Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Irish Praetorian

Enzokk wrote: »

So they have Abbott and Hannan in roles in the Trade Department. That is Daniel Hannan who proclaimed that nobody was talking about threatening the UK's place in the single free market when it came to voting for Brexit.

Free Market, there's a whole litany of things to complain about when it comes to Daniel Hannan, but on that one point I think one has to concede he mis-spoke rather than he was trying to make a point about the single market.

Capt'n Midnight

RobMc59 wrote: »

I`d say this is more what the special relationship is all about Sam..
http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/1045519685?-17465:2771

UK carriers provide about the same air wing as a US amphibious assault ship. Better radar, but no landing craft or vehicles.
https://news.usni.org/2019/10/23/marines-test-lightning-carrier-concept-control-13-f-35bs-from-multiple-amphibs

Oddly enough BAE have enough fingers in the pie that it's cheaper for the UK to buy the F35's even if they don't need them.

But it is totally dependent on the goodwill of the US.

RobMc59

L1011 wrote: »

And that makes them suitable for UK use and reliable, how exactly?

You're not really following the basics of debate here. They're an atrocious buy the UK was bullied in to by the US.

There are around a dozen countries that have either purchased the F35 or have placed orders for it.Are you suggesting they have all been bullied into buying inferior aircraft or just the UK?

L1011

RobMc59 wrote: »

There are around a dozen countries that have either purchased the F35 or have placed orders for it.Are you suggesting they have all been bullied into buying inferior aircraft or just the UK?

Again with the not actually dealing with the point. However, I'll answer yours - quite a few of them are buying them due to similar "relationships" with the US (Israel, Turkey, Singapore, South Korea) and many of the rest are at least being wheedled via NATO

It is not a suitable aircraft for the UK and it is shockingly unreliable. Something you have avoided even vaguely dealing with twice. You wouldn't get away with this in Transition Year debating.

Enzokk

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Free Market, there's a whole litany of things to complain about when it comes to Daniel Hannan, but on that one point I think one has to concede he mis-spoke rather than he was trying to make a point about the single market.

There are 2 markets in Europe? The single market that only EU and EEA nations have access to and then the free market for the rest of the world?

It was typical bull from Brexiters at the time. He made a complicated argument sound simple. Nobody was talking about threatening their access to the free/single market, but to have unfettered access there are rules you have to abide by.

Here is the full interview of his where he said both free and single market access will not be threatened,

He is a slippery politician if you watch the full interview. When confronted with the argument that he is talking from an ideological position and not one from a business owner, he tries to put the blame on the broadcaster for not having a pro-Brexit business owner there as well instead of admitting he has no clue about Brexit when it comes to running a business.

Spanish Eyes

Brexit doesn't seem to be getting any traction anywhere. So what happens now?

Those posting here know the score, but it seems to me that nobody cares anymore. It is going to happen whether by WTO or some sort of compromise.

But the bottom line is, UK population is not interested anymore.

An Ciarraioch

So, the Telegraph "report" that Barnier will be "sidelined" with heads of government taking the reins:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1301972182617264129

What actually appears to be the case is that Barnier himself wants some refreshment of the mandate in order to break the logjam, and so is seeking a European Council meeting:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/04/brussels-rules-out-summit-intervention-in-troubled-brexit-talks

reslfj

L1011 wrote: »

Again with the not actually dealing with the point. However, I'll answer yours - quite a few of them are buying them due to similar "relationships" with the US (Israel, Turkey, Singapore, South Korea) and many of the rest are at least being wheedled via NATO

You can absolutely add Denmark to your country list or your NATO list or both.

Lars

ancapailldorcha

Mod: RobMc59 will be taking a break from this forum.

An Ciarraioch

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Brexit doesn't seem to be getting any traction anywhere. So what happens now?

Those posting here know the score, but it seems to me that nobody cares anymore. It is going to happen whether by WTO or some sort of compromise.

But the bottom line is, UK population is not interested anymore.

Nor are the Europeans either, to any great extent - you'll struggle to find anything on it in any of the major national newspapers.

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So, the Telegraph "report" that Barnier will be "sidelined" with heads of government taking the reins:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1301972182617264129

What actually appears to be the case is that Barnier himself wants some refreshment of the mandate in order to break the logjam, and so is seeking a European Council meeting:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/04/brussels-rules-out-summit-intervention-in-troubled-brexit-talks

I get the feeling that Barnier and Frost doesn't get along at all and this is why he wanted other EU leaders to get involved as Frost is either instructed not to move or he is ideologically not prepared to move at all. If that is the case it was Johnson who moved last time so it makes sense to move the responsibility to the other heads of state as nothing will happen, no matter how many talks are scheduled right now.

That and the Davis rule is in effect, last minute and all that. Why this would need to be the case is baffling, why wait until the last moment? It has always confused me why this needs to happen. Nothing good can come from doing legal texts at the last moment in the early hours of the morning, things get missed and an oven ready deal is disowned by those that signed the same deal once they realise what they actually agreed to.

Hermy

Enzokk wrote: »

Tony Abbott has been appointed as a UK Trade adviser by Liz Truss.

News reports mentioned it would be an unpaid role.

Is that the norm for that type of thing?

And if so, why unpaid?

Capt'n Midnight

Hermy wrote: »

News reports mentioned it would be an unpaid role.

Is that the norm for that type of thing?

And if so, why unpaid?

Baksheesh ?

Then again he isn't a paid up member of the conservative party is he ?

Enzokk

Hermy wrote: »

News reports mentioned it would be an unpaid role.

Is that the norm for that type of thing?

And if so, why unpaid?

He is on a 300 000 AUD pension per year as ex-PM so he doesn't need to be paid. Obviously there are calls for his pension to be put on hold while he is working for a foreign government that will be negotiating with Australia. Who's interests will he be putting ahead of everything? The country he is working for or for whom he was PM?

Tony Abbott gets $90,000 raise on backbencher's salary now he's a retired PM

As a former prime minister, Abbott will automatically receive an annual pension of $296,000 – a raise of almost $90,000 on his backbencher’s salary of $207,100.

Abbott's new British trade role called into question as gig exposes European jaunt

In Australia, Abbott's critics have called on him to be stripped of his $300,000-a-year parliamentary pension while he is working for a foreign government that is negotiating a trade deal with Australia.

I wonder if he would still be happy to be unpaid if he didn't receive the pension as he was working for a foreign government. This sounds like the rubbish Trump says about his salary, forgetting to mention that everytime he goes to one of his hotels they have the taxpayer pay for his security detail and that money goes to the Trump Organization.

swampgas

Enzokk wrote: »

...
That and the Davis rule is in effect, last minute and all that. Why this would need to be the case is baffling, why wait until the last moment? It has always confused me why this needs to happen. Nothing good can come from doing legal texts at the last moment in the early hours of the morning, things get missed and an oven ready deal is disowned by those that signed the same deal once they realise what they actually agreed to.

IMO it's becoming clearer day by day that no deal is the objective, regardless of the damage it will cause. There's some theatre for public consumption but no real effort to do a deal. The press are playing along, building the narrative that the EU is to blame, that no deal Brexit won't be that bad.
I suspect the EU know this very well and are assuming that no deal is the most likely outcome, and that there isn't much point wasting time and effort trying to prevent it.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

.I already believe the whole idea of brexit is an unattainable pipe dream,the unfortunate thing would be when that finally dawns on those who voted for Johnson,it's too late.

Brexit already happened - it was very much an achievable dream - for Russia.

GazzaL

There'll be a huge increase in direct freight shipped from the continent to Ireland. Loads of companies have already switched routes to avoid the UK. Too much hassle and paperwork.

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

There are around a dozen countries that have either purchased the F35 or have placed orders for it.Are you suggesting they have all been bullied into buying inferior aircraft or just the UK?

You know nothing of the US military industry it seems. It heavily relies on us government pressure on countries it has relationships with to purchase it's goods .

It's not about value or usefulness.

listermint

Hermy wrote: »

News reports mentioned it would be an unpaid role.

Is that the norm for that type of thing?

And if so, why unpaid?

There's about zero chance he's unpaid. His expense account ability for trips will be endless. Unpaid my hole.

Hermy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Baksheesh ?

listermint wrote: »

Unpaid my hole.

My sentiments exactly.:)

Seriously though, aside from a substantial expenses account what's in it for him?
And what does he bring to the table that wasn't already available from someone in the UK?

listermint

Hermy wrote: »

My sentiments exactly.:)

Seriously though, aside from a substantial expenses account what's in it for him?
And what does he bring to the table that wasn't already available from someone in the UK?

He brings nothing to the table. He loves exposure though. Big ego this guy. Anything that says international portfolio on it would be right up his street.

Capt'n Midnight

listermint wrote: »

You know nothing of the US military industry it seems. It heavily relies on us government pressure on countries it has relationships with to purchase it's goods .

It's not about value or usefulness.

Like I posted before thanks to BAE the UK makes more on the F35 than it will cost to buy a few.

Turkey gets the maintenance contract for European one.

But the big trick is oil is traded in dollars. Which means lots of dollars in circulation and one way to spend them is on weapons.

The last thing the US wants is Middle East oil being traded in Euros. So Brexit suits them.

Enzokk

The UK government has given themselves the power to build up to 29 lorry parks without planning permission. This seems to be one of those consequences of saying you are okay without a deal, when you start the planning you convince yourself that it will be fine in the end and you end up going for it. Ivan Rogers was warning about this during the WA negotiations but I think it is just as valid for the FTA negotiations as well.

Tories give themselves powers to build 29 Brexit lorry parks across the UK - list in full

Tory ministers this week gave themselves wide-ranging powers to build lorry parks in 29 council areas across the UK - without asking local councils.

As Britain counts down to our exit from the EU on January 1, Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick set out plans to give himself the authority to start the construction of the facilities.

But local residents will have no say over the construction of the sites - as the powers, unveiled after MPs had left Westminster, put all the authority over the building of the sites in the hands of ministers.

Tony Connelly has a article about the state of play currently,

Countdown to endgame on a Brexit deal

When the Taoiseach Micheál Martin met Boris Johnson at Hillsborough Castle on 13 August, the British prime minister signalled he wanted a Brexit deal.

Martin had levelled with Johnson. With the economic fallout from the Covid pandemic, was it not better for both sides to reach a deal? He and other EU leaders needed to know.

One source present acknowledges that this was a getting-to-know-you encounter, not a detailed Brexit discussion. Nor did Johnson have his full team with him.

Nonetheless, Johnson appeared to give a clear indication that he wanted a deal.

Bascially, there is chance for a deal but the UK will have to move. If they keep on insisting on their red lines then a deal will not be possible, but the EU is very open to compromise. This has been signalled to the UK but they have stuck to their positions. Unless Frost moves, it will be up to talks with Johnson to get things moving.

swampgas

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK government has given themselves the power to build up to 29 lorry parks without planning permission. This seems to be one of those consequences of saying you are okay without a deal, when you start the planning you convince yourself that it will be fine in the end and you end up going for it. Ivan Rogers was warning about this during the WA negotiations but I think it is just as valid for the FTA negotiations as well.

Tories give themselves powers to build 29 Brexit lorry parks across the UK - list in full



Tony Connelly has a article about the state of play currently,

Countdown to endgame on a Brexit deal



Bascially, there is chance for a deal but the UK will have to move. If they keep on insisting on their red lines then a deal will not be possible, but the EU is very open to compromise. This has been signalled to the UK but they have stuck to their positions. Unless Frost moves, it will be up to talks with Johnson to get things moving.

But this is Boris, who lies instinctively and who tells people what they want to hear. His signalling means absolutely nothing.

listermint

swampgas wrote: »

But this is Boris, who lies instinctively and who tells people what they want to hear. His signalling means absolutely nothing.

Johnson would tell you he doesn't drink coffee whilst holding grande in the other hand , cannot be trusted. Don't forget he wrote to conflicting articles for and against Brexit .

Enzokk

swampgas wrote: »

But this is Boris, who lies instinctively and who tells people what they want to hear. His signalling means absolutely nothing.

The history the EU has with Johnson is he also said he wanted a deal when it came to the WA even if the stories from the papers were that they were prepared for no-deal. He promptly moved to ensure a deal is struck, so when he tells them he wants a deal they will look back at what happened last year.

I think the EU needs to be aware though that last year he didn't have a majority and he made the deal when there was chaos in parliament. I am sure they are aware of this, but you cannot make decisions on what-ifs when there is still time to make a deal and when it happened very quickly last time.

swampgas

Enzokk wrote: »

The history the EU has with Johnson is he also said he wanted a deal when it came to the WA even if the stories from the papers were that they were prepared for no-deal. He promptly moved to ensure a deal is struck, so when he tells them he wants a deal they will look back at what happened last year.

I think the EU needs to be aware though that last year he didn't have a majority and he made the deal when there was chaos in parliament. I am sure they are aware of this, but you cannot make decisions on what-ifs when there is still time to make a deal and when it happened very quickly last time.

I suspect that he wanted the WA as cover, not as a stepping stone to any sort of significant deal. The fact that he has tried to backtrack on what was agreed in the WA rather than building on it suggests to me that he was never sincere about getting a deal in the first place.

Enzokk

swampgas wrote: »

I suspect that he wanted the WA as cover, not as a stepping stone to any sort of significant deal. The fact that he has tried to backtrack on what was agreed in the WA rather than building on it suggests to me that he was never sincere about getting a deal in the first place.

I agree, but you cannot go on what we think when he tells people personally he wants a deal. If he goes against his word then it will be time to not believe him, until then you have to go on what he says.

swampgas

Enzokk wrote: »

I agree, but you cannot go on what we think when he tells people personally he wants a deal. If he goes against his word then it will be time to not believe him, until then you have to go on what he says.

Would it not make more sense to judge him by his actions? For example, has his team worked constructively with the EU? Provided any detailed proposals? Suggested ways of meeting the EU's requirements?

I think it is better (at this point) to discount anything the UK say right now that isn't backed by concrete actions or concrete proposals.

Everything about the way this is unfolding feels to me like Boris and his backers are just running down the clock to no deal.

reslfj

Enzokk wrote: »

.... when there is still time to make a deal and when it happened very quickly last time.

The WA deal was just minor changes in a few pages of an already negotiated agreement. It changed the original (last resort) Irish Sea backstop to a permanent front-stop with a - very unlikely to be used - exit clause.

A trade deal is a much more complicated text, where every line has to be negotiated, checked and re-checked.

Any trade deal agreed within the available 4-6 weeks will have to be based on the EU text (if that is even possible) with very minor redaction.

For the EU27 I get more and more convinced that a 6-12 months cool-off NoDeal period in UK-chaos, under full WTO rules, and with no other deals - is what is needed looking forward.
People of the 'we need to look and feel' type simply need to look and feel before they will understand.

Nothing much the EU27 can do about it - I'm afraid.

Lars