Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

Shelga wrote: »

I'm sure I'm being a pedantic nag, but can people make sure they're talking about the right David when referring to David Davis vs David Davies?

David Davies is a Welsh MP for Monmouth in South Wales.

David Davis is the one people mean most of the time when they say David Davies- former Brexit Secretary, can be heard chuckling away every second day with his mates on Radio 4, as if he never heard of the concepts of personal responsibility or accountability, or of the impending economic collapse of the UK.

Both are Brexiters but Davies is just a backbencher, not usually in the news.

Apologies, that was my fault. Was typing on the phone and made a typo.

It was the one and only David Davis that I was quoting.

Jizique

Any thoughts on this from Nick Gutteridge?
I know he is Telegraph, but he is more like Peter Foster than the typical writer of that rag - in fact, i don't understand how the two are still employed there.
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1164834848235638784

He is talking about a tweak to the NI backstop to focus on agriculture.

Nody

Jizique wrote: »

Any thoughts on this from Nick Gutteridge?
I know he is Telegraph, but he is more like Peter Foster than the typical writer of that rag - in fact, i don't understand how the two are still employed there.
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1164834848235638784

He is talking about a tweak to the NI backstop to focus on agriculture.

Beyond it's complete BS? Not really. Try to run these two points by WTO and enjoy the laughter.

Goods would be tracked by a system of alternative arrangements championed by Brexiteers, such as trusted trader schemes.

The EU would not apply tariffs to any goods crossing the border from Britain, including those falling outside the scope of regulatory alignment – a major “concession” on their part, Brussels sources said.

First one includes no controls for small traders for a third party; the second includes single market requirements being ignored. In short it's complete and utter BS from "sources in Brussels who happen to be named Farage".

And how to stop China to abuse it? Oh there will be an emergency stop (but as always no information how that is suppose to work or how the controls are suddenly to be put back):

And there would be an emergency break to be triggered if countries like China tried to use Northern Ireland as a backdoor into the Single Market.

Then there's of course things like this which was clearly ruled out yesterday but according to Sun's sources is now back on the table.

Diplomats have also mulled taking more drastic measures, like time-limiting the backstop, but have strong reservations about such a move.

Another option would be to kick the border issue into future partnership talks as requested by Mr Johnson.

In short the whole article is a pile of burning bull manure "leaked" by UKIP and their ilk.

AlmightyCushion

Another option would be to kick the border issue into future partnership talks as requested by Mr Johnson.

We tried that when Britain suggested the backstop to move from the first phase of negotiations to the second phase of negotiations. Look where that has landed us.

ballsymchugh

Jizique wrote: »

Any thoughts on this from Nick Gutteridge?
I know he is Telegraph, but he is more like Peter Foster than the typical writer of that rag - in fact, i don't understand how the two are still employed there.
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1164834848235638784

He is talking about a tweak to the NI backstop to focus on agriculture.

if i'm reading that correctly, it's going to create checks between us and the EU.

the EU would drop requirements for regulatory alignment on all other goods not covered by SPS rules - the 'residual trade flow' - crossing the border. On these trade streams the EU would have to take a 'controlled risk' in terms of standards and smuggling.

that's hilarious!

Nody

ballsymchugh wrote: »

if i'm reading that correctly, it's going to create checks between us and the EU.



that's hilarious!

It's even better than that; EU will simply accept and hope that goods will not come into the single market that don't meet the required standards. Because UK has been such a trustworthy partner and would never have companies that would cut corners to make a profit. Due to this EU will accept that there will not be controls on the goods at the level as other third party countries.

Yes; that's the claimed stance of EU. Screw the single market and controls because UK and UK companies can be trusted. Yes; that sounds very much like an position EU would take. I mean seriously...

Leroy42

Fully agree. The UK completely reneged on its positions already in a blatant lie to move the discussion away from phase 1. There are even MP still arguing against the divorce bill and EU citizens rights.

So at some point reality needs to be faced. The UK have shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy. Even how they ran the ref campaign and the disinformation they have allowed since. So anything they agree now must have solid guarantees built in.

Because at the end of all this, what the UK are really aiming for is to be allowed retain as much as possible until such time as they are ready to fully quit. At no point are they looking for future moves to retain the relationship, only to further move away.

The EU have tried to help the UK stay as close as possible but it is pointless as the UK have no intention.

funkey_monkey

Anyone know anything about this in more detail?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7385151/GREG-HANDS-Heres-dont-need-backstop.html
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/tory-mp-greg-hands-weve-found-a-solution-to-the-brexit-backstop-38429347.html

Nody

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Anyone know anything about this in more detail?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7385151/GREG-HANDS-Heres-dont-need-backstop.html
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/tory-mp-greg-hands-weve-found-a-solution-to-the-brexit-backstop-38429347.html

It's recycled bull manure; basically controls in place, small traders to not be checked, common book of regulation except UK to be exempted from following (wut?!) and basically ends up with a NI border in the water. Lots of hand waving and trying to explain away things but in reality not a workable solution because a) controls will still be there, b) it opens up the single market to non checked goods and c) it requires schemes already ruled out back in 2017 as not viable in practice. The discussion was around here in the thread.

Strazdas

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Anyone know anything about this in more detail?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-7385151/GREG-HANDS-Heres-dont-need-backstop.html
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/tory-mp-greg-hands-weve-found-a-solution-to-the-brexit-backstop-38429347.html

I know that Dr. Richard North, who is an expert on trade rules, regards the Greg Hands' report as utter nonsense and full of cobbled together mumbo jumbo, which has no relation to the real world.

kowloon

lawred2 wrote: »

This is a lovely response

https://twitter.com/ChrisgEngland/status/1164671881682837504

Not at all an angry person

That entire thread is an angry cesspit of triggered folk

The rest of that guy's feed is pretty entertaining, telling the remainers to 'calm the **** down'.

Leroy42

But the one overiding question on the report, on Johnson calls for removal of the backstop, of ERG demands etc is how they can get all in this in place by 31 Oct. Because that is the date they are leaving.

The transition period is a concession given by the EU, it is not noted anywhere in A50 or anywhere else that it must be given. So they want to change the WA, ok, lets remove the transition period. How will there reports and technologial solutions deal with that?

And even with a transition period, what happens if the plans don't work? What will the UK give as a guarantee?

When you ask those pretty obvious questions, it is pretty clear why and where the Backstop came from and why it is needed. Despite all the bluster these fundamental issues have never been answered. All that anyone can say is that the solution is pretty easy and bound to work.

Enzokk

I do find this an interesting suggestion from Hands,

We also recommended food and animal checks away from the border, and if the regimes on plant and animal regulations diverge, mobile units to carry out sanitary and phytosanitary checks far from the sensitive frontier.

It's almost like terrorists obey boundaries and don't move around either, so that is why this will work. This is just a rehash again of the AAC report that was discredited before. Others have pointed it out on here.

funkey_monkey

Nody wrote: »

It's recycled bull manure; basically controls in place, small traders to not be checked, common book of regulation except UK to be exempted from following (wut?!) and basically ends up with a NI border in the water. Lots of hand waving and trying to explain away things but in reality not a workable solution because a) controls will still be there, b) it opens up the single market to non checked goods and c) it requires schemes already ruled out back in 2017 as not viable in practice. The discussion was around here in the thread.

Do the UK not want a trade deal with the EU? I thought it was going to be the easiest trade deal in history.

My understanding is (and correct me if wrong) is that the backstop is only to be activated in the even of there not being a deal. UK <-> EU is too big a market for there not to be a deal so a trade deal will be made and the backstop will be irrelevant.

If they crash out now then it is a problem, but if they sign up and move onto the trade phase then any deal reached should consign the backstop to history.

Its like arguing on the colour of paint for the undercoat knowing full well the final coat is going to be a different colour.

Am I wrong on this?

farmchoice

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Do the UK not want a trade deal with the EU? I thought it was going to be the easiest trade deal in history.

My understanding is (and correct me if wrong) is that the backstop is only to be activated in the even of there not being a deal. UK <-> EU is too big a market for there not to be a deal so a trade deal will be made and the backstop will be irrelevant.

If they crash out now then it is a problem, but if they sign up and move onto the trade phase then any deal reached should consign the backstop to history.

Its like arguing on the colour of paint for the undercoat knowing full well the final coat is going to be a different colour.

Am I wrong on this?

none of it matters because there in nothing that can get through parliament, because johnson doesn't have a working majority.


as it happens a crash out will happen (it appears) as a matter of course on oct 31.
so its crash out or an election to return a different government that hopefully will have a majority that can can pass a deal.


the only question now for boris is whither to have an election before crash out or after.

murphaph

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

We tried that when Britain suggested the backstop to move from the first phase of negotiations to the second phase of negotiations. Look where that has landed us.

Well it did buy us more precious time to get our businesses Brexit ready. We've used these couple of years fairly wisely.

Akrasia

Enzokk wrote: »

I do find this an interesting suggestion from Hands,



It's almost like terrorists obey boundaries and don't move around either, so that is why this will work. This is just a rehash again of the AAC report that was discredited before. Others have pointed it out on here.

These 'checks away from the border' suggestions are nuts

Here's how it works

Check truck at desgnated customs area away from the border, everything is in order.

truck drives a few miles down the road
fills up with illegal exports
drives through the border without any new checks

tadaa

oh , they can put a sticker on the door of the truck so it can't be opened but they still cannot stop the truck at the border to make sure the seal isn't broken, because then it wouldn't be a frictionless border anymore

CelticRambler

funkey_monkey wrote: »

UK <-> EU is too big a market for there not to be a deal so a trade deal will be made ...

The way things are going at the moment, I wouldn't be too sure that any kind of a trade deal is going to be made in the foreseeable future, even in the event of a crash-out Brexit. Back at the beginning of this pantomime, we were told that the British had no-one in their ranks with any meaningful experience of trade negotiations, and that allegation seems to have been well-founded.

So in three months' time, when the supply lines start to dry up, and in six months' time when there are empty spaces on the supermarket shelves, and in twelve months' time when house prices have fallen because those parasitic EU migrants are selling in droves so they can move their families "back home" to more properous countries - like Romania ; we'll still be listening to the True Believers telling us that the EU will blink first as long as the Brits refuse to hand over the £39m and shout "no surrender" at Ireland.

Nody

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Do the UK not want a trade deal with the EU? I thought it was going to be the easiest trade deal in history.

Still is; EU will tell them how the FTA looks like and the dotted line to sign :P Seriously though EU offered a 100% goods, zero tariff FTA which would be very straight forward to sign and minimize the impact on both sides. Of course I expect UK to insist on that they get zero tariffs for export but the right to keep them for imports; because UK. In reality there will probably be a few country specific exceptions but something very close to it in practice; this is dependent as well on UK accepting rules of origin and protected products etc. (which UK had exact same idea; EU to accept UK's protected names but not vice versa).

My understanding is (and correct me if wrong) is that the backstop is only to be activated in the even of there not being a deal. UK <-> EU is too big a market for there not to be a deal so a trade deal will be made and the backstop will be irrelevant.

Here's were things divert from your thought; even with a FTA the backstop may still kick in. The reason being you can have a FTA but diverge on domestic rules (see Canada). This would mean NI would still need to be in a special zone as they need to follow the EU standards and rules. Hence a FTA that does not have UK following EU regulation would still have the backstop clause kick in as there would be regulatory differences.

Jizique

CelticRambler wrote: »

The way things are going at the moment, I wouldn't be too sure that any kind of a trade deal is going to be made in the foreseeable future, even in the event of a crash-out Brexit. Back at the beginning of this pantomime, we were told that the British had no-one in their ranks with any meaningful experience of trade negotiations, and that allegation seems to have been well-founded.

So in three months' time, when the supply lines start to dry up, and in six months' time when there are empty spaces on the supermarket shelves, and in twelve months' time when house prices have fallen because those parasitic EU migrants are selling in droves so they can move their families "back home" to more properous countries - like Romania ; we'll still be listening to the True Believers telling us that the EU will blink first as long as the Brits refuse to hand over the £39m and shout "no surrender" at Ireland.

The problem with a trade deal is the deal the tories do with Trump will mean that a comprehensive FTA with Europe is no longer possible

Nody

Jizique wrote: »

The problem with a trade deal is the deal the tories do with Trump will mean that a comprehensive FTA with Europe is no longer possible

It's still possible but the problem will be for UK to actually have companies left to export stuff simply because a US FTA would flood them with cheaper products. UK will still be allowed to export to EU if they meet EU's requirements but if they lower their standards for domestic market a lot of local production will not be able to compete (or have to lower their standard) leaving limited amount of volume to produce at EU standard and export (and that will be towards the luxury segment of the market). A UK farmer is highly unlikely to ever be able to complete with a US farmer due to land size etc. and the fact US farmers already have taken the investments were as UK would need to lower their standards (or hope some EU buyer will pay for their goods after most will have switched suppliers in the first place).

El Weirdo

Akrasia wrote: »

These 'checks away from the border' suggestions are nuts

Here's how it works

Check truck at desgnated customs area away from the border, everything is in order.

truck drives a few miles down the road
fills up with illegal exports
drives through the border without any new checks

tadaa

oh , they can put a sticker on the door of the truck so it can't be opened but they still cannot stop the truck at the border to make sure the seal isn't broken, because then it wouldn't be a frictionless border anymore

It's not frictionless in your example anyway. Just because you have the checks away from the actual border, you still have checks.

Charles Babbage

Jizique wrote: »

The problem with a trade deal is the deal the tories do with Trump will mean that a comprehensive FTA with Europe is no longer possible

Canada has an extensive trade deal with the USA, so a Canada type deal is still possible.

You still need a backstop though.

reslfj

Call me Al wrote: »

Going by print media this week its quite likely there will be in the Brexit-loving press, although it will all be a complete work of fiction with no basis on anything real. .

Nein, Non - was the clear answer in both Berlin and Paris on the WA.

But several comments here have pointed to an Irish Sea border as a possibility change

https://twitter.com/LarsFJ1/status/1164684512338632704?s=20

(translate with translate.google.com if you don't read German)

Jizique

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Canada has an extensive trade deal with the USA, so a Canada type deal is still possible.

You still need a backstop though.

I agree - I think many Brexiteers conflate a FTA with the SM and frictionless trade that they are used to, and are somewhat unwilling to give up

Jizique

Jizique wrote: »

I agree - I think many Brexiteers conflate a FTA with the SM and frictionless trade that they are used to, and are somewhat unwilling to give up

More or less ruled out

https://mobile.twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1164893742249271297

Laois_Man

Just had a long barney with a Brexiteer who tried to tell me Ireland has already broken the GFA twice - once when we manned the border because of the Foot & Mouth outbreak in 2001, and again when two N. Ireland fishing boats were detained by the Irish Navy for operating in RoI waters early this year!

With the first issue, we apparently broke GFA by manning a border, 4/5 years before the British army fully ceased to man the border

With the second issue, the Supreme court ruled that the Voisinage Agreement was too informal to permit NI registered boats to fish in Irish waters (now strengthened by the amended Sea Fisheries Bill 2019 ) and that the GFA didn't provide a basis for allowing it either.

I'm sure I haven't heard the last of it mind you!

prawnsambo

Laois_Man wrote: »

Just had a long barney with a Brexiteer who tried to tell me Ireland has already broken the GFA twice - once when we manned the border because of the Foot & Mouth outbreak in 2001, and again when two N. Ireland fishing boats were detained by the Irish Navy for operating in RoI waters early this year!

With the first issue, we apparently broke GFA by manning a border, 4/5 years before the British army fully ceased to man the border

With the second issue, the Supreme court ruled that the Voisinage Agreement was too informal to permit NI registered boats to fish in Irish waters (now strengthened by the amended Sea Fisheries Bill 2019 ) and that the GFA didn't provide a basis for allowing it either.

I'm sure I haven't heard the last of it mind you!

No more than NI farmers are allowed cross the border and milk Irish cows. Well they are, so long as they leave the milk here.


Were the NI fisherman going to give us our fish?

trellheim

Couple of interesting points from twitter

1) MPs know GE in the offing so less likely to have adventurous leanings

2. 'Alternative Arrangements' are being talked up like mad by the brexiteers ( in reality unicorn poo, and in fact that phrase is already in the WA)

prawnsambo

Jizique wrote: »

Any thoughts on this from Nick Gutteridge?
I know he is Telegraph, but he is more like Peter Foster than the typical writer of that rag - in fact, i don't understand how the two are still employed there.
https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1164834848235638784

He is talking about a tweak to the NI backstop to focus on agriculture.

This is a two-pronged attack on what happened in Berlin and Paris. Firstly saying the EU are working on this is an attempt to try and bat the ball back into the EU court. Johnson stupidly committed to doing something he wasn't asked to do in thirty days. So the first thing is to take the 'task' off him. Job done, check.
The second part is to then give some credence to the Prosperity UK report and push some of the dotty ideas into the mainstream. And there it is if needed. All these wonderful alternative arrangements that are ready to go because y'know the papers say so. And that's the second bit, we have done it in 30 days.

All being set up for the intransigent EU to be the bad guys again.