Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

I'm worried that this risks the UK actually disintegrating if their government does not get a hold of itself.

Brexit always had the potential to cause Scotland and NI to break away, but when even the rule of law is not respected by the government anymore it seems that what could have been an orderly process of regions deciding if they want to stick with the Union or leave, might actually fall into a disorderly disolution under a government that does not even seem interested in holding the union together anymore.

If this keeps up, there is no telling where it will end up. In 20 years we could be taking of the former UK in the same terms as Yugoslavia.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

It's a huge gamble.

Pretty much every smartphone uses an ARM cpu. In very recent history UK ARM was sold off. So now Japanese Softbank were looking to sell it to the American Nvidia.


Tech ambitions said to lie at heart of Britain’s bonkers crash-and-burn Brexit plan
The comments are great - pretty universal opinion from the tech community is that's it's compete bollocks. Follow the money.

Quote from today's FT:

Kim Darroch, Britain’s former ambassador in Brussels and Washington, recalls how Treasury officials working for the Thatcher government in the 1980s designed the EU state aid rules precisely to foster fair competition and to stop other European countries engaging in a subsidy race....
...
"If you’d dropped in from Mars, you’d struggle to work out whether Cummings or Johnson was the prime minister"
...
If the appointments of Martha Lane Fox and Dido Harding to IT positions of importance are examples of UK judgment in the IT industry, I hold out little hope thart no matter how many billions they throw out to their friends that any of it will result in a world class IT business.
...
Hovercraft, Concorde, Inmos Transputer, First electronic Computer. Also UK developed their own independent atomic weapons and space flight. The only country to develop either and give them up. US persuaded them to rent / buy from them.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Folks there has been some speculation on other websites about a politician who may face criminal charges in the UK but they have not been named as of yet.

While the UK may well have ceased to be bound by the rule of law, boards.ie still is, and will not breach any anonymity orders or discuss allegations against someone who has not been named/gone through the courts.

Plus, the thread is about Brexit, which I think goes beyond one individual politician.

geezerbutler

Folks -- just saw the Peston show earlier today -- the point was made that UK has not actually broken international law yet - they have just introduced a domestic bill which, if passed, would, in their eyes allow them to breach the withdrawal treaty in the future -- on that basis should the EU just continue negotiating with UK as if nothing has happened -- if the UK threatens to not comply with the WA then EU can issue sanctions.??? Also there is the real possibility the UK domestic bill will not pass house of lords -- as happened when Boris tried to prorogue Parliament

Enzokk

Here is another portion of the interview with Bernard Jenkin on Newsnight tonight,

https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1303818242230714369?s=20

He comes across as a bit of an idiot (I am being generous). Is he really telling us that the Withdrawal Agreement was a temporary arrangement to get to a free trade deal so it didn't matter? Maybe he should have taken more time than 3 days to scrutinize it when it came to parliament. Others were warning them to take their time with the WA Bill, but Johnson rushed through it and now he is trying to back out of it.

fash

Gintonious wrote: »

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

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

"The deal leaving the EU is a one off exceptional treaty - it's like a independent country leaving an empire."

- Sir Bernard Jenkin on why the government should change the N.I Protocol

Considering we are literally talking about Northern Ireland here, how ironic is this statement from a Brit?

Peregrinus

geezerbutler wrote: »

Folks -- just saw the Peston show earlier today -- the point was made that UK has not actually broken international law yet - they have just introduced a domestic bill which, if passed, would, in their eyes allow them to breach the withdrawal treaty in the future -- on that basis should the EU just continue negotiating with UK as if nothing has happened -- if the UK threatens to not comply with the WA then EU can issue sanctions.??? Also there is the real possibility the UK domestic bill will not pass house of lords -- as happened when Boris tried to prorogue Parliament

Barnier will continue negotiating, but not "as if nothign has happened". It's true that the Treaty Violation Bill has not yet been enacted by Parliament and may be held up in the Lords or suffer other delays. But Barnier can't ignore the fact that he is negotiating a new treaty with a government that wants to violate the existing one, and is working actively to do so.

So I think his strategy will be to continue talking about the terms of an FTA, but both in public and in private to say that regardless of how the talks proceed there will be no FTA on any terms unless HMG recommits to the good faith implementation of the WA, and reverses all steps and abandons all processes which are inconsistent with that commitment.

As matters stand I see very little chance of an FTA. But it needs to be seen to be the UK that takes, and takes responsibility for, the decisions that preclude an FTA. So the EU should neither end talks, nor behave as if HMG's current position did not rule out an FTA.

fash

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I'm worried that this risks the UK actually disintegrating if their government does not get a hold of itself.

Brexit always had the potential to cause Scotland and NI to break away, but when even the rule of law is not respected by the government anymore it seems that what could have been an orderly process of regions deciding if they want to stick with the Union or leave, might actually fall into a disorderly disolution under a government that does not even seem interested in holding the union together anymore.

If this keeps up, there is no telling where it will end up. In 20 years we could be taking of the former UK in the same terms as Yugoslavia.

Frankly, I think the break up of the UK should be Ireland's policy aim: who can possibly doubt that NI is being used as a lever to blackmail Ireland and the EU. A united Ireland would have resolved brexit in a much simpler fashion. A united Ireland is more likely to happen following Scottish independence- aside from the fact that Scotland is a hostage to the UK and to the Tories and that is simply not going to change. It wants out and it wants EU membership. Helping that occur is a win-win for everyone except the brexiters.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

Frankly, I think the break up of the UK should be Ireland's policy aim . . .

I dunno about Ireland's policy aim, but it certainly seems to be the policy aim of the current UK government.

Strazdas

McGiver wrote: »

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.

Most of the Brexiteers would have little interest in politics as well. Whilst being loud and opinionated, they are politically and economically illiterate....many of them would be poorly educated, especially compared to the first group you mentioned. They are only engaged with the political system at a tribal level.

England would be a fairly apolitical country compared to most in Europe. As you say, the failed FPTP system lends itself to total apathy. I say 'England' only though.....people in Scotland and NI would be much more engaged with politics for a variety of reasons.

VinLieger

View wrote: »

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.

But like others have pointed out its not up to Trump as Congress have to pass any trade deals and the democrats arent going to lose control of it in November

murphaph

Even if they did lose control, Irish America is bipartisan in nature.

Even if Irish America held no sway either way, it would be a monumental task to get a UK-US trade deal in place and it would almost certainly be weighted to favour the Americans. The UK is negotiating from a position of weakness.

The UK needs the EU FTA or it will be a catastrophe IMO. But I no longer believe that the UK Government is looking for a FTA. Some people simply stand to get very rich. It was always about money.

fash

This is interesting:

"Although everyone else seems to have forgotten, the potential perfidy of Albion didn’t escape Michel Barnier’s team who made sure breaches of the Withdrawal Agreement would be punishable, as Holger Hestermeyer, an expert in international dispute resolution at Kings College London explained to me, by lump sum fines. If those are not paid, the EU can suspend parts of any other agreements it has with the U.K."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/09/dont-trust-boris-johnsons-britain/

I am rather pleased that the EU foresaw breaches of the WA and have practical measures in place. Here's hoping the lump sum fines are eye-watering.

VinLieger

fash wrote: »

This is interesting:

"Although everyone else seems to have forgotten, the potential perfidy of Albion didn’t escape Michel Barnier’s team who made sure breaches of the Withdrawal Agreement would be punishable, as Holger Hestermeyer, an expert in international dispute resolution at Kings College London explained to me, by lump sum fines. If those are not paid, the EU can suspend parts of any other agreements it has with the U.K."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/09/dont-trust-boris-johnsons-britain/

I am rather pleased that the EU foresaw breaches of the WA and have practical measures in place. Here's hoping the lump sum fines are eye-watering.

Hmmm would it be possible thanks to the decades of experience and 41 current trade deals covering 70 countries that the EU might know what they are doing and the UK..... don't?

WHL

Katya Adler says that EU still confident of a deal
https://twitter.com/bbckatyaadler/status/1303953495092006915?s=21

Does this UK move play into their hands. If a lot of the U.K. fears are unfounded in their eyes, do they ask what the U.K. is willing to give up in order for them to be squared off. If the answer is most of LPF and some of fisheries, everybody might be happy and the U.K. avoid being known as the country that broke an international deal. .......

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

Hmmm would it be possible thanks to the decades of experience and 41 current trade deals covering 70 countries that the EU might know what they are doing and the UK..... don't?

And it certainly shows the reason and need to get the issues contained in the WA to be treated separately from any trade deal, which of course the UK had wanted.

In effect, if the UK carry through on this law, then the EU are back to where we were 4 years ago. Facing the prospect of a UK having left with the issues surrounding access etc.

On the other hand the UK are back in the same position with regards to trade but have destroyed their international standing in the process. This shows how short sighted Johnson was to sign the WA as it now places significant responsibilities on the UK, which they need to break the law to avoid and the consequences of that.

The EU have played this perfectly right from the start, I have no doubt that they have planned for such an eventuality and whilst claiming surprise I think the only surprise they may have is that the UK actually think this will work.

murphaph

I believe the DFA were instrumental in briefing our EU partners about the slipperiness of the UK.

Piehead

WHL wrote: »

Katya Adler says that EU still confident of a deal
https://twitter.com/bbckatyaadler/status/1303953495092006915?s=21

Does this UK move play into their hands. If a lot of the U.K. fears are unfounded in their eyes, do they ask what the U.K. is willing to give up in order for them to be squared off. If the answer is most of LPF and some of fisheries, everybody might be happy and the U.K. avoid being known as the country that broke an international deal. .......

Katya Adler with the misinterpreted gossip and semi-fibs can be ignored.

Enzokk

Here is the legal advice the European Commission has been giving to members on the Internal Market Bill,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1303968530279346176?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1303968532867289090?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1303968535333556226?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1303968537804001280?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1303968540291149824?s=20

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1303968543084511234?s=20

So remedies are available as others have posted. The interesting part for me is that remedies can be taken by suspension of EU obligations under the WA or future relationship agreements. I would guess like all those agencies the UK is reliant on and will be reliant on for a while still in the EU. They really haven't thought this through unless there is a convoluted plan to not actually have the bill pass parliament. Even then all it will have shown is how weak their position is.

gmisk

Boris Johnson and his lot slimey and entirely untrustworthy as usual.
You can see why Jonathan Jones felt he had to resign, seemingly he came close to resigning before when they tried to circumvent the Benn act

Leroy42

But if no deal is agreed, not sure what other sanctions exist. The UK won't listen to a ruling from the ECJ, you would have howls from the likes of JRM and IDS about a foreign court blah blah.

So whilst in theory there are costs, nothing that will bother a UK that has determined that international law is something that has to be adhered to.

The big sanction is that the UK will not get a FTA, and this was always the case. From Day 1 the EU held the position that the three aspects of the WA had tp agreed and signed off prior to any trade agreement, that is what the WA did. If the UK go back that then there will be no FTA, and will never be until such time as the UK agrees to abide by the WA.

In effect, by signing the WA, that is always going to be the starting point of any future discussions. The EU may well make changes in the future but any changes will be a concession on the par of the EU and will require a concession on the part of the UK.

That is the real price of the folly that Johnson entered into. The EU is back to where is was 12 months ago, the UK has considerably weakened its position for the sum achievement of nothing.

Leroy42

murphaph wrote: »

I believe the DFA were instrumental in briefing our EU partners about the slipperiness of the UK.

I don't think you needed to be particularly skilled to see what way the UK were going to go. Just listening to the ref debate showed the slipperiness of the UK. IT was clear they had no ideas and were happy to make up anything to get what they wanted.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if no deal is agreed, not sure what other sanctions exist. The UK won't listen to a ruling from the ECJ, you would have howls from the likes of JRM and IDS about a foreign court blah blah.

So whilst in theory there are costs, nothing that will bother a UK that has determined that international law is something that has to be adhered to.

The big sanction is that the UK will not get a FTA, and this was always the case. From Day 1 the EU held the position that the three aspects of the WA had tp agreed and signed off prior to any trade agreement, that is what the WA did. If the UK go back that then there will be no FTA, and will never be until such time as the UK agrees to abide by the WA.

In effect, by signing the WA, that is always going to be the starting point of any future discussions. The EU may well make changes in the future but any changes will be a concession on the par of the EU and will require a concession on the part of the UK.

That is the real price of the folly that Johnson entered into. The EU is back to where is was 12 months ago, the UK has considerably weakened its position for the sum achievement of nothing.

Do you expect there to be no deals or agreements between the UK and the EU if they leave with no-FTA deal? I will name just one, EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) and Rolls Royce and Airbus Broughton.

The EU could suspend cooperation between the UK and EASA and any parts will not be certified, which means they cannot go on Airbus aircraft and seeing that the FAA delegates the certification authority to EASA in Europe, also in the US. That means the only option would be to move work from the UK and a loss of jobs.

Leroy42

It is clear that the UK want there to be multiple sides deals, dealing with situations you raise above. The EU have, from the start, accepted the close relationship and the need to concessions, but have asked for the UK to accept the same and as such Canada style deal is simply not sufficient.

Hence the Canada +++ that the UK made up. THey understand Canada tyoe deal is not enough. But they appear unwilling to accept any responsibility to concede anything as part of the negotiation.

No loss of sovereignty, seems to now mean that they will accept no EU standards or systems, unless it saves them from doing something.

At this point, I think that the EU must face the reality that either the UK signup up to the whole, including accepting the full WA, or nothing.

To do otherwise, IMO, is not going to lead to better relations but actually the opposite. The UK will simply say that things work perfectly fine and therefore they need to drop even more. The proof of that is that many Britans seem to have the view that since nothing has changed since leaving the EU in 31 Jan that all the claims of problems are nothing but Project Fear.

I'm not sure what anyone can do to change that line of thinking, save for letting reality take its course.

Peregrinus

The EU's position in the event of no-deal has always been that there will be no "side-deals' with the UK to alleviate the consesquences. The EU may unilaterally adopt certain measure to relieve the consequences for the EU; a by-product of those measures may or may not be to alleviate the consequences for the UK, but this will not enter into the EU's thinking and there will be no agreement with the UK about it.

I can't imagine that the events of this week will lead the EU to soften this stance in any way.

GM228

Haven't been to the Brexit thread in a while but here's my take on things as they stand.

Brexit is a ticking time bomb and the latest events are akin to cutting the wrong wire and speeding up the clock, and it's a bomb of implosion as opposed to explosion.

In the grand scheme of all things Brexit and Brexit related the latest events really don't surprise me either.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is clear that the UK want there to be multiple sides deals, dealing with situations you raise above. The EU have, from the start, accepted the close relationship and the need to concessions, but have asked for the UK to accept the same and as such Canada style deal is simply not sufficient.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU's position in the event of no-deal has always been that there will be no "side-deals' with the UK to alleviate the consesquences. The EU may unilaterally adopt certain measure to relieve the consequences for the EU; a by-product of those measures may or may not be to alleviate the consequences for the UK, but this will not enter into the EU's thinking and there will be no agreement with the UK about it.

I can't imagine that the events of this week will lead the EU to soften this stance in any way.

I shouldn't have used deal as that is exactly what the EU will want to avoid. Unless the UK shuts it borders and doesn't engage with the EU politically any longer, there will be cooperation between the 2 parties just by the fact of their location. It is inevitable and it is those agreements that will need to be made in the short term, while the UK spaffs more money away on their own agencies, that the EU will target. Either Brexit turns out to be the promised land and they are able to get by and prosper, but more likely is that the country slowly collapses and those that voted for this is run out of parliament in a snap election.

Seems like the urgent meeting in the Joint Committee will be eagerly observed later. Gove will have to do some job here, to not have it all collapse around him,

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1304004399832989696?s=20

Unless that is the objective, in which case he will have his captive audience waiting on his every word.

10000maniacs

Great to see Tory brexiters like Peter Lilley drowning in their own dribble trying to defend breaking international law this morning. That female interviewer on 5 Live is good.

GM228

Enzokk wrote: »

Unless that is the objective, in which case he will have his captive audience waiting on his every word.

It has been suggested in the past here many times long before this latest development that that was the objective.....

Enzokk

10000maniacs wrote: »

Great to see Tory brexiters like Peter Lilley drowning in their own dribble trying to defend breaking international law this morning. That female interviewer on 5 Live is good.

I assume that would be Emma Barnett and she is very good. I don't know why they still need to keep the likes of Andrew Neil when there is some very good young journalists out there that could easily have taken his place a few years ago already.