Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

FT generally puts business interests before nationalism.

So does business, unsurprisingly. And so, traditionally, do the Tories, the "party of business".

serfboard

Peregrinus wrote: »

So does business, unsurprisingly. And so, traditionally, do the Tories, the "party of business".

Traditionally indeed, because the "party of business" has now become the party of "fúck business".

Tell me how

serfboard wrote: »

Traditionally indeed, because the "party of business" has now become the party of "fúck business".

UK priorities

Blue Passports > Economy > health of society

Enzokk

Some updates from Barnier,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1253647838589915137?s=20


There are more coming through, you can follow Tony Connelly for an update, I will check back later to see all the updates after they have come through.

Enzokk

Here is an article on the update from Barnier,

Barnier accuses UK of stalling Brexit negotiations

EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has deplored a lack of progress in the latest round of post-Brexit trade talks.

Speaking in Brussels this afternoon after a week of talks, he accused Britain of stalling negotiations.

"To tell you the truth ... our objective that we had for tangible progress, this objective has only been partially achieved," Mr Barnier said.

"The United Kingdom did not want to engage seriously on a certain number of fundamental issues."

So the areas where the EU feels there hasn't been sufficient progress includes level playing field, justice and fisheries. The final part seems to say a lot of where we find ourselves,

On the level playing field, the UK keeps repeating that we are negotiating as "sovereign equals", he said, but the "reality" was that an agreement was being sought between a massive bloc and a smaller nation.

Unfair trade distortion and unjustified competitive advantages such as state aid must be prevented he said.

"This week, the UK failed to engage substantially on these topics. It argued that our positions are too far apart to reach agreement," Mr Barnier said

"It also denounced the basic premise that economic inter-connectedness and geographic proximity require robust guarantees.

"Yet again this is what we agreed with Boris Johnson in our joint political declaration."

On fisheries it seems that the UK is playing with fire a little, as the EU will not allow a deal to go through if all areas aren't covered. That is at least how it reads to me,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1253649832234962944?s=20

Leroy42

Why did the EU ever agree to such a short transition period in the 1st place? Seems they have made a rod for their own back.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is an article on the update from Barnier,

Barnier accuses UK of stalling Brexit negotiations



So the areas where the EU feels there hasn't been sufficient progress includes level playing field, justice and fisheries. The final part seems to say a lot of where we find ourselves,



On fisheries it seems that the UK is playing with fire a little, as the EU will not allow a deal to go through if all areas aren't covered. That is at least how it reads to me,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1253649832234962944?s=20

It's as if Johnson & Co are permanently on coke.

fash

I must say I'm leaning towards either no or minimal deal with the UK (which more likely means no deal) - the reason being that the UK clearly isn't and hasn't been negotiating in good faith during the WA - having an "ambitious" agreement involving a number of fudges just means everyone has to live a neverending nightmare of UK bad faith.
Instead, better to have them break all connections and when or if they become rational, negotiate then.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why did the EU ever agree to such a short transition period in the 1st place? Seems they have made a rod for their own back.

Very good point and begs the question are the EU as 'on the ball' as everyone assumes?
Such a short transition period which can be exploited by hardline brexiteers could be viewed as a propaganda gaffe by the EU.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why did the EU ever agree to such a short transition period in the 1st place? Seems they have made a rod for their own back.

The EU was at the mercy of the UK on that, May was supposed to get the exit done on the 29th March 2019 and the transition period was agreed within the WA. Seeing as she was having trouble getting it through, there was no chance the ERG was going to allow her to change the transition dates and neither was Johnson going to change it either. The EU wasn't going to be responsible for a no-deal so just accepted that there would be a short transition as it was better than no transition. At least there is more time to prepare and if the UK doesn't ask for an extension we have certainty that WTO trade terms will happen on the 1st January if little progress is made.

BKtje

Well I guess the idea was to focus the mind of the UK to get it done. If during this time they don't engage or stall then a longer transition period wouldn't really have changed anything except to waste more time.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why did the EU ever agree to such a short transition period in the 1st place?

RobMc59 wrote: »

Very good point and begs the question are the EU as 'on the ball' as everyone assumes?
Such a short transition period which can be exploited by hardline brexiteers could be viewed as a propaganda gaffe by the EU.

IIRC the original end-date of the transition period was chosen to fit in with the EU's budgetary cycle and the UK's contribution to same (included in the divorce bill calculations). Under normal circumstances, a nearly two-year transition phase would have been plenty for two parties to agree the main points of their future arrangement.

The EU was not, I suspect, anticipating the UK's fannying around for one whole year trying to decide what it was they'd voted for in the referendum, only to finally vote for the draft WA they'd rejected back in 2017.

But sure there's no need to worry - everyone knows the EU always blinks at the last minute ...

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

IIRC the original end-date of the transition period was chosen to fit in with the EU's budgetary cycle and the UK's contribution to same (included in the divorce bill calculations). Under normal circumstances, a nearly two-year transition phase would have been plenty for two parties to agree the main points of their future arrangement.

The EU was not, I suspect, anticipating the UK's fannying around for one whole year trying to decide what it was they'd voted for in the referendum, only to finally vote for the draft WA they'd rejected back in 2017.

But sure there's no need to worry - everyone knows the EU always blinks at the last minute ...

I`m still hoping I wake up,still 2016 and it`s all a bad dream!

Thargor

Maybe the fundamentalists have decided to make lemonade out Covid-19 and just go for it, they have the ultimate excuse now no matter what happens.

listermint

No but seriously.

Where is Boris Johnson...

Lemming

listermint wrote: »

No but seriously.

Where is Boris Johnson...

Would it actually make a difference if he turned up? He's an empty suit at the best of times.

Certainly feels like this is headed for no a crash out. When does the EU lay some consequences of breaking the withdrawal agreement, or should it not do that publicly?

Covid-19 makes hiring of customs staff etc. much more difficult so I can't see how the North and Dover will be dealt with any time soon.

Xertz

We need to be activating contingencies now to protect supply chains. There’s a significant risk of the U.K. going into a complete mess over the weeks and months ahead, particularly if there a second spike in COVID-19 issues.

My view of it is that the U.K. will attempt a crash out, with the notion that the EU will have to accommodate it to avoid a catastrophe. It’s basically the same old threat to blow up the economy.

The sense I get at the moment is that the EU members are just too busy to entertain this at the moment and it may end up back firing very dramatically on the U.K.

Ireland needs to be very careful are well protected in terms of chaotic consequences. That may mean making decisions to ensure supply chains have real alternatives.

We are very vulnerable to being too complacent.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why did the EU ever agree to such a short transition period in the 1st place? Seems they have made a rod for their own back.

The transition period was a UK request, remember. The EU thinks it's a good idea, but the intiative came from the UK.

The opposition, of course also comes from the UK. The fight about whether there should be a transition period is entirely a domestic UK fight. The fight about how long it should be is largely a UK fight.

The end-date of December 2020 was picked back in 2017/18 when the concept was fleshed out in UK/EU discussions about the withdrawal agreement. The end-date was one of the first details to be agreed; it coincides with the end of the current EU budgetary cycle, which means that, during the transition period, (a) the UK would be contributing only to programmes that it had already agreed, committed to and budgeted for (when, as a member state, it joined in agreeing the current budget), and (b) the basis for calculating UK contributions was already established. If the UK had ratified the withdrawal agreement as signed, and left shortly on schedule, that would have meant a 21-month transition, extendible by agreement to 3 years 9 months. But an extension would be difficult to negotiate, since it would require the UK to commit to paying for programmes that it doesn't play any role in creating or approving, and it would require UK/EU agreement on a new basis for calculating the share of the cost of those programmes that the UK would pay.

As we know the UK didn't leave on schedule, with the result that transition will now only be 11 months, unless extended. And furthermore the UK tried to close off its domestic debate on extension by passing domestic legislation saying that it wouldn't agree to any extension.

Have the EU made a rod for their own backs? Not really. First, it's mostly the UK that made this rod. Secondly, it's mainly a rod for the UK's back; leaving transition without a deal will do far more harm to the UK than to the EU. There's a limit to the extent to which the EU can step in to stop the UK's psychotic self-harming and, given other more pressing matters facing the EU at the moment, there's a limit to their appetite for attempting to do so. The EU would certainly prefer an extension, but so what? If the UK won't seek and agree an extension in order to protect itself, they are hardly likely to do so to gratify anyone in the EU.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Certainly feels like this is headed for no a crash out. When does the EU lay some consequences of breaking the withdrawal agreement, or should it not do that publicly?

Covid-19 makes hiring of customs staff etc. much more difficult so I can't see how the North and Dover will be dealt with any time soon.

I think the EU member ststes shoild start preparing for a no deal now.

We are already psychologically ready for a recession, so we may as well bear the pain of the additional brexit related recession at the same time.

It will be bad for both the UK and the EU and to be honest there is no point threatening the UK or suggesting that the UK will be worse hit than the EU etc. Negotiations are done, and its a question now of how we prepare for that scenario to:

A. Mitigate the damafe caused; and
B. Ensure the future of the Single Market;
C. Deal, as best we can, with the border

Seth Brundle

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think the EU member ststes shoild start preparing for a no deal now.

I suspect the EU states have been preparing for all scenarios for some time now.

Spanish Eyes

But come on, I thought the EU would suffer more from No Deal than the UK would, tongue in cheek. But that's how anti EU in UK really think despite everything else going on right now.

Times have changed now, priorities have changed, life has changed for everyone. But let's crack on with something that is not really time dependent, the UK has left the EU, it's only the timeframe for negotiations and deals that is in danger now, or it could just be delayed really.

However, reading some blogs in UK (I know), Brexiteers don't care even during a pandemic, it's all or nothing for them. That shows that they need to be ditched and get on with their own lives really, subject to the practicality of it all.

I'm indifferent now really. And I wasn't before now. Let them at it. But I have a sneaky feeling that the EU might be a bit concerned. Are they though?

Enzokk

Somehow I only came across this now or maybe just forgot that we have discussed this before, but the House of Lords has their own Select Committee's taking evidence and they are also still looking at the Withdrawal Agreement and the impacts it will have on the UK and Northern Ireland. I have only started it as it will be complex for my simple mind as it deals with legal questions, but what I can see is that this is going to be a mess. I cannot understand how the UK agreed to this and is still thinking they will not have to be subject to EU laws or the ECJ as this seems exactly what the Irish Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement says.

Lord Kerr, of article 50 fame, seems to ask the witnesses if they agree with his reading of article 12 of the Irish Protocol. It seems to me, trying to simplify this, it will be up to the Northern Ireland Assembly to implement the relevant EU laws that they will need to follow to make the Irish Protocol work. If they don't do that, the EU will not take the NI to task for not implementing those laws, but the UK Government will be taken to the ECJ for judgement on the matter.

So instead of the UK getting rid of all the EU laws, they have now found themselves in a situation where they have no say in new EU laws and have signed a treaty that binds them to ensure the laws are being enforced in Northern Ireland alone. If not they will be taken to the ECJ who can make a finding that the UK hasn't implemented the laws and can be fined. Do I have this sorry mess correct?

Select Committee on the European Union
Uncorrected oral evidence: The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland

The question starts at page 5 and is expanded on further on page 8,

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: I am trying to understand how Article 12 works. If the relevant EU directive is implemented in Northern Ireland by a Northern Ireland-specific piece of legislation through the Northern Ireland Assembly, it looks as though that does not absolve the UK Government from being responsible for making sure that it is so translated into Northern Ireland law. If an infraction proceeding is brought, it would not be against the Northern Ireland authority; it would be against the United Kingdom Government in the ECJ.

From Article 12, it looks as though the Commission would have the right to be present through the proceedings to check that the EU’s law was being properly implemented in Northern Ireland, and infraction proceedings could be brought on the basis of improper implementation. Is that right—that single market law will apply on a dynamic basis in Northern Ireland? For the most part, that will mean legislation in Northern Ireland but the United Kingdom Government will be responsible for ensuring that it is done and they will be arraigned in the Court of Justice if it is not done to the satisfaction of the Commission.

Dr Sylvia de Mars: Absolutely.

Colin Murray: There have been examples of the UK, while an EU member state, having to step in at a Westminster level and pass legislation because the Northern Ireland Assembly did not find itself in a position to fulfil its EU obligations with regard to particular aspects of discrimination law soon after the St Andrew’s agreement restarted the Assembly in the last decade. Therefore, it has happened in the past and the obligation will continue to rest with the UK as the state responsible for Northern Ireland.

This seems to be why Lord Kerr asked the question on page 8,

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: I would like to follow up your answers to my question about legal responsibility and Article 12. It will not be possible to devolve responsibility so, in addition to the capacity argument, there is a UK government legal argument that states that they will be responsible if implementation is inadequate. They cannot be hands-off about it; they have to be involved. There are two supplementaries to that. The first is: what should Parliament be doing? We cannot say that this is just for the Northern Ireland Assembly, for the reason that I have given. What is the correct degree of scrutiny which the Westminster Parliament should require? Secondly, what happens if it all goes wrong in a particular case? Supposing we end up in the Court of Justice and there is an infringement case which the UK Government loses, are we still treated as if we were a member state and, therefore, responsible for paying a fine if we have got it wrong? Is that what this treaty means, that we could end up in the Court of Justice being fined for inadequate implementation in Northern Ireland of EU laws in which we have had no say?

...

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: Something has changed, because in this Parliament, a lot of people are breathing a sigh of relief and saying, “At least we’re not going to have to scrutinise any more EU law”. But we are going to have to, if we are responsible for implementation in Northern Ireland.

There is no denial that this would be the case, why would there be? This isn't a politician trying to shine a turd. So the sum up, Westminster will have no say in EU laws but will be responsible for the NI Assembly implementing them correctly otherwise they will have to face the ECJ. Talk about taking back control.

PROTOCOL ON IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND

fly_agaric

listermint wrote: »

No but seriously.

Where is Boris Johnson...

(In fairness) I imagine he won't be up to very much for a while yet and his minions will have to muddle through somehow.
He was in hospital, and even moved to an ICU for a day or so with Covid 19.
Seems like it is definitely not something you just brush off like a mild cold and get straight back to work after!

Roanmore

fly_agaric wrote: »

(In fairness) I imagine he won't be up to very much for a while yet and his minions will have to muddle through somehow.
He was in hospital, and even moved to an ICU for a day or so with Covid 19.
Seems like it is definitely not something you just brush off like a mild cold and get straight back to work after!

He’s back tomorrow

fly_agaric

Roanmore wrote: »

He’s back tomorrow

How wonderful!
edit: more seriously it is good (for him & his family) that he must have recovered okay if he's going back to work now.

Enzokk

The UK has denied it seems the request for the EU to have an office in Belfast to ensure the NI Protocol was being properly implemented by the UK Government.

Brexit: No EU mini embassy in Belfast - Gove

Michael Gove has said the European Union does not need a “mini embassy" in Belfast after the Brexit transition period.

The comments were made by the cabinet minister after the EU said it wanted a technical base in Northern Ireland.

I think this is just being needlessly antagonistic from the UK Government. Either they will fully comply with the protocol and the EU would just be wasting their time and money by having this office in NI, or they have no intention of doing it and will try to make it as difficult as possible for the EU to monitor what they are doing.

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

Either they will fully comply with the protocol and the EU would just be wasting their time and money by having this office in NI, or they have no intention of doing it and will try to make it as difficult as possible for the EU to monitor what they are doing.

Or they are just looking at it from the point of view of a gammon Brexit voter reading a red top headline.

As with ppe procurement, Erasmus etc.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Or they are just looking at it from the point of view of a gammon Brexit voter reading a red top headline.

As with ppe procurement, Erasmus etc.

Maybe, although time is running out and I doubt Mr Gammon cares much about how Brexit is done as the UK has left already. Having a EU office for their officials to observe that the protocol is being correctly implemented isn't something that they will care about as I think they are much more big picture objectors.

The exchange from Gove on the EU presence in NI starts here from around 14h52. He tries to conflate the office with a EU embassy. He also confirms that article 12 allows for EU officials to monitor what is happening, but doesn't want to supply an office.

So I am left wondering what the game is here?

reslfj

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK has denied it seems the request for the EU to have an office in Belfast to ensure the NI Protocol was being properly implemented by the UK Government.


I think this is just being needlessly antagonistic from the UK Government.

What does Gove and HMG not understand in the "Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland" (part of the agreed and ratified WA) ?

Article 12
Implementation, application, supervision and enforcement

2. ... Union representatives shall have the right to be present during any activities of the authorities of the United Kingdom related to the implementation and application of provisions of Union law made applicable by this Protocol

Most of the checks are expected in Belfast or in Larne - AFAIK.

Lars