Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dont think the UK believe that all parties can ignore agreements. Just themselves. Its like British exceptionalism. They correctly see that the EU will comply with what they have agreed, while not wanting to do the same themselves.



Well if theres no deal it will be WTO terms which means tarrifs at the EUs standard schedule*.

An interesting question is whether the EU can or will impose trade sanctions for breech of the WA. I think they can, but its not entirely clear, but I dont think they will. It would be a bad look for Europe if things deteriorated to such an extent that there was a trade war between the EU and the UK. No one benefits from that.




*unless Brexiteers completely decimate the economy and move to Africa, in which case they will get Everything But Arms free access to the EU.

But the EU won't benefit if the UK are allowed do whatever they want.

The UK are preying on the fact that the whole raison d'être of the EU is to ensure peace and stability in Europe.

They're an absolute shower, and like most I've gone from annoyance to downright fury this week. I absolutely want them over a barrel at this stage.

Piehead

Jonathan Jones, head of the Government Legal Department, is quitting after a major spat over suggestions Boris Johnson will challenge the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

May not be a bluff by Johnson....

johnnyskeleton

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But the EU won't benefit if the UK are allowed do whatever they want.

The UK are preying on the fact that the whole raison d'être of the EU is to ensure peace and stability in Europe.

They're an absolute shower, and like most I've gone from annoyance to downright fury this week. I absolutely want them over a barrel at this stage.

Well they wont be allowed to do whatever they want on WTO terms. And yes, the mandate to ensure peace and stability in Europe does require the EU to take the high road, which in turn may make them seem weak diplomatically.

But thats just how the EU does business, and the hope would be that after all the Brexit anger has been purged and the UK has traded with the EU on WTO terms for a few years, eventually a normal sensible government will return to the UK and at that stage a deal will be done.

I understand the sentiment that if the EU is badly treated by another party that it should respond in kind. But thats not in the EU playbook, and sanctions etc are very much a last resort (and typically done in conjunction with the US for geopoliticial rather than trade reasons).

Seth Brundle

Always follow the money to find the truth! The EU's new rules on taxation will be reflected wihtin Curaçao's tax laws. This doesn't suit those who have large amounts stashed away (incidentally banford has given the Tories something like four million pounds)...
https://twitter.com/nickreeves9876/status/1303268428044816385

Seth Brundle

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

The US will refuse to sign a trade deal if Boris Johnson reneges on protections for Northern Ireland in the Brexit agreement, a senior Congressman is warning.

The consequences for unpicking the deal – risking the return of a hard border in Ireland, Brendan Boyle said – would be the breakdown of talks with Washington, as well as Brussels.

The Democrat, who sits on a key Congressional committee, described the revelation that the prime minister plans to override the agreement he signed last year as “genuinely shocking”.

“If the UK does it in such a way that it violates the Good Friday Agreement, there will be no US-UK free trade agreement,” Mr Boyle said.

“So, the UK needs to understand there will be consequences that stretch well beyond trust dealings with the EU on this matter.”

Peregrinus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

An interesting question is whether the EU can or will impose trade sanctions for breech of the WA.

No. Or, at least, not immediately.

I think the way it would play out is this:

1. UK is not proposing to pass a law repudiating the WA; just a law that says that the UK government can do X when, in the view of most commentators, X would be a breach of the WA. Reportedly, the UK government will take the view that X is not a breach of the WA, and their law saying that they can do X is just clarifying an ambiguity in the WA.

2, There's no actual breach of the WA unless and until the government actually does X - and, even then, only if "the view of most commentators" turns out to be correct.

3. The UK government's position will undoubtedly be "we have not repudiated the WA, we are still bound by it, and in doing X we are not in breach of it".

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

5. The UK will participate in the process because, remember, it still acccepts that it is bound by the WA. And, if the decision goes against them, under the WA they have to stop doing X, which is a breach, and take steps (as directed by the Jt Committee) to remedy harm resulting from the breach.

6. At that point, the UK either has to eat humble pie and do as it's told, or openly repudiate the agreement. Repudiation would be a huge, huge deal, with considerable implications for the reputation of the UK as a trustworthy international actor.

7. If they did repudiate, that would be a clear breach of their obligations to the EU, for which the EU would be entitled to seeka remedy. Obviously in that situation the dispute resolution processes of the WA would cease to function, because the UK would not participate in them, so the EU would have to explore other avenues. These are likely to take the form of trade barriers of one kind or another. But this could be tricky, since the EU would want to avoid trade barriers that might harden the border in Ireland. So a bit of thought would have to go into how best to respond to the UK.

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

VinLieger

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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

This isnt news though to anyone whos been paying attention and understands how much soft power Ireland wields in the US. Its been stated time and time again by House members on both sides of the aisle that wrecking the good friday agreement will mean no trade deal and with the democrats unlikely to lose the house for at least another 2 years and more likely another 4 even the beginnings of a trade deal arent gonna happen anytime soon

fash

Piehead wrote: »

Jonathan Jones, head of the Government Legal Department, is quitting after a major spat over suggestions Boris Johnson will challenge the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

May not be a bluff by Johnson....

Definitely not - but there goes Johnson's cover of "just making a careful interpretation"....

Joe_ Public

Just listened to labour mp Chris Bryant discussing latest events with a barely coherent erg stalwart Andrea Jenkyns on sky. Among other things, Bryant suggested that as WA was passed within the timeframe of this parliamentary session, convention dictates it cannot be revisited until the next one, thus meaning the bill should be ruled out of order tomorrow i guess. Not sure is there anything in that, first I've heard it being even mooted.

View

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But the EU won't benefit if the UK are allowed do whatever they want.

The UK are preying on the fact that the whole raison d'être of the EU is to ensure peace and stability in Europe.

They're an absolute shower, and like most I've gone from annoyance to downright fury this week. I absolutely want them over a barrel at this stage.

They are trying to provoke fury, therefore ignore them.

The reality is that “the easiest deal in history” and “banging the table in Brussels” has completely run into the sand and Brexiters are just lashing out in impudent fury.

This is the high tide mark of “pure Brexit”. Anything and everything after this will slowly but surely pull the U.K. back toward an EFTA/EEA style situation, since the economic and geopolitical factors that caused the U.K. to join in the first place haven’t changed in the intervening decades.

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Or, at least, not immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Ciarraioch

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

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

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

briany

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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

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

Joe_ Public

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

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

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

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

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

listermint

briany wrote: »

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

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

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

briany

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Seth Brundle

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

johnnyskeleton

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Or, at least, not immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

johnnyskeleton

listermint wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

ancapailldorcha

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

Hurrache

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

RobertKK

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

Professor Moriarty

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

Hurrache

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

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

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

RobertKK

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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

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

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

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

Nody

briany wrote: »

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

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

Hurrache

briany wrote: »

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

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

listermint

briany wrote: »

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

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

briany

listermint wrote: »

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

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