Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Patser

I mean an attack, massive violent protest, something that involves injuries and headlines- type of incident. Almost certainly to occur on Northern side of border, and therefore the UK's problem to deal with, while again highlighting that it was their unilateral breaking of WA that lead to it.

Again this is hypothetical to the idea Johnson's IM bill plan was to actually flow through

An Ciarraioch

Even though the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU itself, Johnson returns to his old hobbyhorse:

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1304884902173736960

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

Wrong; they actually lose all access to EU data if EU don't approve UK data protection being strong enough and EU data will not be allowed to be hosted on a UK server. I suggest you look up Schrems II if you want to see a recent court case on the topic

It's been a while since the EU told a US multinational to stop Data transfers to the US. This was Wednesdays' news. https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/10/facebook_ireland/

The UK can expect to get hit the same way if they don't get a data adequacy agreement, like somewhere like the The Isle Of Man has.


On the week of the Beirut explosion the EU reduced tariffs on goods form Lebanon. And announced them on Belarus. The EU isn't always slows.

Capt'n Midnight

Shelga wrote: »

I think because they want no deal, so they’re pretending to care about the union to give them cover.

I really don’t understand people like Michael Gove though. He doesn’t seem nearly as dumb as someone like Mark Francois. He must know how catastrophic no trade deal with the EU will be, for vast amounts of the population. Are people like him really so intent on enriching shadowy figures that they really don’t care about destabilising their own country like this? And they have the audacity to call Remainers traitors?

Brexit: Michael Gove says bill will protect 'integrity' of UK

And if you believe that Grove and integrity belong in the same sentence I could sell you a garden bridge, except Boris couldn't get it started despite spending twice the actual cost of building one.

Keep an eye on Grove, if Boris starts to loose control expect some more back stabbing.


Here's a link to the bill https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2775

Professor Moriarty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Brexit: Michael Gove says bill will protect 'integrity' of UK

And if you believe that Grove and integrity belong in the same sentence I could sell you a garden bridge, except Boris couldn't get it started despite spending twice the actual cost of building one.

Keep an eye on Grove, if Boris starts to loose control expect some more back stabbing.


Here's a link to the bill https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2775

Gove and Johnson have history. There is a Pax Romana but it is very fragile.

Enzokk

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Even though the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU itself, Johnson returns to his old hobbyhorse:

https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1304884902173736960

They have some sort of tenuous excuse about the IM Bill protecting the GFA and keeping trade open between NI and GB. It is very weak and doesn't stand up to any scrutiny once you start scratching at it, but if they pull out of the ECHR that is a direct attack on the GFA. There is no two way about it, the ECHR is referred to in the GFA and not hinted at like the EU and the single market.

I think if this is true this has Gove's fingerprints all over it. He has been against the GFA for a long time and I think he would be very happy to look like he is the innocent party and the big bad would be PM Johnson over there. Nothing to do with him while he has that blank look on his face trying to feign ignorance. He is anything but ignorant and my guess is he is the one to watch for the EU as he has the ideological belief and is ruthless enough to get what he wants, even if it leaves bodies in the way.

Strazdas

Dan Hodges in the Mail on Sunday thinks Johnson is trying to bounce the EU into signing a trade deal i.e. throw his weight around like a hard man and imply he is crazy enough to do anything in the hope it will "spook" them.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8725991/DAN-HODGES-Boris-Johnson-really-mad-hit-No-Deal-nuclear-button.html

It seems an incredibly high risk strategy.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

They have some sort of tenuous excuse about the IM Bill protecting the GFA and keeping trade open between NI and GB. It is very weak and doesn't stand up to any scrutiny once you start scratching at it, but if they pull out of the ECHR that is a direct attack on the GFA. There is no two way about it, the ECHR is referred to in the GFA and not hinted at like the EU and the single market.

I think if this is true this has Gove's fingerprints all over it. He has been against the GFA for a long time and I think he would be very happy to look like he is the innocent party and the big bad would be PM Johnson over there. Nothing to do with him while he has that blank look on his face trying to feign ignorance. He is anything but ignorant and my guess is he is the one to watch for the EU as he has the ideological belief and is ruthless enough to get what he wants, even if it leaves bodies in the way.

Absolutely. Gove is infinitely more savvy than Johnson. He's a cute hoor.

Charles Babbage

Strazdas wrote: »

Dan Hodges in the Mail on Sunday thinks Johnson is trying to bounce the EU into signing a trade deal i.e. throw his weight around like a hard man and imply he is cray enough to do anything in the hope it will "spook" them.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8725991/DAN-HODGES-Boris-Johnson-really-mad-hit-No-Deal-nuclear-button.html

It seems an incredibly high risk strategy.

This is all very fine if this was a once off deal, but the EU has many deals throughout the world, it has to apply a measure of consistency to these.

Strazdas

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This is all very fine if this was a once off deal, but the EU has many deals throughout the world, it has to apply a measure of consistency to these.

Yes, it implies the EU must be desperate for a trade deal.

Also, the "I'm crazy enough to do anything, just watch me" spiel can only succeed in making Johnson look shifty and unreliable and like a loose cannon.

View

Strazdas wrote: »

Dan Hodges in the Mail on Sunday thinks Johnson is trying to bounce the EU into signing a trade deal i.e. throw his weight around like a hard man and imply he is crazy enough to do anything in the hope it will "spook" them.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8725991/DAN-HODGES-Boris-Johnson-really-mad-hit-No-Deal-nuclear-button.html

It seems an incredibly high risk strategy.

The EU has negotiated many trade deals over the decades. I am sure that virtually every trick out there has been used at some stage over the years to try and spook our EU negotiators, so Johnson having a tantrum is unlikely to phase them in the slightest.

Enzokk

Strazdas wrote: »

Dan Hodges in the Mail on Sunday thinks Johnson is trying to bounce the EU into signing a trade deal i.e. throw his weight around like a hard man and imply he is crazy enough to do anything in the hope it will "spook" them.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8725991/DAN-HODGES-Boris-Johnson-really-mad-hit-No-Deal-nuclear-button.html

It seems an incredibly high risk strategy.

It is extremely high risk, especially when the EU cannot budge. If they do then the next negotiation with another country will have the same strategy and it will be rehashed at every subsequent negotiation after that. This rubbish wasn't tried with May because she knew it wouldn't work. But now you have even worse politicians in the room and this is the result.

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

It is extremely high risk, especially when the EU cannot budge. If they do then the next negotiation with another country will have the same strategy and it will be rehashed at every subsequent negotiation after that. This rubbish wasn't tried with May because she knew it wouldn't work. But now you have even worse politicians in the room and this is the result.

The hardcore Brexiteer types in the press were of course urging this all along : the tough guy who thumps the table, delivers ultimatums and slams the door behind him.

Everything this week suggests it's all going horribly wrong on him.

Joe_ Public

I think their only strategy, if you can even call it that, has been to act the maggot, make a lot of noise and hope to drive a wedge between the group of 27, sow as much discord as they can. So you have the likes of Kawzincsky trying to work up the visegrad countries and others doing similar in Italy and elsewhere. And its not working and they've just met a wall of unity they can't break. The idea they can outmuscle the eu in the bullying stakes is risible but would expect nothing less from the utterly useless Dan Hodges anyway.

Spleodar

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yes but that's probably bluffing?

Given the UK returned a whole raft of Brexit party MEPs who spent their entire time viciously insulting the parliament, I think they're going to be told where to go.

We're far more forgiving of this because we are seeing it from a UK media perspective where it's all a bit of a nationalistic laugh. A lot of MEPs were absolutely horrified at the level of utter destain that group poured on them every day and it became very extreme. They said some things that can't really be unsaid, brushed over or taken back. It was just incredibly insulting to any elected house anywhere.

There's a level of damage that's been done to the relationship that I think the British media either fully participated in, when it comes to the tabloids, or has a complete blind spot to, when it comes to much of the sensible commentators.

It was ugly, nasty, intentionally deeply offensive and just plain awful and I really don't think there's any coming back from it.

All that's going to happen is the ERG and Brexit Party will keep ratcheting up the nasty rhetoric, fully supported by the tabloids and a large section of the British media. Enough of the country is very capable of endulging in a bubble of hate, without any sense of how they're being perceived beyond that and then going into a victim mentality when it all backfires.

If you add it to the fact that Trump is going to be reaching a crescendo over the next few months and will still be in office, whether he has lost or not, until early January, I can't see the UK mood music changing.

My view is it at this stage is they'll crash out and we should be prepared for an absolute economic tsunami in early 2021.

They don't have a solution to this and I think we are giving them far, far too much credit for their being some kind of grand strategy behind it. You're looking at probably the lowest point in British politics in living memory, much like you're looking at the same in America. They don't have the scale and momentum of the USA to come out the otherside and pick up the pieces and the Coronavirus issues have the potential to really compound it due to economic strains.

My prediction is that there's chaos ahead and it's highly unpredictable.

Zubeneschamali

theguzman wrote: »

Are we facing the spectre of a hard border retuning to Northern Ireland now?

If the UK are not bluffing, yes.

I'd expect in that case that the absolute chaos which descends on the UK in January would force them back to the table within weeks, and the NI border would be gone again before we have to do much to enforce it.

But if Johnson & co somehow tough it out through the rationing, food lines, mass layoffs, medical shortages, travel chaos and so on, I'd expect folks to start a push for a referendum in the North to leave the failing UK.

murphaph

Exactly. Hard border required in Ireland means a hard border is required at Calais etc.

The Irish border will have to have somewhat of a blind eye turned to it while we see how long England is prepared to live with it's hard border.

I'd expect the government to advise the public to use certain approved routes, where there will be fairly token checks initially, with unapproved roads being left alone.

Might see English people rapidly question if the union with NI is worth not having avocado toast every day. That is if they can put the pieces of the puzzle together. Their interest in the political details is lower than ours.

fash

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think their only strategy, if you can even call it that, has been to act the maggot, make a lot of noise and hope to drive a wedge between the group of 27, sow as much discord as they can. So you have the likes of Kawzincsky trying to work up the visegrad countries and others doing similar in Italy and elsewhere. And its not working and they've just met a wall of unity they can't break. The idea they can outmuscle the eu in the bullying stakes is risible but would expect nothing less from the utterly useless Dan Hodges anyway.

I think that a very significant problem now is that if there were a deal, because of lack of UK state (customs, technology, informing private sector about labeling etc.) and private sector preparation on top of the natural consequences of leaving the single market, there would be absolute chaos in January. That would make the UK government look even more incompetent than they look already after all their fiascos (tying in to the labour line of attack on them). Not only that but any agreement they did get would not only look pathetic as compared to membership - but would involve such compromises that it would be instantly attacked from both sides.
So it's back to the "once you write Brexit down on paper, it instantly evaporates" problem.

Basically if you get a deal, there will be absolute chaos and Johnson will be attacked from the left ("this is worse than membership/what you promised") and right "this is not true Brexit" - when he already has a growing reputation for incompetence. Blaming Johnny Foreigner has the advantage that "it's not my fault" and "you are helping the enemy" talking points.
So do you think Johnson is more likely to take the route where he is responsible or where he is "not" responsible?

Shelga

Simon Coveney sounded more frustrated than I’ve ever heard him on Andrew Marr just now. He was articulate as ever, but he kind of dodged the specific question on whether Michel Barnier has withheld third country status from Britain- I admit I don’t really understand what this is about, so would have been good to hear a bit more about it.

FastFullBack

Shelga wrote: »

Simon Coveney sounded more frustrated than I’ve ever heard him on Andrew Marr just now. He was articulate as ever, but he kind of dodged the specific question on whether Michel Barnier has withheld third country status from Britain- I admit I don’t really understand what this is about, so would have been good to hear a bit more about it.

+1

First time I've heard of them withholding third party status. Coveney's explanation to the GB - NI blockades bull**** was spot on.

geezerbutler

Shelga wrote: »

I think because they want no deal, so they’re pretending to care about the union to give them cover.

I really don’t understand people like Michael Gove though. He doesn’t seem nearly as dumb as someone like Mark Francois. He must know how catastrophic no trade deal with the EU will be, for vast amounts of the population. Are people like him really so intent on enriching shadowy figures that they really don’t care about destabilising their own country like this? And they have the audacity to call Remainers traitors?

Enzokk wrote: »

They have some sort of tenuous excuse about the IM Bill protecting the GFA and keeping trade open between NI and GB. It is very weak and doesn't stand up to any scrutiny once you start scratching at it, but if they pull out of the ECHR that is a direct attack on the GFA. There is no two way about it, the ECHR is referred to in the GFA and not hinted at like the EU and the single market.

I think if this is true this has Gove's fingerprints all over it. He has been against the GFA for a long time and I think he would be very happy to look like he is the innocent party and the big bad would be PM Johnson over there. Nothing to do with him while he has that blank look on his face trying to feign ignorance. He is anything but ignorant and my guess is he is the one to watch for the EU as he has the ideological belief and is ruthless enough to get what he wants, even if it leaves bodies in the way.

I often wondered about Gove - as others have pointed out he seems cleverer than most of the other brexiteers who lap up the contents of the rag media. I wonder does he see the damaging effect on the Good Friday Agreement as more than just a side effect of the trade talks breakdown - but more or and end in itself --- at the time he was one of the more vocal opponent of the Good Friday Agreement. Also the Emma DeSouza case demonstrates the scant regard the conservatives have for the GFA

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/michael-gove-good-friday-agreement-peace-process-northern-ireland-235438

Enzokk

Here is Tony Connelly on the state of play,

Brexit: Boris Johnson, state aid and a 'rushed' treaty

Two remarks about the UK's breach of the Northern Ireland Protocol this week stand out.

In the first, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells the House of Commons that the Internal Market Bill is a "legal safety net to protect our country against extreme or irrational interpretations of the Protocol".

In the second, Downing Street briefs that the Withdrawal Agreement containing the Protocol was "agreed at pace in the most challenging possible political circumstances".

Taken together, the remarks portray a UK government being railroaded into a treaty, with the result that the EU would deliberately weaken the Union through some unforeseen ("extreme" or "irrational") interpretation of the Protocol.

The British government has always loathed what it signed up to. Boris Johnson and others lost no time in denying the Protocol’s implications, to the exasperation of the partners with whom he had just signed the treaty.

Basically Johnson didn't know what he signed up for because he, or any of his team, never queried it. The EU didn't hide it as it has been at the forefront of negotiations from the start, but May agreed to it with the idea that it would be overwritten by the larger trade deal they would agree with the EU.

Johnson tinkered with the deal of May, didn't ask about state aid at all and is now most likely regretting being a bit of an idiot who is in way over his head. Now they are trying to get the EU to revisit his mistakes by breaking international law and possibly opening up the WA again.

Here is a write up of some of the appearances on TV this morning,

Britain's reputation as negotiating partner 'damaged' - Coveney

Nody

Shelga wrote: »

Simon Coveney sounded more frustrated than I’ve ever heard him on Andrew Marr just now. He was articulate as ever, but he kind of dodged the specific question on whether Michel Barnier has withheld third country status from Britain- I admit I don’t really understand what this is about, so would have been good to hear a bit more about it.

This was highlighted a few threads ago but basically a third party country status is required for EU to recognize a countries' certifications. For example food safety standards, rules in a slaughter house, tracing of animals etc. required to lower the default inspection rate (80%) which takes 6 months and require EU vets to visit and check the processes. Same applies for other areas such as airplanes to verify if an inspection, control & certification that a plane can fly meets EU requirements or not. If not the planes certified by the country are not allowed to lift from an EU airport etc.

This is where UK's arrogance once again comes into play; UK thought they would automatically get all this stuff (because we're UK) and did not bother to look into it further. This when EU kept saying you'll be a third party country in relation to EU and they took it as they would get all they wanted anyway through their excellent negotiation and stiff upper lip.

abff

I thought the statement by John Major and Tony Blair summed the situation up pretty accurately.

"We both opposed Brexit. We both accept it is now happening. But this way of negotiating, with reason cast aside in pursuit of ideology and cavalier bombast posing as serious diplomacy, is irresponsible, wrong in principle and dangerous in practice," they said.

"It raises questions that go far beyond the impact on Ireland, the peace process and negotiations for a trade deal - crucial though they are. It questions the very integrity of our nation."

Despite all the Rule Britannia rhetoric, surely common sense will have to prevail and they will have to back down on this issue.

fash

FastFullBack wrote: »

+1

First time I've heard of them withholding third party status. Coveney's explanation to the GB - NI blockades bull**** was spot on.

The "approved third party" thing appears to be a reference to the UK's continuing failure (4 years and counting plus failure to extend transition) to apply to for third country listing and failure to provide details of its proposed standards. Likely of course because they have no idea themselves:

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87728

fash

Nody wrote: »

This was highlighted a few threads ago but basically a third party country status is required for EU to recognize a countries' certifications. For example food safety standards, rules in a slaughter house, tracing of animals etc. required to lower the default inspection rate (80%) which takes 6 months and require EU vets to visit and check the processes. Same applies for other areas such as airplanes to verify if an inspection, control & certification that a plane can fly meets EU requirements or not. If not the planes certified by the country are not allowed to lift from an EU airport etc.

This is where UK's arrogance once again comes into play; UK thought they would automatically get all this stuff (because we're UK) and did not bother to look into it further. This when EU kept saying you'll be a third party country in relation to EU and they took it as they would get all they wanted anyway through their excellent negotiation and stiff upper lip.

The particular problem is the UK still hasn't applied for or provided details of its intentions for approval to be given.

Edit: as confirmed just now by Barnier:

amacca

abff wrote: »

Despite all the Rule Britannia rhetoric, surely common sense will have to prevail and they will have to back down on this issue.

Perhaps....but then those ideologically opposed to the EU and those that dont give a hoot but find it politically or personally financially expedient will spend the next 30 year whinging about it saying they were bullied 8nto submission by EU ...and the whole thing festers again

At this stage barring a UK peoples revolt against these clowns its sadly in almost everyones best interests (not the majority of british people though imo) the UK either leave quickly or are forced to leave and suffer dire economic consequences.........its just a pity there will be consequences for those ordinary citizens that didnt vote for it and fallout for Ireland.

Theres a reason why you are left with the kind of politician that remains in power over there, only the craven self interested or deluded or plain not very bright ones would board this train willingly.

Joe_ Public

Shelga wrote: »

Simon Coveney sounded more frustrated than I’ve ever heard him on Andrew Marr just now. He was articulate as ever, but he kind of dodged the specific question on whether Michel Barnier has withheld third country status from Britain- I admit I don’t really understand what this is about, so would have been good to hear a bit more about it.

Coveney did sound very frustrated but in the circumstances i think he got his tone spot on under a tough line of questioning from marr. Was a very resolute and impression performance i thought, even more so given the wishy washy labour mp who followed and talked about "posturing on both sides."

Shelga

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Coveney did sound very frustrated but in the circumstances i think he got his tone spot on under a tough line of questioning from marr. Was a very resolute and impression performance i thought, even more so given the wishy washy labour mp who followed and talked about "posturing on both sides."

I noticed that. She had clearly been told to include that line by a media trainer whose instructions are to not alienate Leave voters.

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is Tony Connelly on the state of play,

Brexit: Boris Johnson, state aid and a 'rushed' treaty



Basically Johnson didn't know what he signed up for because he, or any of his team, never queried it. The EU didn't hide it as it has been at the forefront of negotiations from the start, but May agreed to it with the idea that it would be overwritten by the larger trade deal they would agree with the EU.

Johnson tinkered with the deal of May, didn't ask about state aid at all and is now most likely regretting being a bit of an idiot who is in way over his head. Now they are trying to get the EU to revisit his mistakes by breaking international law and possibly opening up the WA again.

Here is a write up of some of the appearances on TV this morning,

Britain's reputation as negotiating partner 'damaged' - Coveney

Wait till they turn to page 223 of the WA and find hidden in the middle of paragraph 12 the requirement for every UK family must to dispatch their eldest child, when they reach the age of eighteen, to serve in the European Army and defend the EU from foreign powers and serve on the Russian or Turkish front.

Of course, this is not true, but several internet companies have tried such japes on those who just click on the terms and conditions without reading them.

They cannot come back and say it does not apply because 'I never read the small print'. Try telling a bank that when they come to repossess.