Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

BlitzKrieg

There is a little sneaky bit in section 41 of the bill that does come across as the UK trying to force the EU into a trade deal.

Section 41 starts off quite dramatically with

On or after IP completion day, an appropriate authority must not exercise any
function in a way that would—
(a) result in an existing kind of NI-GB check, control or administrative
process being used—
(i) for the first time, or
(ii) for a new purpose or to a new extent; or
(b) result in a new kind of NI-GB check, control or administrative
process—
(i) being introduced, or
(ii) being used.

Basically stating. NO customs border between NI and GB

but a bit further down

"This section does not prevent the exercise of a function if the exercise—
(a) is necessary for the administration of arrangements which have the
purpose of facilitating access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods to
the internal market in the United Kingdom,
(b) is necessary to secure compliance with, or to give effect to, any
international obligation or arrangement to which the United Kingdom
is a party (whenever the United Kingdom becomes a party to it), or
(c) is necessary where goods have been declared for a voluntary customs
procedure."

You might think this means that it means the withdrawel agreement is safe but just below that again (god this is an poorly written legal document)

"Subsection (2)(b)—
(a) authorises (in particular) the exercise of a function in relation to a check,
control or administrative process if the exercise is necessary to secure
compliance with, or to give effect to, Article 6(1) of the Northern Ireland
Protocol;
(b) but does not authorise the exercise of a function in relation to any
international obligation or arrangement if or to the extent that that
obligation or arrangement has ceased to have effect by virtue of
regulations made under this Act or by virtue of section 45."

So it looks like it's abiding by the bare minimum of the withdrawal agreement but as a lot of people have shown section 45 allows the UK to just ignore the withdrawal agreement entirely


It feels like the British government is trying to force the EU into a trade deal, saying "We'll ignore the customs border between GB and NI unless we are part of some 'international arrangement' and no the withdrawal agreement doesnt count we've already put in legislation saying we can ignore."


Also its kinda weird that section 41 uses section 45 as it's leverage but section 45 doesnt reference section 41 at all.



Also doesnt all these changes absolutely neuter the Northern Ireland devolved government in a number of areas. Is that not equally a slap in the face of the The Good Friday Agreement.

All the new powers go the Northern Ireland Secretary of State in Westminster.



Has Sinn Fein reacted yet?

Igotadose

listermint wrote: »

The only way for this to be sorted is for revolution, And i dont mean murder in the streets. The UK needs a short sharp correction for the wider apathetic audience to really feel what it means to be solo on the international stage. For me the EU cant play nice, that means removing it all. Including landing rights.

You will suddenly see the half hearted supporters and those that had said sure look lets just get on with it see what the reality is. Union strikes, people actually taking to the streets. And election has to be called and people power will have to drive that.

Can they call an election before Parliament expires? What's the story with 'votes of no confidence' can they still happen? And, given that the Torys have the majority, they'd have to basically vote no confidence in their own government to make it happen?

Unless the Tory's vote themselves out of government, which at this point seems unlikely, isn't the UK stuck till 2024?

listermint

Igotadose wrote: »

Can they call an election before Parliament expires? What's the story with 'votes of no confidence' can they still happen? And, given that the Torys have the majority, they'd have to basically vote no confidence in their own government to make it happen?

Unless the Tory's vote themselves out of government, which at this point seems unlikely, isn't the UK stuck till 2024?

yes all that is true, but public opinion is what would have to shift hence the term revolution.

J Mysterio

John Major

"For generations, Britain's word - solemnly given - has been accepted by friend and foe. Our signature on any treaty or agreement has been sacrosanct.

 "Over the last century, as our military strength has dwindled, our word has retained its power. 

"If we lose our reputation for honouring the promises we make, we will have lost something beyond price that may never be regained."

Strazdas

fash wrote: »

not only that: a hostile state which has delusions of grandeur, a victimhood complex, arrogance, a sense of entitlement and a belief in its exceptionalism with a failed democracy and extraordinary control over its propaganda organs / former media (weakened by social media etc) trying to retain benefits after leaving. Of note, this is also plan "C": plan A was the EU would give them whatever they wanted, plan B was the collapse of the EU - they are now in unexpected territory.

It does tell us that the idea that the UK could take a wrecking ball to the 50 year relationship with the EU and remain good friends with them was always a nonsense. It could only be seen as a somewhat hostile act. Brexiteers will flatly deny the second part but they actually do hate the EU, suggesting their denials are meaningless.

Quin_Dub

Strazdas wrote: »

It does tell us that the idea that the UK could take a wrecking ball to the 50 year relationship with the EU and remain good friends with them was always a nonsense. It could only be seen as a somewhat hostile act. Brexiteers will flatly deny the second part but they actually do hate the EU, suggesting their denials are meaningless.

It's not that they hate the EU per se.

They hate not being in charge , the idea that Britain would have to accept the consensus decision of a combination of France/Germany and the rest of Europe is utterly anathema to them.

The concept of the EU would be fine for them if they were in charge of it all.

The only part of the EU that they are rejecting is oversight by others.

That can be seen by their negotiations - They want all the EU has to offer , but just don't want to be told what do by a majority made up of other nations.

CelticRambler

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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

Neither the price nor the transport seems to bother McDonalds, who source 50% of all the beef used in their French restaurants from Ireland.

An Ciarraioch

ERG want to openly declare checks from GB to NI to be illegal, which even Johnson would probably baulk at publicly admitting:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1303764163236450305

beggars_bush

So state aid can then be given to industries such as ship building?
Aircraft manufacturing?
What else? Steel plants?

Five Eighth

"Perfidious Albion" is a pejorative phrase used within the context of international relations diplomacy to refer to alleged acts of diplomatic sleights, duplicity, treachery and hence infidelity (with respect to perceived promises made to or alliances formed with other nation states) by monarchs or governments of the UK (or England prior to 1707) in their pursuit of self-interest."

listermint

I've said it before. The ERG needs a serious criminal investigation. They aren't a bunch of like minded civic Tory MPs. There is sinister connections and money swilling around there. This is about disaster capitalism and continuing on the worldwide tax evasion through off shore crown territories.

They want no deal they want to continue and increase the money train. Their connections go deep. None of this benefits the country.

Nody

beggars_bush wrote: »

So state aid can then be given to industries such as ship building?
Aircraft manufacturing?
What else? Steel plants?

You can give it to anything down to turnip growing or car production; the only problem is other countries will sue you and implement tariffs against you when doing so. See USA - Boeing vs. EU - Airbus for example. Hence while they CAN give state aid to for example Ship Building the problem is the other countries feeling they are being unfairly treated due to it will tariff the living daylight out of UK export as countermeasure (which I'm sure UK will learn very quickly and very harshly from their special friend USA among others) and it's illegal under WTO terms as well...

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

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

Like Boris painting buses or JRM lying on the bench it was just to hide the real story from search engines.

Google Boris Garden Bridge - he was handed the plans for a bridge and despite spending well over TWICE what it cost (including overruns) to build the nearby Millennium bridge the project was abandoned with nothing to show for it.

A large amount of that money went to a French company too just to add insult to injury. And it wasn't just govt money there was a goodly chunk of public donations.


On a scale of incompetence to corruption, it doesn't matter because politicians shouldn't be on the scale.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1303787244554260481

I wonder what this could entail, maybe a "get your act together lads" style of approach?

Enzokk

It really is odd, this move from the UK. I see no advantage to them in doing this. They will not get a trade deal from the US going by what some powerful politicians are saying there,

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1303784063933788160?s=20

Simon Coveney was on TodayFM earlier with Matt Cooper and he said that before this whenever there was a pronouncement like this coming from the UK side there would be a warning from the likes of Gove or someone from the UK side to let the EU know what is coming. They would be in contact at least, but this time there was no contact or warning at all. They just dropped it on them.

So I do wonder what is happening and what advantage they could be looking for if it is not to go for no-FTA deal?

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

So I do wonder what is happening and what advantage they could be looking for if it is not to go for no-FTA deal?

They have drunk their own kool aid thinking a MAD strategy will a) work, b) be relevant and c) actually force EU to suddenly do a last minute deal on their terms. Honestly; don't expect cunning when simple stupidity can explain it, occam's razor etc.

beggars_bush

beggars_bush wrote: »

So state aid can then be given to industries such as ship building?
Aircraft manufacturing?
What else? Steel plants?

In Dominic Cummings Britain it has been suggested that he wants to pour it into technology as he sees the future being controlled by Chinese or American tech companies.

fash

Enzokk wrote: »

It really is odd, this move from the UK. I see no advantage to them in doing this. They will not get a trade deal from the US going by what some powerful politicians are saying there,

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1303784063933788160?s=20

Simon Coveney was on TodayFM earlier with Matt Cooper and he said that before this whenever there was a pronouncement like this coming from the UK side there would be a warning from the likes of Gove or someone from the UK side to let the EU know what is coming. They would be in contact at least, but this time there was no contact or warning at all. They just dropped it on them.

So I do wonder what is happening and what advantage they could be looking for if it is not to go for no-FTA deal?

It looks like it is a temper tantrum to throw over the table and the chess board on it. They think it probably won't work but they realize they were in checkmate. What it means is: no deal.

listermint

Enzokk wrote: »

It really is odd, this move from the UK. I see no advantage to them in doing this. They will not get a trade deal from the US going by what some powerful politicians are saying there,

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1303784063933788160?s=20

Simon Coveney was on TodayFM earlier with Matt Cooper and he said that before this whenever there was a pronouncement like this coming from the UK side there would be a warning from the likes of Gove or someone from the UK side to let the EU know what is coming. They would be in contact at least, but this time there was no contact or warning at all. They just dropped it on them.

So I do wonder what is happening and what advantage they could be looking for if it is not to go for no-FTA deal?

As I said. The democrats won't see 'their' peace process tainted it's a legacy item they are incredibly proud of.

Jizique

Enzokk wrote: »

It really is odd, this move from the UK. I see no advantage to them in doing this. They will not get a trade deal from the US going by what some powerful politicians are saying there,

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1303784063933788160?s=20

Simon Coveney was on TodayFM earlier with Matt Cooper and he said that before this whenever there was a pronouncement like this coming from the UK side there would be a warning from the likes of Gove or someone from the UK side to let the EU know what is coming. They would be in contact at least, but this time there was no contact or warning at all. They just dropped it on them.

So I do wonder what is happening and what advantage they could be looking for if it is not to go for no-FTA deal?

Tells you Cummings, the anti-politician, is in charge.
The UK has largely given up (I suspect) on a comprehensive US deal, too tricky with too few benefits

Fionn1952

Nody wrote: »

They have drunk their own kool aid thinking a MAD strategy will a) work, b) be relevant and c) actually force EU to suddenly do a last minute deal on their terms. Honestly; don't expect cunning when simple stupidity can explain it, occam's razor etc.

Not to be a pedant, but that would be Hanlon's Razor; never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.

I'd be leaning more towards thinking that the people involved with the bloke who's father literally wrote a book on disaster capitalism may have some interest in disaster capitalism. That would be a more Occam's Razor appropriate explanation.

10000maniacs

Ironically the only thing that can save the UK people from the barking mad Tories are other Tories. Bodes well for new year.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1303820758364434433

Crazy stuff altogether, what the hell is going on over there lads?

maebee

listermint wrote: »

As I said. The democrats won't see 'their' peace process tainted it's a legacy item they are incredibly proud of.

The only problem is that they have to get Biden elected.

View

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1303820758364434433

Crazy stuff altogether, what the hell is going on over there lads?

It’s like Mr Bean does government...

BlitzKrieg

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1303820758364434433

Crazy stuff altogether, what the hell is going on over there lads?

christ come on lads, you could at least for the EU equivalent of the statutes of Westminster like we did.

Honestly it's not that the UK is trying to reneg that is atrocious, its that they're doing it such a dumb short term way. No ****ing patience with the lot of them.

10000maniacs

maebee wrote: »

The only problem is that they have to get Biden elected.

Congress has to pass any UK trade deal. Whoever becomes President does not matter. If Trump wins a second term and says vote for this trade deal, many will do the opposite just to spite him. And there are a lot of "Irish" Republicans too.

Imreoir2

maebee wrote: »

The only problem is that they have to get Biden elected.

Trade is the remit of Congress, not the president. There are quite a few Republicens in the Congress who are just as clear that they will veto any trade deal with the UK if the UK is undermining the GFA.

From a purely hard nosed trade perspective it makes all the sence in the world for the US to leave a desperate UK to twist in the wind, while all the moral justification you could ask for is on the US side. When the UK finally come to their sences and relent the US can force a really one sided deal on them as the price of getting out of their self made hole.

McGiver

listermint wrote:

The only way for this to be sorted is for revolution, And i dont mean murder in the streets. The UK needs a short sharp correction for the wider apathetic audience to really feel what it means to be solo on the international stage. For me the EU cant play nice, that means removing it all. Including landing rights.

Yet, there's no protests, no campaigning, no civil disobedience, nothing. Keep calm and carry on. The Cummings-Johnson regime (please let's call it like that - it's not a government and not administration either) openly talks about violating international law, has mismanaged the country in short span of time in several ways, yet there's no one taking to the streets... The last protests one can talk of in the UK were the Poll Tax protests. That's 30 years ago. And then Iraq maybe. But that's it.

I see it as follows in terms of the English population:

About 35% are remain, progressive, mildly pro-EU (with a good dose of English euroscepticism), but most of them are lazy to get up and protest

About 35% have no interest in politics, are apathetic or are "get on with it" fatalists

About 30% are deluded, imperialists, nationalists, you name it (aka Brexidiots)

The last group, while minority is enabled by the apathetic second group and by the laziness/weakness of the first group. The apathy largely stems from the FPTP which generates disinterest in the democratic politics.

View

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Trade is the remit of Congress, not the president. There are quite a few Republicens in the Congress who are just as clear that they will veto any trade deal with the UK if the UK is undermining the GFA.

From a purely hard nosed trade perspective it makes all the sence in the world for the US to leave a desperate UK to twist in the wind, while all the moral justification you could ask for is on the US side. When the UK finally come to their sences and relent the US can force a really one sided deal on them as the price of getting out of their self made hole.

Yes, and if he is re-elected, Trump would almost certainly be very happy to force such a one sided deal as it would benefit the US.