Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Tea Shock

moon2 wrote: »

I don't understand the mechanism under which they could put a border within Ireland. Could you explain? Is it simply that they're going to renege completely on the withdrawal agreement, or wilfully misinterpret it? Or are you concerned they would put one in place even though there's no requirement to have one due to the provisions contained within the withdrawal agreement?

There would be a border in Ireland due to a dishonoured WA for the exacr same reasons as there was going to be for no WA at all. The EU/Ireland would be forced to erect one to protect the single market and the UK would also be forced to erect one under WTOs most favored nation rules

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1228090287395876864

The insanity continues. How was she not called out on this???

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

The EU will be faced with No Deal and having a prolonged fight or making a deal. They are banking on pragmatism and using Trumps 'make them think you are crazy enough to do anything'

I can quite believe that Downing Street might be thinking along those lines, already planning to flagrantly ignore the "Irish Border" part of the WA, and expecting the EU to blink at the 11th hour.

What they won't be expecting is for the EU to remind them, at 1 minute to midnight on the 31st of December, that
(a) the WA also included commitments regarding the status of UK and EU citizens in their respective host countries, which immediately become void if one part of the treaty is torn up;
(b) the EU has decided to unilaterally apply certain concessions to UK-based operators, e.g. in respect of cross-channel transport by truck and plane, which can [and will] be suspended with effect from 00:01 01/01/2021; and
(c) if the UK cannot be trusted to stand by agreements it has already signed, then it will be treated as an untrustworthy third country in respect of every aspect of ongoing arrangements.

This'll have the effect of pissing off one hell of a lot of British voters, trying to travel or do business over and into the New Year, with or without children and animals, and you can be damn sure that the EU will have its spokespeople primed to say to every UK journalist: "We had an agreement, and Boris Johnson tore it up. If we can't trust him with a simple three-point treaty, there's no point in discussing things further." Don't forget: the EU has 'form' in this regard - ask Switzerland!

Jizique

CelticRambler wrote: »

I can quite believe that Downing Street might be thinking along those lines, already planning to flagrantly ignore the "Irish Border" part of the WA, and expecting the EU to blink at the 11th hour.

What they won't be expecting is for the EU to remind them, at 1 minute to midnight on the 31st of December, that
(a) the WA also included commitments regarding the status of UK and EU citizens in their respective host countries, which immediately become void if one part of the treaty is torn up;
(b) the EU has decided to unilaterally apply certain concessions to UK-based operators, e.g. in respect of cross-channel transport by truck and plane, which can [and will] be suspended with effect from 00:01 01/01/2021; and
(c) if the UK cannot be trusted to stand by agreements it has already signed, then it will be treated as an untrustworthy third country in respect of every aspect of ongoing arrangements.

This'll have the effect of pissing off one hell of a lot of British voters, trying to travel or do business over and into the New Year, with or without children and animals, and you can be damn sure that the EU will have its spokespeople primed to say to every UK journalist: "We had an agreement, and Boris Johnson tore it up. If we can't trust him with a simple three-point treaty, there's no point in discussing things further." Don't forget: the EU has 'form' in this regard - ask Switzerland!

Brit public will not believe the EU - some suggestion today that mad Dom is prepared to almost go to war, presumably on the basis that it would be a way of ensuring public approval

Infini

Honestly if they act the maggot with the WA and keep making threats and unicorn delusions they should just out and out void everything on the 31st of December. Hit them so hard economically then immediately hammer home the point they broke a legally binding agreement, ignored all warnings and are untrustworthy in any capacity. That would be more than enough to force them to the table. Truth is that until Boris and the conservatives are thrown out of power Britain is essentially a rogue state governed by braindead idiots with no interest in intrgrity or trust. Theyre a liability.

reslfj

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Besides it's not an EU court. European Court of Human Rights includes Greenland and Russian

The "Council of Europe" and its court the ECHR in Strasbourg(FR) is NOT the EU nor its court the CJEU/ECJ in Luxembourg.

The Council of Europe has a total of 47 member states including all EU27 member states. Some are small 'toy states' like Monaco, San Marino and others within the EU

But also includes all of Russia, Serbia and the Caucasus states.

Greenland and the Faroe Islands are not members in their own name, but are as part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/47-members-states


Lars

CelticRambler

Jizique wrote: »

Brit public will not believe the EU

Hard-core Brexiters won't - but the 60-odd percent that didn't vote for Johnson & Co. will at least consider the possibility that the EU might have a point when they're reading their fourteenth cancellation notice "As a result of the UK's failure to sign a deal with the EU by 31st December ..." Businesses in Britain haven't forgotten that it's the F**k Business party in power at the moment. It'll be in their interest at that stage to create the climate for a swift change of the status quo, and stirring up trouble will make financial sense.

Lemming

listermint wrote: »

I'm actually not even sure what they are up to at this stage.

I mean who's the audience now? Domestic stuff was won. Is this guff for international audience... The ones they want to do deals with....

It's absolutely perplexing if anything I'd firmly believe it's to make as much money out of disaster capitalism and then jaunt off into the sunset.

It's all still for domestic consumption. The UK England is still at war with itself and the governments large majority rests on very precarious foundations. A failure to deliver tangible "benefits" *cough* will result in all those electoral gains in the North collapsing in short order. Not to mention they don't have a clue on what other message about it all to put forward because that would involve having sane ideas about the matter. Seen to be seen to be seen doing something and all that sh1te.

Kermit.de.frog

Are the UK threatening to renege on the Withdrawal Agreement?

If so the commission should come out with the strongest statement on Monday and halt all talks until the UK confirms it's obligations under what is an international treaty.

How deluded is this?

Speaking to reporters in Belfast, ahead of his meetings at Stormont House, he said that there would be no border down the Irish Sea after the Brexit transition period.

Mr Lewis said: "The United Kingdom is going to be one area and all will be able to benefit from our future global trade deals.

"I appreciate what Michel Barnier says, he's a very good man trying to do a good job for the EU.

"But this is also the man who said we couldn't open the Withdrawal Agreement.

"Our Prime Minister got that agreement open, got a new agreement. We've got it through parliament, we've left the European Union.

"And we're going to build for a better economy for the whole of the United Kingdom as one.

"We are absolutely clear. As a UK government, we will not be having a border down the Irish Sea."

interlocked

The UK imports 30% of its food from the EU and another 10% from countries that has an agreement with the EU. I'm not even mentioning JIT for the likes of the motor industry. The EU can destroy the UK economy within a month by simple checks on the border. The UK doesn't have a leg to stand on. Reality is either going to hit them between the eyes or Cummings is completely off the reservation.

Leroy42

interlocked wrote: »

The UK imports 30% of its food from the EU and another 10% from countries that has an agreement with the EU. I'm not even mentioning JIT for the likes of the motor industry. The EU can destroy the UK economy within a month by simple checks on the border. The UK doesn't have a leg to stand on. Reality is either going to hit them between the eyes or Cummings is completely off the reservation.

Fine, but when dealing with a crazy person what is the normal course of action? It isn't to intensify the situation but to try to calm it down.

And the UK see the EU last ditch change, through Leo's intervention, as proof that pushing things to the limit will work.

I think fundamentally, the UK don't believe the EU will risk a crash out. And it's not either WA and FTA or No Deal. The UK want better terms that what is being offered, know they have little traditional leverage and so need to do something unconventional.

They are factoring in that the EU will not want a trade war, and they know they cal rely on the likes of the Express and Telegraph, not to mention LauraK, to get their spin out.

They then are 'forced' to sign a less than perfect, but still brilliant, trade deal with the US to start afresh given how badly treated they were by the undemocratic EU than simply punished the UK for daring to listen to the will of the people.

swampgas

interlocked wrote: »

The UK imports 30% of its food from the EU and another 10% from countries that has an agreement with the EU. I'm not even mentioning JIT for the likes of the motor industry. The EU can destroy the UK economy within a month by simple checks on the border. The UK doesn't have a leg to stand on. Reality is either going to hit them between the eyes or Cummings is completely off the reservation.

Possibly, and I'm speculating wildly here, they are counting on the basic decency of the EU side and trying to use it as leverage? Surely (they might imagine) the EU wouldn't inflict food shortages on the British people, just because of a political disagreement? While laughing behind their hands at what they perceive as weak fools who lack the ruthless streak to succeed at power games.

It's a dangerous game, but Boris is a risk taker. He is certainly willing to risk endangering all around him, to further his own selfish ambitions.

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

Fine, but when dealing with a crazy person what is the normal course of action? It isn't to intensify the situation but to try to calm it down.

And the UK see the EU last ditch change, through Leo's intervention, as proof that pushing things to the limit will work.


I think fundamentally, the UK don't believe the EU will risk a crash out. And it's not either WA and FTA or No Deal. The UK want better terms that what is being offered, know they have little traditional leverage and so need to do something unconventional.

They are factoring in that the EU will not want a trade war, and they know they cal rely on the likes of the Express and Telegraph, not to mention LauraK, to get their spin out.

They then are 'forced' to sign a less than perfect, but still brilliant, trade deal with the US to start afresh given how badly treated they were by the undemocratic EU than simply punished the UK for daring to listen to the will of the people.

The UK did not cause Ireland and the EU to panic and capitulate. They were offered a revision which included a democratic mandate for NI to decide if special arrangements for the region should continue or not. This would have been acceptable to our side right the way through negotiations, but was never countenanced by the UK because it would contravene one of the original red lines, i.e. no border down the Irish sea.

It was Boris Johnson and his cronies who made the concession. They were heading up a lame duck government and needed a deal in order to win the general election. They pushed things to the limit, but that game of chicken was entirely a domestic one.

interlocked

No, it's very simple for the EU, you either back down and put the belly up to a renegade state on your border, and all that entails, or you make an example of them when they're threatening the constitutional integrity of a member state.
The UK is about to discover it"s real position in the world.

Ireland needs to sort itself out real fast in terms of its diplomatic effort. Coveney and McEntee should be agreed by all parties as the national ambassadors

CelticRambler

interlocked wrote: »

The UK imports 30% of its food from the EU and another 10% from countries that has an agreement with the EU.

swampgas wrote: »

Possibly, and I'm speculating wildly here, they are counting on the basic decency of the EU side and trying to use it as leverage? Surely (they might imagine) the EU wouldn't inflict food shortages on the British people, just because of a political disagreement?

Nothing the EU might do will stop the UK from continuing to import EU meat and veg - it is entirely within the power of the Tory government to decide how much they allow British businesses to import from enemy territory and how awkward they want to be about it (like imposing tariffs and health checks).

Where the EU has (all) the power is in relation to GB exports to the EU - things like fish (remember them) and travelling dogs. In relation to the latter, for example, by the end of the year, the EU has to decide whether to categorise GB as an "unlisted", "Part 2 listed" or "Part 1 listed" country, those being in decreasing order of hassle-ness for the pet-owner. I can't see any circumstances in which the EU will not include a Part 2 or Part 1 designation in the once-and-for-all-we-learnt-our-lesson-with-the-Swiss-and-won't-do-that-again treaty to be signed by Johnson no later than 1 minute to midnight.

This is what the Brexiters still don't seem to understand: in the event of "no deal", GB becomes a "nothing" state, as far as the EU is concerned. Every advantage, every concession, has to be specifically granted by a deliberate act on the part of the EU. Someone, somewhere in Brussels, has to write the words "Great Britain" on a piece of paper in the column marked "approved" and then get that page signed off by someone else. For however long Downing Street wants to play silly buggers, the EU can chew the end of that biro and never sign anything. And all of a sudden, British truck drivers need permits, British dogs need health certs, British holidaymakers need visas, British ex-pats need to make a customs declaration (and payment) in respect of their monthly import of Yorkshire Tea ...

reslfj

CelticRambler wrote: »

I can quite believe that Downing Street might be thinking along those lines, already planning to flagrantly ignore the "Irish Border" part of the WA, and expecting the EU to blink at the 11th hour.

What they won't be expecting is for the EU to remind them, at 1 minute to midnight on the 31st of December, that

(a) the WA also included commitments regarding the status of UK and EU citizens in their respective host countries, which immediately become void if one part of the treaty is torn up;

(b) the EU has decided to unilaterally apply certain concessions to UK-based operators, e.g. in respect of cross-channel transport by truck and plane, which can [and will] be suspended with effect from 00:01 01/01/2021; and

(c) if the UK cannot be trusted to stand by agreements it has already signed, then it will be treated as an untrustworthy third country in respect of every aspect of ongoing arrangements.

Don't forget: the EU has 'form' in this regard - ask Switzerland!

I don't believe point (a) - at least not in more than a few EU27 states. Most EU member states - people and politicians alike - think of resident Brits as "our Brits".
E.G. Germany and Scandinavia (and surely others I haven't checked) have passed or have ready to pass laws to protect the residence status of Brits in the case of a 'No Deal'/'UK not following the WA treaty' situation.

The EU is not going to punish the UK for Brexit. This is a very firm EU negotiating guideline. But the EU will have to protect its members and its citizens.

So if the UK does not follow agreed treaties, the EU may, unilaterally, need to apply sanction-like rules, which would likely be very unpleasant for and extremely harmful to the UK population, their jobs, their economy, yes, to almost everything.

Decent states simply do not break agreements and even less fully ratified treaties they are part of.

Don't believe - even for a minute - that the EU will not act very fast and very hard to any breach of treaty/agreement.

Lars

reslfj

swampgas wrote: »

...
Surely (they might imagine) the EU wouldn't inflict food shortages on the British people, just because of a political disagreement?

The EU will not prevent the UK from buying food, The EU will happily sell food to the UK. But it will sell at world market prices + UK MFN tariffs + the cost of NTBs.

Food and other products will just be a fair bit more expensive for UK consumers and factories.

The EU may be allowed in case of a serious breach of e.g. the WA treaty (WTO rules) to put punitive tariffs on top of the normal 3. country WTO MFN tariffs.
This will kill a very large part of the UK's export to the EU which is 50% of the UK's total export.

It will among other things kill export to the EU of agri product e.g. lamb and beef, export of fish = 70-80% of UK catch goes to the EU market, and destroy the UK auto industry within a few years or even faster.

Lars

lawred2

What's the point making any agreements with this UK government. They've repeatedly shown their word to be meaningless.

Larbre34

Barnier just needs one short sentence.

'We will maroon the City of London.'

Voilà.

gooch2k9

lawred2 wrote: »

What's the point making any agreements with this UK government. They've repeatedly shown their word to be meaningless.

I suppose someone has to be the grown up in this exchange. Making fair agreements and being the one the live up to their commitments reflects well in the EU's negotiations with others, and conversely for the UK.

Others here have alluded to the fact Boris and co can rely on the Telegraph et al to give the message they want to the pupulace. I'm thankful the internet is here now and people have the opportunity to access other viewpoints. Many won't use that opportunity but nonetheless, being able to falsely control the narrative has led to war previously.

lawred2

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I suppose someone has to be the grown up in this exchange. Making fair agreements and being the one the live up to their commitments reflects well in the EU's negotiations with others, and conversely for the UK.

Others here have alluded to the fact Boris and co can rely on the Telegraph et al to give the message they want to the pupulace. I'm thankful the internet is here now and people have the opportunity to access other viewpoints. Many won't use that opportunity but nonetheless, being able to falsely control the narrative has led to war previously.

Yeah but it's also fair for the EU to say that they will only make agreements with those that they believe to be operating in good faith.

Bit cynical

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If so the commission should come out with the strongest statement on Monday and halt all talks until the UK confirms it's obligations under what is an international treaty.

How deluded is this?

I think he's partly correct. If we look at the statements:

"The United Kingdom is going to be one area and all will be able to benefit from our future global trade deals.

This is true. NI + GB will be part of the same customs territory of the UK.

"I appreciate what Michel Barnier says, he's a very good man trying to do a good job for the EU. "But this is also the man who said we couldn't open the Withdrawal Agreement.

"Our Prime Minister got that agreement open, got a new agreement. We've got it through parliament, we've left the European Union.

"And we're going to build for a better economy for the whole of the United Kingdom as one.

This is also true. The WA was reopened and an agreement more to the liking of the hard-brexiteers was negotiated.

"We are absolutely clear. As a UK government, we will not be having a border down the Irish Sea."

This is also true. Since NI + GB will be one single customs territory, strictly speaking, there will be no border down the Irish sea.

What he left out, however, is that there will be some checks pertaining for goods entering NI but destined for onward sale into the EU e.g. ROI.

But I think the overall intent of the speech was not that the UK were going to renege on the WA but rather calm things down in NI where there have been worries on trade between NI and GB.

Strazdas

lawred2 wrote: »

Yeah but it's also fair for the EU to say that they will only make agreements with those that they believe to be operating in good faith.

Which seems hard to believe at the moment. The mood music coming from the UK is terrible. Imagine having to work out whether your potential trading partner is on the level or is planning to stab you in the back.

gooch2k9

lawred2 wrote: »

Yeah but it's also fair for the EU to say that they will only make agreements with those that they believe to be operating in good faith.

Up until the point the UK do renege on an agreement the EU have to take them as an honest broker I suppose. To date it is all "managed messages" to the media that can be backtracked upon. We all know the EU are more than capable of handling the UK thankfully. If I were a UK citizen I would despair at this government entering negotiations with the US/China etc.

I would posit the UK would be better off living with no deal for a time and understanding where they stand in the world order now.

ThePanjandrum

Name one foodstuff that the UK cannot import from outside the EU.

Lettuce, for example, has been flown in from California.

interlocked

Lettuce from California ������,

gooch2k9

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Name one foodstuff that the UK cannot import from outside the EU.

Lettuce, for example, has been flown in from California.

As reslfj has said, it's not that the food won't come from the EU, it's that it will cost more.

Also lettuce from Europe would be fresher than lettuce from USA I would assume.

Sam Russell

gooch2k9 wrote: »

As reslfj has said, it's not that the food won't come from the EU, it's that it will cost more.

Also lettuce from Europe would be fresher than lettuce from USA I would assume.

It is surprising how fresh things keep with a spray of chlorine - it kills 99% of germs.

Works on chicken too.

ThePanjandrum

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is surprising how fresh things keep with a spray of chlorine - it kills 99% of germs.

Works on chicken too.

It's the EU that uses chlorine wash on pre-packed salad, at a higher concentration that the USA uses on chicken too. But then, the EU has no scientific objection to chlorine wash, it just uses it as a non tariff barrier. We might be safer using it.

ThePanjandrum

gooch2k9 wrote: »

As reslfj has said, it's not that the food won't come from the EU, it's that it will cost more.

Also lettuce from Europe would be fresher than lettuce from USA I would assume.

I'm not suggesting that it should be flown in from California (although various kinds of food are), probably it would be more from the Middle East and Africa. Their goods are often cheaper, the EU tariffs are designed to increase their cost.


I thought that this list of tariffs is interesting:


https://ahdb.org.uk/eu-and-uk-import-tariff-rates-for-selected-horticultural-products