Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK is not being permitted to act as a fully sovereign country. The EU has said they must stick to EU standards regarding food, labour etc
The EU are demanding access to fishing waters and the rest.
The only way around this is either no free trade, the EU gives in it the UK does.

Recent moves by the UK show that they wont be giving in.

Clarification. The EU are not saying they must stick to EU standards.
The EU are saying the UK must stick to EU standards in order to gain freedom to trade on equal terms with other EU countries.

As is being shown in HoC, the UK can make whatever laws it likes. As can the EU.

It is the price of a trade deal. The UK knew, or should have, before starting out of this adventure.

listermint

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK is not being permitted to act as a fully sovereign country. The EU has said they must stick to EU standards regarding food, labour etc
The EU are demanding access to fishing waters and the rest.
The only way around this is either no free trade, the EU gives in it the UK does.

Recent moves by the UK show that they wont be giving in.

You still haven't grasped it... You are swallowing UK headlines.


Simple fact. You cannot want and get access to a nightclub and wear whatever gym clothes you like. The nightclub has standards that it requires from patrons.

You'll be left on the pavement outside looking in the window with your favourite shorts and sleeveless top on.

Enzokk

View wrote: »

The Labour Party are just as hostile to EU membership now as the Conservatives are, merely less rabid about it.

Both parties are chasing the xenophobes vote.

Nope, Labour is letting the Tories own Brexit. No use opposing them on everything as it is what Johnson wants. Do not mistake silence as them wanting or agreeing with Brexit. But they are stepping aside and not allowing the Tories to use them as an excuse when it is going wrong.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK is not being permitted to act as a fully sovereign country. The EU has said they must stick to EU standards regarding food, labour etc
The EU are demanding access to fishing waters and the rest.
The only way around this is either no free trade, the EU gives in it the UK does.

Recent moves by the UK show that they wont be giving in.

Trade negotiator here with his view on sovereignty,

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1304107802344984588?s=20

Any trade deal you make you give up some of it, so unless the UK doesn't want trade deals with anybody then your point is moot.

You know what, the UK can have their access to their waters for fishing, where will they offload their catch though?

We will see on giving in, seeing there has already been 10+ u-turns by Johnson, my bet is on him caving once more.

Seth Brundle

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK is not being permitted to act as a fully sovereign country. The EU has said they must stick to EU standards regarding food, labour etc
The EU are demanding access to fishing waters and the rest.
The only way around this is either no free trade, the EU gives in it the UK does.

Recent moves by the UK show that they wont be giving in.

The UK is not being stopped from being a sovereign nation. However, the UK claims to want a trade deal with the EU knowing that there are rules and minimum standards in place but don't want to be expected to abide by them. That is not the EU blocking UK sovereignty, it is the EU guarding it's market, one which the UK was involved in creating.
The UK despite all it's bluster is not being stopped from being sovereign state. They can at any point walk away from these negotiations. Nobody is stopping them.

Peregrinus

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK is not being permitted to act as a fully sovereign country. The EU has said they must stick to EU standards regarding food, labour etc

No. The EU has invited them to agree to stick to EU standards regarding food, labour etc as a quid pro quo for some things they want from the EU. Huge, huge difference. Inviting a country to make a treaty with you, even on terms that the country eventually chooses not to accept, is not infringing or denying its sovereignty. On the contrary, it's affirming its sovereign. It's because its a sovereign that the UK can make treaties, and be bound by them.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The EU are demanding access to fishing waters and the rest.

Same goes. These are treaty terms which the EU are proposing to the UK. The UK can agree, make a treaty on those terms, and be bound by it. Or it can decline. Either way, it remains fully sovereign.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The only way around this is either no free trade, the EU gives in it the UK does.

This is a rather dramatic way of stating the blindingly obvious - either there will be a free trade agreement or there will not, and there will only be a free trade agreement if the parties reach agreement on the outstanding points. It's a Brexiter trope to characterise reaching an agreement as "giving in"; you probably shouldn't mimic it. People might think you were a Brexiter, and you wouldn't want that, would you?

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Recent moves by the UK show that they wont be giving in.

You mean, they won't agree to terms? Yes, I think you're right. They seem to be repeatedly slamming their hands down as hard as they can on the big red "destroy the trade talks" button. For reasons we can only speculate about, they've chosen to destroy the trade talks in a way that also destroys their own credibility, reputation and standing. Still, a sovereign country is free to exercise its sovereignty in self-harming ways.

Zubeneschamali

BluePlanet wrote: »

There are no great options for Ireland here. Can't bring a referendum for a UI, can't compel the UK to do a damn thing. Maybe offer a relocation grant for the worst effected and compulsory purchase orders to create a DMZ at crossings.

Ha, ha, no.

A month or two of No Deal will bring them back to the table, and Item 1 will be No Border on the island of Ireland.

If they survive until March, the EU should get tough and remove the unilateral temporary arrangements they have announced, one by one. See how the UK get on when one port after another collapses and then air traffic gets grounded.

VinLieger

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK is not being permitted to act as a fully sovereign country. The EU has said they must stick to EU standards regarding food, labour etc

If the UK want access to the single market they need to meet the minimum requirements for food and other products exactly like literally every other country that has a FTA with the EU. Why do you believe the UK is special here and shouldn't have to do the same as everyone else?

Also the UK literally agreed to several of these and more in the Japan deal signed only last week and theyve been boasting about it nonstop since. Why arent you shouting about sovereignty in relation to that?

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Recent moves by the UK show that they wont be giving in.

Again they gave in on exactly the same issues in the Japan deal signed last week. The same state aid restrictions the EU asked for are in that deal and the UK happily agreed to them and even boasted about signing up to them.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

They seem to be repeatedly slamming their hands down as hard as they can on the big red "destroy the trade talks" button.

With Johnson & co., as with Trump, we must remember that they are really, really bad at their jobs.

It is still quite possible that all of this is posturing as a negotiating tactic, that they believe their own nonsense that the EU will blink, and that when they realise they have lost this round they will fold, just as they did last round and the round before.

This can't undo the reputational damage they are doing, but it may mean they are not trying to wreck talks, they are just raising the stakes, as they see them, in a final bluff.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

With Johnson & co., as with Trump, we must remember that they are really, really bad at their jobs.

It is still quite possible that all of this is posturing as a negotiating tactic, that they believe their own nonsense that the EU will blink, and that when they realise they have lost this round they will fold, just as they did last round and the round before.

It's possible, but this time they are painting themselves into a corner in which a face-saving U-turn is very difficult.

Violation of treaty obligations is really an existential threat to the EU, which is an organisation constituted and governed by treaty. They simply can't ignore or wave away the position the UK is taking here. Unambiguous repudiation by the UK of the position it has taken this week will be required before the EU can make any deal with it. Even if the terms of an FTA can be hammered out, the FTA still won't happen unless the UK abandons this Bill (or repeals it, if it has already been enacted) and reaffirms publicly its commitment to the good-faith implementation of the WA, in full, in all circumstances. And not even Johnson can sell that as anything other than a humiliating climbdown. The followers of the hard Brexit cult have been long conditioned to swallow sh!t fed to them by their masters while pretending that it is honey, but I really think this would be the point where that would break down.

Cole

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The EU has invited them to agree to stick to EU standards regarding food, labour etc as a quid pro quo for some things they want from the EU. Huge, huge difference. Inviting a country to make a treaty with you, even on terms that the country eventually chooses not to accept, is not infringing or denying its sovereignty. On the contrary, it's affirming its sovereign. It's because its a sovereign that the UK can make treaties, and be bound by them.


Same goes. These are treaty terms which the EU are proposing to the UK. The UK can agree, make a treaty on those terms, and be bound by it. Or it can decline. Either way, it remains fully sovereign.


This is a rather dramatic way of stating the blindingly obvious - either there will be a free trade agreement or there will not, and there will only be a free trade agreement if the parties reach agreement on the outstanding points. It's a Brexiter trope to characterise reaching an agreement as "giving in"; you probably shouldn't mimic it. People might think you were a Brexiter, and you wouldn't want that, would you?


You mean, they won't agree to terms? Yes, I think you're right. They seem to be repeatedly slamming their hands down as hard as they can on the big red "destroy the trade talks" button. For reasons we can only speculate about, they've chosen to destroy the trade talks in a way that also destroys their own credibility, reputation and standing. Still, a sovereign country is free to exercise its sovereignty in self-harming ways.

Good post...nice and clear interpretation

Leroy42

One could possibly, if squinting hard enough, see a possible path for the UK out of the corner.

Yesterday many were at pains to state that the act itself wasn't breaking international law, only if acted upon.

Timeliness would suggest that this will not be passed until late 2020 or even 2021. So UK agree some deal, which they sell as a triumph and getting 3rd country status (which is pretty much a given once they apply for it and IMO it is a bogus issue designed to set up a 'victory') and Johnson can then retract the proposed legislation as having secured a deal, the threat is no longer requires.

Will be sold as a masterstroke of negotiation with the line that nobody in the government ever intended to use it, and the rest of the party knew of this amazing bluff.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The followers of the hard Brexit cult have been long conditioned to swallow sh!t fed to them by their masters while pretending that it is honey, but I really think this would be the point where that would break down.

Firstly, they didn't object when Davis folded after promising a fight, and they didn't object to Johnsons capitulation on the WA, they hailed his victory.

Secondly Johnson and Gove have both repeated that they have no plan or desire to use these powers to break the law, so if they declare victory they can claim their tactic worked and withdraw it with some cover.

Thirdly, you may be right and the Brexiteers won't swallow it, but remember Johnson is a lazy useless overconfident buffer who has gotten away with it for years, he may think they will until they don't.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

One could possibly, if squinting hard enough, see a possible path for the UK out of the corner.

Yesterday many were at pains to state that the act itself wasn't breaking international law, only if acted upon.

This is wrong. If this bill is enacted, the UK is immediately in violation of its obligations under the WA.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Timeliness would suggest that this will not be passed until late 2020 or even 2021.

For obvious reasons, the UK government's strategy requires this bill to be enacted, and to enter into operation, by 31 December 2020 at the latest.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So UK agree some deal, which they sell as a triumph and getting 3rd country status (which is pretty much a given once they apply for it and IMO it is a bogus issue designed to set up a 'victory') and Johnson can then retract the proposed legislation as having secured a deal, the threat is no longer requires.

I think the abandonment of the bill/repeal of the act, plus a public recommitment to the WA, will have to come before an FTA is agreed - as in, this will be of the conditions to any FTA. And it will be difficult for the EU to be seen to give any concession in FTA negotiations in response to this stance. So any concession the UK does get will almost certainly be less than the concession it could have got, had it not pursued this particular form of gratuitous self-harm.

I think even committed hard Brexiters would struggle to pretend to accept that Johnson had secured a "victory" in any FTA that might now be negotiated.

Peregrinus

Interesting and pungent analysis by Tom McTague (British journalist, but writes for American media) here.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is wrong. If this bill is enacted, the UK is immediately in violation of its obligations under the WA.


For obvious reasons, the UK government's strategy requires this bill to be enacted, and to enter into operation, by 31 December 2020 at the latest.


I think the abandonment of the bill/repeal of the act, plus a public recommitment to the WA, will have to come before an FTA is agreed - as in, this will be of the conditions to any FTA. And it will be difficult for the EU to be seen to give any concession in FTA negotiations in response to this stance. So any concession the UK does get will almost certainly be less than the concession it could have got, had it not pursued this particular form of gratuitous self-harm.

I think even committed hard Brexiters would struggle to pretend to accept that Johnson had secured a "victory" in any FTA that might now be negotiated.

All that is correct, and would be the case in any normal circumstances, but Brexit is far from normal. Yesterday we witnessed the Tory party angrily argue that an agreement, that they themselves had lauded as a masterstroke and a perfect example of Johnsons unique abilities, was now a Trojan Horse designed to break up the UK and lead to food blockaids!

These are the same people that said that Brexit would be easy, that nothing would change, that Eu would cave, that they held all the cards etc etc.

It is now all about how to get something that they can sell as a victor. To think, after the way they exclaimed 'victory' on the WA, when many observers pointed out that if anything it was a worse deal than TM had secured, shows that reality is not important.

In terms of the timing. I understand the need to have it passed, but darn it the Lords might delay it and sure what can you do.

I know they are violation by passing the bill but I was pointing out that many of the speakers last night were at pains to state that simply having the law didn't and only acting on it did. That is their get out.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Interesting and pungent analysis by Tom McTague (British journalist, but writes for American media) here.

Very good. Though the UK is represented as a mendacious fool, it is actually quite balanced in that the EU doesn't emerge smelling of roses either.

I told ya

Maybe people with international freight experience could give their views.

As I understand it a significant amount of freight, in both directions, use the UK landbridge. My view is that as Brexit is turning sour, this freight should be rerouted directly and avoid using the UKLB. I appreciate that this is a different model, with additional costs and timescales. But IMO it would bring a level of certainty to delivery times, costs, etc.

Where as, I can see this freight being held to ransom irrespective of any assurances. Particularly as they are prepared to use the GFA as a bargaining chip.

My own view now is that the UK Gov do not want any deal. And this is for a number of reasons:

Firstly, they oversold Brexit. Any FTA they get with the EU will be less than what they promised. So they're in a worse position.

Secondly, if there is a no deal crash out they will try and bounce the EU into a number of mini deals on areas that suit them and ignore the rest. With chaos at the ports and airports they may feel this would work.

Thirdly, the UK Gov believe that the 'special relationship' with the USA will get them a great trade deal. IMO the US will drive a very hard bargain in any trade deal with the UK.

Fourthly, I've read a few articles on efforts by the EU to bring in some form of tax evasion rules. Per one of the articles it was estimated that there was, in US$, a sum in the order of 39 trillion in cash/assets in various tax havens. These assets have never being subject to tax in some country or countries. It was further claimed that some UK residents (read rich Tory backers) would have a significant sake in this. Apologies for not being able to provide a link, it was a number of months ago I read the article.

I'm sure there are other reasons.

IMO Brexit has the potential to cause the ROI and NI serious problems.

fly_agaric

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The UK is not being permitted to act as a fully sovereign country.

Being sovereign doesn't mean no constraints on actions.

There's probably 2 countries in the world (US/China) which approach that compared to all the rest of "us". UK is not, and will never be on their level.

The Brexit process now appears to be about self-image among its rulers/leaders that UK is a global superpower/empire somehow being shackled unfairly by the EU (e.g. by the treaty it signed up to when leaving the EU, or EUs conditions on UK for continued easy access to the EU Single market in a trade agreement).

Not old enough to remember but maybe it is a repeat of their "Suez crisis" for a new generation.

looksee

I told ya wrote: »

Maybe people with international freight experience could give their views.

As I understand it a significant amount of freight, in both directions, use the UK landbridge. My view is that as Brexit is turning sour, this freight should be rerouted directly and avoid using the UKLB. I appreciate that this is a different model, with additional costs and timescales. But IMO it would bring a level of certainty to delivery times, costs, etc.

Where as, I can see this freight being held to ransom irrespective of any assurances. Particularly as they are prepared to use the GFA as a bargaining chip.

My own view now is that the UK Gov do not want any deal. And this is for a number of reasons:

Firstly, they oversold Brexit. Any FTA they get with the EU will be less than what they promised. So they're in a worse position.

Secondly, if there is a no deal crash out they will try and bounce the EU into a number of mini deals on areas that suit them and ignore the rest. With chaos at the ports and airports they may feel this would work.

Thirdly, the UK Gov believe that the 'special relationship' with the USA will get them a great trade deal. IMO the US will drive a very hard bargain in any trade deal with the UK.

Fourthly, I've read a few articles on efforts by the EU to bring in some form of tax evasion rules. Per one of the articles it was estimated that there was, in US$, a sum in the order of 39 trillion in cash/assets in various tax havens. These assets have never being subject to tax in some country or countries. It was further claimed that some UK residents (read rich Tory backers) would have a significant sake in this. Apologies for not being able to provide a link, it was a number of months ago I read the article.

I'm sure there are other reasons.

IMO Brexit has the potential to cause the ROI and NI serious problems.

With the exception of 'Fourthly' that is a pretty good summation of the content of the 13 iterations of the Brexit thread here on Boards.

The Fourthly point would not be at all surprising, there has to be something in this whole fiasco for somebody.

Peregrinus

I told ya wrote: »

As I understand it a significant amount of freight, in both directions, use the UK landbridge. My view is that as Brexit is turning sour, this freight should be rerouted directly and avoid using the UKLB. I appreciate that this is a different model, with additional costs and timescales. But IMO it would bring a level of certainty to delivery times, costs, etc. . . .

The freight that can be rerouted, will be. A good deal has been done to increase capacity on the sea route and to plan for increased movements on that route.

But there will be some freight that just can't be transferred, because either the additional time involved will make it unviable (e.g. transport of fresh produce) or because the extra costs involved will make it uneconomic. And there's no point in sugar-coating it; that is going to hurt us.

I told ya wrote: »

IMO Brexit has the potential to cause the ROI and NI serious problems.

Yes. And hard brexit particularly so. And no-FTA brexit particularly, particularly so.

VinLieger

I told ya wrote: »

Maybe people with international freight experience could give their views.

As I understand it a significant amount of freight, in both directions, use the UK landbridge. My view is that as Brexit is turning sour, this freight should be rerouted directly and avoid using the UKLB. I appreciate that this is a different model, with additional costs and timescales. But IMO it would bring a level of certainty to delivery times, costs, etc.

Where as, I can see this freight being held to ransom irrespective of any assurances. Particularly as they are prepared to use the GFA as a bargaining chip.

This has already started with 2 of the largest RoRo ferries in the world already running routes to Europe.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/brexit-busting-ferry-launched-from-dublin-port-1.3468760

Hermy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Very good. Though the UK is represented as a mendacious fool, it is actually quite balanced in that the EU doesn't emerge smelling of roses either.

Would you agree that the EU doesn't emerge smelling of roses?

Professor Moriarty

Hermy wrote: »

Would you agree that the EU doesn't emerge smelling of roses?

Perspective is everything. From an Irish perspective, the EU can do no wrong. From a Unionist perspective, the EU is trying to carve them away from the UK. From a Brexiteer perspective, the EU is trying to force a BRINO on them with threats. From the EU perspective, it's perfidious Albion wanting cake once again. As always, somewhere in the middle is the truth

Leroy42

Hermy wrote: »

Would you agree that the EU doesn't emerge smelling of roses?

Not sure what else the EU could have done.

It is easy to say they should have been more agreeable to concessions, but throughout this process the UK has either ignored concessions or taken concessions as they new starting point.

The EU were, are and will continue to be, the larger entity. It was for this very reason, to have more power collectively than individually that the EU has developed the way it has. The UK, once a leading force in that process, is now finding out what that actually means.

They have enjoyed the benefits of that position, and now seemingly think it unfair.

It is true that a no deal is bad for both sides. Not just economically, but it represents a major breakdown in relations between two major Euorpean powers, and this is one of the leading reasons for the EU project in the first place - to engender relationships between countries such that conflicts were avoided in the future.

But overall, whilst of course there are things the EU got wrong, I think that Brexit was always bound to fail and lead to exactly the position that we have found ourselves and the EU, though patient and diplomatic endurance, have done all that could reasonably be expected to avoid that.

BluePlanet

Problem is that the EU were negotiating with a dishonest party.
There was no compromise the EU could offer that would satisfy Brexiters.

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

(...)
I know they are violation by passing the bill but I was pointing out that many of the speakers last night were at pains to state that simply having the law didn't and only acting on it did. That is their get out.

I understand the point you raise.

But you cannot expect the EU to continue negotiating an FTA with the UK constructively, once UK Ministers are statutorily empowered to 'undo' any aspect of that FTA at any given time, moreover with full latitude wholly unfettered by Parliamentary oversight. Particularly once that situation is appraised in the broader context of the current, unaccountable Cummings-Johnson politics and their fast-growing track record of South American-grade corruption.

That would be appeasement, and History demonstrates that it never works. Heck, the EU27 helping Cameron and then May time and time again over the last 5 years, are all the evidence of it, that you'd ever need.

No, I'm sorry, Leroy. After last night, enough really is enough. The EU27 should not close the negotiations, certainly. But it absolutely should stop appeasing and facilitating UK political games once and for all, and let the Brits -all of them- own their Brexit good and hard until they tire of it.

Charles Babbage

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Perspective is everything. From an Irish perspective, the EU can do no wrong. From a Unionist perspective, the EU is trying to carve them away from the UK. From a Brexiteer perspective, the EU is trying to force a BRINO on them with threats. From the EU perspective, it's perfidious Albion wanting cake once again. As always, somewhere in the middle is the truth

You can also have truth and not just a fact free political viewpoint. The EU is not trying to do anything to NI, it would quite happily leave things exactly as they are, it is the British government that is changing things. anyone that puts blame elsewhere is sacrificing truth.

trellheim

Sammy Wilson mentioned in the Commons last night

. Indeed, those who are criticising the Government about the non-implementation of the withdrawal agreement ought to know that only on Friday the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs overrode the Northern Ireland Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister and instructed civil servants in Northern Ireland to put up border posts and put in a proposal for border posts, even though all the information about what would be necessary had not been accepted.

See Hansard https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-09-14/debates/83A18A5B-75DE-4843-9C64-FAD20602C884/UnitedKingdomInternalMarketBill

Professor Moriarty

Charles Babbage wrote: »

You can also have truth and not just a fact free political viewpoint. The EU is not trying to do anything to NI, it would quite happily leave things exactly as they are, it is the British government that is changing things. anyone that puts blame elsewhere is sacrificing truth.

That depends on how you see it. From a Unionist perspective, the EU bullied/manipulated the UK government into putting a border down the Irish Sea.

Leroy42

ambro25 wrote: »

No, I'm sorry, Leroy. After last night, enough really is enough. The EU27 should not close the negotiations, certainly. But it absolutely should stop appeasing and facilitating UK political games once and for all, and let the Brits -all of them- own their Brexit good and hard until they tire of it.

Jus tot be clear, I am not saying the position is correct, just that it appears that it is the way they are trying to frame it.