Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

As might be expected, the Daily Mail can't cover this story without simultaneously lying about it.

It's OK the BBC have a travel guide.

When you arrive in an EU country (except Ireland) be prepared to show your return ticket. You could be asked to show you have enough money for your stay.

The blue queue will move faster and be less shouty.


I love this gem Unrelated to Brexit, from 2022 UK nationals will have to pay for a visa-waiver scheme in order to visit many European countries.

How exactly is that unrelated to Brexit ??

Peregrinus

McGiver wrote: »

1. Will the EU-UK FTA contain such a guillotine law with respect to the WA (the Irish protocol)? I asked few days ago and nobody replied.

Nobody knows, because of course there is as yet no EU-UK FTA, so as of now we can only speculate about what the parties might agree.

What we do know is that this is a matter of dispute between the parties. The EU wants robust clauses of this nature included in any FTA. The UK seems a bit schizophrenic about this; on the one hand they say that they consider such clauses unfair, on the other hand they keep doing things which will clearly reinforce the EU's perception that such clauses are very necessary.

McGiver

Sam Russell wrote:

The EP have made it clear they will not ratify the (any) FTA if the IMB or similar actions by the UK jeopardises the WA and in particular the GFA.

I'm not talking about the ratification, that is clear.

In talking about, UK reneges on the WA in 6 months or 3 years etc. i.e. After the FTA is signed, ratified and in effect.

fash

Strazdas wrote: »

I cannot see any sort of an EU cave in on those three. Barnier and von der Leyen have been emphatic there will be no major climb down.

There could be something on fish - e.g. "give us 50% quota and EU pays €100 million per year for it" - something which looks great on paper but in the overall context of the deal is trivial.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

There could be something on fish - e.g. "give us 50% quota and EU pays €100 million per year for it" - something which looks great on paper but in the overall context of the deal is trivial.

There's plenty of room for movement on fish, and it doesn't even have to involve the payment of money - e.g. EU fishermen get limited quotas in UK waters in return for UK fishermen gettting limited quotas in EU waters. And in fact the EU has been signalling furiously for some months now a readiness to move on fish - if the UK can move on governnance and LPF. They won't get concrete until the UK is willing to deal - they've got caught that way before - and the UK won't be willing to deal until Johnson decides that he wants a deal, and that he is willing to face down the gibbering loon wing of his own party in order to deliver one.

The danger is that Johnson may never decide that.

VinLieger

Great article about the baffling still insistence on denying anyone who voted for brexit is in any way to blame for the consequences.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/british-readying-for-brexit-they-never-saw-it-coming-mate-1.4424631?mode=amp

listermint

Fish is a massive tarpaulin to cover the UKs continued insistence that it doesn't want to abide by any trade deals and can choose to opt out of items in any deal at any point during said deal with no repercussions.

Wish we could stop talking about fish and start talking about them trying to hide the face they want zero rules at all. All headlines should be that UK want to break the rules anytime they wish.

54and56

listermint wrote: »

Fish is a massive tarpaulin to cover the UKs continued insistence that it doesn't want to abide by any trade deals and can choose to opt out of items in any deal at any point during said deal with no repercussions.

Wish we could stop talking about fish and start talking about them trying to hide the face they want zero rules at all. All headlines should be that UK want to break the rules anytime they wish.

I really don't understand why the EU didn't suspend all FTA negotiations the moment the UK Govt minister confirmed their proposed IM bill broke the recently ratified WA. Why would you put time and energy into negotiating a new agreement with a party who were unilaterally taking action to break the last agreement you entered into with them less than 12 months previously?

On a personal level I would never reward someone who was reneging on a deal they had previously agreed with me by entering into a new deal with them but perhaps international politics doesn't behave in such a linear fashion for some reason.

I certainly expect that any new deal agreed with the UK will have robust protections built in to deal with any future illegal activity by such an untrustworthy "partner" and that the new agreement is contingent on the law breaking clauses of the IM being removed.

timetogo1

54and56 wrote: »

I really don't understand why the EU didn't suspend all FTA negotiations the moment the UK Govt minister confirmed their proposed IM bill broke the recently ratified WA. Why would you put time and energy into negotiating a new agreement with a party who were unilaterally taking action to break the last agreement you entered into with them less than 12 months previously?

On a personal level I would never reward someone who was reneging on a deal they had previously agreed with me by entering into a new deal with them but perhaps international politics doesn't behave in such a linear fashion for some reason.

I certainly expect that any new deal agreed with the UK will have robust protections built in to deal with any future illegal activity by such an untrustworthy "partner" and that the new agreement is contingent on the law breaking clauses of the IM being removed.

I don't know how much the EU care about optics but I get the impression they'll negotiate forever so it has to be the UK that walks away. If the EU walks away then the UK will blame them forever (and probably some member states too).

After the IM bill was announced I'd hope the EU went a lot tougher on the UK. It's one thing negotiating with a partner that you can trust. If you can't trust them then suddenly a whole lot more conditions and clauses and penalties have to be added.

The UK have really shown how inept they are at negotiation, while at the same time telling themselves that everything they do is "world beating". It seems to work on a reasonable proportion of the UK population.

CelticRambler

Whatever happened to that Australian guy who was supposed to be making great deals for Britain, left, right and centre? Is he still in the picture, somewhere, or did he get pensioned off before he started? Was he ever on the EU-UK negotiating team?

trellheim

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/don-t-sabotage-free-trade-talks-with-a-debate-over-climate-change-tony-abbott-tells-britain-20201118-p56fvu.html

The UK is negotiating a raft of free trade deals with Australia, Japan, Canada and the United States – as well as potential accession to the Trans-Pacific Partnership – following its departure from the European Union.

Abbott is advising the government on its approach to the deals but said he was not directly involved in the negotiations.

Asked about incorporating rules on climate change and labour rights in trade deals, Abbott said the environment was important and mankind could not ravage the planet, but "relatively theological points" should not be incorporated in economic deals.

"I might have a different approach to zero emissions by 2050 to some others but obviously we want to get emissions down as far and as fast as all of us can," he said.

So just on the panel but not directly involved

dogbert27

trellheim wrote: »

So just on the panel but not directly involved

The environment is a "relatively theological point" :pac:

I wonder how that fits in with the new woke Prime Minister and Carrie?

peter kern

listermint wrote: »

Fish is a massive tarpaulin to cover the UKs continued insistence that it doesn't want to abide by any trade deals and can choose to opt out of items in any deal at any point during said deal with no repercussions.

Wish we could stop talking about fish and start talking about them trying to hide the face they want zero rules at all. All headlines should be that UK want to break the rules anytime they wish.

we could start by ignoring this fish matter on this thread as it is really so unimportant and just a headline for the tabloit press readers.

trellheim

Apparently a letter from the EU has just been delivered to No.10 .... may be nothing.

54and56

peter kern wrote: »

we could start by ignoring this fish matter on this thread as it is really so unimportant and just a headline for the tabloit press readers.

Emily Matlis on Newsnight last night put it perfectly when she asked Nigel Dodds of the DUP why fishing, which means as much to the UK economy as the door handle and hinge market does (apparently someone gathered that info!!), is given such importance and is apparently allowed to jeopardise the whole deal with the EU?

peter kern

54and56 wrote: »

Emily Matlis on Newsnight last night put it perfectly when she asked Nigel Dodds of the DUP why fishing, which means as much to the UK economy as the door handle and hinge market does (apparently someone gathered that info!!), is given such importance and is apparently allowed to jeopardise the whole deal with the EU?

it is not.its the bread and games part.

Akesh

54and56 wrote: »

Emily Matlis on Newsnight last night put it perfectly when she asked Nigel Dodds of the DUP why fishing, which means as much to the UK economy as the door handle and hinge market does (apparently someone gathered that info!!), is given such importance and is apparently allowed to jeopardise the whole deal with the EU?

Because British fishermen have been giving out about their quotas for years. They wanted to have access to all the catch and still be able to sell into the EU. It doesn't work like that and reality is only dawning on the British fishing industry now. It's another example of the UK blaming everything on the EU and now the Fishermen want to blame Boris, Nigel etc. but it was very clear what was going to happen from the very start.

At this point it is hard to have an ounce of sympathy for the UK for this self-inflicted mess. They must be hoping that the EU folds in order to get some sort of a deal across the line but I think that went out the window when it became very clear that Boris cannot be trusted and it may be in the EU's (as a bloc) interest to have no deal in order to get the concessions they need from the UK.

Either way, the damage from Brexit has already been done, deal or no deal, the UK have already lost.

Igotadose

trellheim wrote: »

Apparently a letter from the EU has just been delivered to No.10 .... may be nothing.

Xmas greetings from your former friends?

Lots of meme possibilities...

Nothing on the EU site though about it.

Patser

trellheim wrote: »

Apparently a letter from the EU has just been delivered to No.10 .... may be nothing.

All the mood music is suddenly dramatic and negative. Barnier is suddenly talking about 'hours left, and it suddenly appears that finally time is running out. A decision will be made.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/1202/1181817-barnier-brexit-briefing/


I always watch the money to see what the markets think, and over last few weeks of quiet negotiations Pound has risen about 2c vs Euro, over last week it's lost all that in very sharp drops, especially today. Traders are spooked and thinking this could be real

roosterman71

Barnier is saying that talks will be in "crisis" if the Finance Bill has any mad stuff within it about reneging on previous agreements

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1334120148660314115?s=20

Barnier should stay negotiating anyway, perhaps even agree a deal. Then the EP have to ratify it and they could just sit and wait for the UK to remove any agreement busting powers included in bills. Leave the ball in the UK court. Just say, we're happy, just remove that bit there about breaking the law and all is good.

ambro25

roosterman71 wrote: »

Barnier is saying that talks will be in "crisis" if the Finance Bill has any mad stuff within it about reneging on previous agreements

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1334120148660314115?s=20

Barnier should stay negotiating anyway, perhaps even agree a deal. Then the EP have to ratify it and they could just sit and wait for the UK to remove any agreement busting powers included in bills. Leave the ball in the UK court. Just say, we're happy, just remove that bit there about breaking the law and all is good.

I disagree. Doing that would vindicate the UK's blackmailing approach to these negotiations, even if only in part.

This is geopolitical optics, not domestic (British) political optics.

The EU27 absolutely cannot be perceived, as having given in to the GFA-imperiling IMB from the UK.

The UK is very much the junior and supplicant party here, they need to clean before their legislative door first, to restore good faith.

That is why the talks would be "in crisis" if they don't, and this announcement by Barnier should rightly be seen as the very close shot across the bow to (re)focus British minds, that it is.

FWIW, I think it's wasted. Johnson is under orders to deliver no deal, and that is exactly where he is still going. He'll then do a Cameron early next year, before the pile-on gets even primed. Gove, Sunak or another can then carry the can for 'doing it all wrong' after Johnson successfully freed the UK from the EU shackles. You just watch.

Nody

The UK government keep trying to find positives of Brexit and keep failing; here's the latest one that simply is beautiful:

Speaking shortly after the announcement that the Pfizer/BioNTec jab had been cleared for use by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Mr Hancock said that the authorisation process was faster than in the EU because Britain was no longer a member.

But asked if this was the case, MHRA chief executive June Raine said the process was undertaken under the terms of European law, which remains in force until the completion of the Brexit transition at the end of 2020.

Oops...

Roanmore

Nody wrote: »

The UK government keep trying to find positives of Brexit and keep failing; here's the latest one that simply is beautiful:

Oops...

This was then followed by JRM and Alok Sharma spouting the same rubbish as well as the pro Brexit journalists retweeting.

listermint

Any expectation of a future Labour government holding inquiries on this and going after the evidently suspicious activities surrounding the entire Tory Government. If its not suspicious no deal mantra then its ludicrous corrupt government contracts awarding.

Enzokk

Roanmore wrote: »

This was then followed by JRM and Alok Sharma spouting the same rubbish as well as the pro Brexit journalists retweeting.

And Nadine Dorries, with eerily similar wording to JRM and Sharma. It's almost like they have a Whatsapp group where they were told what to tweet.

Roanmore

Enzokk wrote: »

And Nadine Dorries, with eerily similar wording to JRM and Sharma. It's almost like they have a Whatsapp group where they were told what to tweet.

When I heard the vaccine was approved I turned to my wife and said I bet they will use this to boost Brexit.

breezy1985

Roanmore wrote: »

When I heard the vaccine was approved I turned to my wife and said I bet they will use this to boost Brexit.

They are desperate to make this a "Britain prevails" moment.

Thing is I bet every scientist involved in the Oxford vaccine will tell you Brexit will hamper their work

ancapailldorcha

Even if the PI is a Brit, in my experience at a world-leading research institution, most people below that level will be EU migrants. I'd say 75% of my workplace falls into this category with few enough Irish to muddy the water.

I'd also be wondering how many have suffered abuse for speaking their native language on the street as has happened with at least one researcher here.

BlitzKrieg

54and56 wrote: »

Emily Matlis on Newsnight last night put it perfectly when she asked Nigel Dodds of the DUP why fishing, which means as much to the UK economy as the door handle and hinge market does (apparently someone gathered that info!!), is given such importance and is apparently allowed to jeopardise the whole deal with the EU?

I know it's not asked seriously but to answer why Fishing is the market that everything 'hinges' on the answer is simply that it's the exception that proves the rule.

Under EU law there are clear lines on what the EU can directly interfere on and what they cant.

And a lot of what the UKIP and Brexit bollocks tends to cry about was stuff that firmly fell at the uk's feet but the EU was being blamed (immigration, red tape etc etc)

But fishing is surprisingly the only area that legally the EU did hold the power. It's the one area outside of the eurozone management and single market that the EU has the power to take complete control on without any involvement of the national governments.

So its really the only 'battlefield' that can be fought in the eyes of Brexit. Every other fight is fake, this is the only genuine part of the british economy and society that the EU took complete control of.

But Brexit needs to win it, because winning fishing allows them to pretend they won all the fake battles as well. If the UK 'loses' fishing then the illusion that they won in any other aspect is broken,

An Ciarraioch

You do wonder why it took both sides over four years to get around to discussing Total Allowable Catches:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1334163771426791434.html