Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

https://www.ft.com/content/1e671bb2-14c6-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e

The ferry rum tale of Seaborne Freight
The UK’s answer to Brexit travel chaos just needs some ships and all will be well


January 11, 2019 4:00 am by Patrick Jenkins

It’s fair to say the Ramsgate ferry pioneers are not pedigree business people — a concern perhaps, given they are supposed to be the answer to predicted No Deal Bexit cross-Channel ferry chaos, under transport sec Chris Grayling’s cunning plan.

At least three of the directors of Seaborne Freight— Ben Sharp, Brian Raincock and Peter Blackmore — ran companies that closed owing substantial sums to HMRC. A decent spot of due diligence might have thrown up more obvious evidence of patchy credentials. Seaborne was set up in Hove in 2017 but a year ago the company was registered at a new Mayfair address with Companies House.


The only problem was that this happened three times — on the same day — the first address was given as 11 Berkeley Street, then as 1 Berkeley Street 1 Berkeley Street [sic], and finally, correctly, as 1 Berkeley Street. All the effort was rather wasted given they moved again five months later — from Mayfair to rather less salubrious surroundings in Aldgate East. The Google Streetview pic of that office has it shrouded in darkness. Are they maritime fly-by-nights?

This whole Seabourne saga was well dodge all the way through

Fr Tod Umptious

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

BTW, I haven't seen it mentioned here yet but the new Brexit Party with Nigel Farage as the leader has been approved by the Electoral Commission (which must have hurt such a pro-remain, supposedly independent organisation).
It has pledges of more than one million pounds and only started soliciting public donations yesterday. It claims to have more than 200 candidates ready to stand in any election it chooses to participate in.
That could devastate the current parliamentary arithmetic.

Isn't this exactly what caused this whole mess in the first place.

Farage and his party of eurosceptics threatening the parliamentary arithmetic.

Pity Cameron took it so seriously this first time round.

Inquitus

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Isn't this exactly what caused this whole mess in the first place.

Farage and his party of eurosceptics threatening the parliamentary arithmetic.

Pity Cameron took it so seriously this first time round.

Indeed Cameron's gamble with the referendum was based on protecting the Tory Party from UKIP, not the nation from the disaster that is Brexit to date.

Midlife

downcow wrote: »

I am genuinely interested in an answer to this. It would help me understand where you guys are coming from.

I fully believe that the EU's standpoint is we nogotiated with your negotiating team. You rejected that. Please tell us what you want.

That's my view as well. May's laast talks with the EU a couple of days ago had no proposals from her. No proposals?

I still don't know what the UK want.

The mismanagement of the situation is practically criminal at this stage.

Your suggestion of a time bound backstop, with options on both sides to extend/renegotiate, is the most sensible thing I've heard from anyone who's pushing for Brexit.

I'm continually flabbergasted that they don't have a coherent plan.

It's actually so incompetent that I don't believe we're getting the full picture. They must be deliberatly fudging negotiations for a reason.

ThePanjandrum

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Irrelevant in the context of the next six weeks. Can May agree with Corbyn? Farage and the hard Brexiteers are no longer relevant.

It's very relevant. If article 50 is extended so the UK has to participate in the EU elections they will participate and will probably win a sizeable proportion of the vote if not a majority.
And if a Remain MP who is ignoring the wishes of their constituency voters know that they will have to contest the seat with a Leaver on a clear platform, they know that in most cases their majority is at risk.
The Conservatives already know that they have lost the majority of their funding at present and both they and Labour know that the new party will attract highly-motivated activists.
Leave.EU already has a mailing list of more than one million and since the Referendum the Leave side has hardly campaigned.
Irrelevant is not a word I would use.

ThePanjandrum

Midlife wrote: »

I fully believe that the EU's standpoint is we nogotiated with your negotiating team. You rejected that. Please tell us what you want.

That's my view as well. May's laast talks with the EU a couple of days ago had no proposals from her. No proposals?

I still don't know what the UK want.

The mismanagement of the situation is practically criminal at this stage.

Your suggestion of a time bound backstop, with options on both sides to extend/renegotiate, is the most sensible thing I've heard from anyone who's pushing for Brexit.

I'm continually flabbergasted that they don't have a coherent plan.

It's actually so incompetent that I don't believe we're getting the full picture. They must be deliberatly fudging negotiations for a reason.

I can't argue with this. The Remainers have been unwilling to negotiate but they have in their control all of the important positions. The few Leavers who were allowed to participate were sidelined. However, the Remainers are afraid of the consequences of ignoring the Referendum.

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

It's very relevant. If article 50 is extended so the UK has to participate in the EU elections they will participate and will probably win a sizeable proportion of the vote if not a majority.

It is highly unlikely the EU will allow extension to go for anything past 30 June 2019 as the next day the new EU parliament convenes and if the UK is still in the EU but they haven't had elections or MEPs it will throw the whole thing into chaos.

What Farage is doing, IMO, is trying to settle his pension. If the UK leaves he will get a nice payout and EU pension, but if they rescind article 50 he wants to be in a position to keep drinking from the EU fountain. He is nothing if not an opportunist and he will not want to miss out on the cushy EU MEP job that he has had for so many years. He is hedging his bets.

If A50 is extended, and the UK have Euro elections, will the British MEP's be fired once the UK leaves, or will they be there for the next 4 years?

Inquitus

Deleted User wrote: »

If A50 is extended, and the UK have Euro elections, will the British MEP's be fired once the UK leaves, or will they be there for the next 4 years?

They'll have to leave along with the UK.

Professor Moriarty

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I can't argue with this. The Remainers have been unwilling to negotiate but they have in their control all of the important positions. The few Leavers who were allowed to participate were sidelined. However, the Remainers are afraid of the consequences of ignoring the Referendum.

Which "all of the important positions" do Remainers control?

ThePanjandrum

Enzokk wrote: »

If we are throwing in suggestions that will not happen, there is also the option of the UK becoming part of France and falling under their rule. And I will repeat, why would we decide to follow UK rules on trade agreements where we will have no say in it? Why would we tie ourselves to a country that cannot even get EU trade agreements to be replicated for itself for countries that are seen as allies (Japan)?

Just a minute there, I never said anything about you following UK rules. You would follow EU rules but with an open border. The rest of the EU would quarantine you so that you did not infect the rest of the single market.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

It's very relevant. If article 50 is extended so the UK has to participate in the EU elections they will participate and will probably win a sizeable proportion of the vote if not a majority.
And if a Remain MP who is ignoring the wishes of their constituency voters know that they will have to contest the seat with a Leaver on a clear platform, they know that in most cases their majority is at risk.
The Conservatives already know that they have lost the majority of their funding at present and both they and Labour know that the new party will attract highly-motivated activists.
Leave.EU already has a mailing list of more than one million and since the Referendum the Leave side has hardly campaigned.
Irrelevant is not a word I would use.

The assumption that an extension to A50 will be granted is not entirely valid. There have been statements from Brussels to the effect that any such extension (if granted) would expire before the Euro elections. And the granting of such an extension has to be unainmous by all 27 EU Council members.

...unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

So not a given and even if it was agreed to be put to the Council, not a given that it would be carried. That's a lot of eggs in one basket on a rocky road.

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I can't argue with this. The Remainers have been unwilling to negotiate but they have in their control all of the important positions. The few Leavers who were allowed to participate were sidelined. However, the Remainers are afraid of the consequences of ignoring the Referendum.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Did Boris Johnson run for PM? Did he have the job as Foreign Secretary? Did David Davis not have the job as Brexit minister? Why has JRM not put his hand up? Why has Gove stayed away from a more prominent position in the cabinet? They knew what they sold was never going to happen and have either not taken the plunge to lead or have resigned to avoid responsibility.

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

If A50 is extended, and the UK have Euro elections, will the British MEP's be fired once the UK leaves, or will they be there for the next 4 years?

How could they be MEPs if the UK was no longer in the EU? That wouldn't make any sense. I don't know what the procedure is but I couldn't see them staying on.
Nigel Farage would probably love it, though.

josip

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I can't argue with this. The Remainers have been unwilling to negotiate but they have in their control all of the important positions. The few Leavers who were allowed to participate were sidelined. However, the Remainers are afraid of the consequences of ignoring the Referendum.

Is this an attempt to shift the blame for the imminent disaster of a no deal Brexit to the Remainers?
Is there any moral backbone left in the UK where people take responsibility for their choices?

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

If A50 is extended, and the UK have Euro elections, will the British MEP's be fired once the UK leaves, or will they be there for the next 4 years?

That's another can of worms - if A50 is extended, then should there be EU elections in the UK to start with, if A50 notification is active? If not, what happens if A50 is revoked? And what happens if A50 is not revoked?

There are some permutations of A50 and related activity which could leave the EU Parliament itself in a doubtful legal state, and if that happens, would the EU Parliament be legally able to approve a Withdrawal Agreement?

Yet another unintended consequence of the Brexit shambles and the ease with which a recalcitrant, weak and idiotic government composed almost entirely of fools and frauds can really screw things up not only for themselves, but for everybody else too.

BonnieSituation

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Just a minute there, I never said anything about you following UK rules. You would follow EU rules but with an open border. The rest of the EU would quarantine you so that you did not infect the rest of the single market.

Why would we agree to that?

Infini

downcow wrote: »

I honestly don’t think she is going to get a deal through with the indefinite backstop in it. But I also think a complete no deal is unlikely. I know many keep telling me that the backstop can’t be modified but I cannot believe that Eu & Uk and indeed ireland are all going to cut of the nose to spite their face.

The conservatives and DUPs actions say otherwise. Blame them for all this because they could not even plan and agree beforehand. RTE reporting today on the whole thing about Tusks comments included german sources estimating a crash out at 60%. Its definately possible and only a climbdown by parliment can stop this. The EU side is ready the UK is not and only pride and a refusal to accept reality is risking this.

downcow wrote: »

Some sort of time limit on the backstop seems the only solution- not exactly what anybody wants but a sensible compromise.
I was surprised chatting to a few fairly strong remainers who have spent a life in high management in finance and both said an indefinite backstop is just impossible to accept

Wether they can accept it or not its a moot point. This is the result of 2 years of thoural negotiations based on Mays red lines. It wont change unless the UK gives ground by remaining in the SM and CU. If the UK doesnt like it then they can simply opt to remain with no further damage before March 29th.

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

I also like the subtle message in the incredibly petty act to have meringue as a dessert. Presumably the caterers would have been aware that May is a diabetic and couldn't eat it.

May wasn't required to eat meringue, the Irish government having provided backstop consisting of suitably-palatable fruit which TM is reported to have eaten.

I'm sure there was a message there too.

ThePanjandrum

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Which "all of the important positions" do Remainers control?

Prime Minister, Chief Brexit Negotiator (and the rest of the team) Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, House of Lords, Chairman and majority of Brexit Committee, nearly all of the Cabinet Posts, the Electorl Commission, opposition parties, Trade Unions, Business organisations, Universities - should I go on?
They can do this because the leading members of the Establishment have all been Remainers and they are the ones who control appointments. That's why the Referendum result was such a shock to them.

prawnsambo

robindch wrote: »

That's another can of worms - if A50 is extended, then should there be EU elections in the UK to start with, if A50 notification is active? If not, what happens if A50 is revoked? And what happens if A50 is not revoked?

There are some permutations of A50 and related activity which could leave the EU Parliament itself in a doubtful legal state, and if that happens, would the EU Parliament be legally able to approve a Withdrawal Agreement?

Yet another unintended consequence of the Brexit shambles and the ease with which a recalcitrant, weak and idiotic government composed almost entirely of fools and frauds can really screw things up not only for themselves, but for everybody else too.

As I said above, It seems that any extension would be up to but no further than the Euro elections in order to avoid such a paradox. It's the only obvious way of dealing with it. The end of the Article 50 period is a clean cut whether there's an agreement or not. "The Treaties shall cease to apply" is the phrase that counts here.

EdgeCase

I think at this stage we have to prepare for a crash out and I wish people would stop calling it a "Hard Brexit". It makes it sound almost like a planned thing. It's a chaotic exit or a crash out.

Even if there isn't a crash out though, this will still have cost businesses and states an absolute fortune in disruption and preparations.

There is no good outcome to this.

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Just a minute there, I never said anything about you following UK rules. You would follow EU rules but with an open border. The rest of the EU would quarantine you so that you did not infect the rest of the single market.

So we would accept all of the goods that the UK accepts without checks? Talk me through it here, if the US demands in return for a trade deal that the UK accepts lower food standards for their goods, how will the Irish Government ensure I don't eat chlorinated chicken or beef that is laced with hormones?

Here's What US Lobbyists Want Donald Trump To Get From A Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Some of the items:

Scrap the safety-first approach to food quality and standards

Allow the sale of hormone-riddled beef

Allow new genetically-modified foods to be sold with minimal regulation

Stop people knowing what they’re eating is genetically-modified food

Get rid of Britain’s safety-first approach to chemicals

Ignore the presence hormones and pus in dairy products

Lift the UK ban on a growth hormone in pork

More antibiotics in livestock

Eliminate UK testing for a parasitic worm in pork

Dump law against chlorine-bleached chicken

Let fruit and veg be sold with pesticide residue on

Allow more carcinogens in pistachios

Allow untested medical devices into the UK

Deleted User wrote: »

If A50 is extended, and the UK have Euro elections, will the British MEP's be fired once the UK leaves, or will they be there for the next 4 years?

They will be fired, but the problem then becomes what happens with those seats? They have already redistributed their seats so if they stay then this will need to change as well.

MEPs to keep 27 UK seats after Brexit

Twenty-seven of the total 73 seats currently occupied by British members of the European Parliament will be redistributed among the remaining 27 EU countries, the parliament's constitutional affairs committee decided on Tuesday (23 January).

downcow

First Up wrote: »

And I'm genuinely interested in your answer to my question; is May's commitment to an open border time limited?

Fair question
Firstly I take anything politicians promise with a pinch of salt.
I believe she is committed to a permanent open border. But open, soft, hard, these are all subjective terms. Will the trade arrangements evolve? I would think so over the years and decades ahead
Do you think one day tm will wake up an decide to send the troops to close the border? Is that your fear?
But now you answer my earlier question

ThePanjandrum

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Why would we agree to that?

Why would we agree to the other solutions? Same logic.

That's why I'd go for WTO terms with the UK not enforcing an Irish border. What the EU decides to do is up to the EU, that's not our decision.

Quin_Dub

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Why would we agree to the other solutions? Same logic.

That's why I'd go for WTO terms with the UK not enforcing an Irish border. What the EU decides to do is up to the EU, that's not our decision.

Again, because the UK are the ones leaving..

So your position is that, the UK should be able to leave without having to make any changes and that all impacts of their exit be borne by others?

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

Fair question
Firstly I take anything politicians promise with a pinch of salt.
I believe she is committed to a permanent open border. But open, soft, hard, these are all subjective terms. Will the trade arrangements evolve? I would think so over the years and decades ahead
Do you think one day tm will wake up an decide to send the troops to close the border? Is that your fear?
But now you answer my earlier question

Does that include implementing the referendum result?

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Why would we agree to the other solutions? Same logic.

That's why I'd go for WTO terms with the UK not enforcing an Irish border. What the EU decides to do is up to the EU, that's not our decision.

We will be going in circles here, but how will the UK negotiate any free trade agreement with any country if they have no borders? The UK goes to Japan and says in return for the UK allowing Japanese cars into the UK tariff free they want UK spirits to have tariff free access. The Japanese tell them, why should we agree to that when you already allow our cars in because you are not enforcing a border with the EU and our goods go in that way.

Do you see the problem yet when you talk about no customs borders when there is no FTA?

Infini

downcow wrote: »

You are completely misreading this. A UI will not happen for economic reasons. Practically everyone north of the border suffered loss much greater than any economic loss over past 50 years That misery did not bring UI one step closer so it is unlikely hardborder will. But anyway that point becomes irrelevant because it’s not just NI but all of Uk that are unhappy. And even if you are correct, that is not what people think up here. So I wanted you to park all that blame stuff and who’s stupid etc and comment on whether you would consider indefinite backstop if the shoe was on the other foot.?

Im afraid your opinion is just that. An opinion. Factual evidence both from the opinion polls showing people majority in favour of a UI in the event of a crashout brexit not to mention the 56% Remain vote in NI undermine your entire argument. Economics will always pull out ahead of populist politics in the end.

Professor Moriarty

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Prime Minister, Chief Brexit Negotiator (and the rest of the team) Chancellor of the Exchequer, Foreign Secretary, House of Lords, Chairman and majority of Brexit Committee, nearly all of the Cabinet Posts, the Electorl Commission, opposition parties, Trade Unions, Business organisations, Universities - should I go on?
They can do this because the leading members of the Establishment have all been Remainers and they are the ones who control appointments. That's why the Referendum result was such a shock to them.

Eh, no. May might have been a lukewarm Remainer (at best) prior to the referendum, but she is pro Brexit now. The Foreign Secretary is not a Remainer. He is pro Brexit. Nearly all of the cabinet posts are not Remainers. For instance, Gove, Fox, Grayling, Javid, Leadsom and Hunt are all Brexiteers.

Leroy42

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

If we are throwing in suggestions that will not happen, there is also the option of the UK becoming part of France and falling under their rule. And I will repeat, why would we decide to follow UK rules on trade agreements where we will have no say in it? Why would we tie ourselves to a country that cannot even get EU trade agreements to be replicated for itself for countries that are seen as allies (Japan)?

Just a minute there, I never said anything about you following UK rules. You would follow EU rules but with an open border. The rest of the EU would quarantine you so that you did not infect the rest of the single market.

Would we have an open border with NI? Would we be subject to tariffs and controls into GB? Can't be as the UK want to take back control and as such may not accept EU regulations.

So what you are proposing if that Ireland effectively removes itself from all its markets?