Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas

fash wrote: »

"Unilaterally resetting" is very possible - the absurd part was the "unilaterally resetting it in a manner completely in our favour".

For sure, you can "reset" the relationship any way you like. But the likely outcome of such a resetting would be a considerably inferior and weakened relationship to what went before.

It's a bit of a surprise that such obvious crackpot / crank ideas could find favour with 52% of the electorate.

fash

I'm going to have to say I'm finding it difficult to get too worked up about the UK latest threat - but I was just thinking: didn't the Irish state/government (and bringing it to EU and EU agreeing etc) have a lot of foresight to make sure the issue was dealt with in WA as an initial issue. Imagine being in the current situation without the matter nailed down in the WA.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

I'm going to have to say I'm finding it difficult to get too worked up about the UK latest threat - but I was just thinking: didn't the Irish state/government (and bringing it to EU and EU agreeing etc) have a lot of foresight to make sure the issue was dealt with in WA as an initial issue. Imagine being in the current situation without the matter nailed down in the WA.

But, per the reports, what is happening now is that the UK is signalling that it is prepared to violate the WA. In which case having something nailed down in the WA provides limited comfort.

(I agree, more comfort than it if weren't nailed down in the WA. But, still, limited comfort.)

Peregrinus

Rain Ascending wrote: »

I understand and share fully the annoyance at this kind of reckless game-playing. But now is the time for very cool heads in the EU negotiation team. Measured, calm reactions is the order of the day.

Why? Because even in terms of short-term tactical gains, Johnson has overplayed his (already weak) hand.

Up to now, the blame game following the increasingly likely no-trade deal scenario on Jan 1 2021 was going to be evenly fought out. The details over state-aid rules were going to bore 95% of electorates in the UK, the EU and beyond. Fish is a straight up and down nationalist issue "of course, we control our own waters/have ancient fishing rights <delete as appropriate>" and is otherwise highly technical.

This proposal to tear up the WA is a different animal. "Tearing up international law", "endangering the GFA", "undermining the Union." The first two of these will resonate well beyond the UK and will be easily understood, for example, in the House of Representatives in the US. For example, it gives Biden an excuse to talk about his Irish heritage. When things get messy after a no-trade-deal in January, the EU has the perfect set of easily *understandable* reasons for not agreeing a deal and indeed for not being "accommodating" as difficulties arise.

If I were Barnier, I would turn up, on time, for the next round of negotiations in London. If asked about the reports in British media or even drafts of legislation being considered, I'd simply say "I hope the British parliament continues to respect international law, agreements made and the Good Friday Agreement. After all, who would be so foolish to tear these up? In the meantime, we continue our negotiations, fully in the expectation that the UK will honour the commitments it willingly signed up to..." And then let the furor continue to build inside UK politics...

I agree.

Look carefully at what is happening here. We have . . .

(1) a newspaper report ...

(2) that the UK government will introduce a Bill in Parliament ...

(3) which, if it is enacted, will provide that...

(4)if the UK government establishes a state aid regime that is inconsistent with the commitments it has made in the WA . . .

(5) the UK courts must enforce the UK state aid regime, despite the violation of the WA.

We are quite a number of steps away from an actual violation of the WA. That will not happen, if at all, for many months. And the EU doesn’t have to react to it, or even decide how to react to it, for many months. And why take this decision before you have to?

This would be a bizarre and self-destructive move by the UK government but, hey, this is a bizarre and self-destructive government, so no great surprise there. But, in their own heads, what do they think is going on here? Could be a couple of things.

For a start, they may see this as a way of signalling that they are really, really serious about embracing no-deal.

For some, this could be because they are crazy enough to think that no deal would be a good thing. They would be hoping that the EU will react intemperately (e.g. by flouncing out of the talks) and thus this could help to bring about the good thing they seek.

For others, it could be because they think it is to the UK’s advantage if the EU thinks that the UK government is crazy enough to think that no deal would be a good thing. They will be hoping that the EU reaction will be to say “Gosh! This people really are stupid enough to embrace a no-deal outcome! That would not be good for us! We had better cave!” They, or some of them, may recognise that there’s a risk that the EU will react intemperately and flounce of out of the talks but they reckon that, well, at least in that scenario they will be better able to blame the EU for the no-deal outcome, since it is the EU that will have terminated the talks.

(I think Boris Johnson is in this group. Tony Connelly is reporting that Johnson is going to issue a statement saying that a deal must be made by 15 October (to allow time for ratification) thereby signally that he still wants a deal. So he hopes that by wanting a deal he will encourage the EU to keep talking, but by threatening to play hardball with NI if there is no deal he will encourage them to cave in those talks.)

Morality and legality aside, the tactic is badly misjudged. The EU cannot allow the impression to prevail that states can make treaties with the EU and then, within months, express a willingness or intention of violating the treaties they have just made, and there will be no blowback. For obvious reasons, the EU cannot let it be thought that threats like this are a good way to get what you wwant from the EU. If the EU were not firmly set against caving before, they certainly will be now.

Nevertheless, the EU should not flounce out of the talks. They should keep talking, they should hold the line, and they should point out that the UK’s threat to violate the WA in order to adopt whatever state aid regime they might want in the future simply underlines that the EU has been wise to insist that the UK’s state aid regime needs to be agreed as part of the WA, and that if Johnson is serious about wanting an FTA agreed by 15 October he needs to table his proposed state aid regime pretty well immediately.

Finally, worth pointing out that this tactic is likely to be internally destabilising for the Johnson government. There will be a significant segment of opinion in Westminster and in Whitehall that is appalled. The UK is squandering its reputation as a reliable, or even a law-abiding, international actor. Who will want to make treaties with the UK if the UK is, within months, quite open about its readiness to violate the obligations it has just accepted? Johnson is likely doing this to keep the hard Brexit faction of the Tory party onside; the fact that he is doing long-term injury to his country and its standing in the international community apparently does not bother either him or them. But it will bother many others, including many who supported Brexit for reasons of patriotism.

fash

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, per the reports, what is happening now is that the UK is signalling that it is prepared to violate the WA. In which case having something nailed down in the WA provides limited comfort.

(I agree, more comfort than it if weren't nailed down in the WA. But, still, limited comfort.)

true enough- but really the UK was always going to play that card (hasn't that been Ireland's history since forever) - but at least what they were required to do was written down in black and white, and as it stands unless/until there is massive infringement (which will take time), it isn't that damaging to Ireland/the EU (perhaps a signal of further breaches to come from the UK of course).

As said however, signalling that you will ignore existing black and white legal provisions is not very helpful if your aim is to achieve additional grey/flexible legal provisions. Plus if the EU were to signal that it would concede on threats in black and white situations where it was in the right, what would that say about future situations which might be grey. So overall the UK's signalling here is quite interesting.

DangerScouse

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

If they announced No Deal then they have to own the consequences in January. They're already slipping in the polls over their Covid-19 handling.

As others have said, it'd be more politically prudent for them to have the EU break off talks. They could then offer that as a fig-leaf to their own supportive press that they have been wronged. Not that they'll need to an excuse to blame the EU regardless.

They have a massive mandate and any election is literally years away.

Personally i think best case scenario now is they leave without a deal and things get so bad for them (and us unfortunately) they have a referendum to rejoin in 5 years time which is passed by a majority of voters in the UK.

fash

fash wrote: »

... So overall the UK's signalling here is quite interesting.

What I find interesting in particular about the threat is that to a (significant?) extent, Northern Ireland and its borders are not a French, Austrian, Greek or Finnish problem. Sure they might tut and say that's a shame - and even be willing to show solidarity (as happened in the WA) - but now the UK is saying to the other member states "we have Ireland/NI as a hostage (and if we shoot them we hurt ourselves as well) - in order for us not to shoot this hostage, all of you must surrender and become our hostages as well".
The best approach for other member states would be to say "fundamentally and deep down, we don't really care what you do with Northern Ireland - and whether you have a civil war and deployed military within your borders - it means almost nothing to us" - it mostly takes NI off the table as an issue.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree.

Look carefully at what is happening here. We have . . .

(1) a newspaper report ...

(2) that the UK government will introduce a Bill in Parliament ...

(3) which, if it is enacted, will provide that...

(4)if the UK government establishes a state aid regime that is inconsistent with the commitments it has made in the WA . . .

(5) the UK courts must enforce the UK state aid regime, despite the violation of the WA.

We are quite a number of steps away from an actual violation of the WA. That will not happen, if at all, for many months. And the EU doesn’t have to react to it, or even decide how to react to it, for many months. And why take this decision before you have to?

Agree, but we have seen a few articles last week that makes me question the sanity of those in charge at the moment. I think we all know Johnson is flexible, but Cummings and Frost seem anything but and Johnson seem to have given so much power to them I wonder if he would be able to tell them off this time.

In other news it seems like the UK has been asking our help to get them out of their obligations that they signed up for in the "oven ready deal".

UK seeks Irish intervention on NI Protocol in exchange for help with land bridge

RTÉ News has learned that Britain has been asking Ireland to intercede with the European Commission to be more flexible on the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol, despite reports that the UK is intending to override key aspects of the protocol.

In return for help, the UK has offered to help Ireland with the issue of the UK land bridge.

The offer has been made via official contacts in recent months. However, Irish sources say they have treated the offer with caution.

Basically they have asked us to use our influence in the EU to have the EU agree that they have the checks take place at ports in the UK and not in NI. In return they will help our drivers with the land bridge and ensure our exports do not get delayed at their ports.

Couple of points, we will not do negotiations like this as it wasn't done like it during the article 50 negotiations. Also, we aren't even sure if the offer of help with the land bridge will even work. So they want us to expend a lot of political capital in return for something that may not even work.

Just pointing out as well that this seems to be a admission that there will be delays to trucks going through ports. This seems to be with a negotiated FTA as well and not just no-deal.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

. . . Just pointing out as well that this seems to be a admission that there will be delays to trucks going through ports. This seems to be with a negotiated FTA as well and not just no-deal.

Yes, given the very thin trade deal that the UK is seeking there will be delays at UK ports with or without that trade deal. And these will adversely impact the landbridge.

And I think the Irish government is right to regard with great suspicion any offer of the UK government to try to alleviate these delays for Irish traffic. How, exactly, do they propose to do this and how, exactly, will, e.g., priority processing and express lanes for Irish traffic be politically acceptable in the UK when GB traffic is suffering delays and fresh produce is rotting in Kent lorry parks? I'd want evidence that the UK government had obtained buy-in from all the relevant stakeholders (e.g. GB hauliers) before I'd put much meas on that offer.

VinLieger

DangerScouse wrote: »

They have a massive mandate and any election is literally years away.

Personally i think best case scenario now is they leave without a deal and things get so bad for them (and us unfortunately) they have a referendum to rejoin in 5 years time which is passed by a majority of voters in the UK.

Theres no guarantee they will meet the membership requirements after 5 more years of a Tory government or that the EU would even accept them especially if they renege on the WA. If they are let back in whos to say next time Tories are in power they wont default back to blaming the EU and foreigners for everything and start this whole mess over so we end up in a never ending cycle of brexit, rejoin, brexit, rejoin.....

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, given the very thin trade deal that the UK is seeking there will be delays at UK ports with or without that trade deal. And these will adversely impact the landbridge.

And I think the Irish government is right to regard with great suspicion any offer of the UK government to try to alleviate these delays for Irish traffic. How, exactly, do they propose to do this and how, exactly, will, e.g., priority processing and express lanes for Irish traffic be politically acceptable in the UK when GB traffic is suffering delays and fresh produce is rotting in Kent lorry parks? I'd want evidence that the UK government had obtained buy-in from all the relevant stakeholders (e.g. GB hauliers) before I'd put much meas on that offer.

And yet again, it appears, the UK have put forward a offer without any details, any timeframes, any idea of how it would work.

Throughout this entire process they have expected everyone else to work it all out for them.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

Throughout this entire process they have expected everyone else to work it all out for them.

So a just a continuing repeat of Boris Johnsons entire academic and professional career?

Mav11

I suppose that there is a very fundamental question to be asked here. Why would anybody want to enter into an agreement with a party known for reneging on previous agreements? Trust is a huge factor in such negotiations.

Leroy42

Thinking of it more now, I don't think this changes one thing about how Barnier will be approaching the talks this week. Actually, I think the best approach is to say absolutely nothing on the subject.

Simply continue on as before. Continue to ask for details of the LPF, what the proposals for fishing are and how far along they are in carrying out the requirements of the WA?

When Frost says they won't be doing the NI protocol, simply refer back to the agreement, and ask Frost to send a detailed plan of how they will be implementing it. Then go on tik-tok or boards.ie for the rest of the day!

murphaph

VinLieger wrote: »

Theres no guarantee they will meet the membership requirements after 5 more years of a Tory government or that the EU would even accept them especially if they renege on the WA. If they are let back in whos to say next time Tories are in power they wont default back to blaming the EU and foreigners for everything and start this whole mess over so we end up in a never ending cycle of brexit, rejoin, brexit, rejoin.....

They'd need to join the full fat EU for a start. Euro + Schengen, no rebate. They'd need to show very, very good faith to be allowed back in and I'd say the commission would want to see very high levels of public support in England especially, before moving the process forward. It's a slow process, taking years. There would be ample opportunity to slow/pause the process should there be any indications that the English were anything less than very enthusiastic about joining.

Can't see any such steps for at least 20 years. Too much pride on the one side and healthy scepticism on the other.

Igotadose

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, you can "reset" the relationship any way you like. But the likely outcome of such a resetting would be a considerably inferior and weakened relationship to what went before.

It's a bit of a surprise that such obvious crackpot / crank ideas could find favour with 52% of the electorate.

It's not what they voted for. in fact, no one knew what they were voting for, something sounded good. 350million a week for the NHS. Taking back control. yadda, yadda.

If it weren't for Corbyn, there'd have been a new referendum and this sh1tshow ended.

Hermy

I wonder could someone give me a brief synopsis of what state aid is all about in relation to Brexit?

I'm mostly keeping up to speed on things but not fulling grasping the implications of this one.

Hermy

Maybe that's why I didn't get it - I thought there was more to it but it's quite straightforward really.

Thanks horse.

Peregrinus

Hermy wrote: »

I wonder could someone give me a brief synopsis of what state aid is all about in relation to Brexit?

I'm mostly keeping up to speed on things but not fulling grasping the implications of this one.

One of the risks of allowing other countries goods into your market without restriction is that your own producers will be undercut by cheaper imports. And this is seen as unfair if the reason why the imported goods are cheaper is that they are subsidised - that you get no subsidy from your government, but you have to compete with producers who are getting subsidies from their governments.

In the worst case country A could effectively destroy country B's widget industry by subsidising widget production in country A so that widget producers in country B either fold up or sell out, and then once country A has an effective monopoly of widget production, withdraw the subsidy.

So, the flip side of uncontrolled access for goods between member states is common rules and standards among members states about the ways in which, and the extent to which, national governments can subsidise or support businesses in their own territory ("state aids"). It's basically for the same reason that we have common product standards, labour standards, environmental standards, etc - to prevent a mutually destructive race to the bottom by cutting standards.

Note that the EU rule is not "no state aids"; it's "common rules and a common regulatory system for state aids".

Silent Running

Hermy wrote: »

Maybe that's why I didn't get it - I thought there was more to it but it's quite straightforward really.

Thanks horse.

State aid can be used as a weapon in a trade war. Even if a company is content to play on an even field with it's competitors, the government might have an agenda to harm the other countries producing the same thing.

I think this is likely to happen, as the British government seem to want to keep this weapon in it's arsenal at all cost.

The best thing the rest of the world can do is to be very, very suspicious of anything coming out of the Tory government.

Shelga

What will CEOs of various UK automotive manufacturing companies be thinking right now? They still have no clarity on how they will be trading with the rest of the world in 116 days, but have to assume the worst case scenario.

Will they be having contingency meetings about how to plan for a 10% tariff in January? Absolutely crazy times. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at some of these meetings that are surely happening.

ancapailldorcha

Shelga wrote: »

What will CEOs of various UK automotive manufacturing companies be thinking right now? They still have no clarity on how they will be trading with the rest of the world in 116 days, but have to assume the worst case scenario.

Will they be having contingency meetings about how to plan for a 10% tariff in January? Absolutely crazy times. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at some of these meetings that are surely happening.

Tariffs are nowhere near the biggest problem. That would be the disruption of their just-in-time supply chains and non-tariff barriers like divergent regulation.

They could weather a 10% tariff while they decide what to do but queues of lorries in Kent will wreak havoc on any non-service industry here.

Shelga

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Tariffs are nowhere near the biggest problem. That would be the disruption of their just-in-time supply chains and non-tariff barriers like divergent regulation.

They could weather a 10% tariff while they decide what to do but queues of lorries in Kent will wreak havoc on any non-service industry here.

Ok, so I wonder how they're planning for the delays then- delays of how long exactly, they have no idea. Will factories just sit empty, waiting for parts? All production lines will be very stop/start?

When I worked at Jaguar Land Rover, they told us every time the line stopped, it cost tens of thousands of pounds per minute. That's going to cut into profits very very quickly, in what is already a very tough time for them.

And a majority of line workers voted for this. But they knew exactly what they voted for, so it's all grand.

Thank god I do not live in England anymore, nor work in car manufacturing.

mick087

The UK have gone they are out the EU
They think they are going to live in a land of of hope and glory for evermore.
Let them.

The EU still want some say over there laws.
If the EU don't look at themselves and see what they are doing wrong then they have learned nothing from how brexit came about.

A deal will be done with seconds to spare this is how the EU do things.

God help us in Ireland if we ever seek to leave.

ancapailldorcha

Shelga wrote: »

Ok, so I wonder how they're planning for the delays then- delays of how long exactly, they have no idea. Will factories just sit empty, waiting for parts? All production lines will be very stop/start?

When I worked at Jaguar Land Rover, they told us every time the line stopped, it cost tens of thousands of pounds per minute. That's going to cut into profits very very quickly, in what is already a very tough time for them.

Well, they've been warning about viability for a while so I'd say contingencies for closures and the establishment of manufacturing infrastructure in the EU must be well underway. They can lobby the government but given that the Home Secretary has boasted about triggering the left, that won't achieve anything.

You worked there? Didn't expect to read that!

Shelga wrote: »

And a majority of line workers voted for this. But they knew exactly what they voted for, so it's all grand.

Thank god I do not live in England anymore, nor work in car manufacturing.

Yes. At this stage, we've had two elections on top of the referendum vote. England wants this so now it has to happen. I'm braced to move back if I have to as my area doesn't really exist outside southern England and places like Heidelberg in Germany.

It's like a boxset that's taking too long to complete. I just want to see how it ends now.

ArmaniJeanss

mick087 wrote: »

A deal will be done with seconds to spare this is how the EU do things.

This trope is not really true.

Whilst many deals have been done at the last minute, they are outnumbered by the amount of times that the EU didn't do a deal, which meant both sides went into the fall-back/status quo position and came back 12 months or 24 months later to resume negotiations.
Rinsed and repeated and eventually did the deal (at the last minute) a couple of iterations later.

The EU can and do play a pretty unruffled medium/long term game at negotiations.

fash

mick087 wrote: »

The EU still want some say over there laws.

The 27 EU member states (plus others all bound by the same rules) merely want to ensure that the UK (alone) does not get access to the single market while the UK (alone) is not bound by the rules.
Seriously it would be like playing a game of monopoly where one player can steal anything from the bank they felt like without the other players being allowed to complain. And you want to accept that?

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Tariffs are nowhere near the biggest problem. That would be the disruption of their just-in-time supply chains and non-tariff barriers like divergent regulation.

They could weather a 10% tariff while they decide what to do but queues of lorries in Kent will wreak havoc on any non-service industry here.

I and think the UK can now see this. That even a FTA agreement will not avoid some of the biggest issues that they are going to face.

So rather than admit that the entire thing was crazy, create a 'showdown' that gives the EU no option but to walk away and then blame them for everything.

The queues etc are only because the EU wouldn'y give us the trade deal, not because no trade deal was actually going to fix the issues completely

mick087

mick087 wrote: »

The EU still want some say over there laws.
If the EU don't look at themselves and see what they are doing wrong then they have learned nothing from how brexit came about.

Bizarre way to put it. It sounds like the EU has an outlandish desire to control a country outside the bloc.

Would it not be more accurate and less tabloidy to say that the UK wants a very close relationship to the EU and the EU has conditions, so as to protect itself? And the UK can use its sovereignty to say yes or no, the same way every trade deal will have some say over their laws.

The UK can walk away at any time from this desire and the EU won't be asking them to do anything with their laws. The entire thing comes about because of the UK's intents and wishes.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

I and think the UK can now see this. That even a FTA agreement will not avoid some of the biggest issues that they are going to face.

So rather than admit that the entire thing was crazy, create a 'showdown' that gives the EU no option but to walk away and then blame them for everything.

The queues etc are only because the EU wouldn'y give us the trade deal, not because no trade deal was actually going to fix the issues completely

Which is why the EU should not walk away.

The EU needs to be patient, and give the UK every opportunity to display a willingness to make a deal, up to and even after 31 December. But the EU is good at being patient.