Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

54and56

listermint wrote: »

Well unfortunately that statement from the Germans really puts to bed the stuff about at any cost. Including their own industries.

Believe me I'm 100% against the idea of giving the UK a deal at any cost and even if the UK does agree to the EU red lines on LPF any such agreement would have to be contingent on the complete removal of the offending clauses in the IMB, a double down commitment from the UK on the full implementation of the WA and robust enforcement measures which quickly allow the EU to take whatever action is necessary to mitigate or compensate for any divergence on LPF the UK decides to take in the future.

Surprisingly (for me) the Brits decided to throw away their centuries reputation for the rule of law and honourable dealing when they published the IMB. As Warren Buffett says (of business) "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." I can't believe BoJo felt losing their reputation on a massively flawed Brexit negotiating tactic was a price worth paying.

listermint wrote: »

You seem to really forget that they can't give the UK a deal at any cost because the cost would be the EU itself.

I honestly don't forget that. I know the very best deal from the UK's perspective would be one which gave them all the free trade access they want but also sowed the seeds of doubt amongst other EU members who may think they'd be better off out of the EU if they too secured a similar deal, it would be the beginning of the end for the EU and even in the excitement of closing in on a long awaited finishing line I can't see VdL, Barnier or any of the EU 27 leaders losing sight of that.

KildareP

ElJeffe wrote: »

No. It's a two way street. They both need it but it's not going to happen and was never going to happen. They've being going around in circles for years now and we all know it.

There is no way around the competition rules.

I still think the EU will budge and screw us over as it's no exaggeration to say this very well may lead to the break up of the EU in the long term and they can't take that risk. We are nothing in the grand scale.

What would be the point?

The only things to budge on are what's holding up a deal:
- level playing field
- governance
- fishing.

Were the EU to give way on any of these, it puts all EU27 nations at a massive disadvantage. You're effectively gifting a departing member continued access to all of the benefits they had before without any of the obligations or contributions that remaining member states continue to be bound by.

Why would any EU nation agree to that?

OK, so you might argue in terms of Ireland specifically we have the WA and IMB standoff but there's no question on budging or giving way here. The UK have willingly and voluntarily signed up to abide by the WA almost a year ago. They have now decided that, actually, they don't like what they've signed up to - I suspect because the first time any of them actually read what they'd signed up to was when M. Barnier wrote that response to M. Francois' letter which drove home a number of home truths.

Were the EU to agree to let this pass, then it makes every agreement the EU has ever signed, and/or intends to sign in the future, completely worthless. Why bother going to all the time and effort in negotiating it if you can just interpret it unilaterally as and when it suits you?

54and56

Pasteur. wrote: »

Britain needs a deal a lot more than the EU

They won't say it but they're literally fukked without one

You're applying commercial logic whilst they (the UK) are drunk on Brexit Rhetoric.

Have you ever been outside a kebab shop at 2am and your missus/partner/friend/boyfriend is telling you the last thing you need is a kebab and how you'll be completely fukked tomorrow if you go ahead and have one? The voice of sanity in your head is totally drowned out by the smell of the meat and onions and you convince yourself the pleasure now will be worth the pain tomorrow.

A No Deal Brexit is the biggest messiest and tastiest kebab in the world for BoJo and co.

Kermit.de.frog

Nody wrote: »

By putting Ireland outside the single market somehow?

What do you mean "somehow"?

This happens by default if Britain does not conduct the required checks on the sea border.

The other 26 countries won't think twice about putting customs controls between the continent and Ireland. They won't even consult. Ireland will be told to place a firm customs border on the island or leave the single market.

The clauses which would trigger this automatically and unilaterally from the British side must be removed as part of any deal.

If the EU does a deal and those clauses are not removed then the EU has thrown Ireland under the bus and our fate from that moment on is inextricably linked to the whims of any British government thereafter.

That's the seriousness of the situation.

fly_agaric

54and56 wrote: »

By returning from Brussels in this was he'll metaphorically be pulling up the draw-bridge and setting the scene for blaming the EU for the inevitable chaos which will follow.

Yes, your whole scenario sounds very plausible.

I only speculate as I don't have contacts in the UK or live there but unfortunately I think most people will eat it right up.

Posters here pay an undue (unhealthy?) amount of attention to politics and have kept an eye on the shenanigans over the past 4 years but I put myself in mind of the people in the UK for which politics intrudes when something important is happening and the media are shouting about it.

What they will see (and what the media will say is happening) is UK PM bravely doing his utmost (maybe right up to 31/12) to agree something with "Brussels"/the French/Germans/Irish but they were all too pigheaded to meet him half way!

listermint

54and56 wrote: »

You're applying commercial logic whilst they (the UK) are drunk on Brexit Rhetoric.

Have you ever been outside a kebab shop at 2am and your missus/partner/friend/boyfriend is telling you the last thing you need is a kebab and how you'll be completely fukked tomorrow if you go ahead and have one? The voice of sanity in your head is totally drowned out by the smell of the meat and onions and you convince yourself the pleasure now will be worth the pain tomorrow.

A No Deal Brexit is the biggest messiest and tastiest kebab in the world for BoJo and co.

To be fair not a great analogy , because the kebab would be delicious and also cos no difference to your next day condition.

Have the kebab.

trellheim

IM Bill still on table, and Finance bill about to be published

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0227/Notes%20on%20Resolutions.pdf

so in order to show good faith to the EU its not being particularly wonderful

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What do you mean "somehow"?

This happens by default if Britain does not conduct the required checks on the sea border.

The other 26 countries won't think twice about putting customs controls between the continent and Ireland. They won't even consult. Ireland will be told to place a firm customs border on the island or leave the single market.

The clauses which would trigger this automatically and unilaterally from the British side must be removed as part of any deal.

If the EU does a deal and those clauses are not removed then the EU has thrown Ireland under the bus and our fate from that moment on is inextricably linked to the whims of any British government thereafter.

That's the seriousness of the situation.

If Britain does that the EU will tariff Britain exponentially while denying them airspace, slowing entry to EU ports, regulating the sh1te out their exports etc. We'll see who blinks first then.

fly_agaric

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What do you mean "somehow"?

This happens by default if Britain does not conduct the required checks on the sea border.

The other 26 countries won't think twice about putting customs controls between the continent and Ireland. They won't even consult. Ireland will be told to place a firm customs border on the island or leave the single market.

The clauses which would trigger this automatically and unilaterally from the British side must be removed as part of any deal.

If the EU does a deal and those clauses are not removed then the EU has thrown Ireland under the bus and our fate from that moment on is inextricably linked to the whims of any British government thereafter.

That's the seriousness of the situation.

You seem to have such a cynical view of the EU as an organisation and the other member states. Why, I don't know as I expect you've been wrong about your cynicism many times in the past. It's fairly clear any agreement that is made will be still-born if the UK doesn't uphold the WA.

As for "they won't even consult", deal or no, if UK doesn't uphold NI protocol & the NI border starts becoming a problem for the single market (substandard goods coming in, dumping, smuggling etc) we will get plenty of warnings/flashing red lights before the other countries take the drastic step of checking goods coming from Ireland. What the Irish government decides to do about it all will be up to it.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If Britain does that the EU will tariff Britain exponentially while denying them airspace, slowing entry to EU ports, regulating the sh1te out their exports etc. We'll see who blinks first then.

I don't think this will even be necessary. Worst case is a hard border and the knowledge all around the world that this happened because the British government is a deceitful, bad actor.

54and56

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What do you mean "somehow"?

This happens by default if Britain does not conduct the required checks on the sea border.

The other 26 countries won't think twice about putting customs controls between the continent and Ireland. They won't even consult. Ireland will be told to place a firm customs border on the island or leave the single market.

The clauses which would trigger this automatically and unilaterally from the British side must be removed as part of any deal.

If the EU does a deal and those clauses are not removed then the EU has thrown Ireland under the bus and our fate from that moment on is inextricably linked to the whims of any British government thereafter.

That's the seriousness of the situation.

Not going to happen.

The European Parliament has already confirmed in writing that it won't approve any deal unless those clauses in the IMB are removed.

dilallio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

While obviously not from an unbiased source, here's a telling clip of James Cleverly addressing the oven-ready deal canard that was thrown around this time last year:

https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/1335907843476754437

As the link from the Times shared yesterday indicates, it does seem like an unending culture war with the EU seems to be the Conservatives' long term goal.

Here's what Johnson actually said about the oven-ready deal during the elecetion campaign:



https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1336269406347915264

Lumen

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If Britain does that the EU will tariff Britain exponentially while denying them airspace, slowing entry to EU ports, regulating the sh1te out their exports etc. We'll see who blinks first then.

Not clear on what "that" you are referring to, but as I understand it, if no deal happens then UK-EU trade will be on WTO terms, and then the EU will have to apply exactly the same tariffs as other WTO countries under the MFN principle.

So I don't think punitive tariffs are possible.

Stupid question: is it still the case that in the event of no deal, we will have to enforce phytosanitary etc standards on goods coming from NI? I understand that this may not happen at the physical border.

Imreoir2

Enzokk wrote: »

I see the meeting between Von Der Leyen and Johnson is "uncharted territory" so we will have to wait and see what happens.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336273970186874882?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336273978843942914?s=20

There is the new deadline I suppose, 31 December. We can actually all just relax as nothing that happens now will be set in stone, unless one side walks away. So basically predictions of an outcome will be premature as there is still a lot of time for things to develop.

Unless there are major developments in the next few days, the prospects of a deal being agreed and ratified by Dec 31st quickly vanish. We then enter no-deal territory with the next question being: no-deal for how long?

Enzokk

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Unless there are major developments in the next few days, the prospects of a deal being agreed and ratified by Dec 31st quickly vanish. We then enter no-deal territory with the next question being: no-deal for how long?

I think you posted it, the chances of a deal being ratified is low. But a deal can still be reached and I am sure they can get some extension or allowance to implement some of the deal to allow time to ratify the deal if it is reached at the last moment (GATT 24 I believe). So that is why I am not going to get excited with anything happening over the next few days, because it will not matter. What matters is what happens at the end of the month, if nothing is agreed by then, I will get excited about the prospects of no deal.

moon2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

What do you mean "somehow"?

This happens by default if Britain does not conduct the required checks on the sea border.

Can you point to where this is documented?

The default under international law, and all treaties I'm aware of, is that we're the UK to renege on the withdrawal agreement the customs border would return to it's original place - the border between Northern ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

I don't recall any document suggesting the Republic of Ireland would become part of the UK customs zone as you've implied.

CelticRambler

Lumen wrote: »

Stupid question: is it still the case that in the event of no deal, we will have to enforce phytosanitary etc standards on goods coming from NI? I understand that this may not happen at the physical border.

Not a stupid question at all, and it seems that a lot of the Irish europhobes are struggling to understand what's going on. The NI Protocol is signed, sealed and on the point of delivery. The current talks are about GB's trade with Ireland (and the rest of the EU), not NI's.

The EU has moved on from 2019 and is trying to negotiate that second GB-EU deal; the Tory Party, for reasons best known to themselves, are still squabbling over Theresa May's promises to the DUP (somewhat akin to Trump still ranting about Hilary Clinton's e-mails four years after he won that election).

With or without a GB-EU deal, NI moves into new arrangements on Jan 1st. From that date onwards, the Johnson government's good faith will be put to the test. If there is any hint of Tory complicity in allowing British traders, based in NI or GB, exploiting the EU's gesture of goodwill in allowing NI to exist in a bubble and using the territory as a backdoor to the Single Market, that will put the brakes on any deal for GB. As of Jan 1st, regardless of Tory jingoism, the two parts of the Kingdom will be treated separately - and that's hard-coded into International Law since a certain Boris Johnson signed the WA.

forgottenhills

54and56 wrote: »

Given the smug wink wink ITK behaviour of Ian Smith, Peter Bone and any of the other ERG fundamentalists I've seen interviewed over the past 48 hours I'm also leaning towards the Brussels meeting being an engineered set piece where BoJo can be seen to be doing his utmost to get deal but in reality what he is doing is setting the stage for a grand return home empty handed thus delivering the Brexit hard core their "pure" no deal Brexit whilst providing himself with plausible deniability for the majority who wanted a deal that he did all he could and it was the EU's unreasonable demands, which they haven't made from Canada or Japan etc, which prevented a deal being possible.

By returning from Brussels in this was he'll metaphorically be pulling up the draw-bridge and setting the scene for blaming the EU for the inevitable chaos which will follow.

Such a scenario would achieve several things for BoJo:-

1. He'd forever have the loyalty of the Brexit wing of the Tory party which is now in the ascendency.

2. He'd completely nullify Farage and the Brexit Party thus completely re-claiming the centre right for the Tories.

3. He'd, for better or worse, have made an indelible mark on the history of the UK and his legacy would be secure.

4. He'd be seen to be keeping his promise to the NI Unionists as he'd plough ahead with the IMB and completely ignore the requirements of the WA thus, effectively, forcing the EU to come up with some form of border control between NI and RoI or between RoI and the rest of the EU. This would royally pi$$ off the USA and Biden administration but in a way that could be a good thing for BoJo as it would scupper any hope of an FTA with the US which I actually think he'd be ok with as it'll be a painful negotiation which ultimately would see the UK having to give the US access to food and medical markets or risk a no deal. Both have downside risk for BoJo but the status quo of no FTA has little downside and avoids having to put energy into yet another FTA negotiation with a much larger entity at a time when their is total deal fatigue within the UK and within the UK govt.

5. BoJo and co would be free to slash regulations and turn the UK into the Singapore on Thames they want it to be.

6. He'd be seen to be embarrassing the entire EU by having them gathered together (on Thursday) with the intention of rubber stamping a deal only for BoJo to give them the finger and leave them stranded squabbling amongst themselves as to who is to blame for pushing for more than the UK were prepared to sign up to.

Until this weekend I used to think that there is no way that any British government, even the current radical one, will actually allow a No Deal to happen but now unfortunately I believe that events are going to unfold as you describe above. And remember too that Johnson is a fan of Churchill rather than Chamberlain and will be attempting, in his own way to imitate the latter rather than the former to his fans.

Nody

Lumen wrote: »

Not clear on what "that" you are referring to, but as I understand it, if no deal happens then UK-EU trade will be on WTO terms, and then the EU will have to apply exactly the same tariffs as other WTO countries under the MFN principle.

So I don't think punitive tariffs are possible.

Those tariffs are punitive because anyone who exports to EU will have negotiated to have them removed in the first place. That's the whole point of them to encourage FTAs in some form (inc. bilateral deals like with the US for example) and even the relatively low once such 10% for cars is enough to turn them into a loss simply because 10% equals more than 10% increase at the street and loss of market shares (VAT, import duties based on value etc.). And to be honest the best way to implement punitive measures is not tariffs but the review process for imports, that fish stuck at the border for a week while we check it over? Well not so fresh when it arrives now is it?

Stupid question: is it still the case that in the event of no deal, we will have to enforce phytosanitary etc standards on goods coming from NI? I understand that this may not happen at the physical border.

Yes if as assumed Boris goes ahead and ignores the WA deal he signed. Which means in practice all export from NI to Ireland of animal related products, inc. live animals, basically stop and NI can't process that meat as it stands for export to the UK. In short farmers will feel the pain day 1 basically because even if they use a back road to get it into Ireland the butcher can't touch it as it's no longer certified for EU rules etc. Of course he can butcher it black and sell it under the table if he wants to but yea, that's possible with any meat at any time.

forgottenhills

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think this will even be necessary. Worst case is a hard border and the knowledge all around the world that this happened because the British government is a deceitful, bad actor.

Define a "hard border" please? Everyone makes it sound like a prison wall with armed guards.

In every Brexit outcome where NI was not going to be part of the Single Market it was always going to be the case that there would be border controls on the Irish/NI and Irish/UK borders and ports, that would have to be imposed by the Irish/EU authorities in order to protect the Single Market. Ireland/the EU have been remarkably coy about this all through the various Brexit talks.

Only the naive didn't understand this but at the same time I wouldn't get all worked up about trade controls on the border, tariffs would be the much more serious issue. Border controls would be a nuisance for those trading across the border, but no more than that. We had 60 years of it up to EU accession and it wasn't the end of the world, no reason for the hot-headed types to be pulling the pike from the thatch anyway.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think this will even be necessary. Worst case is a hard border and the knowledge all around the world that this happened because the British government is a deceitful, bad actor.

Plus a hard border will re-ignite trouble in NI. No British government will want to start that up again and it would mean no trade agreement with the US.

Lumen

CelticRambler wrote: »

Not a stupid question at all, and it seems that a lot of the Irish europhobes are struggling to understand what's going on. The NI Protocol is signed, sealed and on the point of delivery. The current talks are about GB's trade with Ireland (and the rest of the EU), not NI's.

The EU has moved on from 2019 and is trying to negotiate that second GB-EU deal; the Tory Party, for reasons best known to themselves, are still squabbling over Theresa May's promises to the DUP (somewhat akin to Trump still ranting about Hilary Clinton's e-mails four years after he won that election).

With or without a GB-EU deal, NI moves into new arrangements on Jan 1st. From that date onwards, the Johnson government's good faith will be put to the test. If there is any hint of Tory complicity in allowing British traders, based in NI or GB, exploiting the EU's gesture of goodwill in allowing NI to exist in a bubble and using the territory as a backdoor to the Single Market, that will put the brakes on any deal for GB. As of Jan 1st, regardless of Tory jingoism, the two parts of the Kingdom will be treated separately - and that's hard-coded into International Law since a certain Boris Johnson signed the WA.

If you're implying that I'm an Irish europhobe you are quite wrong.

OK, so the NI Protocol is part of the WA, and the WA is a legally binding international treaty.

Amusing gov.uk note from 2017

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technical-note-on-implementing-the-withdrawal-agreement

Similarly, the UK will be bound by the Withdrawal Agreement as a matter of international law, and will be subject to whatever international enforcement mechanisms the agreement contains.

Does the WA have permanent effect? i.e. not time limited or conditional.

Nody wrote: »

Those tariffs are punitive because anyone who exports to EU will have negotiated to have them removed in the first place. That's the whole point of them to encourage FTAs in some form (inc. bilateral deals like with the US for example).

I think "punitive" is the wrong word for this, as it implies different treatment than the default. But I guess that's a matter of semantics.

Nody wrote: »

Yes if as assumed Boris goes ahead and ignores the WA deal he signed.

I don't think it is possible to "ignore" the WA. It is a legally binding treaty which is not conditional on any other deals being struck. It can be breached, but not ignored.

Professor Moriarty

Lumen wrote: »

Not clear on what "that" you are referring to, but as I understand it, if no deal happens then UK-EU trade will be on WTO terms, and then the EU will have to apply exactly the same tariffs as other WTO countries under the MFN principle.

So I don't think punitive tariffs are possible.

Stupid question: is it still the case that in the event of no deal, we will have to enforce phytosanitary etc standards on goods coming from NI? I understand that this may not happen at the physical border.

The 'that' relates to another poster. They suggested that Britain will refuse to put a border down the Irish Sea .

fash

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think this will even be necessary. Worst case is a hard border and the knowledge all around the world that this happened because the British government is a deceitful, bad actor.

One thing that also needs to be borne in mind: even assuming the UK fails to deal with the EU (and US) and thinks it can withstand EU pressure until e.g. the next election cycle- what FTA conditions in the meantime do you think you could get if you were Canada or Australia?
That would be some barrel over which the UK would be placed...

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's an obvious risk for Johnson staging a scene in which he goes in search of a deal and returns empty-handed [...]

One can't help but notice that it's Johnson going to Brussels and not von der Leyen travelling to London.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Vote Leave stable which mainly influences him comprehensively misunderstands the EU and therefore reads it wrongly all the time.

I wouldn't think so - VL does have smart people on board, just not very honest ones. Seems far more likely to me that they're just playing to the home gallery during negotiations - negative press briefings, leaks, silly threats to walk away - all the kind of juvenile stuff that you'd expect from a temperamental ex-partner trying to justify to themselves why they're leaving.

ath262

from Maros Sefcovic https://twitter.com/MarosSefcovic/status/1336298681188954113

'Pleased to announce that thanks to hard work, @michaelgove and I have reached an agreement in principle on all issues re the #WithdrawalAgreement implementation. This will ensure it is fully operational as of 1 Jan, incl. the Protocol on Ireland/N' https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_2346


and according to Peter Foster the IMB items have been dropped... https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1336301505171902464
BREAK: The UK drops all its 'law breaking' clauses - including plans for more in forthcoming taxation bill - after @michaelgove and @MarosSefcovic
agree deal on terms of implementing Northern Irish Protocol. 1/

Cheensbo

Here we go, under the bus :pac:



A big step, but pardon if I am mistaken - do the huge differences regarding LPF, state aid & fisheries not still remain?

Strazdas

Cheensbo wrote: »

Here we go, under the bus :pac:



A big step, but pardon if I am mistaken - do the huge differences regarding LPF, state aid & fisheries not still remain?

They do, but one wonders if the Gove climb down signals a Johnson climb down.

storker

Strazdas wrote: »

They do, but one wonders if the Gove climb down signals a Johnson climb down victory.

Get it right.

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

In every Brexit outcome where NI was not going to be part of the Single Market it was always going to be the case that there would be border controls on the Irish/NI and Irish/UK borders and ports, that would have to be imposed by the Irish/EU authorities in order to protect the Single Market. Ireland/the EU have been remarkably coy about this all through the various Brexit talks.

Coy? Hardly, when there was a well-publicised dispute about whether or not EU inspectors could operate from an office located in the North. And it also seems to have passed you by that the border controls - fully discussed, and the subject of an IT system being developed by the Japanese for roll-out in the New Year - will take place along the Irish Sea border.

Again, all this is "signed, sealed and almost delivered" - absolutely nothing to do with the GB-EU talks going "down to the wire" this week. Of course, it's entirely possible that Johnson will decide to reinforce the UK's pariah-state status by openly reneging on the treaty obligations that he signed, but that doesn't change the operating environment unless he can also get legitimate traders in GB to risk their reputations and their business by deliberately flouting international import-export rules.