Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

10000maniacs

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

Yes, that's her. She had him in idiotic knots 10 minutes ago.

fash

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.

There is more you can do: aside from not granting equivalence for data, banking etc., you can shut down parts of the WA: no UK airplanes allowed to land in Europe etc. No visa waivers.

Enzokk

10000maniacs wrote: »

Yes, that's her. She had him in idiotic knots 10 minutes ago.

I will be going back to listen, luckily the website allows you to go back.

BBC Radio 5 Live link

fash

murphaph wrote: »

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

I'd heard that the DFA released information on the history of the UK-Ireland relations that shocked other member states as to the historical behaviour of the UK.
It previously hadn't been released as it had not been relevant and UK was a fellow member state.

Roanmore

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.

Been a long time since I heard that name. Is he even relevant these days?

GazzaL

Plenty of Irish companies having problems with contracts with UK companies at the moment. Even for simple things like Data Protection, trying to get Standard Contractual Clauses in place. The Brits have no understanding.

VinLieger

Roanmore wrote: »

Been a long time since I heard that name. Is he even relevant these days?

LOL he previously claimed Leo was gearing up for an election in 2017 and the reason he was being so hard on the UK regarding Brexit was Fine Gael were competing with Sinn Fein for Irish unity voters.....

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 am just listening to it, it starts around 11h17. He actually suggested that the German automakers will come to the rescue because they will not be happy to lose 20% revenue/jobs. Same talking points being repeated. Peter Lilley is clueless, he is trying to defend the indefensible and like you say he drowned in a gibberish mess that made very little sense.

This bill is apparently a backstop to the backstop that the WA was.

fash

Seeing that the UK is preparing to crank up rhetoric on Northern Ireland as being this generations' Falklands and UK preparing for no deal with EU or US.

What I will say is that this is certainly better than the chaos the UK would have had with Ed Milliband.

farmerval

A comment piece in the Guardian this morning suggested that the new bill is a way for Boris to show that his hands are tied on all sides. Then when he pulls out a last minute deal he will keep the hardliners on board. Be seen as a saviour procuring some kind of a deal having given the EU a kicking with his proposed new Bill. Forced the EU to heel.
I really cannot see Boris' game. Trump is easy to read, dumb racist, no thought into anything, but BoJo, no-one really knows what his desired end game is.
It's impossible to bracket him with Trump, he's extremely cunning, managing to be most things to most men enough to succeed to where he is, which is the greatest role he always wanted.

Professor Moriarty

farmerval wrote: »

A comment piece in the Guardian this morning suggested that the new bill is a way for Boris to show that his hands are tied on all sides. Then when he pulls out a last minute deal he will keep the hardliners on board. Be seen as a saviour procuring some kind of a deal having given the EU a kicking with his proposed new Bill. Forced the EU to heel.
I really cannot see Boris' game. Trump is easy to read, dumb racist, no thought into anything, but BoJo, no-one really knows what his desired end game is.
It's impossible to bracket him with Trump, he's extremely cunning, managing to be most things to most men enough to succeed to where he is, which is the greatest role he always wanted.

The underlying problem moving forward is that you cannot, in reality, negotiate in good faith with a person who demonstrably lies and breaks promises. Thus, the EU will be extremely cautious, hard-nosed and slow-moving in any future negotiations of any kind. Which is not in the UK's interests. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

moon2

Enzokk wrote: »

He actually suggested that the German automakers will come to the rescue because they will not be happy to lose 20% revenue/jobs.

His example was quite odd too. He said that the German government could hardly tell the 20% of the German workforce who'll lose their jobs that everything's ok because 30% of the british workforce are losing their jobs. Therefore they'll buckle and make a deal.

However, what this means is that the chosen strategy of the UK is: "We'll lose 3 jobs for every 2 you lose". How is this supposed to convince European negotiators that they are the ones worse off?

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

I will be going back to listen, luckily the website allows you to go back.

BBC Radio 5 Live link

Enzokk wrote: »

I am just listening to it, it starts around 11h17. He actually suggested that the German automakers will come to the rescue because they will not be happy to lose 20% revenue/jobs. Same talking points being repeated. Peter Lilley is clueless, he is trying to defend the indefensible and like you say he drowned in a gibberish mess that made very little sense.

This bill is apparently a backstop to the backstop that the WA was.

It broke up, and they redialled, so it restarts at 11h20.

Though there was a very Brexity text before that that you might want to hear if you fancy banging your head of the wall.

The exasperation in Barnett's voice is palpable!

Leroy42

Because it is on the basis that EU politicians care about the citizens, whilst the UK simply don't care once they get to their Brexit destination.

CalamariFritti

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because it is on the basis that EU politicians care about the citizens, whilst the UK simply don't care once they get to their Brexit destination.

Maybe a bit extreme but ye thats saying will you bet that I won't be cynical enough to play 'who blinks first'? There was a lot of 'the EU always blinks' rhetoric lately. Mad times.

5GMadeMeDoIt

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Maybe a bit extreme but ye thats saying will you bet that I won't be cynical enough to play 'who blinks first'? There was a lot of 'the EU always blinks' rhetoric lately. Mad times.

'The EU always blinks first' trope seems to have been born out of the 'EU always makes agreements at the 11th hour' trope. Which also seems to assume that they come to agreements that favour the other party.

TCDStudent1

Enzokk wrote: »

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.

Just listened back to her based on this post. She is very impressive; also tries to look at it from both sides.

Igotadose

Enzokk wrote: »

I will be going back to listen, luckily the website allows you to go back.

BBC Radio 5 Live link

How far in was the interview with Lilley? The program's 3 hours...

54and56

Igotadose wrote: »

How far in was the interview with Lilley? The program's 3 hours...

1:06:40 into this replay https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000md1b just after a segment on Menopause!!

reslfj

Igotadose wrote: »

How far in was the interview with Lilley? The program's 3 hours...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000md1b

1:06:40 Polish MEP Radosław Sikorski

1:17:30 Lilley

Lars

54and56

reslfj wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000md1b

1:17:30

Lars

It's well worth listening to the EU contributor on before Lilley. He basically says it's increasingly becoming accepted in EU circles that the only way for the UK to get real in relation to their bargaining position Vs the EU is to let them opt for an Australian style deal, live with it for a few years and then re-visit the issue of a FTA again when they've experienced the consequences of trading on WTO terms.

Interestingly the guy (a former senior Polish politician) was in college with BoJo so knows him quite well and his view is that of all the people in the UK Govt and with influence over the Govt BoJo is probably the most in favour of doing a deal with the EU but he won't do that if it means he loses power so unless he can somehow square away the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party he may not have the ability to do a deal as that would almost certainly see a heave against BoJo and his exit as PM which he won't countenance at any cost.

Listen from 1:11:47, it's enlightening. He actually says the EU can live with a WTO/Australia type relationship with the UK.

The best bit for me from Polish MEP Radosław Sikorski was when he said:-

"The authors of Brexit have this fantasy that if only Britain drops all the shackles that supposedly bind it to the continent then Britain with soar and if we don't have an agreement then that fantasy will be tested against reality and maybe this is what's needed for eventually to come to some kind of better arrangement."

He finishes up by saying "Some people think this is in Britain's national interest, lets test it."

road_high

Sometimes you have to give people enough rope...U.K. seem hell Bent on this WTO fantasy and appears little to persuade them otherwise. They’re in a fantasy land of nothing will change (thanks in part to the luxury of this 1 year transition period)- no pain has been felt yet

Leroy42

Wait till they find out that WTO rules are agreed upon by committee and not just left to each sovereign state.!

54and56

road_high wrote: »

Sometimes you have to give people enough rope...U.K. seem hell Bent on this WTO fantasy and appears little to persuade them otherwise. They’re in a fantasy land of nothing will change (thanks in part to the luxury of this 1 year transition period)- no pain has been felt yet

When someone is hell bent on running straight into a concrete wall and you cannot change their mind sometimes the best thing you can do is step out of their way, let them get it out of their system and see if having hurt themselves they continue to repeat running into concrete walls or acknowledge the stupidity of doing so and re-join the adults in the room.

54and56

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wait till they find out that WTO rules are agreed upon by committee and not just left to each sovereign state.!

Not according to the proposed Internal Market Bill if it is enacted as it says (paraphrasing) that notwithstanding anything in international law or treaties etc a Govt Minister may disapply ..............

Sam Russell

54and56 wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wait till they find out that WTO rules are agreed upon by committee and not just left to each sovereign state.!

Not according to the proposed Internal Market Bill if it is enacted as it says (paraphrasing) that notwithstanding anything in international law or treaties etc a Govt Minister may disapply ..............

That then means, not the Australia deal, but the North Korea deal.

5GMadeMeDoIt

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wait till they find out that WTO rules are agreed upon by committee and not just left to each sovereign state.!

Who elects these people? DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT!!!

Patser

An interesting take by Ian Dunt here, and I'm thinking he's right. Starmer's refusal to bring up Brexit in PMQs yesterday and the EUs refusal to storm out of talks, removes all of Johnson's oxygen of conflict, and fighting for brexit, and defending sovereignty. Instead it leaves him still back at square 1, trying to explain what his plan actually is and what result he wants, not saying THEY (whoever the they might be that day) did it.


That's been Trumps approach before and since he got in. Always be campaigning, always pretend to show great plans, best plans ever, then when others 'oppose' it by pointing out how poor an idea it is, then say THEY are denying US of great things.

By Labour not engaging, or the EU, then the focus is on Johnson to do what he's promised since there's no resistance, but also full responsibility for the results


https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1304051622419595264

Patser

And just to counteract all that, the Eu have given Johnson til end of month to sort out the bill and not break international law

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-eu-demands-uk-scraps-plans-to-override-parts-of-withdrawal-agreement-by-end-of-the-month-12068247

Indestructable

Well I think they just got their fight.

EU demands UK scraps plans to override parts of Brexit deal by the end of the month.

Sky News headline.