Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Oh Brexiters please never change...

Once again cherry picking at it's finest from the UK; for some reason I'm not surprised while I'm sure when EU says no it will be the usual "EU bullies UK" headlines again.

Japan: "Hello?"
EU: "Hi, how's it going?"
Japan: "Grand, yourself?"
EU; "Grand. Listen, you know that brainfart about cars being stamped made in UK? Obviously, that's not a runner because we are going to tariff the sh1t out of UK goods and, you know, like a market of 450,000,000 people... So...?
Japan: "Say no more".
EU: Grand, good luck"
Japan: "Bye"

Enzokk

Johnson just casually saying no FTA would be a good option,

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1278972103056936960?s=20


By all accounts his appearance this morning on the Nick Ferrari show on LBC was a disaster.

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278967590203858950?s=20

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1278972174427185158?s=20


So how much damage will he do to the UK before all is said and done?

Hermy

Enzokk wrote: »

“However, after four days of discussions, serious divergences remain.”

At it's heart isn't divergence (or taking back control as it was sold to the UK electorate) everything that's wrong with Brexit?

As was pointed out by Ivan Rogers some years back trade negotiations are supposed to be about convergence rather than divergence.

And yet they persist with it - they persist with the notion that they can diverge from their existing relationship with the EU and still come out on top.

Hermy

Hermy wrote: »

At it's heart isn't divergence (or taking back control as it was sold to the UK electorate) everything that's wrong with Brexit?

As was pointed out by Ivan Rogers some years back trade negotiations are supposed to be about convergence rather than divergence.

And yet they persist with it - they persist with the notion that they can diverge from their existing relationship with the EU and still come out on top.

I think the UK's point is that the direction the EU was going was not in the direction they wanted to go in, so diverging from the EU path is to be expected.

moon2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think the UK's point is that the direction the EU was going was not in the direction they wanted to go in, so diverging from the EU path is to be expected.

Have the details behind this rather vague phrase been expressed by the UK.

After a few years of Brexit I'm unsure which aspect of EU direction is the problematic one. Immigration has been raised as one such issue, but the specific points which were raised were, to a greater extent, entirely within the UKs ability to address - the UK just choose not to.

A second aspect has been "too many silly EU regulations", or some restatement of that. However if you're actually seeking a trade relationship with the EU then these regulations don't go away. Once outside the EU your ability to alter these regulations is also dramatically reduced.

An Ciarraioch

Tony Connelly reporting that a deal has been done between Ireland and the EU on agri-produce transiting through the UK, but destined for the Single Market - rather technical, but it seems non-agri trade had already been covered by existing regulations, but individual certificates would have been required for food, meaning considerable bureaucracy. Now green lanes have been authorised, and presumably TIR procedures will still apply, even if an FTA doesn't materialise:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/0702/1151071-irish-food-movement/

Hermy

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the UK's point is that the direction the EU was going was not in the direction they wanted to go in, so diverging from the EU path is to be expected.

It's the extent to which they want to diverge though and insisting that this will somehow be to the UK's advantage.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the UK's point is that the direction the EU was going was not in the direction they wanted to go in, so diverging from the EU path is to be expected.

Cameron was a strong Eurosceptic, wanted the union to be just a loose trading bloc, an end to freedom of movement and even wanted rid of the ECJ (all according to Sir Ivan Rogers).

Their position was quite ludicrous given the opinion of the rest of the EU27.....they wanted a fantasy EU seemingly aimed at keeping the countries of Europe apart.

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Cameron was a strong Eurosceptic, wanted the union to be just a loose trading bloc, an end to freedom of movement and even wanted rid of the ECJ (all according to Sir Ivan Rogers).

Their position was quite ludicrous given the opinion of the rest of the EU27.....they wanted a fantasy EU seemingly aimed at keeping the countries of Europe apart.

The EU wanted tight integration, the UK wanted a loose trading bloc with standardisation and little else, EU didn't want that loose arrangement, UK left.

SImples, the hard part is actually doing it.

timetogo1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The EU wanted tight integration, the UK wanted a loose trading bloc with standardisation and little else, EU didn't want that loose arrangement, UK left.

SImples, the hard part is actually doing it.

If it was that simple why all the rubbish about staying in the single market, giving 350m to the NHS, stopping foreigners etc. etc.

The whole UK didn't want the same as the leave side so they had to embellish the argument to get the majority.

I think a reason its not simple now is that there is no one version of leave so no real majority.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU wanted tight integration, the UK wanted a loose trading bloc with standardisation and little else,  EU didn't want that loose arrangement, UK left.

SImples, the hard part is actually doing it.

I don't know if you're deliberately whitewashing here. I've seen this a few times where people try to present Brexit as if it were some sort of carefully considered, meaningful decision when I can see nothing to substantiate that version of events.

The EU is a bloc of 27 member nations which have sometimes overlapping and sometimes disparate aims and objectives. France wants deeper integration, the Germans want the status quo, the Spanish and Italians want more spending while the Dutch, Danes and Swedes oppose any loosening of the pursestrings. The idea of a multi-speed EU has been around for some time now. Countries that want deeper integration can do that themselves while the likes of the UK could just opt out. Simples.

But of course that was never the issue. Brexit is the result of tensions and structural problems which have been created entirely by successive British governments of all three parties which have governed. Cynicism was sown aplenty by the tuition fees debacle, expenses and the Iraq war. The status quo prevailed because all was well. For a time.

The 2008 financial crisis marked the beginning of the end of governance as usual. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats went into coalition in 2010 and began imposing draconian austerity measures the result of which were deaths and suffering for the poorest in society while the incomes of the top 1% ballooned. National debt, the reduction of which was the purported aim of austerity simply soared.

So along comes the far right. The French got one of the Le Pens and the National Front/National Rally (or whatever they are now depending on which Le Pen is running the show), Poland got PiS, the Germans got AfD and the British opted for one Nigel Farage. Farage won 4.4 million or 12.6% of the vote in the 2015 general election. Cameron increased his seat count and ended up with a slim majority.

However, rather than either confronting UKIP and Farage or beginning to take seriously the reasons that people voted for him (detailed wonderfully in Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin's book National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy), Cameron panicked. Britain's dysfunctional electoral system makes it impossible for a small party to unilaterally wield power and he expected to be landed with the Liberals again and so be forced to ditch his commitment to an absurd referendum promised as a ploy to prevent people voting for UKIP.

He went to Brussels and won some token concessions (sans blue passports for some reason). Despite not using the available measures to control immigration from the new central and eastern European states who joined the EU in 2004 & 2007, the UK now had an "emergency brake". Several frugal states are not keen on further treaties and integration but now the UK has an opt out. You cannot just arrive and claim welfare in many EU states but this is just another power the UK had but never used. 

The one sad constant about the UK's membership is that when they can be bothered, they can run the show as evinced by Thatcher's efforts to advance the single market. Cameron obtained a commitment to completing it for services, a big win for the UK were it to happen but instead of lobbying and pushing for it he ended up with a token concession from other EU leaders. 
He'd been complaining about the EU for years, to say nothing of his friends in the press so it's no surprise that his desperate gamble failed and failed spectacularly. 

fash

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the UK's point is that the direction the EU was going was not in the direction they wanted to go in, so diverging from the EU path is to be expected.

The UK could have had any relationship to the EU it wanted - if it didn't like where the EU was going, it could just opt out , what it couldn't have however was a cake and eat it relationship - which even Cameron sought.

Enzokk

Here is the story from Tony Connelly,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1279297655026470913?s=20

Brexit: The return of the UK land bridge dilemma

His story focuses on the land bridge that will be vital for us. So the breakup of the talks in the week is obviously not a big concern yet.

As for the story, it is just to confirm the work our government has been doing to try and maintain the link with the EU post Brexit and to have as little as possible delays for our goods that will go via the UK to the EU.

Then there is this,

https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1279061518332690435?s=20

What is says, the UK is seeing the benefits from negotiating as a group when it comes to drug prices for possible vaccines. Too bad they are only realizing this now and after they have left as well and with the people in charge that sold it to them leaving is the right thing.

fash

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Anyone notice the shift from blaming EU which by this stage is getting harder and harder to do, even the thickest of brexiters must be wondering why the emperor seems so naked.

To blaming and reforming the civil service, tho no one asking the obvious question of why that was not an issue for Tories in last 10 years.

All of this in a middle of a pandemic. Just when you think they finished emptying the revolver at their feet out comes the grenade launcher pointing at the groin.

Yes, had noticed that they've been running very low on energy in relation to blaming the EU. Was wondering if they think they can simply turn around and start blaming anyway in a "we were always at war with Eastasia" manner- given the extent to which Brexiters control the press and Brexiter followers don't actually think, I don't discount that. Or alternatively is it just getting too silly to blame the EU - especially given the asks from others regarding their FTAs.

paul71

fash wrote: »

Yes, had noticed that they've been running very low on energy in relation to blaming the EU. Was wondering if they think they can simply turn around and start blaming anyway in a "we were always at war with Eastasia" manner- given the extent to which Brexiters control the press and Brexiter followers don't actually think, I don't discount that. Or alternatively is it just getting too silly to blame the EU - especially given the asks from others regarding their FTAs.

I am going to go completely off topic here but given your reference to "we were always at war with Eastasia" I had always wondered since I first read 1984 and seeing Orwell refer to Britain as Airstrip 1 if it may have inferred that we were Airstrip 2.

Thargor

paul71 wrote: »

I am going to go completely off topic here but given your reference to "we were always at war with Eastasia" I had always wondered since I first read 1984 and seeing Orwell refer to Britain as Airstrip 1 if it may have inferred that we were Airstrip 2.

Didnt the Russian plans that were released a few years ago show that Shannon and Dublin Airport were going to get nuked if it all kicked off?

UK sets out to independently impose sanctions on individuals outside of the EU.
This could mean that some human rights violators (individuals and eventually countries) will have different status in the EU & UK

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53303100


The UK will later impose sanctions independently for the first time on dozens of individuals accused of human rights abuses around the world.
Dominic Raab will name the first violators to have their assets frozen as part of a new post-Brexit regime.
These are expected to include Russian officials thought to be implicated in the death of Sergei Magnitsky in 2009.
The whistleblower's maltreatment while in custody has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights.
In the past, the UK has almost always imposed sanctions collectively as a member of the United Nations or European Union but, after its departure from the EU in January, a new framework is being put in place in UK law.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

UK sets out to independently impose sanctions on individuals outside of the EU.
This could mean that some human rights violators (individuals and eventually countries) will have different status in the EU & UK

That has been the case all along. Remember when Spain wanted to extradie Augusto Pinochet from the UK to Spain to face human rights charges in Spain? The UK allowed him to return to Chile instead.

Patser

Not sure what's happening here, I don't think they are hacked, just a genuine Leave supporter that's raising concerns- but Leave Alliance twitter account - one of the main Pro-Brexit sites - has gone off message and is tearing into the Tories

https://twitter.com/LeaveHQ/status/1279871372265734147

Leroy42

Sounds to me that they are getting their excuses in early. Farage has already trotted out the line that Brexit would have been a success only for TM being useless.

THere are many that blame remainers, particularly remainer MP's for the failure of Brexit to date.

They need to create someone else to blame as it cannot be that the entire Brexit is a debacle and was never planned for or thought out.

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sounds to me that they are getting their excuses in early. Farage has already trotted out the line that Brexit would have been a success only for TM being useless.

THere are many that blame remainers, particularly remainer MP's for the failure of Brexit to date.

They need to create someone else to blame as it cannot be that the entire Brexit is a debacle and was never planned for or thought out.

If Brexiteers ever start to feel like they've been hoodwinked by their own political leaders, that'll be the day Farage decides to retire to Hawaii.

Alun

Patser wrote: »

Not sure what's happening here, I don't think they are hacked, just a genuine Leave supporter that's raising concerns- but Leave Alliance twitter account - one of the main Pro-Brexit sites - has gone off message and is tearing into the Tories

https://twitter.com/LeaveHQ/status/1279871372265734147

The best quote from that whole thread is "You won, get over it!"

'Leave Alliance' have favoured an EFTA style relationship from day 1, they haven't been supportive of anything that's been done since the vote to Leave was won. Should be seen as a far more 'realistic' and pragmatic than the zealots @ Tufton Street, whilst still being out-and-out Leavers.

It's run by the Norths, of Flexcit 'fame'.

Leroy42

briany wrote: »

If Brexiteers ever start to feel like they've been hoodwinked by their own political leaders, that'll be the day Farage decides to retire to Hawaii.

If that was going to happen it would have happened by now. You can see that there is no longer any discussion about the actual benefits of Brexit, as each and every claim by Brexiteers has been shown to be wrong.

We are left with the argument that many are simply tired of it and want it to stop. But only by actually finishing it rather than looking to stall everything (BRINO) and review later.

GE gave them a chance to change course but they didn't take it, I doubt anyone is going to change their minds at this stage.

At most, failure will need to be blamed on somebody. TM, the EU, Macron, Merkel. Pick one or more from a list.

Enzokk

Patser wrote: »

Not sure what's happening here, I don't think they are hacked, just a genuine Leave supporter that's raising concerns- but Leave Alliance twitter account - one of the main Pro-Brexit sites - has gone off message and is tearing into the Tories

Here is another tweet from them,

https://twitter.com/LeaveHQ/status/1279911970028863488?s=20



Seems they have gone part way to acknowledging that Brexit will be a mess, but they are still looking for someone to blame other than themselves. Remainers told them it would be a mess, either you have what you have now or BRINO. How they think this is all Remainers fault when Johnson, Gove and Cummings are in charge and leading the UK Brexit charge is puzzling.

serfboard

Enzokk wrote: »

How they think this is all Remainers fault when Johnson, Gove and Cummings are in charge and leading the UK Brexit charge is puzzling.

But they don't think that.

They have now realised that a non-BRINO Brexit is going to be a complete disaster, so they're getting their retaliation in early by pathetically trying to include Remainers in the blame game.

sink

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is another tweet from them,

https://twitter.com/LeaveHQ/status/1279911970028863488?s=20

I particularly liked this reply.

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1280050326083690497

looksee

That's a very Trumpian response - its not my fault so it has to be someone else's.

serfboard

looksee wrote: »

That's a very Trumpian response - its not my fault so it has to be someone else's.

There is a little more "complexity" in Trump's responses: You can thank me if something goes right, you can blame anyone else if something goes wrong.

Johnson has another variation: You can thank me if something goes right, if something goes wrong - look over there!

View

[Deleted User] wrote: »

UK sets out to independently impose sanctions on individuals outside of the EU.
This could mean that some human rights violators (individuals and eventually countries) will have different status in the EU & UK

Honestly, who cares?

No one will even notice if they impose sanctions. The only countries that U.K. sanctions could seriously effect trade-wise are all EU countries and they aren’t going to have any good grounds to sanction EU countries (although that might not stop the madder Brexiters from trying to do so).