Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

J Mysterio

What's struck me is the irony of Harry and Meghan getting away from Britain. Seems those who are raging the most are the fervent Brexiteers.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

What's struck me is the irony of Harry and Meghan getting away from Britain. Seems those who are raging the most are the fervent Brexiteers.

Understandable really when the most important thing in your life is the country you're from.

SantaCruz

Deleted User wrote: »

Understandable really when the most important thing in your life is the country you're from.

Well a lot of people worked very hard to be born in Britain, so you can understand how they would be proud of that achievement.

CelticRambler

Oh look - seems like some folk on the GB side of the sea might not be quite ready for getting Brexit done ...

In a new report, [the Institute for Government] says: “The [Brexit] deal has the support of no Northern Irish political parties and it looks almost impossible to complete the practical changes, for government and business, by the end of the year. Failure to comply with the withdrawal agreement could see the European commission begin infringement proceedings and the UK ending up at the ECJ [European court of justice].”

The IfG’s report says HMRC has previously stated similar systems to the proposed customs arrangements for Northern Ireland would take five years to develop and implement.

Part of the problem is that until the new trade deal between the UK and the EU is struck, the details of the Northern Ireland arrangements cannot be finalised.

The complicated system for Northern Ireland involves the region effectively staying in the single market but in the UK customs zone. This potentially means tariff charges and rebates, paperwork and physical checks on certain fresh foods and live animals going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

Complicated arrangements and computer systems not being delivered on time ... whodathunkit? :rolleyes:

Leroy42

I am more and more convinced that the UK has no intention of putting in any additional systems. Throughout this whole mess the UK has taken the view that any day now the EU will fold. Every step of the way has seemingly been about making the least move possible and then quickly retreating from that position when they think they can get more.

They fully believe that fisheries give them the upper hand, that the 27 will break apart from a common position on the basis of each country looking to look after itself, on what I can only assume is the thinking that UK is far more important than the EU.

So I expect the UK to do nothing in regards to NI. Let the EU challenge them on the basis that it won't be worth the hassle for the EU. Will the EU hold up a trade deal on the basis of a few checks on cows in Larne?

It poses a serious problem, if my thinking is right, for Ireland as we would be negatively impacted no matter which way it goes for more so if the EU allows the UK to take shortcuts.

From all the noises for the EU it would appear that the UK are totally misreading the situation and the EU position but that doesn't seem to have registered with them and they almost seem to be doubling down.

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am more and more convinced that the UK has no intention of putting in any additional systems. Throughout this whole mess the UK has taken the view that any day now the EU will fold. Every step of the way has seemingly been about making the least move possible and then quickly retreating from that position when they think they can get more.

I suspect that the top layer of the British government is just ignoring it as "too hard to do", and "boring techy stuff for the girly swots to deal with".

They are in an alternative reality, and (it would seem) not interested in the boring, mundane, fiddly yet critical technical details that go into making such systems work.

Leroy42

swampgas wrote: »

I suspect that the top layer of the British government is just ignoring it as "too hard to do", and "boring techy stuff for the girly swots to deal with".

They are in an alternative reality, and (it would seem) not interested in the boring, mundane, fiddly yet critical technical details that go into making such systems work.

Yeah, but what will be the outcome of that position? My thinking, in agreement with yours, is that they are betting that the EU won't have the stomach for the fight. That the possibility of a trade deal and/or a finalisation of the whole mess will be too much to risk over NI and Ireland.

It comes back to their belief that the UK are so important as to not to be overly worried about others.

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yeah, but what will be the outcome of that position? My thinking, in agreement with yours, is that they are betting that the EU won't have the stomach for the fight. That the possibility of a trade deal and/or a finalisation of the whole mess will be too much to risk over NI and Ireland.

It comes back to their belief that the UK are so important as to not to be overly worried about others.

I'm not even sure they care what happens next? The UK seem to be stuck in campaign mode where it's all about selling the idea of Brexit, they don't seem to be moving on the far more difficult bit where they actually have to face reality and figure out what happens on the ground now.

The emotion and bluster on the UK side is very different to the calm, deliberate and technocratic approach of the EU and many of the other EU countries. No wonder they seem to keep talking past each other.

I think there's a good chance that the UK will fold and accept whatever the EU work out for them as a deal, or they will crash out. And it's hard to say which one is more likely at this point.

RobMc59

swampgas wrote: »

I'm not even sure they care what happens next? The UK seem to be stuck in campaign mode where it's all about selling the idea of Brexit, they don't seem to be moving on the far more difficult bit where they actually have to face reality and figure out what happens on the ground now.

The emotion and bluster on the UK side is very different to the calm, deliberate and technocratic approach of the EU and many of the other EU countries. No wonder they seem to keep talking past each other.

I think there's a good chance that the UK will fold and accept whatever the EU work out for them as a deal, or they will crash out. And it's hard to say which one is more likely at this point.

I think trade with the UK is important to the EU but it's the UK who need to arrange a deal whilst the EU can take their time-they are in the driving seat as long as they remain strong.
If you look at how many countries don't have some kind of trade deal with the EU there aren't many which suggests a deal will be struck despite all the posturing and bluster.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think trade with the UK is important to the EU but it's the UK who need to arrange a deal whilst the EU can take their time-they are in the driving seat as long as they remain strong.
If you look at how many countries don't have some kind of trade deal with the EU there aren't many which suggests a deal will be struck despite all the posturing and bluster.

The UK won't really be arranging anything. The difficulty here is that the EU needs to cobble together something that all 27 member states can agree on to say nothing of the regional assemblies which must also ratify the deal. The WA was much simpler because the need for a transition period as well as settling the issues of the UK's debts and the rights of EU and UK citizens were relatively straightforward as was the Irish border issue.

Ursula Von der Leyen made this clear when she recently visited Downing St. Johnson seems to want less alignment with the EU which he is certainly free to do but it will come with reduced single market access. Von der Leyen expressed doubts that this can be achieved in 11 months. Then there's the fact that ratification on the European side is more likely to take years, not months. The EU will want to do its best for the UK but these negotiations are going to be difficult due to the need for unanimity so stability and cohesion will be the Commission's primary concerns, not giving the UK the best deal possible.

CelticRambler

swampgas wrote: »

The UK seem to be stuck in campaign mode where it's all about selling the idea of Brexit, they don't seem to be moving on the far more difficult bit where they actually have to face reality and figure out what happens on the ground now.

Yet again, a near-perfect reflection of what's been going on in the US for the last three years. This would appear to be the "new normal" in these bi-polar political systems of dubious democracy: generate maximum chaos, hype up non-problems, and lambast the other lot for being sore losers while launching straight into the next electoral campaign. F**k business, f**k the country, f**k everyone except those who profit from instability.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The difficulty here is that the EU needs to cobble together something that all 27 member states can agree on to say nothing of the regional assemblies which must also ratify the deal. The WA was much simpler because the need for a transition period as well as settling the issues of the UK's debts and the rights of EU and UK citizens were relatively straightforward as was the Irish border issue.

For this reason - and the apparent lack of intelligent strategic economic planning in GB - I think the first FTA to be agreed will be a simplistic, bare-bones arrangement, probably limited to what's really important to the EU, particularly security and transport (visas, landing rights, etc); with just about everything agriculture, fisheries and food bundled up into a new transitional arrangement (with a GB promise not to diverge from EU rules) to last as long as needed.

ancapailldorcha

CelticRambler wrote: »

For this reason - and the apparent lack of intelligent strategic economic planning in GB - I think the first FTA to be agreed will be a simplistic, bare-bones arrangement, probably limited to what's really important to the EU, particularly security and transport (visas, landing rights, etc); with just about everything agriculture, fisheries and food bundled up into a new transitional arrangement (with a GB promise not to diverge from EU rules) to last as long as needed.

This raises two key questions. The first is that if the UK is not going to deviate from EU rules then what is the point of Brexit? The second is whether or not the EU27 will be willing to trust a proven liar such as Johnson.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This raises two key questions. ... The second is whether or not the EU27 will be willing to trust a proven liar such as Johnson.

If he accepts the deal they hand him and the other option is No Deal, why not trust him? The worst he can do is renege on the deal later, which is no worse than No Deal now.

And the longer you keep the transition and agreement process going, the more time there is for the UKs civil servants to talk the politicians around to reality.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If he accepts the deal they hand him and the other option is No Deal, why not trust him? The worst he can do is renege on the deal later, which is no worse than No Deal now.

And the longer you keep the transition and agreement process going, the more time there is for the UKs civil servants to talk the politicians around to reality.

I was referring to a promise to refrain from regulatory divergence from the UK government. It makes sense to have a skeleton of a deal first and build on it but I'm not sure that all 27 EU countries would be happy to take Johnson's word for it.

There's no way the British press would suffer the UK being a rule taker without causing a fuss.

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This raises two key questions. The first is that if the UK is not going to deviate from EU rules then what is the point of Brexit? The second is whether or not the EU27 will be willing to trust a proven liar such as Johnson.

Q1. Well ... :rolleyes:

As far as agriculture, fisheries and food is concerned, it'll be easier for the Brexiters to unpeddle their euromyths and claim victory (yay, from now on, we can sell bananas no matter how bent they are!) while quietly breathing a sigh of relief at not having deal with the PR disaster of piles of English food rotting in lorries.

Q2. Probably a cautious yes, as long as it's written down, signed off and balanced with the threat of being whacked with a bloody great stick if GB doesn't stick to the deal.

This is where we (on this forum) will see the EU exercise is muscle and GB play the role of submissive poodle. Sunderland Man, on the other hand, will only see that "nothing has changed" - that the UK didn't degenerate into a Mad Max scenario post-Brexit, and he has hundreds of articles from the Daily Mail to prove how GB is doing great deals with the whole world.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

(...)

There's no way the British press would suffer the UK being a rule taker without causing a fuss.

Should the WA be ratified, then the UK de facto becomes a rule-taker in about 2 weeks' time, when it ceases to be an EU member state, and becomes bound by the WA maintaining the full and entire relevance of EU law (-made by 27, without the UK in the room, nor with UK MEPs).

The debate may then move onto the degree of rule-taking. But until 1st January 2021 at least (unless later if the transition period is extended), that degree of rule-taking will remain quasi-absolute.

Be interesting to witness which, of the rule-taking status, or the Brexit street parties, the British press testiculates the most about then. Then again, it's probably easy enough to predict which, based on the
UK publication name.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

Should the WA be ratified, then the UK de facto becomes a rule-taker in about 2 weeks.

The debate may then move onto the degree of rule-taking. But until 1st January 2021 at least (unless later if the transition period is extended), that degree of rule-taking will remain quasi-absolute.

This is only for 11 months. The government have legally ruled out an extension. Of course, this can change easily and possibly will. It depends on how successful the disaster capitalists are in agitating for no deal.

The WA is only a means to something else is the difference. The deal will be the confirmation of the relationship between the UK and the EU for many years.

newport2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This raises two key questions. The first is that if the UK is not going to deviate from EU rules then what is the point of Brexit? The second is whether or not the EU27 will be willing to trust a proven liar such as Johnson.

I think Q1 was answered by Blair last year, when he stated the UK has a choice: a “painful” Brexit or a “pointless” one.

I think Johnson will go for a pointless BRINO. He's in power for 5 years now, which I think is all he cares about. In doing that, he can say he delivered Brexit, but avoid dealing with the probable problems that divergence from the EU will cause. The only obstacle to that approach is within the Tory party itself really.

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

This is where we (on this forum) will see the EU exercise is muscle and GB play the role of submissive poodle. Sunderland Man, on the other hand, will only see that "nothing has changed" - that the UK didn't degenerate into a Mad Max scenario post-Brexit, and he has hundreds of articles from the Daily Mail to prove how GB is doing great deals with the whole world.

It is ironic that you choose to use Sunderland man - as it was Peter Sunderland who was the architect of the WTO, and its first Director General - who would be the last to cheer at the UK's unfortunate choice to pursue a role outside the EU.

lawred2

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is ironic that you choose to use Sunderland man - as it was Peter Sunderland who was the architect of the WTO, and its first Director General - who would be the last to cheer at the UK's unfortunate choice to pursue a role outside the EU.

Sutherland?

Enzokk

newport2 wrote: »

I think Q1 was answered by Blair last year, when he stated the UK has a choice: a “painful” Brexit or a “pointless” one.

I think Johnson will go for a pointless BRINO. He's in power for 5 years now, which I think is all he cares about. In doing that, he can say he delivered Brexit, but avoid dealing with the probable problems that divergence from the EU will cause. The only obstacle to that approach is within the Tory party itself really.

I believe there is a cabinet reshuffle coming up in February, or at least there are whispers of one. So we will have to wait and see what Johnson does, if he gets rid of those in cabinet looking for a 'painful' Brexit he will only add their names to the ERG who could possibly derail some votes as a show of power. I am not sure how strong the ERG is now but as you post the Tory Party is the only obstacle to Johnson's plans.

If he keeps the same cabinet as now, I don't see how he pivots to BRINO.

ancapailldorcha

newport2 wrote: »

I think Q1 was answered by Blair last year, when he stated the UK has a choice: a “painful” Brexit or a “pointless” one.

I think Johnson will go for a pointless BRINO. He's in power for 5 years now, which I think is all he cares about. In doing that, he can say he delivered Brexit, but avoid dealing with the probable problems that divergence from the EU will cause. The only obstacle to that approach is within the Tory party itself really.

This is my instinct. The business of him issuing that edict about not mentioning Brexit after the end of this month would point in that direction. If he can come across as having resolved it despite only triggering the start of the next phase of negotiations then he might be able to bury it. If the red tops start moaning about a BRINO then it's likely that the public might just be too fed up to care. The majority he won frees him from the ERG and the DUP. Ultimately though, only time will tell.

Sam Russell

lawred2 wrote: »

Sutherland?

Well, yes. Irony only goes so far.

robinph

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's no way the British press would suffer the UK being a rule taker without causing a fuss.

They have been pretty silent about the coming 11 months of taking all the rules without having a say, yet any talk of continuing to have a say for a day longer than the end of March/April /June/October last year was considered treasonous!?!?

ancapailldorcha

robinph wrote: »

They have been pretty silent about the coming 11 months of taking all the rules without having a say, yet any talk of continuing to have a say for a day longer than the end of March/April /June/October last year was considered treasonous!?!?

Because it can be argued that at the end of this will lie freedom from the purported tyrant that is the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

Will the UK airlines keep existing EU privileges ?

FlyBe are on the ropes.
Its network of routes includes more than half of UK domestic flights outside London.


The UK won't be able to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the EU because they will need to grant the EU airlines full access to keep internal flights going. There aren't that many UK airlines that provide EU to EU flights and that number may fall to zero by the end of the year.

An Ciarraioch

This private bill probably won't go anywhere, but could affect future referenda in the UK, Scotland and NI if it did pass:

https://twitter.com/PaulJColvin/status/1216774348079620098

Professor Moriarty

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

This private bill probably won't go anywhere, but could affect future referenda in the UK, Scotland and NI if it did pass:

https://twitter.com/PaulJColvin/status/1216774348079620098

If I understand correctly, this is very clever by the Brexiteers. The status quo is now that Britain leaves the EU. So, in order to change the status quo, a majority of 60% is required.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was referring to a promise to refrain from regulatory divergence from the UK government. It makes sense to have a skeleton of a deal first and build on it but I'm not sure that all 27 EU countries would be happy to take Johnson's word for it.

There's no way the British press would suffer the UK being a rule taker without causing a fuss.

Sticking to EU regulations which benefit everyone isn't being a rule taker its common sense but you're probably right as common sense appears to be lacking in the UK press and government!

fash

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If I understand correctly, this is very clever by the Brexiteers. The status quo is now that Britain leaves the EU. So, in order to change the status quo, a majority of 60% is required.

How does this sit with the GFA I wonder?