Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

Mod: We have a separate migration thread. Please keep this one focused on Brexit and refrain from just posting videos. Thanks.

fash

here
Interesting and negative appraisal of the UK NI protocol reinterpretation

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: We have a separate migration thread. Please keep this one focused on Brexit and refrain from just posting videos. Thanks.

Off topic posts deleted.

Leroy42

Regadless of how the UK spin it, the mere fact that they are looking to re-interpret the WA is not exactly going to engender trust and respect. And lest we all forget, TM made a agreement back in December 17 which almost immediately the cabinet walked back on claiming that it wasn't really agreed, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

Is that a falling from the UK or the EU in terms of how the WA was put together, I don't know, but this very much appears that the UK are trying to be very selective in their interpretation and taking no heed of what the EU may consider to have been agreed.

The only outcome I can see is that the EU is going to have to double their efforts in getting every i dotted and T crossed. Nothing should be left to even possible interpretation. And that means that there is no way a deal can be made in 2020. There can be no overarching deal, as the UK as showing that they will take a agreement and interpreted to suit their own view (which is there is nothing wrong with btw just that it means that the EU need to be very wary).

Aslo, the UK is looking for a unique agreement, which by its nature the actual consequences or which can't be entirely known. So again, the EU will be very reluctant to sign up to anything to which they don't fully have the outcome of since the UK are showing that they will be very happy to interpret any greyness to suit themselves.

CelticRambler

SNIP.

As this year unfolds, it'll be interesting to watch the dynamics of the Macron-Johnson relationship. I do wonder sometimes if there's some kind of understanding, or even strategy, between Varadkar and Macron?
- With respect to the WA, nothing happened for ages, then Varadkar went over to Cheshire, had a chat with Johnson and suddenly the UK lurched in "the right" direction.
- With respect to Covid-19, the UK dithered for weeks, then Macron (allegedly) phoned Johnson and told him that France would shut the doors on the UK if they didn't get their act together, and suddenly the UK lurched in "the right" direction.
Now that movement restrictions throughout Europe are being eased, we have Varadkar treating the UK as foreign territory for the purposes of quarantine while Macron is pushing the idea that the English could yet come to France for their summer holidays if only there was a mutual agreement on, well, so many things ... :rolleyes:

Johnson is not, in my opinion, a real politician nor a diplomat and doesn't know how to play the game. I think that lack of experience means we'll pass the deadline for requesting an extension to the transition phase with no request. From then on, I'd expect soothing but cold comments from Barnier & Co. in Brussels being "disappointed but respecting the decisions of the British people", and a lot of angry French fishermen, angry French farmers and angry French unions given free rein to remind those same British people that "you need us more than we need you". In the end, Johnson will need someone else to decide what to do, and I think it'll be the two closest neighbours writing the rules for him: France and Ireland.

First Up

CelticRambler wrote:

As this year unfolds, it'll be interesting to watch the dynamics of the Macron-Johnson relationship. I do wonder sometimes if there's some kind of understanding, or even strategy, between Varadkar and Macron?

European Union Prime Ministers, Ministers and official talk to each other all the time.

Enzokk

Here is Tony Connelly's take on the paper from the UK on the NI Protocol,

UK Protocol paper may be just enough to avoid fresh crisis

He sees it much as most people, it plays for the domestic audience but that there are concerning items in the paper that the EU will be looking at closely.

The UK paper on implementing the Protocol skirts as close to the rocks of EU disapproval as possible. But it may have just done enough to avoid a fresh crisis over the Irish question.

It's clearly a document designed to reinforce the bond between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

"Our approach [to implementing the Protocol] will be guided at all times by our overall aims of preserving and strengthening Northern Ireland’s place in our United Kingdom," it states.

This was always expected. When Boris Johnson renegotiated the Protocol last October, he dropped the idea of a customs border on the island of Ireland and accepted that the locus for checks and controls on goods going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland would have to be at Northern ports and airports.

It was a brutal defenestration of the DUP from the heart of Tory policy on Brexit. Downing Street has since been trying to make it up to unionism by making claims that there would be no checks or controls either way at all, stretching credulity in the process, or by carefully nudging the rhetoric into an admission that, yes, there would be new administrative processes, but they would be as smooth as possible.

The initial reaction from Brussels has been cautious. A European Commission spokesperson welcomed the paper, but added: "The time to implement the Protocol is short, and practical implementation measures must start immediately so that the Protocol can be operational by 1 January 2021."

In reality, today’s paper is a further rhetorical reassurance for unionists, and not the technical detail that the European Commission has been asking for.

In other news, you remember the Russia Report? Well it will not be released until it is cleared by the new Intelligence and Security Committee even though the old committee cleared it for release. That committee has not been set up yet by Johnson's government and I would assume they will need time to scrutinize the report to clear it as well. So it will be some time before that report comes out.

Here is a handy guide on how long these things usually take to set up,

How long does it take for a new House of Commons to get fully up and running?

There is a graph that shows a comparison between the past 4 governments and how long it took to get everything up an running. By this stage the previous 3 governments had the ISC up and running. We are heading to another recess, because there isn't a crises that needs the attention right now so the MP's can take a well deserved break. Johnson has been working very hard the past few weeks and appearing once a week for PMQ's is very tiring when that is the only thing you are doing.

In other Johnson news, he will not face criminal charges relating to Jennifer Arcuri grants while he was mayor of London. The London Assembly will however continue their investigation as they halted it once it was referred to the IOPC.

Boris Johnson may have had 'intimate relationship' with American businesswoman

As the headline states it is likely (really? Who knew) he has an intimate relationship with her. Also, while they found no evidence of him acting improperly to have her receive grants it doesn't mean there was no influence.

Independent Office for Police Conduct director general Michael Lockwood said: "The IOPC completed a thorough, independent and impartial assessment to determine if there were reasonable grounds to suspect the criminal offence of misconduct in public office had occurred.

"We found no evidence to indicate that Mr Johnson influenced the payment of any sponsorship monies to Ms Arcuri or that he influenced or played an active part in securing her participation in trade missions."

He added that officials making decisions about funding and trade trips may have been influenced by Mr Johnson's relationship with Ms Arcuri.

I suspect if the director general is saying there may have been an influence due to their relationship, he was told by those members that is played a role. Otherwise why say it?

Muscles Schultz

Classic Dom ! Looks like it will be bye bye Cummings soon given the twitter storm !

Thargor

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Classic Dom ! Looks like it will be bye bye Cummings soon given the twitter storm !

Looks like the media set them up for a one-two punch aswell, release the story about the original journey, let them spend the day lying about it being fine and he only did it to self-isolate then tonight release the multiple journeys between the parents and London story:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dominic-cummings-ignored-coronavirus-lockdown-22075857

listermint

Thargor wrote: »

Looks like the media set them up for a one-two punch aswell, release the story about the original journey, let them spend the day lying about it being fine and he only did it to self-isolate then tonight release the multiple journeys between the parents and London story:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/dominic-cummings-ignored-coronavirus-lockdown-22075857

Extremely enjoyable I have to say. Excellent work by the press.

fash

It is interesting that aside from the weaponising of conflict in Northern Ireland, the UK administration or former members thereof- have at this stage issued threats of military action against both Spain:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/4/3/15161114/britain-threatens-war-spain-gibraltar-brexit
And France:
https://twitter.com/SirSocks/status/1263382896284499968?s=20
It is interesting in the context of those who deny that the EU has helped bring about peace in Europe.

Leroy42

I do wonder where all this nationalism and hated for the EU will end.

History shows us that when things are going badly, a reliable political tactic is to create a common enemy, a war to be fought.

A few 'engineered' clashes, a bit of out of context reporting of statements and it starts to spiral.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do wonder where all this nationalism and hated for the EU will end.

History shows us that when things are going badly, a reliable political tactic is to create a common enemy, a war to be fought.

A few 'engineered' clashes, a bit of out of context reporting of statements and it starts to spiral.

Bismark and the Ems telegram comes to mind.

He edited the dispatch to cause offence to the French, which started the Franco Prussian war of 1870. Disaster for the French.

[There is link that gets Michel Barnier and Wuhan Covid 19 into the same sentence, but it is in the Daily Mail so I will not quote it.]

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1264484502451228672

This puts in context the Brexit thinking last year and they still haven't moved on from what I can see. Sure sign up for anything we'll just change it later when it suits us. However reality is starting to bite.

Joe_ Public

A war is all very well when it unites your country against a common foe, bit of a different matter when it divides your own country too. Difference between WW2 and Vietnam.

Enzokk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1264484502451228672

This puts in context the Brexit thinking last year and they still haven't moved on from what I can see. Sure sign up for anything we'll just change it later when it suits us. However reality is starting to bite.

I believe he meant voting for May's deal and not the Johnson deal. I remember Gove stating this at the time to try and get people to vote for it, something along the lines of the deal will not be permanent to try and get it through.

I also think Cummings may have been saying the same things as well at the time to just get it done.

Brexit: Michael Gove says UK voters can change final deal

At least that is what I think he is referring to.

Joe_ Public

Baker said it on Marr earlier, that Cummings was trying to get them to pass the WA, the May version, and that's why a lot of brexiteer mps dont like him. I was wondering whether i was hearing him right at the time.

LeinsterDub

Enzokk wrote: »

I believe he meant voting for May's deal and not the Johnson deal. I remember Gove stating this at the time to try and get people to vote for it, something along the lines of the deal will not be permanent to try and get it through.

I also think Cummings may have been saying the same things as well at the time to just get it done.

Brexit: Michael Gove says UK voters can change final deal

At least that is what I think he is referring to.

It doesn't matter what deal it was referring to. The underlying thinking is that international agreement don't apply to the UK

Enzokk

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It doesn't matter what deal it was referring to. The underlying thinking is that international agreement don't apply to the UK

I agree, I was just being a little pedantic about what deal they were apparently told not to read and that they believed they could change. Even if Baker isn't of this belief, Gove most certainly is and I think it is obvious with the way he carries himself now during the Joint Committee discussions.

CrabRevolution

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It doesn't matter what deal it was referring to. The underlying thinking is that international agreement don't apply to the UK

I've been wondering how Gove squares "China owes us billions for Covid-19 under international laws I just made up" with "International Treaties are meaningless, and in any case truly sovereign states don't adhere to any rules that they haven't set unilaterally by themselves"

Well I haven't really been wondering, because it's exactly the sort of nonsensical hypocrisy running the UK at the moment. But it's still such a glaring contradiction that it has to be pointed out.

ancapailldorcha

While I'm more or less a Philistine when it comes to music, it does seem like the UK has done exceptionally well for itself in this regard. It seems that the government is going to charge musicians wanting to play in Britain £240 each for visas in addition to insisting that £1,000 in savings be held in bank accounts.

From NME:

The vast majority of new acts record music, play tours and build their own followings on a shoestring and, while you might bag a paltry tour support budget if you’re lucky, long gone are the days when a deal with a lower-ranking independent label might mean a regular wage that would keep the average rent-paying, painkiller addicted bassist a grand in the black. They’re called ‘starving artists’ for a reason – they need that T-shirt sale to afford the petrol to the next gig, and maybe the occasional Chomp between five.

Without hacking into anybody’s historic bank statements, it’s easy to make a longlist of acts who started out on indie labels or self-releasing, and who would probably not have made the cut to tour the UK on their first album or two under these new rules. Tame Impala, Nirvana, Arcade Fire, Bright Eyes, Pixies, The White Stripes, Blondie… I’m sure you’re shouting half a dozen world-changers of your own.

The effect of these new restrictions will be that those new bands who do manage to scrape together the plane fares and van hire for an early hand-to-mouth festivals-and-clubs tour of Europe will start mapping their route by drawing a big red cross through Britain. Some may argue that’s a good thing, forcing our homegrown talent to thrive and inbreed until it triumphantly straddles the handful of venues that will survive coronavirus. But that ignores a major part of Britain’s role in the global music scene as flagrantly as Boris Johnson would ignore CCTV footage from the Barnard Castle visitors’ car park.

https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/brexit-priti-patel-band-visa-2675042

CelticRambler

And, of course, that works both ways. Musicians in GB will face non-tarrif barriers to performing in the EU, including the return of the infamous carnet that, in a previous era, had to be inspected on the way out and back to ensure that bands were bringing back everything they took with them, nothing less and nothing more.

Which is one reason why the European Youth Orchestra has already left the UK.

J Mysterio

EU will surely crumble any minute now, 'as they always do'.

https://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1265337592855355394

Coveney representing Ireland, of course.

lawred2

Why is fisheries such a particular sticky point?

Is this more about symbolic solidarity (which is very important) or economics?

Jizique

lawred2 wrote: »

Why is fisheries such a particular sticky point?

Is this more about symbolic solidarity (which is very important) or economics?

It’s a symbol of traditional British sea power; they get a hard-on every time someone mentions Navy and Spitfire and RAF.
It is 0.3% of their economy.

Leroy42

Jizique wrote: »

It’s a symbol of traditional British sea power; they get a hard-on every time someone mentions Navy and Spitfire and RAF.
It is 0.3% of their economy.

Yes, but why is it so important to the EU? Why not let the British have their fishing victory, with the price being something else?

lawred2

Jizique wrote: »

It’s a symbol of traditional British sea power; they get a hard-on every time someone mentions Navy and Spitfire and RAF.
It is 0.3% of their economy.

I was speaking from the EU point of view. I don't really care for the British view on anything these days.

L1011

lawred2 wrote: »

Why is fisheries such a particular sticky point?

Is this more about symbolic solidarity (which is very important) or economics?

Depends which country you ask. Its more symbolic here - although the fishermen do get quite hefty media coverage; but it would be economic for Spain/Portugal.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but why is it so important to the EU? Why not let the British have their fishing victory, with the price being something else?

That is probably what will happen. That's why the EU wants fisheries wrapped up in the trade deal, rather than dealt with in a stand-alone agreement (which is what the UK wants). Negotiating fisheries along with everything else make it much smoother for the EU to suggest that they can accommodate the UK on fisheries if the UK can accommodate them on something else. And since the UK fetishises fisheries, and in particular Brexit supporters fetishise fisheries, the hope is that the UK government will be prepared to concede quite a lot in other areas in order to secure fisheries terms that they can hail as a victory.

timetogo1

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, but why is it so important to the EU? Why not let the British have their fishing victory, with the price being something else?

If I was devious I'd push the fishing angle (on the EU side) to the brink and then give in and then while looking pragmatic push harder on what I really wanted. The UK government would have a harder time standing firm with a second ultimatum after the EU just conceded the first.

It's not ideology with the EU, it's business, so it's probably easier to manipulate somebody who's working off ideological grounds.