Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Or, at least, not immediately.

Worth adding you may have a bit of over generous hope there...

Sir Jonathan, at a think-tank event earlier this year, made clear it was the job of government lawyers to point out if any action was “incompatible” with ministers’ legal duty.

“Fundamentally, international law is the law. It derives from obligations the government has entered into through treaty or otherwise arise under international law,” he was quoted as saying.

“We treat that as the law, and the government is subject to the rule of law and will comply with those obligations.”
vernment seems to understand that a no-deal Brexit will be catastrophic

Sir Jonathan is also believed to have clashed with Suella Braverman, the attorney-general and a European Research Group hardliner.

He is understood to have been unhappy with Ms Braverman’s interpretation of the legal implications of a no-deal Brexit, the Financial Times was told.

So once again we have Brexiteers dreaming up scenarios on how things should be that has no match with reality and that becomes the government policy on how to act.

An Ciarraioch

Fairly explosive exchanges on the NI protocol in the Commons, firstly Theresa May raising the trustworthiness of the government, and then Brandon Lewis admitting that international law would be breached:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1303303552551604224

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1303306387846582272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1303306387846582272%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fembed%2Fcomments%2F%3Fbase%3Ddefaultf%3Dturbulenttimes-1t_i%3D193220https3A2F2Fwww.turbulenttimes.co.uk2F3Fp3D1932t_u%3Dhttps3A2F2Fwww.turbulenttimes.co.uk2Fnews2Fbrexit2Fbrexit-a-collapse-of-trust2Ft_e%3DBrexit3A20a20collapse20of20trustt_d%3DTurbulent20Times3A20Brexit3A20a20collapse20of20trust207C20Turbulent20Timest_t%3DBrexit3A20a20collapse20of20trusts_o%3Ddefaultversion%3Dca195cdb26088db0e7a8d2e35aefc476

briany

Seth Brundle wrote: »

‘There will be consequences’: No US trade deal if Boris Johnson reneges on Brexit agreement, Congressman warns

I've heard this before. I'm skeptical that even a Democrat administration would follow through on the threat, however. Only because when you hear about the amount of lobbying that goes on in the States, then if a UK trade deal were advantageous enough, the congressmen and senators would pretty much be told what to vote for.

Joe_ Public

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Fairly explosive exchanges on the NI protocol in the Commons, firstly Theresa May raising the trustworthiness of the government, and then Brandon Lewis admitting that international law would be breached:

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1303303552551604224

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1303306387846582272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1303306387846582272%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdisqus.com%2Fembed%2Fcomments%2F%3Fbase%3Ddefaultf%3Dturbulenttimes-1t_i%3D193220https3A2F2Fwww.turbulenttimes.co.uk2F3Fp3D1932t_u%3Dhttps3A2F2Fwww.turbulenttimes.co.uk2Fnews2Fbrexit2Fbrexit-a-collapse-of-trust2Ft_e%3DBrexit3A20a20collapse20of20trustt_d%3DTurbulent20Times3A20Brexit3A20a20collapse20of20trust207C20Turbulent20Timest_t%3DBrexit3A20a20collapse20of20trusts_o%3Ddefaultversion%3Dca195cdb26088db0e7a8d2e35aefc476

And a labour mp referencing Thatcher as an ally to attack a tory government. "Britain does not break international treaties," the lady once opined. The whole thing just gets more crazily surreal by the day.

listermint

briany wrote: »

I've heard this before. I'm skeptical that even a Democrat administration would follow through on the threat, however. Only because when you hear about the amount of lobbying that goes on in the States, then if a UK trade deal were advantageous enough, the congressmen and senators would pretty much be told what to vote for.

No Democrat administration would want to Soil the Good Friday Treaty. It is quite literally one of their shining examples of diplomacy a huge achievement for them. Of which there is scant really good international ones.

This isnt about irishness as such its about bringing an end to a civil war. They will seriously not want to soil that.

briany

Peregrinus wrote: »

4. If the EU thinks the UK is in breach of it, they can invoke the dispute resolution processes in the WA. These involve submitting the question to a "Joint Committee", with both sides agreeing to abide by the decision of the Joint Committee.

Who is on this Joint Committee? I can see that there is a co-chair,

The Joint Committee is co-chaired by the UK and the EU. The UK co-chair is
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Rt Hon Michael Gove MP. The EU co-chair is
European Commission Vice-President, Maroš Šefčovič.

Is the committee, and specialised sub-committees made of equally UK and EU members? Because if that is the case, then you could obviously foresee a situation where one half finds the UK to be in breach and the other half does not. What then? A joint-committee ought to be borne out of both sides' commitment to work together in good faith, but the situation here is getting frostier and pettier (from the UK) by the day.

Seth Brundle

So confirmation from Westminster that the proposed new law does indeed break international law but just only a little...
https://twitter.com/AdamJSchwarz/status/1303307680329740288

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Or, at least, not immediately.

I agree that they are unlikely to do so. But I think it is an option that they have.

1. UK is not proposing to pass a law repudiating the WA; just a law that says that the UK government can do X when, in the view of most commentators, X would be a breach of the WA. Reportedly, the UK government will take the view that X is not a breach of the WA, and their law saying that they can do X is just clarifying an ambiguity in the WA.
2, There's no actual breach of the WA unless and until the government actually does X - and, even then, only if "the view of most commentators" turns out to be correct.

I suppose we need to see the text. A law saying they can in future breach it is a very strange law. Surely in future if/when they want to breach it that is when to pass it. Which suggests that this Bill is a political stunt.

However, I think a good argument can be advanced that even having such a conditional power is in breach of the WA. While the terms may not have been directly breached, having incompatible domestic law is a problem. And seeing as it is done for political reasons, it can be politically, if not legally, characterised as a breach.

In any event, I suppose it isn't just the Northern Ireland issue that could be the cause of a breach and sanctions. If they refuse to pay any outstanding amounts etc, as they are threatening to do, then that could also be a breach. Although I can't seem to find out much information as to how much of the WA funds have actually been paid, as opposed to committed to be paid.

That would be an undeniable breach of the Agreement, which they are instead trying to justify on the basis that the EU are not negotiating in good faith (I know) and that that not just invalidates the future relationship document but also the Withdrawal Agreement (I know), and the upshot of all of that could lead to sanctions.

But, when it comes down to it, I don't think the EU would impose sanctions, even then. Certainly no sanctions will be imposed on food or medicines (although there will be tarriff and non tarriff barriers) because the EU will not, under any circumstances, allow itself to be seen as trying to starve out or otherwise harm UK citizens by denying them vital medicines.

8. But I think the EU would certainly respond in some fairly vigorous way. The EU can't allow the perception to develop that countries can make treaties with the EU and then violate them, and there not be some fairly serious comeback.

I don't know. The EU have correctly identified that their Unique Selling Point, so to speak, is preferential access to their market. From that point of view, denying someone preferential access to that market is the biggest punishment that they can mete out for trade reasons.

Going beyond that, and treating the UK more harshly would, IMO, require a breach of one of the other core principles e.g. committment to peace, the rule of law or democracy. Perhaps if the UK deliberately rekindled the NI conflict, the EU might impose sanctions on them then. But I don't really see that happening.

The countries that they have sanctioned are e.g. Turkey, Russia, Iran (on and off), and a limited arms embargo on China. But even those sit uncomfortably with the EU. By comparison, the USA under Trump seems more than happy to impose trade sanctions on other countries for trade reasons e.g. currency interference.

The bottom line is that there is a massive political disconnect. The Brexiteers seem to think that a No Deal WTO exit is the best thing for them and that this would "punish" the EU. The EU don't want to "punish" the UK and probably never will, but would consider a no deal WTO to be the natural consequence of reneging on the deal. Neither side can therefore truly characterise WTO tarrifs etc as a punishment.

johnnyskeleton

listermint wrote: »

No Democrat administration would want to Soil the Good Friday Treaty. It is quite literally one of their shining examples of diplomacy a huge achievement for them. Of which there is scant really good international ones.

This isnt about irishness as such its about bringing an end to a civil war. They will seriously not want to soil that.

I'm not sure, if it came down to it, that a Republican administration would do so either. There is significant Irish-American support for the Republicans, although they are less vocal on Brexit than the Democrats.

https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/irish-america-republicans

That being said, those who oppose a favourable trade deal due to breaches of the GFA will find themselves as strange bedfellows with Trump - the latter of whom doesn't care about the GFA but will happily use it as an excuse to be seen to win the trade negotiations with the UK.

ancapailldorcha

The other question is why they'd even bother doing a trade deal with a country which has just decided to renege on a legally binding committment. The UK's reputation internationally can only suffer as a result of this.

Hurrache

Chairperson of the European Parliament Security Committee puts it in simple terms
https://twitter.com/NathalieLoiseau/status/1303315163907592193

RobertKK

Theresa May never had a chance when she had the extremists in the party actively working against her night and day on Brexit.
She knows how bad this is, this is why she always went for extensions, not saying she was a great PM, but she looks like a true stateswoman compared to what the UK has now.
I can only say it is far more likely to bring EU nations closer together, than anyone wanting to be associated with this disastrous omnishambles.
Rather than other countries leaving the EU due to Brexit, far more likely countries leave the UK.

Professor Moriarty

Ireland has a veto on any trade deal between Britain and the EU.

Hurrache

May had a good grip of what they were getting into, and at this point I'm not sure if Johnson knew too but is just trying to weasel out of it, or actually agreed to something he didn't understand in order to score a win for his government.

This guy was on the Brexit negotiation team until last year and he's even calling out their bull**** now.

https://twitter.com/RaoulRuparel/status/1303317713008439296

RobertKK

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ireland has a veto on any trade deal between Britain and the EU.

There will be no trade deal without the full implementation of the Withdrawal deal and even then it currently hard to see a deal if the UK doesn't compromise.

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The other question is why they'd even bother doing a trade deal with a country which has just decided to renege on a legally binding committment. The UK's reputation internationally can only suffer as a result of this.

The UK could argue that they're only breaking the WA a little bit and they're only doing it because of special circumstances and certain loose ends not covered by the WA, not because they're inherently untrustworthy and duplicitous.

Nody

briany wrote: »

The UK could argue that they're only breaking the WA a little bit and they're only doing it because of special circumstances and certain loose ends not covered by the WA, not because they're inherently untrustworthy and duplicitous.

If it's not covered in the WA they can't break it and the WA was specifically written and worded to exclude the requirement of a FTA and hence that's not a basis to claim special circumstances either.

Hurrache

briany wrote: »

The UK could argue that they're only breaking the WA a little bit and they're only doing it because of special circumstances and certain loose ends not covered by the WA, not because they're inherently untrustworthy and duplicitous.

See the tweet I just posted from a former member of the Brexit negotiation team, it's even odds on it being for the latter reason.

listermint

briany wrote: »

The UK could argue that they're only breaking the WA a little bit and they're only doing it because of special circumstances and certain loose ends not covered by the WA, not because they're inherently untrustworthy and duplicitous.

No they cant argue that at all. you cant break something a little bit. The End.

briany

listermint wrote: »

No they cant argue that at all. you cant break something a little bit. The End.

They can argue whatever they want. Whether potential trade partners will accept it as an excuse is another matter.

ancapailldorcha

briany wrote: »

The UK could argue that they're only breaking the WA a little bit and they're only doing it because of special circumstances and certain loose ends not covered by the WA, not because they're inherently untrustworthy and duplicitous.

If so, that's a heck of a thing to gamble the future of an entire nation on "could". Cameron did it and look how that panned out for him.

Sam Russell

The EU have plenty of things they can do to the UK without calling them sanctions. They have already suggested that cabbotage would be denied for UK transport. They could deny UK fifth freedom right for aircraft. They are moving to deny passporting for the UK finance industry. The various agents like Euraton, etc will be closed to them. I am sure there are plenty of others.

They do not need to apply them all at once, but give date of implication for each one.

The NI protocol still falls under the ECJ for breaches.

Interesting times.

View

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ireland has a veto on any trade deal between Britain and the EU.

That is partially true.

All member states have a veto if the deal is a comprehensive one that covers areas of competence that are shared jointly between the EU as a whole AND the member states (or that are purely member state only with the EU’s role being “support” to the member states),

Individual member states do not have a veto it the deal is a narrow one that solely cover areas of competence that are purely “EU only”.

In the latter case (as in the former), member states can vote for or against any deal in the Council of Ministers with the issue being technically decided by QMV (I say technically because the EU is unlikely to adopt a deal that a member state opposes unless they regard the member state as putting domestic politics first and “playing to the gallery”).

Strazdas

I think Peter Foster is bang on the money with this assessment :

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1303323208024829953

They really are just a bunch of cowboys and opportunists and cannot be trusted for a moment.

Leroy42

Another big area that Peter Foster has been banging on about for some time is the chemicals area, and specifically the recognition of standards.
The EU model is called REACH and has been built up over many years and with great expense.

The UK, although setting up its own agency, is looking to get continued access to the data to enable the transfer to be easier.

Something like what the Uk are trying now is not going to help in that regard and it would not only cost millions to replicate, the time involved would be far too long for the industry to wait.

View

Leroy42 wrote: »

Another big area that Peter Foster has been banging on about for some time is the chemicals area, and specifically the recognition of standards.
The EU model is called REACH and has been built up over many years and with great expense.

The UK, although setting up its own agency, is looking to get continued access to the data to enable the transfer to be easier.

Something like what the Uk are trying now is not going to help in that regard and it would not only cost millions to replicate, the time involved would be far too long for the industry to wait.

It’s difficult to see why the EU countries would bother doing any favours for the current Conservative government.

The amount of abuse they’ll get from Brexiters for being helpful will be the same, if not greater, than it would be if they just ignore all requests from Brexiters entirely.

fash

briany wrote: »

They can argue whatever they want. Whether potential trade partners will accept it as an excuse is another matter.

Third parties won't really care: so long as they make sure their interests are covered (e.g. a (perhaps now even more) robust dispute resolution mechanism) and they are happy. Why should they care?

Leroy42

fash wrote: »

Third parties won't really care: so long as they make sure their interests are covered (e.g. a (perhaps now even more) robust dispute resolution mechanism) and they are happy. Why should they care?

They won't, but they will ensure that any deals are front loaded to their favour to avoid the UK reneging on the deal when they get what they want.

For example, taken for the trade deal video posted, China gave Switzerland a trade deal but China get immediate access and the Swiss have to wait 15 years/

Why would any country now not ask something like that from the UK to make sure they don't get shafted?

I don't think though that it will stop the Uk making trade deals, even with the likes of the US. It will just be that the price, and the terms of said trade deal, will be awful in terms of the UK.

God love Theresa May. She made mistakes but had the best interests of the UK in mind.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

God love Teresa May. She made mistakes but had the best interests of the UK in mind.

Yes, and she bided her time well before criticising Johnson.

However, I'm concerned that her speech today will only help fuel the rewriting of history i.e. that the deal that Boris negotiated and signed was in fact really just Theresa May's deal etc.

Hopefully any rational Tory listening would realise what a terrible mistake they made by choosing Boris Johnson over her. She was trying to retain the dignity of the UK on the world stage, whereas Boris has just, if you'll allow the phrase, pulled the UK's pants down in public.

Cheensbo

Deleted User wrote: »

God love Theresa May. She made mistakes but had the best interests of the UK in mind.

Certainly takes the shine off the aul "worst PM they ever had" takes anyway, she looks competent as hell now. And looking back, you could definitely say she wanted something better than the absolute worst for the UK - which the current PM is undoubtedly gunning for.


Still a daily struggle to find a single tangible benefit to Brexit, it really can't be all to help the finances of a very very small handful of people... can it??

The Raging Bile Duct

Cheensbo wrote: »

Still a daily struggle to find a single tangible benefit to Brexit, it really can't be all to help the finances of a very very small handful of people... can it??

I can't think of any other reason for it. Jacob Rees Mogg's daddy wrote the book on it...

Cheensbo

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

https://dobraemerytura.org/img/blood-in-the-streets-book-3.jpg

I can't of any other reason for it. Jacob Rees Mogg's daddy wrote the book on it...

65+ Million people getting sold down the river for a few disaster capitalists?

It just seems too surreal to be true...

Gmol

Cheensbo wrote: »

Certainly takes the shine off the aul "worst PM they ever had" takes anyway, she looks competent as hell now. And looking back, you could definitely say she wanted something better than the absolute worst for the UK - which the current PM is undoubtedly gunning for.


Still a daily struggle to find a single tangible benefit to Brexit, it really can't be all to help the finances of a very very small handful of people... can it??

She was actually relatively competent and tried to retain the UK's dignity when she was put in an impossible position. Added to that her own party were hiding in the long grass. Ironically her biggest mistake was to trigger A50 straight away although the domestic pressure on her to do so (had she delayed) would have been immense.

Brexit is always about money for a certain cohort and an asset strip. If you had sufficient capital you could make a fortune purchasing assets for 1/2 nothing over the next 5 years.

BlitzKrieg

It looks like the more extreme brexiteer talking point to defend tomorrow's legislation is that the EU has been negotiating in bad faith with the UK and that the WA had a clause specifying it was only in effect as long as both parties negotiated in good faith. It most reads like an excuse to roll out the calssic fisheries, canada plus etc talking points.

It's funny they quote article 184 as the argument, but as usual for brexiteer nonsense are very selective of their quotes

(from this blogpost: https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/08/the-eu-has-been-negotiating-in-bad-faith-all-along/)

"Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement calls for ‘best endeavours, in good faith’ in order to ‘negotiate expeditiously the agreements’."

actual article 185

"The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect
of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements
governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to
conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view
to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition
period."

Cutting out the *respective legal orders* in the initial quote and then leaving out the entire second half is disengenious at minimum, deceptive more liekly.

Especially considering the 2nd half specifies to act in good faith in relation to the political declaration, So it's arguably the UK who has acted in bad faith since they are trying to avoid abiding by that declaration with this latest stunt.

Snickers Man

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

However, I'm concerned that her speech today will only help fuel the rewriting of history i.e. that the deal that Boris negotiated and signed was in fact really just Theresa May's deal etc.

Except without the crucial "Irish backstop" which was replaced, with the agreement of both Boris's government AND the House of Commons as a whole AND, arguably, by the British people as a whole when they voted for Boris's deal.

Except now he's saying "Ha Haaa. Fooled ya!"

He can't be let get away with this.

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

God love Theresa May. She made mistakes but had the best interests of the UK in mind.

You know things are bad when you have sympathy for and wish for the return of Theresa May...

fash

Cheensbo wrote: »

Certainly takes the shine off the aul "worst PM they ever had" takes anyway, she looks competent as hell now. And looking back, you could definitely say she wanted something better than the absolute worst for the UK - which the current PM is undoubtedly gunning for.


Still a daily struggle to find a single tangible benefit to Brexit, it really can't be all to help the finances of a very very small handful of people... can it??

It could just be a "give the people what they want- and give it to them good and hard" of course

fash

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

, So it's arguably the UK who has acted in bad faith since they are trying to avoid abiding by that declaration with this latest stunt.

No "arguably" about it: they still haven't even provided their state aid draft, are deliberately walking away from the political declaration and walking away from the WA against their own legal advice

murphaph

Snickers Man wrote: »

Except without the crucial "Irish backstop" which was replaced, with the agreement of both Boris's government AND the House of Commons as a whole AND, arguably, by the British people as a whole when they voted for Boris's deal.

Except now he's saying "Ha Haaa. Fooled ya!"

He can't be let get away with this.

He won't be. The newspapers here (Germany) today ask what Johnson's signature is worth. A very dim view is being taken of all this.

fash

2 questions:
I wonder what the Irexiter people think now about what the world would be like outside the EU - and left to the tender mercies of the UK and worse? Anyone heard anything on that?

In relation to the WA, an important way that it was meant to work was to establish a "NI in EU" status quo before 2025 - presumably the current attack is partly aimed (or intended to threaten to aim) at preventing that status quo being established. Is it possible for the EU to simply sue for damages - rather than retaliating with anything more dramatic? Would they be able to claim for full damages ? (Obviously while not conceding anything in relation to an FTA).

briany

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes, and she bided her time well before criticising Johnson.

However, I'm concerned that her speech today will only help fuel the rewriting of history i.e. that the deal that Boris negotiated and signed was in fact really just Theresa May's deal etc.

Hopefully any rational Tory listening would realise what a terrible mistake they made by choosing Boris Johnson over her. She was trying to retain the dignity of the UK on the world stage, whereas Boris has just, if you'll allow the phrase, pulled the UK's pants down in public.

Well, the UK voted for Boris. OK, they didn't necessarily choose him to begin with, but he was made leader and then the public voted for him, his party and the deal. They got what they deserved out of that.

The UK are probably better off, overall, to get Boris now, and get the anti EU stuff out of its system, showing off how feckless and self serving that movement's leaders are, than to keep it all pent up and maybe get Farage later, who'd be worse again.

Sam Russell

fash wrote: »

2 questions:
I wonder what the Irexiter people think now about what the world would be like outside the EU - and left to the tender mercies of the UK and worse? Anyone heard anything on that?

I think you will find that they both have changed their mind. Now we are unanimous in our pro EU stance.

LeinsterDub

fash wrote: »

2 questions:
I wonder what the Irexiter people think now about what the world would be like outside the EU - and left to the tender mercies of the UK and worse? Anyone heard anything on that?

There's so few of them you could probably (pre covid) get them all in a room and ask them

Cheensbo

fash wrote: »

It could just be a "give the people what they want- and give it to them good and hard" of course

I would agree, if, what the people wanted came even close to an agreed definition.. it doesn't, noone has ever been able to define it, or how it was supposed to be done.

All I can get from Brexit is that people are dangerously easy to manipulate by media/propaganda.

fash

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you will find that they both have changed their mind. Now we are unanimous in our pro EU stance.

Both Cryptocurrency and theological? Seriously though, isn't this a wonderful example of why small countries are better staying in the EU. Imagine what the UK would do to an unprotected Ireland - and what Ireland could do in return.

Strazdas

An obvious question comes to mind : could Brexit UK even be trusted to stick to the terms of a trade deal with the EU and not start kicking off next year?

This must be something that is starting to deeply concern Michel Barnier and the rest of the EU i.e they sign the trade deal to buy themselves some time but with the intention of ripping it up in due course and becoming a competitor of the EU.

ExMachina1000

When you look at the interests and point of view from both sides it really paints a picture of how difficult a deal that suits both would be

No deal is inevitable

Akabusi

This current Tory party really are an embarrassment at this stage. Well the British voted them in, so may they reap what they sow.

Jizique

Strazdas wrote: »

An obvious question comes to mind : could Brexit UK even be trusted to stick to the terms of a trade deal with the EU and not start kicking off next year?

This must be something that is starting to deeply concern Michel Barnier and the rest of the EU i.e they sign the trade deal to buy themselves some time but with the intention of ripping it up in due course and becoming a competitor of the EU.

Yes, rules of origin would require particularly close watching.
Weren’t they doing a scam with VAT on Chinese imports a few years ago?