "the interest of a functioning union" imo.
All seems a bit arbitrary.
Maybe the fact that Liechtenstein was a rich-as-fuck tax-haven had something to do with the decision makers in Brussels letting them have their way (Junker the tax dodger doing the negs instead of Barnier?)

 

[ska invita]

I'm not seeing why Lichtenstein having limits on FoM is "in the interest of a functioning union". Or at least not in the context of why the UK having limits would be against the unions interest.*

*Just woke from a nap - maybe i'm missing the obvious.

because they recognised the particular limitations of LIchenstein's size and status and needed to find a work around to make it work as part of the Union. UK wants to leave the Union. The EU doesn't need to find a work around as the UK is leaving the Union. The only onus on the EU is to get some kind of workable trade agreement for EU members. There is no political will or imperative to make sure that includes bypassing any of the four freedoms for the UK - hte opposite - it is a threat to the future of the Union if they let that happen.

 

[pocketscience]

because they recognised the particular limitations of LIchenstein's size and status and needed to find a work around to make it work as part of the Union. UK wants to leave the Union. The EU doesn't need to find a work around as the UK is leaving the Union. The only onus on the EU is to get some kind of workable trade agreement for EU members. There is no political will or imperative to make sure that includes bypassing any of the four freedoms for the UK - hte opposite - it is a threat to the future of the Union if they let that happen.

but it wasn't applying to be part of the Union. it was applying to eea/ efta - the middle ground where the UK's heading.. therefore equal impacts (or better said non-impacts) on the "functioning Union" surely?

 

[Supine]

because they recognised the particular limitations of LIchenstein's size and status and needed to find a work around to make it work as part of the Union. UK wants to leave the Union. The EU doesn't need to find a work around as the UK is leaving the Union. The only onus on the EU is to get some kind of workable trade agreement for EU members. There is no political will or imperative to make sure that includes bypassing any of the four freedoms for the UK - hte opposite - it is a threat to the future of the Union if they let that happen.

Good post. It cuts to the heart of the matter, we are leaving the EU

Words like 'minimum friction' are great but they actually mean friction and that means jobs lost.

 

[ska invita]

but it wasn't applying to be part of the Union. it was applying to eea/ efta - the middle ground where the UK's heading.. therefore equal impacts (or better said non-impacts) on the "functioning Union" surely?

thats a good point
i think knowing where Lichtenstein was geographically got me thinking of it as embedded in the Union in some way...

still, for reasons i cant really articulate it would be massively hopeful to expect the same for the UK. Of course its possible if the political will is there, but i see no reason for them to open that door when they can see the UK falling in on itself at home over this.

 

[pocketscience]

because they recognised the particular limitations of LIchenstein's size and status and needed to find a work around to make it work as part of the Union. UK wants to leave the Union. The EU doesn't need to find a work around as the UK is leaving the Union. The only onus on the EU is to get some kind of workable trade agreement for EU members. There is no political will or imperative to make sure that includes bypassing any of the four freedoms for the UK - hte opposite - it is a threat to the future of the Union if they let that happen.

I've colour coded the "union" contexts to make it clear:
Liechtenstein and the UK would be one of the same - and the future of the (European) Union union (i.e the functioning union you talked about) are 2 entirely different entities.
I'm not trying to be condescending - it's just important to make that clear - you seem to be talking about one of the same Union that Liechtenstein is joining and we are leaving. That is not happening.

 

[pocketscience]

thats a good point
i think knowing where Lichtenstein was geographically got me thinking of it as embedded in the Union in some way...

still, for reasons i cant really articulate it would be massively hopeful to expect the same for the UK. Of course its possible if the political will is there, but i see no reason for them to open that door when they can see the UK falling in on itself at home over this.

ok, no worries.. ignore my post above then .

 

[butchersapron]

When you call a pass law freedom of movement something dang gon wrung.

 

[pocketscience]

When you call a pass law freedom of movement something dang gon wrung.

tru dat

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I am not sure this is allowed, but the article I have copied and pasted below is from behind the Irish Times paywall. It is by
Fintan O'Toole. He mashes up The Italian Job and The Wicker man to inspire him with this article. Those interested might like to read it.

Brexit traps the DUP inside the Wicker Man

Boris Johnson’s outburst reminds us that Brexit is an English nationalist project – it cannot allow the English bulldog to be wagged by an Irish tail.

What’s the best cinematic version of Brexit? I’ve previously suggested the final sequence of The Italian Job, where the truck is suspended half way over a ravine and the crew can’t get at their great pile of gold bars without tipping themselves into the abyss. But from an Irish point of view, we probably need a double bill in which it is shown alongside another British classic from the same era, The Wicker Man. Some horror fans have already noted the prescience of Summerisle, where most of the film is set. It is an Atlantic island that has cut itself off from the mainland and adopted a crazy cult. The cult is led by Lord Summerisle, a man with a self-consciously orotund vocabulary, mad hair and a great line in sacrificing the young generation for his bonkers beliefs – Christopher Lee as Boris Johnson, in other words.

But the most interesting parallel is the arrival on Summerisle of Edward Woodward’s Sergeant Neil Howie, innocently intent on doing his duty of investigating a suspected murder. He thinks of himself as embodying the majesty of the British state. He is upright. He is judgmental. He is righteous. And he is very devoutly Presbyterian, possibly even of the Wee Free variety. He is, of course, the Democratic Unionist Party. Howie becomes increasingly aware that he has no idea where he really is, that he has taken a one-way trip to a place with its own fatal laws. Lord Summerisle eventually summons him to his horrible death: “We confer upon you a rare gift, these days – a martyr’s death. You will not only have life eternal, but you will sit with the saints among the elect. Come!”

A 500km-long border barrier with turnstiles that open when we brush our passports against the 'gizmo'?

It is true that Lord Boris did not say these words in that private dinner with Tory diehards last week. But what he says on the recording leaked to Buzzfeed places Irish unionism right inside the giant Wicker Man with the torches just about to touch the kindling. It is not so much the idiocy of Johnson’s repeated belief that an international border is just like moving around London, though having previously compared the Irish frontier to passing from one London borough to another, he now compared it to travelling on the Tube: “You know, when I was mayor of London … I could tell where you all were just when you swiped your Oyster card over a Tube terminal, a Tube gizmo. The idea that we can’t track movement of goods, it’s just nonsense.”

‘This folly’
Fatuous as these comparisons are (a 500km-long border barrier with turnstiles that open when we brush our passports against the “gizmo”?), the real point is what came next, the hissy fit about this whole bloody Irish border business: “It’s so small and there are so few firms that actually use that Border regularly, it’s just beyond belief that we’re allowing the tail to wag the dog in this way. We’re allowing the whole of our agenda to be dictated by this folly.” Infantile as this is, it expresses a kind of truth – one that is not yet spoken in public but soon will be. The truth is that the Brexiteers don’t give a flying frig for Ireland, North or South – and that includes Irish unionism and the DUP.

The DUP has gone one further than poor Sergeant Howie and helped to construct the wicker cage in which unionism will be torched.

Johnson and his chums ignored Northern Ireland in their Brexit campaign. That seemed to be the ultimate height of irresponsibility but they have now gone further – they are exploiting it. Their current strategy is to use the EU’s offer of a special deal for Northern Ireland, preserving many of the advantages of the single market even while leaving it, as an opening through which they can force the EU to concede the same have cake/eat cake privileges to Britain. They are trying to turn the sympathy that comes from a horrible conflict, in which nearly 2 per cent of the population was killed or injured, into a way of getting one over on Michel Barnier. This is political depravity.

The Brexit balloon
But it won’t work and when it doesn’t, the rage that Johnson uttered in private will become more open and explicit. The Brexit balloon is supposed to soar into the skies when it cuts the ropes that bind it to Brussels. But its occupants are realising that there is another rope that keeps them earthbound – the one that ties them to Newry and Strabane. To salvage their fantasies, they will cut that rope too. Brexit is an English nationalist project – it cannot allow the English bulldog to be wagged by an Irish tail. If the tail has to be cut off – sorry but pass the shears old man.

The DUP thinks it’s the dog of course, but it’s not. To the Brexit believers, we are all part of the same Irish “folly”. The DUP has gone one further than poor Sergeant Howie and helped to construct the wicker cage in which unionism will be torched to appease the gods of Brexit. It could still save itself by voting with the opposition when the EU Withdrawal Bill returns to the House of Commons today. Or it can murmur ecstatically Kipling’s Ulster 1912: “We are the sacrifice.”

Thanks for dropping that in

 

[redsquirrel]

When you call a pass law freedom of movement something dang gon wrung.

This, a thousand times this.

 

[Winot]

still, for reasons i cant really articulate it would be massively hopeful to expect the same for the UK. Of course its possible if the political will is there, but i see no reason for them to open that door when they can see the UK falling in on itself at home over this.

It’s been suggested that present EFTA* members would be happy to have the UK become a member because it would beef up their bargaining power within the EEA. Don’t know how true that is but it’s worth bearing in mind.

Also I’m not sure how the balance of power and decision making works in the EEA Council ie would the EU have a veto on giving the UK FoM concessions? I just don’t know.

(*the UK is presently an EEA member by virtue of being in the EU. The issue is whether it will become an EFTA member to stay in the EEA after Brexit)

 

[pocketscience]

still, for reasons i cant really articulate it would be massively hopeful to expect the same for the UK. Of course its possible if the political will is there, but i see no reason for them to open that door when they can see the UK falling in on itself at home over this.

I don't think the UK is falling in on itself over immigration as such (at least, not to meaningful levels). It is falling in on itself about the dogmatic threat from the EU that there can be no access to the single market without allowing "FoM". But as the Liechtenstein case proves, that threat is a bluff. The EU do make concessions when they see fit.
So, all that's happened in Realpolitik is that the UKs negotiating leverage has been eradicated due to a large segment of the UK not wanting to run the risk of challenging these dogmatic threats.

 

[Winot]

I don't think the UK is falling in on itself over immigration as such (at least, not to meaningful levels). It is falling in on itself about the dogmatic threat from the EU that there can be no access to the single market without allowing "FoM". But as the Liechtenstein case proves, that threat is a bluff. The EU do make concessions when they see fit.

To a state that is outside the EU.

 

[pocketscience]

To a state that is outside the EU.

er, that's what the negotiations are all about - a state outside the Eu - i.e the UK

 

[Winot]

er, that's what the negotiations are all about - a state outside the Eu - i.e the UK

Yeah sorry am losing my marbles

 

[ska invita]

Yeah sorry am losing my marbles

its fun this isnt it

 

[teuchter]

It's relevant though is it not that the negotiations are with a state outside the EU but previously within. Because they will be mindful of setting precedents for what happens when a state leaves the EU.

 

[Pickman's model]

er, that's what the negotiations are all about - a state outside the Eu - i.e the UK

not really. this is about a state which is a member but which will be leaving, a state which is transitioning from one state to another state and negotiating its way out.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's relevant though is it not that the negotiations are with a state outside the EU but previously within. Because they will be mindful of setting precedents for what happens when a state leaves the EU.

i am astonished that this has only been mentioned about fifteen times on the thread.

 

[toblerone3]

When you call a pass law freedom of movement something dang gon wrung.

Are you saying that 'Freedom of Movement' is a misleading phrase?

Why do you say this?

Who is being misled?
What are they being misled to think?

 

[Pickman's model]

Are you saying that 'Freedom of Movement' is a misleading phrase?

Why do you say this?

Who is being misled?
What are they being misled to think?

at a rough guess everyone who thinks it's freedom of movement is being misled and they are being misled to think there is freedom of movement.

 

[toblerone3]

at a rough guess everyone who thinks it's freedom of movement is being misled and they are being misled to think there is freedom of movement.

How are you defining "Freedom of movement" ?

 

[Pickman's model]

How are you defining "Freedom of movement" ?

using the dictionary

what idiosyncratic construction are you placing on the phrase?

 

[toblerone3]

using the dictionary

what idiosyncratic construction are you placing on the phrase?

What does your dictionary say?

 

[Pickman's model]

What does your dictionary say?

in this context essentially the ability of citizens of a member state to travel and settle throughout the territory of the european union without facing the hurdles someone from a non-member state might: but recognising that that not all non-member states' citizens face the same hurdles, so - for example - things might quite possibly be easier for a swiss or norwegian citizen than someone from niger or turkmenistan.

 

[pocketscience]

Are you saying that 'Freedom of Movement' is a misleading phrase?

Why do you say this?

Who is being misled?
What are they being misled to think?

This has been discussed on this thread many times.
My opinion:

IMO, if the EU was serious about FOM, they'd do well to look at expanding the UK model across the continent. No ID, No Registration, NHS for all.

I also pointed out that the law in many countries of the Eu is that within 12 weeks you need a job and obligatory private health insurance (which isnt cheap) otherwise face deportation.
So not free.

 

[pocketscience]

not really. this is about a state which is a member but which will be leaving, a state which is transitioning from one state to another state and negotiating its way out.

This fact is having an impact on the negotiations, I agree. But also the fact applies that that the Eu has continued to make concessions on their "principles" when negotiating the relationship between the Union and the external partner.

Looking at the various models of those relationships (e.g comparing Turkey & Switzerlands relationship with the EU) i cant see any reason why the UK shouldn't want it's cake and eat it, and I don't think many individual countries of the Eu would deny the UK that. But it's the Eu alone that needs to set the precident so others dont follow - that's telling enough of the dysfunctionality of the Union.
I think the UK's dimplomatic sensitivity hasnt done itsself many favours on this point by not massivly rubbing salt in that particular wound, to put pressure on the Eu from their own quaters.

 

[Pickman's model]

This fact is having an impact on the negotiations, I agree. But also the fact applies that that the Eu has continued to make concessions on their "principles" when negotiating the relationship between the Union and the external partner.

Looking at the various models of those relationships (e.g comparing Turkey & Switzerlands relationship with the EU) i cant see any reason why the UK shouldn't want it's cake and eat it, and I don't think many individual countries of the Eu would deny the UK that. But it's the Eu alone that needs to set the precident so others dont follow that's telling enough of the dysfunctionality of the Union.
I think the UK's dimplomatic sensitivity hasnt done itsself many favours on this point by not massivly rubbing salt in that particular wound, to put pressure on the Eu from their own quaters.

i think the utter incompetence of the uk government has played more than a minor role in this clusterfuck

i wouldn't give concessions to may, she hasn't had the wherewithal to work out a proper negotiating position yet and we're a mite short of two years past the referendum.