Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Infini

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336399528728125440

Basically Biden basically threatened them with the stick if they didn't knock it off.

As for the FTA:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336403947163164673

10000maniacs

Strazdas wrote: »

Irish Protocol + No Deal would make a united Ireland almost certain in my book. GB totally isolating itself and NI firmly in the EU's orbit.

I suspect that Johnson is ditching the internal market bill not because he wants deal with the EU, but because he wants a deal with the USA.

Junkyard Tom

Newsnight finally pointing at the iceberg.

Strazdas

10000maniacs wrote: »

I suspect that Johnson is ditching the internal market bill not because he wants deal with the EU, but because he wants a deal with the USA.

I've a nagging feeling that Johnson has ditched the IMB and brought the Irish Protocol legally into force as a prelude to announcing No deal - it actually makes a lot of sense.

J Mysterio

Akrasia wrote: »

What NI certainly don’t have is sovereignty given that they’re being dragged out of the EU against their will into a halfway house full of uncertainty, orphaned from the two biggest neighboring economies

NI aren’t in both the UK single market and the EU, they’re in neither

Ah no, it's a fantastic arrangement for them, to be fair. It really is the best of both worlds.

What remains to be seen is if there is a trade deal. If there is a reasonable trade deal, NI might be very happy to continue on into the future with this arrangement- what a boon to them.

If, however, there is a crash out Brexit, UI looking very likely in mear future.

J Mysterio

10000maniacs wrote: »

I suspect that Johnson is ditching the internal market bill not because he wants deal with the EU, but because he wants a deal with the USA.

My feeling is the IM Bill was always a way of trying to find 'leverage' (or something to trade away) for a "better' deal. A threat and a bluff. Boris is the biggest bluffer there ever was.

As others have said, Gove agreeing to WA/ NI protocol (they already agreed to) and dropping those clauses, seems to indicate to me that there will be a deal, even a bare bones deal.

BonnieSituation

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Newsnight finally pointing at the iceberg.

Nice bit of VT there talking about the trouble in the past at the "contentious" border hinting at the obviously benign effect Britain has had on its creation. /s

BBC would give you an ulcer.

AdrianG08

It may be UK policy to give us back the north in the medium term. Off the record of course.

May not be something Bojo and his cronies want around their neck. Make decisions now that make it inevitable in the future.

Your average little Englander thinks its Ireland anyway, would they know any different?

Sounds like the UK played that one well. It took a hit to its reputation but it effectively gave itself an extra chip to play with out if thin air.

BonnieSituation

AdrianG08 wrote: »

It may be UK policy to give us back the north in the medium term. Off the record of course.

May not be something Bojo and his cronies want around their neck. Make decisions now that make it inevitable in the future.

Your average little Englander thinks its Ireland anyway, would they know any different?

It's been UK policy for a long time.

I mean from Churchill and his promises to Dev, to Heath's repartition, to Thatcher, to the AIA, to the Downing St Declaration, to the GFA and to the NI Protocol... it's clearly been policy since Partition!

The only people who don't get that are our own local Partitionists and Unionists.

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like the UK played that one well. It took a hit to its reputation but it effectively gave itself an extra chip to play with out if thin air.

Really?

Every "bluff" and "hand" the UK have tried to play has been dressed up as a win, but has basically brought them back to where they were before.

The rest of us have just been waiting on them.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like the UK played that one well. It took a hit to its reputation but it effectively gave itself an extra chip to play with out if thin air.

I don't agree. They haven't secured anything with their "extra chip" and I don't think they ever could have. It didn't give them any leverage at all.

Basically, it was obvious to all from the outset that if the UK had any interest in making an FTA with the EU it was going to have to withdraw the offending clauses of the IMB. Everybody knew this, and it was widely pointed out. Therefore this was never something they could trade for a useful quid pro quo; it was just a necessary condition to making an FTA on any terms at all. Since they were always going to do this if they wanted an FTA, they don't get any brownie points, in terms of the content of the FTA, for doing it.

If there's an advantage, it may be a domestic advantage. They "stood up" to the EU, and can now present what the Jt Ctte has decided, and/or any FTA that may be agreed, as the outcome of a fearless and stout-hearted defence of UK interests. Hard Brexiters may believe this, or may pretend to, and either would be advantageous to the UK government in terms of selling their deal to the ultras.

Peregrinus

10000maniacs wrote: »

I suspect that Johnson is ditching the internal market bill not because he wants deal with the EU, but because he wants a deal with the USA.

He wants both. The IMB was an obstacle to either. He was always going to ditch it.

Zico

We're the emergency brake.

We trust them the least but need a deal the most.

The EU needs handcuffs on them because we told them how untrustworthy they are.

BonnieSituation

Zico wrote: »

We're the emergency brake.

We trust them the least but need a deal the most.

The EU needs handcuffs on them because we told them how untrustworthy they are.

That's what I find fascinating about how they have always looked on us as friends. Now clearly they mean that in a patronising way, but they genuinely don't understand how we may not trust them as far as we can throw them.
The obliviousness is gobsmacking.

As I said above, the tone of Newsnight earlier was all "Irish problem" rather than "Britain in Ireland problem".

RobMc59

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't agree. They haven't secured anything with their "extra chip" and I don't think they ever could have. It didn't give them any leverage at all.

Basically, it was obvious to all from the outset that if the UK had any interest in making an FTA with the EU it was going to have to withdraw the offending clauses of the IMB. Everybody knew this, and it was widely pointed out. Therefore this was never something they could trade for a useful quid pro quo; it was just a necessary condition to making an FTA on any terms at all. Since they were always going to do this if they wanted an FTA, they don't get any brownie points, in terms of the content of the FTA, for doing it.

If there's an advantage, it may be a domestic advantage. They "stood up" to the EU, and can now present what the Jt Ctte has decided, and/or any FTA that may be agreed, as the outcome of a fearless and stout-hearted defence of UK interests. Hard Brexiters may believe this, or may pretend to, and either would be advantageous to the UK government in terms of selling their deal to the ultras.

Judging by the reaction of the Irish government when it was withdrawn I'd say it wasn't obvious to them.
I still believe there will be a deal as I question the EU wants a totally free UK on its doorstep and the UK definitely wants one alongside a deal with the US.
With three weeks before the transition period ends,we're still awaiting the UK capitulation widely predicted on this thread

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Judging by the reaction of the Irish government when it was withdrawn I'd say it wasn't obvious to them.
I still believe there will be a deal as I question the EU wants a totally free UK on its doorstep and the UK definitely wants one alongside a deal with the US.
With three weeks before the transition period ends,we're still awaiting the UK capitulation widely predicted on this thread

The withdrawal of the offending clauses mean nothing. The whole IMB was there to cause rancour and "put one up the EU". It's achieved nothing and it just means the UK's bluff was called.

The Irish government, like everyone else can only go on the (bullshít) pronouncements of the UK government, but it's been obvious to even us plebs on this thread that it was going this way.

We don't have to be diplomatic about it; the Irish government does, lest it hurts the feelings of the Brits.

That Gove is selling the status quo as a victory after a a meeting with Sefcovic tells you all you need to know. Though, past history tells me you won't heed it.

---

What's a "totally free UK"?

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Really?

No, actually. I posted that after I woke up before getting coffee into me. Barely remember even thinking it.

Pablo Escobar

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What's a "totally free UK"?

A North Korea style deal.

Enzokk

Here is the complete thread by Tony Connelly and to be honest it seems to be pointing in one direction, no deal.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336403948727660545?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336403951852326913?s=20

So basically it seems once EU countries start implementing their no-deal contingencies it will be hard to reverse that course. Isn't this what Ivan Rogers has been warning about? The talk about no-deal, even if neither side wants it, will start planning for it and once you start planning for it is becomes a real option. And once it is a real option you could easily accidentally walk right into what nobody really wanted.

And here is some more detail on the NI Protocol,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336375313270530054?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1336375316260990978?s=20

The EU doesn't get a permanent office, but will be sharing one so it is not an EU office, if I understand that correctly. Seems like a fudge but the EU got what it wanted, presence in NI to check that the protocol is being implemented.

As for the rest, it sure does seem to point to a move towards a united Ireland. If goods start being sourced from NI and Ireland for use in products produced in NI it start the integration process. Slow clap to the DUP and Boris Johnson and the Conservative and Unionist Party for speeding up this process. When people look back this will be the catalyst, and the irony will be remarked upon in interviews and Sammy Wilson will sit there with indignation and deny that his party's support for a hard Brexit was in any way at fault.

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The withdrawal of the offending clauses mean nothing. The whole IMB was there to cause rancour and "put one up the EU". It's achieved nothing and it just means the UK's bluff was called.

The Irish government, like everyone else can only go on the (bullshít) pronouncements of the UK government, but it's been obvious to even us plebs on this thread that it was going this way.

We don't have to be diplomatic about it; the Irish government does, lest it hurts the feelings of the Brits.

That Gove is selling the status quo as a victory after a a meeting with Sefcovic tells you all you need to know. Though, past history tells me you won't heed it.

---

What's a "totally free UK"?

I agree the offending clauses did nothing for UK trustworthiness but disagree it was known it would withdraw them.
A totally free UK is one free from any EU control .

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

I still believe there will be a deal as I question the EU wants a totally free UK WHICH HAS PRIVILEGED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE MARKET, NEED NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES ALL OTHERS MUST FOLLOW, AND IS ALLOWED TO UNFAIRLY UNDERCUT AND STEAL BUSINESS FROM MEMBER STATES on its doorstep and the UK definitely wants one alongside a deal with the US.

Fixed that for you.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Judging by the reaction of the Irish government when it was withdrawn I'd say it wasn't obvious to them.

It was obvious to all that the UK would have to drop the offending clauses if they had any interest in concluding an FTA with the EU. I think what concerned the Irish government was the possiblity that the UK might decide that it didn't have an interest in concluding an FTA. In that event the IMB showed they were willing to flout the WA and, obviously, in a no-deal Brexit they might be willing to flout it other ways. That would be a nightmare scenario for Ireland.

RobMc59 wrote: »

I still believe there will be a deal as I question the EU wants a totally free UK on its doorstep and the UK definitely wants one alongside a deal with the US.

I don't think the EU would accept the notion that countries that have an FTA with the EU are unfree, and those that don't are "totally free". Nor, of course, would the countries that have an FTA with the EU accept this view of the matter. The UK has freedom to conclude an FTA on terms acceptable to the EU, or not to conclude it; either way, it will make the choice which it perceives to maximise its freedom.

I don't the EU is bothered by the UK being, in Brexiter-speak, "totally free". Belarus is "totally free", and it isn't a huge problem. But it would prefer to have a close trading relationship with the UK, because it can make money out of that. And the UK would prefer that too, for the same reason.

But the EU have a constraint here which the UK doesn't. The EU-27 value their trading relationships not just with the UK but with one another. In fact, they value the latter more; without exception, every country in the EU does more trade - much more trade - with other EU countries than it does with the UK. They'll never jeopardise intra-EU trade in order to trade with the UK.

The whole structure of the Single Market is maximal trade freedom supported by common regulatory, labour, environmental, state aid etc standards which prevents member states from competing with one another in a race to the bottom. This is fundamental; from 1951 it was a basic design feature of the European Coal and Steel Community, the predecessor to the EU, and it has been consistently maintained and expanded since. And the EU considers it to have been phenomenally succcessful; they are not about to jeopardise it by allowing the UK to compete in the European Market against EU and EEA member states without similar robust commitments to a level playing field and state aid rules.

This will disappoint the "Singapore-on-Thames" school of Brexitry, which sees Brexit precisely as an opportunity to make the UK more competetive by radical deregulation and state intervention. But it is deeply unattractive to the EU, and therefore it was never consistent with the ambition of securing a privileged trading relationship through an EU FTA. The anger that a lot of pro-Brexit commentators have expressed, the accusations that the EU was acting in bad faith, etc, all stem from a failure or refusal to recognise the inconsistency of their own aims.

RobMc59 wrote: »

With three weeks before the transition period ends,we're still awaiting the UK capitulation widely predicted on this thread

Well, if it was ever going to come, it was always going to be at the last minute. But I'm not one of those who predicts that it will come; just that, if there is to be an FTA, the UK is going to have to move a good deal further from its current position than the EU is.

This is partly a reflection of the disparity in bargaining power on the two sides. It's also a reflection of the fact that the EU position is consistent and coherent whereas the UK position is internally contradictory; it pulls in two separate direction. Finally, it's a reflection of the fact that the UK has much more to gain (relatively speaking) than the EU from a UK/EU FTA, and conversely the opportunity cost of not getting an FTA is also much greater for the UK than it is for the EU. So the UK has a stronger incentive to shift its position in order to secure an FTA than the EU does.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree the offending clauses did nothing for UK trustworthiness but disagree it was known it would withdraw them.
A totally free UK is one free from any EU control .

It did nothing for trustworthiness. Which has been pretty much the game since June 2016.

As regards them being withdrawn:- well, it literally had to or else it was gonna be definitely a "no deal", which then begged the question why they would continue to negotiate if you already have gotten what you set out for?

The UK isn't and has never been under "EU control". How come you don't get that yet?

VinLieger

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree the offending clauses did nothing for UK trustworthiness but disagree it was known it would withdraw them.
A totally free UK is one free from any EU control .

What control did the EU have over the UK? They wanted to leave and have been out since January. Sounds like they were pretty free to do what you wanted.

murphaph

Can you imagine the indignation on Sammy Wilson's face when a German Zollbeamte asks him if he has anything to declare?

Nobody can say we didn't try to warn the Brits about all of this. 'Kenny' tried his best but they wouldn't listen.

It is surely the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom if this stuff comes to pass. NI will have no choice but to integrate more with the EU and drift slowly but steadily away from GB. This will chip away at Scotland's already fragile position within the UK.

And this is assuming Brexit doesn't tank the UK economy. If it does that you can press fast forward on the whole process.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

Can you imagine the indignation on Sammy Wilson's face when a German Zollbeamte asks him if he has anything to declare?

UK customs agents and other UK public servants will be implementing the UK's obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement, includign all the processes at the UK's internal border.

BonnieSituation

murphaph wrote: »

Can you imagine the indignation on Sammy Wilson's face when a German Zollbeamte asks him if he has anything to declare?

Nobody can say we didn't try to warn the Brits about all of this. 'Kenny' tried his best but they wouldn't listen.

It is surely the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom if this stuff comes to pass. NI will have no choice but to integrate more with the EU and drift slowly but steadily away from GB. This will chip away at Scotland's already fragile position within the UK.

And this is assuming Brexit doesn't tank the UK economy. If it does that you can press fast forward on the whole process.

Well, given the reaction to the likes of the sales of NIE or how BGE's foothold and Firmus came to be, I would wager that once Sammy is being questioned by a Hans rather than a Seán, he might forget about it.

---

Will we miss them?

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

UK customs agents and other UK public servants will be implementing the UK's obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement, includign all the processes at the UK's internal border.

That's almost worse for the likes of Wilson!

Seth Brundle

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's what I find fascinating about how they have always looked on us as friends. Now clearly they mean that in a patronising way, but they genuinely don't understand how we may not trust them as far as we can throw them.
The obliviousness is gobsmacking.

As I said above, the tone of Newsnight earlier was all "Irish problem" rather than "Britain in Ireland problem".

You're forgetting that Britain has no friends, only interests!

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
Lord Palmerston 1784–1865
British statesman & Prime Minister, 1855–8, 1859–65

breezy1985

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sounds like the UK played that one well. It took a hit to its reputation but it effectively gave itself an extra chip to play with out if thin air.

How do you reckon that?
All I can see is Johnson doing a U turn