Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

So we have no changes to the backstop or even a time limit. We have no movement from the EU, as they have said from the beginning and May has not even tried to either negotiate something new or even engage with Labour on what they would find acceptable.

Her deal is still the deal on offer and it is the same deal that lost by 200 votes 2 months ago and it is that deal they will vote for again. If nothing changes in the next 12 days or so, how can Labour support a deal they have rejected already? How can the ERG support the deal when they were so vehemently opposed to it?

I could see one way Labour could support it, if she attaches either another referendum on it passing or a general election, but there really is nothing to make anybody change their mind from the previous vote. It takes some balls from the PM to flirt with no-deal to get her deal through. Let's hope for all our sake it doesn't backfire like it did on her predecessor.

Junkyard Tom

So far from Britain 'reclaiming its sovereignty' from the EU the Backstop demonstrates that it has been eroded while, conversely, Ireland's has been enhanced.

Frank Bullitt

The spin from some brexiteers about how chlorinated chicken isn't that bad etc is a serious sight. I don't know how they dont fall off their chair from the spinning that they do.

woohoo!!!

The DUP/ERG are quite happy considering they want no deal. Their utterly ridiculous 3 tests attest to this. The sooner these hard liners are side lined, the better. Far too much time and attention has been wasted on these extremists. The EU were never interested in entertaining them.

VinLieger

Does the backstop effectively make the US trade deal as proposed impossible for them to agree to?

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

Does the backstop effectively make the US trade deal as proposed impossible for them to agree to?

I don't think so. Afaik, they can do independent trade deals after 29th March and during the transition period.

VinLieger

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think so. Afaik, they can do independent trade deals after 29th March and during the transition period.

But in the case of the US deal if taken as is it will severely reduce their agriculture and food standards meaning a border would need to be erected to protect us from that produce entering our markets which would conflict with the backstop.

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

But in the case of the US deal if taken as is it will severely reduce their agriculture and food standards meaning a border would need to be erected to protect us from that produce entering our markets which would conflict with the backstop.

There's virtually no likelihood that they would have any trade deal with the US concluded by the end of the transition period. In any event, the UK will still be part of the single market during the transition period, so can't apply any agreements during that time.

The backstop puts the UK in the customs union, but not in the single market. NI will have limited SM compliance. So there wil be sanitary and phytoanitary checks on all plants, live animals and animal products entering NI.  

First Up

VinLieger wrote:

But in the case of the US deal if taken as is it will severely reduce their agriculture and food standards meaning a border would need to be erected to protect us from that produce entering our markets which would conflict with the backstop.

If it May's proposed UK wide backstop then they will stay in the Customs Union. That means no third party deals - US or anyone else.

VinLieger

prawnsambo wrote: »

There's virtually no likelihood that they would have any trade deal with the US concluded by the end of the transition period. In any event, the UK will still be part of the single market during the transition period, so can't apply any agreements during that time.

The backstop puts the UK in the customs union, but not in the single market. NI will have limited SM compliance. So there wil be sanitary and phytoanitary checks on all plants, live animals and animal products entering NI.  

So ironically once again we are the ones standing up for the well being of NI while the DUP do sfa

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

If it May's proposed UK wide backstop then they will stay in the Customs Union. That means no third party deals - US or anyone else.

I don't think that's quite correct. The UK aren't even supposed to engage in trade talks whilst a member of the EU (during A50 notice period), but they clearly are on the basis of a rollover of existing EU trade deals. But once the A50 period ends, they can then enter into trade talks fully as they are no longer a member of the EU. The transition period is there to alllow a 'soft landing' where they can engage in trade talks, but continue to operate as if they were still a member. But they can't apply any deals made without EU approval. The backstop changes the relationship to one where the same customs rules apply, but some SM rules apply to NI solely. So they can apply trade deals that don't breach the customs rules (i.e roll over deals), but any deal that affects customs rules can't be applied. So it's unlikely that a US deal would be applied if agreed, but it's still possible.

At least, that's my reading of it.

CelticRambler

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think so. Afaik, they can do independent trade deals after 29th March and during the transition period.

Yes, but don't forget that one of those trade deals will be with the EU, a negotiating partner that (very recent :rolleyes:) history has shown to be very good at including rigourous conditions in its contracts. "Talk to us before you sign anything else" is quite likely to feature somewhere in the new EU-UK trade agreement.

lawred2

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think that's quite correct. The UK aren't even supposed to engage in trade talks whilst a member of the EU (during A50 notice period), but they clearly are on the basis of a rollover of existing EU trade deals. But once the A50 period ends, they can then enter into trade talks fully as they are no longer a member of the EU. The transition period is there to alllow a 'soft landing' where they can engage in trade talks, but continue to operate as if they were still a member. But they can't apply any deals made without EU approval. The backstop changes the relationship to one where the same customs rules apply, but some SM rules apply to NI solely. So they can apply trade deals that don't breach the customs rules (i.e roll over deals), but any deal that affects customs rules can't be applied. So it's unlikely that a US deal would be applied if agreed, but it's still possible.

At least, that's my reading of it.

Of course they can talk to whomever but agreeing to trade deals that results in conflicts with agreed EU standards render those deals with the EU dead.

reslfj

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't think that's quite correct. ...

The backstop changes the relationship to one where the same customs rules apply, but some SM rules apply to NI solely.

That is my understanding , too.

The transition is under the full set of EU rules - membership without voting.

The UK wide CU will allow import using EU import tariffs, but goods can follow UK standards and regulations.
In NI the EU/SM standards, rules and regulations will continue to apply.

Different tariffs can/will make smuggling attractive. Differences in standards will mostly be much harder to monetise and smuggling will be less.

Lars

prawnsambo

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes, but don't forget that one of those trade deals will be with the EU, a negotiating partner that (very recent :rolleyes:) history has shown to be very good at including rigourous conditions in its contracts. "Talk to us before you sign anything else" is quite likely to feature somewhere in the new EU-UK trade agreement.

The only problem with that is the likelihood of EU trade talks dragging on for years. I know they've all agreed that these should be carried out as quickly as possible, but they will be tough and protracted imo.

lawred2 wrote: »

Of course they can talk to whomever but agreeing to trade deals that results in conflicts with agreed EU standards render those deals with the EU dead.

Not necessarily. The EU agrees standards with lots of trading blocs and countries and its only those goods that are destined for the EU that have to match EU standards. Those countries can set whatever standards they like for their own market or export markets that have agreed to different standards. Usually the importing market's standards. That's why there will be sanitary and phytosanitary controls on plant and animal products entering NI during the backstop period.

CelticRambler

prawnsambo wrote: »

The only problem with that is the likelihood of EU trade talks dragging on for years. I know they've all agreed that these should be carried out as quickly as possible, but they will be tough and protracted imo.

Agreed, but that in itself will divert a lot of time and energy away from any comprehensive deal with the US. The deals we've seen signed (rolled over) so far have been very simple - e.g. Faroese fish and Swiss gold - with relatively benign trading partners. It'll be a whole other experience for the UK negotiators when it comes to playing the in "senior championship" with their inexperienced team.

ToBeFrank123

One way or the other I think most people will want it done by 29th March.

Leroy42

My understanding was that during the transition phase the UK were effectively part of the EU in everything but name and voting rights. They have to continue to pay for access during the transition and standards need to be maintained.

What the transition allows if for the UK to start to prepare for divergence and to commence trade talks. Trade deals can be signed during the transition but will not come into effect until the end of it, and as such standards will need to remain aligned to the EU, even for any new or adjusted standards. This point was raised in the HoC as effectively the UK will have to adhere to standards but will be losing their rights to partake in the making of the standards.

So Brexit day, if the WA is passed, is actually not Brexit day at all. It is merely a staging post towards Brexit day in terms of actual outcomes. But in terms of Membership, Brexit Day is a reality as from that day the UK would need to seek to rejoin rather than simply revoke A50.

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

One way or the other I think most people will want it done by 29th March.

No matter what, 29th March this will not be done. Whether it be agreeing to the WA or a crash out, 29th March merely marks another step on the process.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

I don't think that's quite correct. The UK aren't even supposed to engage in trade talks whilst a member of the EU (during A50 notice period), but they clearly are on the basis of a rollover of existing EU trade deals. But once the A50 period ends, they can then enter into trade talks fully as they are no longer a member of the EU. The transition period is there to alllow a 'soft landing' where they can engage in trade talks, but continue to operate as if they were still a member. But they can't apply any deals made without EU approval. The backstop changes the relationship to one where the same customs rules apply, but some SM rules apply to NI solely. So they can apply trade deals that don't breach the customs rules (i.e roll over deals), but any deal that affects customs rules can't be applied. So it's unlikely that a US deal would be applied if agreed, but it's still possible.


At least, that's my reading of it.

I said if its a UK wide backstop. If its NI only then its either a land border or an Irish Sea border. The rest of the UK can do what it likes (or what it can get.)

VinLieger

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

One way or the other I think most people will want it done by 29th March.

Except its not going to be, only 50% of the required Statutory Instruments for legislation changes required upon leaving the EU have been laid before Parliament while only 10% have even been passed. They have 16 normal working days (including today) left in the HOC to pass 800-900 SI's while half of them haven't even been finished by their respective departments

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

No matter what, 29th March this will not be done. Whether it be agreeing to the WA or a crash out, 29th March merely marks another step on the process.

The only way to get it done is to revoke article 50 and never think about leaving again. It is the fault of the agitators that people are stuck in a Brexit loop and nothing else seems to be happening.


Other news, May will try the bribe tactic with Labour MPs to vote for her deal

£1.6bn 'bribe' for poorer towns as May seeks Labour's backing for Brexit deal

Left-behind towns in England are to get a £1.6bn funding boost as part of a package of measures to win support for Theresa May’s Brexit deal among Labour MPs, who said the new cash would not buy their votes.

Labour MPs including Lisa Nandy and Gareth Snell who have signalled they might back May’s deal criticised the approach and said the cash would do little to tackle the effects of austerity.

The communities secretary, James Brokenshire, denied the money was a Brexit bribe and said it would be enough to have a “transformative” impact on areas that felt left behind.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Monday, he refused to say how many towns would benefit, but pointed out that the cash would be allocated whatever happens in next week’s meaningful vote on the EU withdrawal bill.

You may think this is great, some towns will get funding to claw back some of the cuts due to austerity. But there is confusion on whether this is over 4 years or even 7. Stoke City Council had to cut more from their budget than the whole area is supposed to receive from this, so I don't see how putting a plaster over a severed limb helps anyone.

There is also this take on the story,

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1102485070852575232

There is also this opinion piece that I found entertaining, and at the same time it is scary to see how incompetent those in charge is.

This government has bungled every negotiation it faced and now it's even bungling its bribes

We cannot even pay businesses to stay in the UK. Last week it was revealed that £80 million worth of government support couldn't convince Nissan to manufacture its new X-Trail vehicle in Sunderland. It's just the latest grim benchmark in a Brexit process which deteriorates further every day into pork-barrel politics and dodgy dealings.

The £1 billion bung offered to the DUP set the tone for this path of greased resistance, as the branches of the magic money tree were miraculously extended to prop up a weakened Conservative party. It was astonishing. In the run up to the country's most important negotiations for a generation, Theresa May showed she was willing to shell out £100 million for the talents of Nigel Dodds and Sammy Wilson.

And she is now pursuing that strategy wherever she can. A controversial knighthood for Brexiteer Sir John Hayes in November had already attracted criticism, followed by a gong for Sir John Redwood in the New Year - not that the latter appears to have helped her.

And now reports have emerged that May approached Labour MPs about increased funding for their constituencies in exchange for support in the next Commons vote. It's unclear whether the prime minister has run out of Tory backbenchers to bribe or she simply can't tell the difference between the two sides on Brexit.

...

If the government spent half as much effort negotiating and preparing Brexit in good faith as it has encouraging politicians and companies to get behind the deal, we might not be weeks from tumbling out of the EU on non-existent terms.

We're trapped on the island of broken promises and the deal on offer solves nothing. It delivers neither clarity nor closure. The government has been reduced to spilling bundles of cash in a last ditch attempt to get over the line - with no certainty as to what awaits us on the other side.

We are staggering blindfolded towards a Brexit no one voted for, silenced by those who know leaving is no longer the will of the people. We should call things by their proper name. That smell is the stench of corruption. It’s time to think again.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

I said if its a UK wide backstop. If its NI only then its either a land border or an Irish Sea border. The rest of the UK can do what it likes (or what it can get.)

I competely understood what you said. The withdrawal agreement is for a UK wide backstop with the CU applying to the whole of the UK and some SM elements applying to NI. That's the basis on which I replied to you.

Sam Russell

The exchange rate shows GB£ is strengthening wrt to the Euro - currently at 85.5p to the Euro.

It is interesting to note that in the last ten years, GB£ has only been stronger than the IR£ for the calendar tear of 2015. Interesting point I think and a demonstration of how poor their economic performance has been.

Now exchange rates are not everything but they are indicative of a countries economic performance, but there are other factors that affect them, and the influx of hot money into the London property market would tend to raise the exchange rate. Despite that, the GB£ continues to plumb the downside over the last decade.

demfad

prawnsambo wrote: »

There's virtually no likelihood that they would have any trade deal with the US concluded by the end of the transition period. In any event, the UK will still be part of the single market during the transition period, so can't apply any agreements during that time.

The backstop puts the UK in the customs union, but not in the single market. NI will have limited SM compliance. So there wil be sanitary and phytoanitary checks on all plants, live animals and animal products entering NI.  

Wouldn't be so sure. A letter to the Irish Times from a few weeks ago from the American Brexit Committee indicate a permanent UK negotiating team have been in Washington since July 2017.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/brexit-the-us-dimension-1.3783127

We expect also to get answers from the Trump Administration on just what British trade staff have been up to in the Office of the US Trade Representative since they encamped there in July 2017. Our sense is that a hastily crafted US-UK trade deal is a rescue effort to save the British from the folly of Brexit. That makes it a prime candidate for suspect favours, privileges, trade deals and contracts for UK companies or individuals probably designed to favour UK companies at the expense of Irish businesses, all of which may have nothing to do with the UK trade deficit with the US.

Here also is a "Paper" by the Cato Institute in September 18 detailing how they would view a deal.

This is more significant than it sounds:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/18/rightwing-thinktanks-unveil-radical-plan-for-us-uk-brexit-trade-deal-nhs

In the UK, the researchers behind the blueprint have had exceptional access to ministers in both the Department for International Trade and the Department for Exiting the European Union, with IEA staff and its head of trade policy, Shanker Singham, meeting Liam Fox, David Davis, Steve Baker and other ministers and special advisers on numerous occasions since the referendum result, government transparency data shows. Fox has given speeches at both the Heritage Foundation and the AEI before and after the referendum.

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

The only way to get it done is to revoke article 50 and never think about leaving again. It is the fault of the agitators that people are stuck in a Brexit loop and nothing else seems to be happening.

Other news, May will try the bribe tactic with Labour MPs to vote for her deal

£1.6bn 'bribe' for poorer towns as May seeks Labour's backing for Brexit deal

You may think this is great, some towns will get funding to claw back some of the cuts due to austerity. But there is confusion on whether this is over 4 years or even 7. Stoke City Council had to cut more from their budget than the whole area is supposed to receive from this, so I don't see how putting a plaster over a severed limb helps anyone.

There is also this take on the story,

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1102485070852575232

There is also this opinion piece that I found entertaining, and at the same time it is scary to see how incompetent those in charge is.

This government has bungled every negotiation it faced and now it's even bungling its bribes

On the other hand, the money that would have come from EU cohesion funds over the same (or similar period) would amount to over £13 billion.

This is a comparison between the two proposals.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

I competely understood what you said. The withdrawal agreement is for a UK wide backstop with the CU applying to the whole of the UK and some SM elements applying to NI. That's the basis on which I replied to you.

That has nothing to do with transition periods or when they can negotiate trade deals. If the whole UK is in the CU, then any trade deals must comply with the EU external tariff. If there is any difference between NI and the rest of the UK, then procedures will apply between the two.

prawnsambo

demfad wrote: »

Wouldn't be so sure. A letter to the Irish Times from a few weeks ago from the American Brexit Committee indicate a permanent UK negotiating team have been in Washington since July 2017.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/brexit-the-us-dimension-1.3783127

Here also is a "Paper" by the Cato Institute in September 18 detailing how they would view a deal.

This is more significant than it sounds:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/18/rightwing-thinktanks-unveil-radical-plan-for-us-uk-brexit-trade-deal-nhs

I'm not sure on what basis these talks are progressing. The IEA is one of the notorious Tufton Street 'think thanks' and would obviously have strong links with the ERG heads that were named there. I'd be of the view that this is based on 'no deal' which is their number one priority. The outlook I was basing my posts on was purely under the WA.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

That has nothing to do with transition periods or when they can negotiate trade deals. If the whole UK is in the CU, then any trade deals must comply with the EU external tariff. If there is any difference between NI and the rest of the UK, then procedures will apply between the two.

I don't think I disagreed with this.

prawnsambo wrote: »

The transition period is there to alllow a 'soft landing' where they can engage in trade talks, but continue to operate as if they were still a member. But they can't apply any deals made without EU approval. The backstop changes the relationship to one where the same customs rules apply, but some SM rules apply to NI solely. So they can apply trade deals that don't breach the customs rules (i.e roll over deals), but any deal that affects customs rules can't be applied. So it's unlikely that a US deal would be applied if agreed, but it's still possible.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

I don't think I disagreed with this.

Well you said you disagreed with something.