Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

The UK's current position is that it is not seeking Single Market membership.

I know. But it is seeking privileged access (and has an obvious interest in securing that) and in that context the question of how closely it is willing to align to SM regulation comes up.

The EU also has a longer-term interest to consider. The trade deal the UK is targetting is strikingly unambitious, compared with the kind of thing that was discussed/aspired to under May and, even if the UK gets the trade deal it is now targetting, that will impose heavy costs and severe disadvantages on the UK compared with the terms on which it currently trades. And of course the EU/UK relationship is never going to be fixed in stone; Johnson may be happy with a poor deal, but future UK governments are highly likely to want to improve upon it, seeking greater access for UK goods or services, based on removal of non-tariff barriers. The EU in taking the stand it does on things like state aid, SM integrity, and the role of the ECJ is signalling not just what is or is not possible now, but what might or might not be possible in any future deal.

timetogo1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Johnson may be happy with a poor deal, but future UK governments are highly likely to want to improve upon it

Ha, his cabinet isn't even happy with the WA that they signed in January or the "oven ready" deal he had ready to go before the election.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

I know. But it is seeking privileged access (and has an obvious interest in securing that) and in that context the question of how closely it is willing to align to SM regulation comes up.

As far as I can tell, the UK is not looking for "privileged access" to the Single Market. It is seeking a FTA similar to what other third countries have.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU also has a longer-term interest to consider. The trade deal the UK is targetting is strikingly unambitious, compared with the kind of thing that was discussed/aspired to under May and, even if the UK gets the trade deal it is now targetting, that will impose heavy costs and severe disadvantages on the UK compared with the terms on which it currently trades. And of course the EU/UK relationship is never going to be fixed in stone; Johnson may be happy with a poor deal, but future UK governments are highly likely to want to improve upon it, seeking greater access for UK goods or services, based on removal of non-tariff barriers. The EU in taking the stand it does on things like state aid, SM integrity, and the role of the ECJ is signalling not just what is or is not possible now, but what might or might not be possible in any future deal.

What one considers to be a bad deal is relative. I think a deal where the UK would be trapped under the jurisdiction of a court that is partial to one party in the arrangement is a terrible outcome.

Any deal that doesn't give the UK additional sovereignty to determine its own course of action would be a terrible deal. So much so that I would suggest it would be better for the UK to go onto WTO terms.

Peregrinus

timetogo1 wrote: »

Ha, his cabinet isn't even happy with the WA that they signed in January or the "oven ready" deal he had ready to go before the election.

I know. He's now targetting a much lousier deal than the one he got a mandate to target in the general election. I suspect this is a strategy to bridge (a) hard brexiters who would much rather no deal at all, but who will be content with a minimal deal, plus (b) Tory MPs who feel the party's (and the country's) reputation for even minimal competence would be finally trashed if they couldn't negotiate any trade deal at all with the UK's largest trading partner that also happens to be the world's most enthusiastic negotiator of trade deals. If the UK is seen to be unable to negotiate a trade deal with the EU then, frankly, the Brexit vision of the UK negotiating a network of beneficial trade deals with other trading partners is holed below the waterline.

But in the medium to long term, Johnson's minimal deal isn't going to work for the UK. Johnson is targetting a Brexit that is much, much more harmful to the UK than Brexit needs to be, and the injury from this will not be one-off, but continuing; the longer the UK lives under that deal, the further the UK's econmic peformance will fall behind what it might be. Future UK governments, from either side, are almost certain to want to recover some of what has been lost, which will mean improving on what Johnson has done.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

As far as I can tell, the UK is not looking for "privileged access" to the Single Market. It is seeking a FTA similar to what other third countries have.

They say that, particularly referencing Canada, but in the same moment they'll be looking for things that aren't in the Canada deal - e.g. greater access for UK service providers, particularly financial service providers.

The truth is that the UK has constantly scaled back the scope of the trade deal that it aspires to, but they have never actually pointed to a trade deal that the EU has negotiated with an analogous country - or, indeed, with any country - and said "can we have exactly that, please?" Even with Canada, it's always been "Canada plus". And even that position was slightly tongue-in-cheek; the UK never seriously expected that the terms the EU negotiated with Canada would be considered equally applicable to the very differently-situated UK.

The truth is that all the EU's trade deals are bespoke to the counterparty they are dealing with (which is what you would expect, really) and any UK deal was always going to be tailored to the circumstances of the UK/EU trading relationship. In the not very distant past that was regarded as not only likely but positively desirable; recall that a "bespoke trade" deal used to be framed as one of the UK government's demands.

Leroy42

Those IDS tweets, OMG, how can a sitting MP, an Ex Tory leader, and Ex Minsiter actually come out with such nonsense.

He actually voted to ensure that the HoC didn't have the time to scutinise the WA. He was a cheerleader that Johnson had secured a great deal, managing the almost impossible.

The GE was fought on the basis of the WA, of the oven ready deal, and then a government MP comes out and says that people didn't really understand it?

Of course people like IDS have suddenly seemed to have forgotten what taking back control and sovereignty means. Clearly the public voted for the government largely on the basis on the WA. Those elected by the people, sovereignty, then took back control by voting through their our laws. But now it seems all this TBC and sovreignty is not al that it was cracked up to be as it seems the public don't understand the the MP's don't bother to read.

What an incredible admission by an MP.

I mean, part of me, a large part, actually congratulates IDS for at last being so honest.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

Any deal that doesn't give the UK additional sovereignty to determine its own course of action would be a terrible deal.

The very act of making a deal means giving up some part of "sovereignty" regardless of whether you're settling a dispute with a neighbour over who paints the fence or agreeing terms for global trade. You gave up some of your personal "sovereignty" when you got married, and that (presumably) was something you were entirely comfortable with. Why are you arguing that GB shouldn't accept a similar compromise in its - albeit more distant - relationship with the EU?

CelticRambler

theological wrote:

It is obvious that customs arrangements / pet travelling arrangements may need to change and people will need to consider this when travelling. It is also obvious that arrangements in respect to mobile operators may change. Many phone operators in the UK already have "like home" roaming in many countries outside of the EU already.

That it has to change now is obvious; but it's still not obvious why changing is beneficial to the citizens and businesses of GB, nor why a partnership that worked increasingly well for both sides has to be completely scrapped only to be rebuilt from scratch at considerable social, economic and political cost. Can you give even one justification for that?

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

That it has to change now is obvious; but it's still not obvious why changing is beneficial to the citizens and businesses of GB, nor why a partnership that worked increasingly well for both sides has to be completely scrapped only to be rebuilt from scratch at considerable social, economic and political cost. Can you give even one justification for that?

Taking back control.

fash

theological wrote: »

As far as I can tell, the UK is not looking for "privileged access" to the Single Market. It is seeking a FTA similar to what other third countries have.

Perhaps you should read their list of asks: arguably aside from EU/EEA membership, the most ambitious trade demand in world history - can you name any deal in world history that even begins to approach the level of demands asked by the UK?

What one considers to be a bad deal is relative. I think a deal where the UK would be trapped under the jurisdiction of a court that is partial to one party in the arrangement is a terrible outcome.

Any deal that doesn't give the UK additional sovereignty to determine its own course of action would be a terrible deal. So much so that I would suggest it would be better for the UK to go onto WTO terms.

Certainly no deal is better than a bad deal - and what the UK is offering is a terrible deal. Plus it will be fun to see Scotland leave the UK.

fly_agaric

Leroy42 wrote: »

Those IDS tweets, OMG, how can a sitting MP, an Ex Tory leader, and Ex Minsiter actually come out with such nonsense.

Well they won the "war", they got their brexit, Johnson is in charge with bullet proof majority and there is unlikely to be much of a trade agreement signed with the EU by Christmas ("hard" maximally disruptive exit as they always wanted).

So they have to pick up their rusty swords again and look for new things to re-fight the old battles with the dragon (the EU). They've been at for 30 years give or take and people like Iain Duncan Smith are probably too old to learn new tricks now.

Padre_Pio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Taking back control.

Brexit means Brexit:D:D

Professor Moriarty

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Brexit means Brexit:D:D

Get Brexit done.

You could play the dishonest Brexit slogan game all day long!

joeguevara

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Get Brexit done.

You could play the dishonest Brexit slogan game all day long!

Make Brexit Great Again.

Professor Moriarty

joeguevara wrote: »

Make Brexit Great Again.

This lie is particularly disgusting especially in the light of Covid-19 and the shambles of the Tory response:

We send the EU £350 million a week, let's fund our NHS instead

Padre_Pio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This lie is particularly disgusting especially in the light of Covid-19 and the shambles of the Tory response:

We send the EU £350 million a week, let's fund our NHS instead

Woah woah woah, remember, as the great IDS himself said, "Our promises were a series of possibilities.”

davedanon

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Woah woah woah, remember, as the great IDS himself said, "Our promises were a series of possibilities.”

Or 'lies', as they are commonly known.

davedanon

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-most-british-people-want-to-rejoin-eu-2020-6?r=US&IR=T

Penny has dropped across the water. 57% now in favour of the EU (the survey was done in 2019), up 8% from the same survey a year before. Even so, the UK is at the bottom of the 'In Favour of the EU' table, bar non-member Switzerland. Guess who's top of the league, with 90%, IREXIT fans?

davedanon

Drug firms told to stockpile for no-deal Brexit

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/drug-firms-told-to-stockpile-for-no-deal-brexit-lxmvn3glc

Padre_Pio

davedanon wrote: »

Drug firms told to stockpile again for no-deal Brexit

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/drug-firms-told-to-stockpile-for-no-deal-brexit-lxmvn3glc

FYP.

What's that, third or fourth time now?

breezy1985

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Get Brexit done.

You could play the dishonest Brexit slogan game all day long!

A very "strong and stable" statement

ohnonotgmail

breezy1985 wrote: »

A very "strong and stable" statement

Chaos under Ed Milliband

davedanon

A twitter thread on that IDS thing.


https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1290624097542639616?s=19

View

davedanon wrote: »

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-most-british-people-want-to-rejoin-eu-2020-6?r=US&IR=T

Penny has dropped across the water. 57% now in favour of the EU (the survey was done in 2019), up 8% from the same survey a year before. Even so, the UK is at the bottom of the 'In Favour of the EU' table, bar non-member Switzerland. Guess who's top of the league, with 90%, IREXIT fans?

The survey doesn’t mean a thing particularly given the GE result and that the U.K. has now left the EU.

Peregrinus

View wrote: »

The survey doesn’t mean a thing particularly given the GE result and that the U.K. has now left the EU.

It doesn't change Brexit, obviously. But it does say something meaningful about the political and public opinion climate that the UK government will face when the practical consequences of Brexit play out at and from the end of the transition period.

CelticRambler

View wrote: »

The survey doesn’t mean a thing particularly given the GE result and that the U.K. has now left the EU.

Well, you could argue that the study shows the same 57% that didn't vote for Johnson's oven-ready Brexit mandate, something we now know was as much of an empty slogan as the £350m for the NHS - and indeed every other Brexit promise.

So it means that the Johnson-Cummings administration is already facing an up-hill battle to convince voters that the post-Brexit disruption to their lives - still to be felt in full - is the fault of the EU and not the fault of an incompetent government. I'm convinced that the worst of this pain will hit home right before the next election, and if I were a Tory MP (especially one who didn't read the WA ... :P ) I'd be quietly updating my CV.

timetogo1

CelticRambler wrote: »

and if I were a Tory MP (especially one who didn't read the WA ... :P ) I'd be quietly updating my CV.

Or moan about how this isn't what they voted for, or it's remainers fault for not getting on board, or the EU wanted to punish the UK and forget that during the campaign all leave sides promised a really soft Brexit, not leaving the single market and positives for the UK all around..

A reasonable proportion of the UK public seem to fall for all of those pretty handily enough, and then vote Tory again.

CelticRambler

timetogo1 wrote: »

Or moan about how this isn't what they voted for, or it's remainers fault for not getting on board, or the EU wanted to punish the UK and forget that during the campaign all leave sides promised a really soft Brexit, no leaving the single market and positives for the UK all around..

A reasonable proportion of the UK public seem to fall for all of those pretty handily enough, and then vote Tory again.

They do ... or at least they have done, up to now. But there's no arguing that Johnson was elected on the back of his supposedly oven-ready Brexit (no strings attached, unicorns for everyone) and hate for Corbyn-the-Antisemite. For most Leavers, the Brexit dividend was going to be an end to austerity. We outsiders knew that was never going to happen, but now - thanks to Covid - even the most rabid Brexiter dogs in the streets know the country is fecked.

The current administration is preparing the ground perfectly for a viable alternative third party, or at the very least, a government of national unity. Remember that the combined opposition (and Rebel Alliance) did come very close to taking control of the whole Brexit process in 2019, before losing it at the last minute and letting Johnson into No.10. It's only the magic of FPTP that repeatedly allows the Tory party to turn a minority share of the vote into a HoC ruling majority. But that works both ways, and if ever a coalition gets in that changes the system, the British political landscape will be changed forever.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

They do ... or at least they have done, up to now. But there's no arguing that Johnson was elected on the back of his supposedly oven-ready Brexit (no strings attached, unicorns for everyone) and hate for Corbyn-the-Antisemite. For most Leavers, the Brexit dividend was going to be an end to austerity. We outsiders knew that was never going to happen, but now - thanks to Covid - even the most rabid Brexiter dogs in the streets know the country is fecked.

The current administration is preparing the ground perfectly for a viable alternative third party, or at the very least, a government of national unity. Remember that the combined opposition (and Rebel Alliance) did come very close to taking control of the whole Brexit process in 2019, before losing it at the last minute and letting Johnson into No.10. It's only the magic of FPTP that repeatedly allows the Tory party to turn a minority share of the vote into a HoC ruling majority. But that works both ways, and if ever a coalition gets in that changes the system, the British political landscape will be changed forever.

This is wishful thinking - first past the post is hard to overturn.
The new middle ground party had up to 11 MPs and lost them all.
UKIP won almost 4 million votes in 2015 and only won one seat, a former tory MP who defected.

Blaming the Lib Dems won't solve it either, change can only come from Labour or the Tories.

Leroy42

Brexiteers are certainly taking this 'taking back control of our borders' very seriously.

Not content with the existing borders, they have already mananged to create the requirement for a new border on the Ieish Sea and now it appears that Kent is also going to sectioned off!

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/more-red-tape-hauliers-prepare-for-brexit-border-in-kent/04/08/