Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Sam Russell

Of course there is going to be the small problem that 60% of goods going (currently) from GB to NI pass through Dublin Port.

Are they going to reroute all goods bound for NI to go through Belfast and Larne? Could those ports cope with the volume?

Will Dublin allow goods bound for NI free passage without the proper customs paperwork? I didn't think so.

Was this what was behind the bridge from Scotland to NI?

I think the rotating thingy is about to get its first bit of brown stuff. The first of much of it.

54and56

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

It is quite obvious that UK wants zero relationships with EU, ignoring all its past treaties that are parallel and/or predate the EU (thinking of GFA and fishing agreements as example)

The brexiteers have shifted the goals yet again and want the hardest possible Brexit, where Brexit now is standing for complete severance of all ties with Europe, completely ignoring how unrealistic that is and on other hand insisting that they want ties with europe (minus any responsibilities that come with such ties)

I think someone was spot on a few years ago with the "wanting the cake" analogy

I think we all get that BoJo and the Brexit brigade really don't care what way the EU takes their proposed unilateral breaching of the WA and that for a lot of them any act which pokes a finger in the eye of the EU is to be celebrated as more examples of the British plucky D-Day spirit etc but there is a very large cohort within the British establishment who are rightly proud of their democratic and legislative history, mother of all parliaments etc. These people must be recoiling at the idea that in the pursuit of an extreme Brexit agenda, which in terms of history will be a relatively short lived if important episode, BoJo and Co are not only permanently (or certainly for many decades) destroying Britain's reputation within EU countries as a reliable country to do business with but they are destroying their Global reputation simultaneously. Is that a price the (thus far) silent establishment are prepared to allow BoJo to pay?

Why should China who signed a treaty with the UK not follow the UK's precedent and unilaterally make changes to the Hong Kong treaty based on China's sovereignty and right to "clarify" any terms it wishes in a manner favourable to it's agenda?

How can the EU consider sharing security and GDPR type data with the UK under a (yet to be agreed) data sharing agreement in the knowledge that the UK has form for just ignoring the terms of international agreements it enters into by unilaterally "clarifying" them at a later date to suit it's agenda?

The next few weeks might be great fun for Brexiteers as they stick two fingers up to the EU but cost to the UK will be measured in decades.

VinLieger

Sam Russell wrote: »

Was this what was behind the bridge from Scotland to NI?

LOL are they really gonna go back to the impossible bridge to nowhere?

DangerScouse

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

It is quite obvious that UK wants zero relationships with EU, ignoring all its past treaties that are parallel and/or predate the EU (thinking of GFA and fishing agreements as example)

The brexiteers have shifted the goals yet again and want the hardest possible Brexit, where Brexit now is standing for complete severance of all ties with Europe, completely ignoring how unrealistic that is and on other hand insisting that they want ties with europe (minus any responsibilities that come with such ties)

I think someone was spot on a few years ago with the "wanting the cake" analogy

Think this has been obvious for a while now. Boris has a massive majority and looks like he will use it to ram through whatever he likes. Going to be an utter disaster for this island.

tanko

Silent Running wrote: »

I find it a bit disturbing to see posts point out that they - the British people - voted for this and that they deserve all they get. They didn't all vote for this, yet they will all suffer the consequences.

Our own Dark Horse didn't vote for this, I'm sure, but his life will probably be changed for the worse because of it. My daughter and son-in-law north of London didn't vote for this and are worried what the future will bring.

As an aside, the father of my son-in-law is a typical Brexiter. According to him it's no problem if the UK breaks up over this, England doesn't need them. In fact England is sick of them riding their coat tails, and NI is costing him a fortune. He has no problem with going to WTO rules as he bleats "at least they're fair, not like the EU" This from a well educated man. :rolleyes:

The brexit referendum result was one thing but they had an opportunity to do something about it in the general election but returned the tories with an eighty seat majority.
It’s hard to have much sympathy for them at this stage.

Professor Moriarty

54and56 wrote: »

I think we all get that BoJo and the Brexit brigade really don't care what way the EU takes their proposed unilateral breaching of the WA and that for a lot of them any act which pokes a finger in the eye of the EU is to be celebrated as more examples of the British plucky D-Day spirit etc but there is a very large cohort within the British establishment who are rightly proud of their democratic and legislative history, mother of all parliaments etc. These people must be recoiling at the idea that in the pursuit of an extreme Brexit agenda, which in terms of history will be a relatively short lived if important episode, BoJo and Co are not only permanently (or certainly for many decades) destroying Britain's reputation within EU countries as a reliable country to do business with but they are destroying their Global reputation simultaneously. Is that a price the (thus far) silent establishment are prepared to allow BoJo to pay?

Why should China who signed a treaty with the UK not follow the UK's precedent and unilaterally make changes to the Hong Kong treaty based on China's sovereignty and right to "clarify" any terms it wishes in a manner favourable to it's agenda?

How can the EU consider sharing security and GDPR type data with the UK under a (yet to be agreed) data sharing agreement in the knowledge that the UK has form for just ignoring the terms of international agreements it enters into by unilaterally "clarifying" them at a later date to suit it's agenda?

The next few weeks might be great fun for Brexiteers as they stick two fingers up to the EU but cost to the UK will be measured in decades.

That's a very good point and illustrates the stupidity and craven nature of this Tory government.

ExMachina1000

Surely as a completely sovereign country or state the uk are entitled to do as they please in regards to labour laws, state aid, its fishing waters and anything and everything else.

The EU dont have any right to dictate to the uk.

The other side of that coin is that the UK are not entitled to any special trading agreement.

No deal is inevitable

Sam Russell

tanko wrote: »

The brexit referendum result was one thing but they had an opportunity to do something about it in the general election but returned the tories with an eighty seat majority.
It’s hard to have much sympathy for them at this stage.

But that was on a 43.6% of the popular vote. It is a quirk of the FPTP system that such a minority of the popular vote should return a thumping majority of 80.

The Brexiteers crowed that 48% of the popular vote in the referendum had no standing and that the majority have spoken and the result must be respected blah blah blah. None of them are the slightest bit discommoded by such a minority of 43.6% should control the rest.

Sam Russell

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Surely as a completely sovereign country or state the uk are entitled to do as they please in regards to labour laws, state aid, its fishing waters and anything and everything else.

The EU dont have any right to dictate to the uk.

The other side of that coin is that the UK are not entitled to any special trading agreement.

No deal is inevitable

That is nonsense.

The UK agreed to the WA, so they must agree with the terms that they passed through their parliament this year. Now they are going to pass laws that contravene the terms of the WA. Sovereignty is already used in signing the WA. End of.

Professor Moriarty

A GB poll from two days ago:

Do you think it would be a good or bad outcome for the UK to end the transition period out of the European Union without a trade deal?

Don't knows removed:

A very good outcome 12%
A fairly good outcome 20%
A fairly bad outcome 26%
A very bad outcome 42%

ExMachina1000

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is nonsense.

The UK agreed to the WA, so they must agree with the terms that they passed through their parliament this year. Now they are going to pass laws that contravene the terms of the WA. Sovereignty is already used in signing the WA. End of.

The withdrawal agreement relates to citizens rights, northern Ireland and dispute resolution.
That is all.

The items I mentioned aren't part of the withdraw agreement.

I'm not talking about the withdrawal agreement or the backhanded road they have decided to take

54and56

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Surely as a completely sovereign country or state the uk are entitled to do as they please in regards to labour laws, state aid, its fishing waters and anything and everything else.

Correct.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The EU dont have any right to dictate to the uk.

Correct. The EU aren't and can't dictate anything to the UK.

The UK are supplicants in this FTA process. They are seeking the highest level of access to the largest trading block in the world.

In return the EU requires that the UK makes certain commitments to a Level Playing Field in terms of State Aid, Environmental Standards, Labour standards etc so the UK can't undercut EU companies in the EU markets it wants access to and enters into a fisheries agreement which respects historical rights established long before the EU was even thought of etc etc.

If the UK using its sovereign decision making ability decides to agree to these commitments it gets access to the EU, if it doesn't it doesn't.

Simples.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The other side of that coin is that the UK are not entitled to any special trading agreement.

Correct again. WTO is the global arrangement where two countries haven't an FTA which supersede's the WTO terms of trade.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

No deal is inevitable

Incorrect. The UK Govt have the sovereign ability to either accept or reject the terms of access to the EU market.

ambro25

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Surely as a completely sovereign country or state the uk are entitled to do as they please in regards to labour laws, state aid, its fishing waters and anything and everything else.

The EU dont have any right to dictate to the uk.

The other side of that coin is that the UK are not entitled to any special trading agreement.

No deal is inevitable

I take the gist of your post.

But there is no issue of the EU having a right -or not- to dictate anything to the UK. That's Leave strawman terminology.

The EU is simply proposing terms to the UK, if the UK is to accede the Single Market to the extent that it wishes. I.e. negotiate.

The UK has at all times been free to accept or refuse these terms, and to moderate the level of access which it seeks in proportion. I.e. negotiate.

And all that, under the perfectly logical -and equitable- caveat that not accepting any terms whatsoever, i.e. no deal, means as limited an access as the EU countenances at its discretion, both in its best interests and for however long it finds useful.

It's simply exercising the balance of power in a negotiation, and hasn't changed much in the past 4+ years, with none of the limited change to the benefit of the UK.

No deal isn't inevitable: the last 4 years of cliff edge dates and u-turns on posturing have taught us as much. But the odds are looking a bit grimmer this time around.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The withdrawal agreement relates to citizens rights, northern Ireland and dispute resolution.
That is all.

The items I mentioned aren't part of the withdraw agreement.

I'm not talking about the withdrawal agreement or the backhanded road they have decided to take

Some are though, otherwise why the current furore?
State Aid given in GB is relevant if for example it potentially distorts the market in NI.

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

Some are though, otherwise why the current furore?
State Aid given in GB is relevant if for example it potentially distorts the market in NI.

And is covered by the WTO terms as well that the Brexiters are so keen to claim will work instead :P

View

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A GB poll from two days ago:

Do you think it would be a good or bad outcome for the UK to end the transition period out of the European Union without a trade deal?

Don't knows removed:

A very good outcome 12%
A fairly good outcome 20%
A fairly bad outcome 26%
A very bad outcome 42%

So a clear majority in favour of no deal then. *


*The “majority” being among those that vote for the Conservative party and everyone else being irrelevant.

View

Silent Running wrote: »

I find it a bit disturbing to see posts point out that they - the British people - voted for this and that they deserve all they get. They didn't all vote for this, yet they will all suffer the consequences.

Our own Dark Horse didn't vote for this, I'm sure, but his life will probably be changed for the worse because of it. My daughter and son-in-law north of London didn't vote for this and are worried what the future will bring.

As an aside, the father of my son-in-law is a typical Brexiter. According to him it's no problem if the UK breaks up over this, England doesn't need them. In fact England is sick of them riding their coat tails, and NI is costing him a fortune. He has no problem with going to WTO rules as he bleats "at least they're fair, not like the EU" This from a well educated man. :rolleyes:

You might want to point out to him that, as all member countries of the EU are members of the WTO, they must and do follow WTO rules when drafting EU rules. Hence, all those “unfair” EU rules be complains about are in fact fully in accordance with the “fair” WTO rules that he likes.

listermint

View wrote: »

So a clear majority in favour of no deal then. *


*The “majority” being among those that vote for the Conservative party and everyone else being irrelevant.

Unless my math is bad it's 66 to 32 saying it's bad..

moritz1234

The UK will not be enacting a law to alter the WA

Barnier issued whats called a "30" in the business (Short message, 30 mins to reply)

"if you disrespect the WA, we have no talks, talks over"

abff

listermint wrote: »

Unless my math is bad it's 66 to 32 saying it's bad..

Your math is slightly off. It’s 68 to 32 saying it’s bad.

Cheensbo

moritz1234 wrote: »

The UK will not be enacting a law to alter the WA

Barnier issued whats called a "30" in the business (Short message, 30 mins to reply)

"if you disrespect the WA, we have no talks, talks over"

Is your source on this the sun newspaper?

View

listermint wrote: »

Unless my math is bad it's 66 to 32 saying it's bad..

Yeah, but the 32 are the ones who vote Conservative, so the rest don’t count thanks to the wonders of FPTP.

ExMachina1000

54and56 wrote: »

Correct.



Correct. The EU aren't and can't dictate anything to the UK.

The UK are supplicants in this FTA process. They are seeking the highest level of access to the largest trading block in the world.

In return the EU requires that the UK makes certain commitments to a Level Playing Field in terms of State Aid, Environmental Standards, Labour standards etc so the UK can't undercut EU companies in the EU markets it wants access to and enters into a fisheries agreement which respects historical rights established long before the EU was even thought of etc etc.

If the UK using its sovereign decision making ability decides to agree to these commitments it gets access to the EU, if it doesn't it doesn't.

Simples.



Correct again. WTO is the global arrangement where two countries haven't an FTA which supersede's the WTO terms of trade.



Incorrect. The UK Govt have the sovereign ability to either accept or reject the terms of access to the EU market.

I agree. You obviously know your stuff.

I still feel a no deal is inevitable but that's just opinion

ExMachina1000

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

No its not going to "be an utter disaster for this island"

Ireland exports to UK are down to 6%, Germany, China and US are now the largest export destinations (much larger)

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gei/goodsexportsandimportsjune2020/

Irish<>UK trade is no longer as important, since Brexit started we went from 12-10% to 6% for our exports.

The writing has been on the wall for many years now for businesses, I have no sympathy for anyone who couldn't see the big glowing letters saying "F^&k Business" that Boris painted on those hills of Dover

Irish agricultural exports to the UK may face tariffs.
This will decimate the Irish agricultural industry

murphaph

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Irish agricultural exports to the UK may face tariffs.
This will decimate the Irish agricultural industry

There's a much larger, open market 25 miles further on!

Irish food producers just took (quite understandably) the path of least resistance but have been attempting to diversify their markets since Brexit began.

Also remember that the British more often than not see Ireland as a region, not a country! Irish beef is not a premium product in the UK. It competes on price. Irish beef here in Germany is a premium product, competing on quality.

Brexit is bad but talk of decimation is premature. We still have the single market.

ExMachina1000

murphaph wrote: »

There's a much larger, open market 25 miles further on!

Irish food producers just took (quite understandably) the path of least resistance but have been attempting to diversify their markets since Brexit began.

Also remember that the British more often than not see Ireland as a region, not a country! Irish beef is not a premium product in the UK. It competes on price. Irish beef here in Germany is a premium product, competing on quality.

Brexit is bad but talk of decimation is premature. We still have the single market.

Other European countries wont just decide to import Irish agricultural goods overnight. They already have their own trades and routes. And certainly not on that scale.

For a basic example Irish beef may be just too expensive. Adding in extra transport costs on top of that again

Quin_Dub

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Irish agricultural exports to the UK may face tariffs.
This will decimate the Irish agricultural industry

Not really - The UK cannot feed itself , it must import food .They have nowhere else to get the Foodstuffs they need nor do they have any significant deals with any other countries that could supply them.

All that will happen is that the UK consumer will be paying more for their food.

There is of course the issue of goods going over and back across the NI border during the various stages of processing potentially incurring tarriffs (which will work both ways), but I think a lot of work is in progress to mitigate that longer term.

Sam Russell

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Irish agricultural exports to the UK may face tariffs.
This will decimate the Irish agricultural industry

Well, yes, that is so in the short term.

Beef and cheese are large components in the agriculture exports to the UK.

About 25% of beef production is loss making, particularly the less efficient suckler producers. If these were diverted to other more productive farming, then that would mitigate the loss of exports of beef. No point in exporting subsidised production.

Cheese production needs to diversify away from cheddar cheese. Too much production is going to a limited market. The USA would be an alternative market, but that is a future issue that might see the prospects change in November.

We need to look long term and change accordingly.

Enzokk

The Bill has been published,

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1303663410173882370?s=19

The reaction from the EU Commission,

https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1303664931485745153?s=19

Finally, some quick reading from others on the problematic elements of the bill,

https://twitter.com/DrHannahWhite/status/1303665005867528193?s=19

https://twitter.com/DrHannahWhite/status/1303666750135902208?s=19

ExMachina1000

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, yes, that is so in the short term.

Beef and cheese are large components in the agriculture exports to the UK.

About 25% of beef production is loss making, particularly the less efficient suckler producers. If these were diverted to other more productive farming, then that would mitigate the loss of exports of beef. No point in exporting subsidised production.

Cheese production needs to diversify away from cheddar cheese. Too much production is going to a limited market. The USA would be an alternative market, but that is a future issue that might see the prospects change in November.

We need to look long term and change accordingly.

And while we are carrying out those extensive and time consuming changes the agricultural industry will be decimated.

You are looking at the future and you would correct. I'm speaking about the now and short to medium term