Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

It was no border permanently before and now, subject to a vote among NI Assembly members, the UK can be freed from its obligation. I'm not saying this is a likely outcome but it represents a backing down on the EU/Ireland side.

Even if you think it was a back down, it doesn't mean "German economic interests did predominate in the end".

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

It just another version of TM Lancaster House speech. 'We don't really know what we want, well we do its everything, but even we accept that is unlikely, so instead we are going to threaten to walk away. Like we have for 3 years, without ever doing it. But this time we really, really mean it. Except everyone knows we are not ready. But we are still going to go.'

And it will be breathlessly reported as Johnson sticking it to the EU, finally putting manners on the EU. Remember when TM held that speech on No 10 where she said she had had enough? The night the UK finally turned the tables? What changed? Nothing.

Because despite all the noise, the UK know they cannot go without a deal. Its madness. It won't be the end of the UK but it will create huge problems. A government is meant to make peoples lives better not worse

I think he's fairly clear what he wants. A Canada style deal.

Is he willing to walk away? We did not find out before because he was not given the chance to walk away due to the parliamentary vote forcing him to ask for an extension, which he made clear he was doing under protest.

I don't think we'll find out this time either because the EU has already said they are willing to do a Canada style deal. Of course the devil is in the details, but it will be some sort of deal along those lines. Good news for Ireland potentially.

But I think it is a mistake to compare the current government with that under TM. Different styles and different parliamentary arithmetic.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if you think it was a back down, it doesn't mean "German economic interests did predominate in the end".

However it was Merkel who first went public with the idea after a meeting with Johnson.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think he's fairly clear what he wants. A Canada style deal.

Is he willing to walk away? We did not find out before because he was not given the chance to walk away due to the parliamentary vote forcing him to ask for an extension, which he made clear he was doing under protest.

I don't think we'll find out this time either because the EU has already said they are willing to do a Canada style deal. Of course the devil is in the details, but it will be some sort of deal along those lines. Good news for Ireland potentially.

But I think it is a mistake to compare the current government with that under TM. Different styles and different parliamentary arithmetic.

And a Canada deal has rules and regulations within it. Which is has stated he will not accept (of course he said that about NI border so who knows!)

The other big difference is that the Canada deal is aimed at bringing the countries closer together, whilst the UK have stated that they want to diverge and more so over time.

jm08

Bit cynical wrote: »

However it was Merkel who first went public with the idea after a meeting with Johnson.

So Merkel had to do it because the UK needed to hear it from Germany, otherwise they would not take it serious.

jm08

First Up wrote: »

Hogan getting that job was not a coincidence.

It certainly wasn't, but I think the EU Commission also had their eye on the US trade negotiations and Ireland's good connections with the Irish caucus in the US.

serfboard

jm08 wrote: »

So Merkel had to do it because the UK needed to hear it from Germany, otherwise they would not take it serious.

Indeed. And a constant theme from the Brexiteers was that the German car industry was going to come to their aid, "because they want to sell their cars to us".

It never happened.

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

And a Canada deal has rules and regulations within it. Which is has stated he will not accept (of course he said that about NI border so who knows!)

Sure but for example Canada has food standards internally that diverge from the EU. It just means that when they are exporting to the EU they meet EU standards. This allows them to be members of CETA and NAFTA simultaneously, something they could not do if they were in a closer union.

serfboard

jm08 wrote: »

It certainly wasn't, but I think the EU Commission also had their eye on the US trade negotiations and Ireland's good connections with the Irish caucus in the US.

Not forgetting all the Irish Americans in Trumps administration - what could be more Irish than a fella with a surname of Mulvaney, whose first name is Mick?

As I said before, I think that Hogan and his DG Weyand might prove to be a good partnership - a Paddy out front to do the shmoozing, and a tough German behind the scenes to do the straight talking.

Bit cynical

jm08 wrote: »

So Merkel had to do it because the UK needed to hear it from Germany, otherwise they would not take it serious.

Merkel did it because a no deal would threaten German interests.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

Merkel did it because a no deal would threaten German interests.

And a border in Ireland wouldn't have, but it took the Benn Act to avoid that. Germany and France nearly ended up with No Deal over it.

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

And a border in Ireland wouldn't have, but it took the Benn Act to avoid that. Germany and France nearly ended up with No Deal over it.

It changed when Johnson ditched the stalled Theresa May WA and said he would walk away if no other agreement was reached. While the earlier WA was in parliamentary deadlock, Germany was happy as its exports were protected.

10000maniacs

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But it also says in that article that:



I suppose the Breixteers with their suspicious minds will assume that the fact that Nissan are denying it, it must be true. But I'm not sure that the article really makes sense. There are so many unknown issues such as how the UK and Japan could conclude a free trade deal if the UK doesn't have one with the EU, or whether in such a deal, if there was tarrif and quota free trade, why Nissan wouldn't simply close the Sunderland plant or reduce it to a finshing plant while keeping most manufacturing in Japan. Then we have the UK dying for a US deal, where there is government subsidies of the struggling automotive industry and the upshot of all this is that post Brexit Britain may well be targetted as an ideal export location for foreign manufactured cars.

This is more Tory generated hyperbole. Probably a Rabb directive. It has the smell of Dominic Rabb/Andrea Leadsom idiocy all over it.
It makes absolutely no sense for Nissan to do this and make a car economically.
Most of the parts come from Europe and will have to be imported.
It is likely the power steering on the vehicle was manufactured in Germany, the electronic control units are made in Romania and the shock absorbers travelled all the way from Poland. And more than half the 30,000 components in an average British-made car come from somewhere else.
World Trade Organisation rules would mean a 10 per cent tariff on vehicles and an average 4.5 per cent tariff on components.
Leadsom is on a drive to bring component manufacturers to the UK, but most of the base metals are not mined in the UK anyway so it's a waste of time.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

It changed when Johnson ditched the stalled Theresa May WA and said he would walk away if no other agreement was reached.

It changed when Johnson's self imposed deadline of October 31st was coming into view and he still had nothing.

Varadkar visited the Wirral, proposed the frontstop and Johnson grabbed it like a drowning man (shoving May's props, the DUP, under the bus in the process).

ancapailldorcha

Bit cynical wrote: »

It changed when Johnson ditched the stalled Theresa May WA and said he would walk away if no other agreement was reached. While the earlier WA was in parliamentary deadlock, Germany was happy as its exports were protected.

You seem to be conflating German influence with the caricature that Germany runs the EU.

The EU is a geopolitical union of 27 large, middling and small European countries. The idea that all of them will wield equal influence is a fantasy but it does give equal autonomy to all. Any state can defy the French, Germans and Italians if it so wishes but at the same time, it can't be surprised if these countries' leaders in turn refuse to open up the purse strings when the time comes.

Germany does not run the EU nor does it want to. However, as the EU's predominant economic power it does wield more influence than, say Croatia. Each country has a say in how the EU is run and each member can use political capital as they see fit such as George Osborne vetoing anti-dumping measures on Chinese steel for instance. The EU is a messy compromise between 27 countries. This comes with flaws and limitations but is better than the alternative of a few large states seeking to dominate Europe economically.

Igotadose

If today's speech by BoJo is his 'Churchill moment,' pardon me while I double over with laughter. He was all over the map, cracked a number of jokes, and failed to pretty much clarify anything - wants an (undefined) Canada-style free trade agreement, or will leave with the present deal; which has no trade aspects in it. It seemed the speech was an exercise in gaslighting of the UK. There's *no deal in place.* The UK and the EU are on the clock to work out some sort of trade arrangement, or the UK becomes a 3rd country and good luck with that.

Further, the whining about Brits being hostile to America. Sure, some are. So what? Was it even slightly important to bring up? Playing to Trump? Doesn't like Trump baby balloons when Trump visits?


The chosen lapdog questions were ducked when they got difficult, too. The Greek reporter asking Bojo pointedly about having to speak English, got a waffly response, where BoJo missed a chance to condemn the racist statement (unless he was uninformed about what the Greek reporter was asking about, which could be the case, or at least, it's always BoJo's defense that he 'didn't know.')

Ducking the terrorism questions and saying the AG would answer them - cowardly. Passing other difficult questions off to the WMS, which I didn't see defined, also weak.

All told, nothing really of interest in the speech. Nothing's laid out other than 'transition, then no deal'.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It changed when Johnson's self imposed deadline of October 31st was coming into view and he still had nothing.

Varadkar visited the Wirral, proposed the frontstop and Johnson grabbed it like a drowning man (shoving May's props, the DUP, under the bus in the process).

Interesting narrative but unfortunately no evidence for it.


Merkel gave Johnson the challenge of producing an alternative to the backstop about a month before as she was worried about no deal. The alternative Johnson came up with allowed for a vote on the Border issue by NI assembly members and removal of the all-Ireland customs arrangement.


The prior deal under TM was problematic for the ERG on both of these. They were unhappy with the whole of the UK being subject to EU rules as well as the permanent nature of the original backstop, both were removed in the Johnson deal.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It changed when Johnson's self imposed deadline of October 31st was coming into view and he still had nothing.

Varadkar visited the Wirral, proposed the frontstop and Johnson grabbed it like a drowning man (shoving May's props, the DUP, under the bus in the process).

Interesting narrative but unfortunately no evidence for it.

Merkel gave Johnson the challenge of producing an alternative to the backstop about a month before as she was worried about no deal. The alternative Johnson came up with allowed for a vote on the Border issue by NI assembly members and removal of the all-Ireland customs arrangement.

The prior deal under TM was problematic for the ERG on both of these. They were unhappy with the whole of the UK being subject to EU rules as well as the permanent nature of the original backstop, both of which were removed in the Johnson deal.

RobMc59

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It changed when Johnson's self imposed deadline of October 31st was coming into view and he still had nothing.

Varadkar visited the Wirral, proposed the frontstop and Johnson grabbed it like a drowning man (shoving May's props, the DUP, under the bus in the process).

Slightly off topic but the Wirral has been the focal point for Anglo/Irish conflict before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brunanburh

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

Interesting narrative but unfortunately no evidence for it.

Merkel gave Johnson the challenge of producing an alternative to the backstop about a month before as she was worried about no deal. The alternative Johnson came up with allowed for a vote on the Border issue by NI assembly members and removal of the all-Ireland customs arrangement.

The prior deal under TM was problematic for the ERG on both of these. They were unhappy with the whole of the UK being subject to EU rules as well as the permanent nature of the original backstop, both of which were removed in the Johnson deal.

Ireland/Varadkar ambushed the UK with the NI effectively in single market solution - as was obvious at the time ( Irish immediately hailed success despite the previous week of increasing Cummings' anti-EU and no deal announcements, UK put entirely on back foot as to how and whether to respond).
How can you possibly suggest it was all a Johnson cunning plan to comply with Angela's off the cuff 30 days remark (the "deadline" for which had already passed)

Christy42

fash wrote: »

Ireland/Varadkar ambushed the UK with the NI effectively in single market solution - as was obvious at the time ( Irish immediately hailed success despite the previous week of increasing Cummings' anti-EU and no deal announcements, UK put entirely on back foot as to how and whether to respond).
How can you possibly suggest it was all a Johnson cunning plan to comply with Angela's off the cuff 30 days remark (the "deadline" for which had already passed)

I wouldn't say ambushed as much as suggested two years earlier and May had vetoed it as she replied on the DUP support at the time.

This was the original EU suggestion that Boris returned to.

Bit cynical

fash wrote: »

Ireland/Varadkar ambushed the UK with the NI effectively in single market solution - as was obvious at the time ( Irish immediately hailed success despite the previous week of increasing Cummings' anti-EU and no deal announcements, UK put entirely on back foot as to how and whether to respond).

I'm afraid that does not make sense. We already had the NI in the single market solution in writing; the UK merely had to ratify it, so we were hardly ambushing them with a watered down version of it. If we did not believe Johsnon would go through with his plan to walk away, then all we had to do was to continue to insist on the original deal which was better for Ireland than the one we eventually agreed a) in respect of the border and b) in respect of trading with the UK.

How can you possibly suggest it was all a Johnson cunning plan to comply with Angela's off the cuff 30 days remark (the "deadline" for which had already passed)

Because it does not make sense to believe that it was an Irish idea. It is deal we had to accept because the perceived alternative was worse.

moon2

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Repeat after me there is nothing preventing EU members trading with rest of world in fact EU helps members with deals with just about every country.

Please explain how Ireland (EU member) does more trade with China with more exports than UK (no longer an EU member)

UK can blame EU all they want but it's not the EU membership that prevents a "global" Britain but their continued ineptitude.

Let's not forget that half their exports go to EU and can not readjust to other countries as they have no deals with anyone and are unable to form a deal with their closest neighbours

I think you responded to the wrong comment. The context for mine was the discussion about what would happen if the UK just tore up agreements formed with other countries.

Were they to do that the whole world would notice and noone would trust them to abide by any agreement.

Christy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid that does not make sense. We already had the NI in the single market solution in writing; the UK merely had to ratify it, so we were hardly ambushing them with a watered down version of it. If we did not believe Johsnon would go through with his plan to walk away, then all we had to do was to continue to insist on the original deal which was better for Ireland than the one we eventually agreed a) in respect of the border and b) in respect of trading with the UK.

Because it does not make sense to believe that it was an Irish idea. It is deal we had to accept because the perceived alternative was worse.

Why? It suits us well. It avoids the border and the UK can't renege on it either. It has to be an NI decision to put up a border and voters there are against a hard border.

This is close to the original suggestion from the EU. This is not some great Boris plan.

briany

moon2 wrote: »

I think you responded to the wrong comment. The context for mine was the discussion about what would happen if the UK just tore up agreements formed with other countries.

Were they to do that the whole world would notice and noone would trust them to abide by any agreement.

The UK wouldn't 'tear up' any agreement, but they may well try to ignore/circumvent parts they don't like while insisting that they are obeying the letter of the law, and when they're called on it, they will just blame the other side. It is in this way that they would present themselves as a faithful actor to other would-be trade partners all while living up their old nickname of 'perfidious Albion'.

Bit cynical

Christy42 wrote: »

Why? It suits us well. It avoids the border and the UK can't renege on it either. It has to be an NI decision to put up a border and voters there are against a hard border.

This is close to the original suggestion from the EU. This is not some great Boris plan.

However like I said in the the post you quoted, we already had that. In fact we had more than that. The question then is why did we back down and accept a lesser deal from our point of view? The only answer is that it was better than no deal which was the alternative being offered.

10000maniacs

fash wrote: »

Ireland/Varadkar ambushed the UK with the NI effectively in single market solution - as was obvious at the time ( Irish immediately hailed success despite the previous week of increasing Cummings' anti-EU and no deal announcements, UK put entirely on back foot as to how and whether to respond).
How can you possibly suggest it was all a Johnson cunning plan to comply with Angela's off the cuff 30 days remark (the "deadline" for which had already passed)

The parliament forced Johnson's hand by pushing through legislation to ensure that Johnson extended Article 50 if the Withdrawal Agreement was not signed on October 31st last. Varadkar gave Johnson the boost he needed which was dependent on the NI border stuff being sorted, and once he signed the withdrawal agreement and won the election, he could push for a cliff edge exit free from any interference from parliament which is what he is doing now, cynically still blaming the EU for everything.
It was a cunning plan that was dependent on him winning the election and gaining an overall majority. It worked.
It is going to be a messy crash out, and it is not going to end well for the Tories.

moon2

briany wrote: »

The UK wouldn't 'tear up' any agreement, but they may well try to ignore/circumvent parts they don't like while insisting that they are obeying the letter of the law, and when they're called on it, they will just blame the other side. It is in this way that they would present themselves as a faithful actor to other would-be trade partners all while living up their old nickname of 'perfidious Albion'.

Things are *really* out of context so I'll just leave it be

kowloon

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eh, what??

Ireland from the outset wanted no border on the island, and that is what we got.

Germany would be quite happy with a Dundalk to Derry canal full of piranhas.

Is it too late for that option?

RobMc59

Reading the latest brexit news it appears Johnson says the UK won't be forced into agreeing EU preconditions to a free trade deal and is willing to walk away without an agreement-I hope he has a plan B if the EU say 'fine,get on with it!'Or he's going to look even more silly than he already does if he has to back down.