Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

trellheim

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.

Boris freely signed the WA ( inconvenient narrative I know for the Unionists). Apparently (given the above from Sammy Wilson and other DUP there's shenanigans going on with the WA implementation )

fash

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

I agree with this. What can the EU do? The short transition the UK sought could only accommodate an "all or nothing" 0/0 FTA. Unless the EU prepared a partially tariffed FTA with less onerous conditions and tariffs on sensitive areas in advance just in case, there is no way for the UK to climb down far enough and quickly enough to reach agreement (and even in case of the prepp'd FTA- it would have to be a take it or leave it given the time constraints).
How do you even do an "implemention period" out of what do currently have?
How much fiasco would happen in January anyway due to UK incompetence in relation to customs etc.? How do you promote the "great deal" while the customs infrastructure is collapsing (which would happen without a new implemention period)?
Etc.

reslfj

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

....Half of UK exports go to EU btw, only 4% in other direction.

It's more like 7% of EU27 countries' export (incl EU-EU export) that goes to the UK. A lot of this EU27->UK export is vital for the UK e.g. food, auto parts for JIT production and much will have to continue post transition.

The actual EU export loss will be rather small and very affordable for EU and its members (even for Ireland).

The UK - just :eek::eek::eek:

Lars

fash

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.

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.

Can't happen as it looks like EU giving in to blackmail. EU has other meaner world actors to consider. UK would have to back down first.

Hermy

I asked the question because I'm not sure I've read any informed comments in thread critical of the EU position.

And that's not to say there should be criticism.

My own view is that, while they may have taken a tough stance, the EU have played fair.

The UK on the other hand have not and consequently no one will smell of anything remotely rosy when all is said and done.

looksee

What the EU could or should do/have done is really irrelevant. The absolute base line is that Brexit should have been approached properly from the start, with a plan and solutions and proposals that could have led to a civilised amicable separation from the EU.

The UK (and I speak as a very annoyed and disappointed, almost ex-Brit) has made a complete mess of the whole thing, which I have no doubt stemmed from a get-rich-quick scheme dreamed up by a relatively small group of people with so much contempt for the UK they thought they could just push through the easiest scheme ever, aided and abetted by years of misleading anti-EU stirring of the media pot. At this stage it sadly has to go through and become the biggest shambles ever before they finally - eventually - climb out of the hole they have dug and learn to co-operate in their own interest with their neighbours.

Peregrinus

Most of the objection to the EU positions taken comes from Leave supporters who made, or who uncritically accepted, unrealistic predictions of what the EU and its members would do, how it would react, what stances it would take, etc. These predictions were rooted in ignororance - often, wilful ignorance - of what the EU is and how it works and why, and in delusions about the significance and place of the UK in Europe and the world. Too often, when the predictions failed to be borne out by events, the reaction was not to reexamine the Brexiter understanding of reality that gave rise to the predictions but to attack the EU for bad faith, dishonesty, bullying, oppression, etc. for failing to behave as predicted.

The only way you can believe this kind of sh!te is to believe it with passionate intensity, so much of this critique of the EU basically takes the form of foaming at the mouth. It's hard to take seriously. But there's a lot of it, and it calls a lot of attention to itself. So we should consider the possiblity that it could drown out more reasoned criticism of judgments made or positions taken by the EU. It's fair to ask, from an Irish/European perspective, is there anything that we should have done differently that would have produced a better outcome than the one we now appear to be heading for?

johnnyskeleton

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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

Who do you think is not permitting the UK to do so? Is it the EU, who have left, and whose only issue now is whether the UK sticks to its word and therefore can do a trade deal, or else it breaches its word and can't do one. The UK, as a sovereign nation, can choose between these two options.

Or is it something internal to the UK? Is this the whole Parliament, Courts, Labour etc are denying UK sovereignty by refusing to just do whatever Boris says they should do?

Or maybe it's the WTO? The WTO requires the UK to offer the same trading arrangements to all countries that they don't have a trade deal with, meaning that they can't impose different tarriffs for the USA and the EU respectively, absent a trade deal?

Or is it the UN? Which requires the UK to act in a peaceful manner and not provoke violence in Northern Ireland?

Or is it something else?

Leroy42

looksee wrote: »

At this stage it sadly has to go through and become the biggest shambles ever before they finally - eventually - climb out of the hole they have dug and learn to co-operate in their own interest with their neighbours.

I am of the opinion that at this stage it will actually go the other way. Far from looking to climb out of the hole, they will blame others (namely the EU but Ireland individually as well as of course the Franch and Germans).

It could very well be that the UK has much further to fall and a lot more damage to be done before they look to turn around.

If things go the as bad as expected (long truck queues, loss of industries and jobs etc) a scapegoat will be needed. Each time I think the UK has gone as far as it can, it digs deeper.

looksee

Surely the suggestion that 'we' could have done something differently has implications for the sovereignty that the UK is claiming and we are obliged to concede to them. The EU had to be reactive to UK decisions, even patently bizarre, irrational and undemocratic (the original poll) ones. At all stages they were invited to put forward their proposals, most of the time they did not have any clear proposals, it was not the job of the EU to create proposals for them. Especially given the anti-EU sentiment and general rudeness from the carefully selected MEPs, the EU did not have any choices in the matter.

What should also be remembered is that over the past 4 years this incredible time-sink for the EU has distracted from the fact that the Community has also had to continue dealing with normal EU business, and, more recently, a pandemic. There might have been some very minor diplomatic moves that could have been done better, but overall the EU has been a model of patience and restraint. Possibly that is their only flaw.

looksee

Leroy42 wrote: »

I am of the opinion that at this stage it will actually go the other way. Far from looking to climb out of the hole, they will blame others (namely the EU but Ireland individually as well as of course the Franch and Germans).

It could very well be that the UK has much further to fall and a lot more damage to be done before they look to turn around.

If things go the as bad as expected (long truck queues, loss of industries and jobs etc) a scapegoat will be needed. Each time I think the UK has gone as far as it can, it digs deeper.

I am not disagreeing with any of that. When I say 'eventually' I think that is a long way ahead, possibly decades, and I agree it will get worse before it gets better. If the UK had never joined the EU it might be ticking over in the same way as the other non-EU European countries, but the mess they have made has damaged them in many respects beyond just their dealings with the EU.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

There's a separate aspect to this, though, that must be taken into account: while Michel Barnier might decide that he can, after all, trust Johnson further than he could throw him, and on that basis give a green light for a deal; any such FTA still has to be ratified by each individual member state, and any one of those parliaments may decide that they want to wait until the UK legislation has received Royal Assent before they sign off on the EU's proposal. Given the current GB administration's exceptional talent for pissing people off, it doesn't take much to imagine that they might shoot themselves in whatever body-part isn't yet full of holes and have to wait a year or more for the FTA to enter into force.

fly_agaric

I told ya wrote: »

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

Yes, how bad depends how just far the UK is going to go with all of this.
If they start breaking elements of a treaty with the EU, the question I wonder/worry about what other "rogue state" (Russia/Turkey) like activities might they get up to next year if the old rulebook is thrown out and they are under pressure and the leadership is getting angrier due to impacts of "hard brexit" (and I suppose the virus) on the economy. I feel kind of crazy thinking such thoughts about the UK, but there you go.

Zubeneschamali

fash wrote: »

Can't happen as it looks like EU giving in to blackmail. EU has other meaner world actors to consider. UK would have to back down first.

Disagree. A result is a result for the EU. If a FTA is agreed, the dumping of the internal market bill can be a footnote. UK government can say whatever it likes about how it won - makes no odds to the EU.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

If things go the as bad as expected (long truck queues, loss of industries and jobs etc) a scapegoat will be needed.

If they are not bluffing, it isn't scapegoats they'll need, it is food, medicine and clean water. The EU will be sending humanitarian aid before the summer.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Disagree. A result is a result for the EU. If a FTA is agreed, the dumping of the internal market bill can be a footnote. UK government can say whatever it likes about how it won - makes no odds to the EU.

If you observe Leroy's premise, to which fash was replying, it is that the EU27 would agree a deal, then Johnson wouls dump the Internal Market Bill.

So I disagree with you and agree with fash, here: that result would be (or at least look like) the product of a climbdown.

Moreover, it would be premised on Johnson keeping to his word of dumping the IMB afterwards. Now, I'm not being funny here, like, but...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If they are not bluffing, it isn't scapegoats they'll need, it is food, medicine and clean water. The EU will be sending humanitarian aid before the summer.

That I agree with. FWIW, all things being equal and if the situation doesn't unlock by 'closer to year end', I'd expect the UK to start running into logistical problems in retail supply chains this Xmas, on the back of uncertainties getting increadingly shorter-term about warranties, inventory, Sterling, insurance, etc, etc. - everything that underpins the fluid logistics under which widgets still transit from <wherever in EU27> onto UK shelves right now.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

If things go the as bad as expected (long truck queues, loss of industries and jobs etc) a scapegoat will be needed.

On the subject of trucks and queues, this reportedly leaked document didn't seem to make it's way into this thread yesterday:

The scale of disruption predicted to hit UK borders post-Brexit is revealed in confidential government documents warning of queues of 7,000 lorries in Kent, and two-day delays to cross into the EU.

A “reasonable worst-case scenario” report, drawn up by the Border and Protocol Delivery Group, forecasts that thousands of passengers could also be forced to wait an extra two hours for Eurostar trains.

Dated last week and seen by the Guardian, the 46-page document marked “official – sensitive” says that a core IT system for hauliers is not expected to be tested publicly until the end of November.

With the UK leaving the customs union and the single market on 1 January, it means that border disruption could ensue whether or not the UK secures a trade deal with the EU.

As is so often the case with this administration, it looks like their biggest challenge and/or failing is not the putting in place of a suitable system, but not having any idea of how to handle the exceptions, particularly the truckers who forget/don't know/decide anyway to head for the ports without a Kent access pass.

Johnson has sold out his country's reputation over the already-resolved NI-border question, while the civil service is desperately trying to build a new border between Kent and the rest of England. It's a shame nobody's ever come up with an idea that would allow traffic to flow freely from one jurisdiction to another ... :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

OK, not likely to be announced in that order. Could be announced as a package coming out of an all night negotiation session. No concerns about Johnsons word - he either dumps the Bill or the deal never comes into force.

Hurrache

Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone really,

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1305796490045067274

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone really,

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1305796490045067274

Northern Ireland must be the least sovereign nation in the world right now.

fash

Hurrache wrote: »

Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone really,

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1305796490045067274

I'd assume that in reality, Ireland would have some port checks, some "at risk" checks near the border (plus we don't really have to worry about standards or state aid distortions for 6 months -1 year+). Plus escalating measures being taken against UK in the meantime. Hopefully Ireland has game planned this and is resilient (I'd hope it has sufficient institutional knowledge of the UK at this stage not to have trusted them)

VinLieger

Hurrache wrote: »

Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone really,

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1305796490045067274

Ahhh so the sovereignty of other countries doesn't matter, why is that not surprising

Sam Russell

fash wrote: »

I'd assume that in reality, Ireland would have some port checks, some "at risk" checks near the border (plus we don't really have to worry about standards or state aid distortions for 6 months -1 year+). Plus escalating measures being taken against UK in the meantime. Hopefully Ireland has game planned this and is resilient (I'd hope it has sufficient institutional knowledge of the UK at this stage not to have trusted them)

It has experience of this - 100 years and more.

ExMachina1000

Seth Brundle wrote: »

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.

That's in my post. Some people only read the start and hit reply.

The uk can do as they like with regards setting it's own standards but if it wants a trade deal it must follow eu standards. They cant have both. No trade free deal it is then. Wto with some changes to suit both and the uk setting its own standards is the way to go

fash

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

That's in my post. Some people only read the start and hit reply.

The uk can do as they like with regards setting it's own standards but if it wants a trade deal it must follow eu standards. They cant have both. No trade free deal it is then. Wto with some changes to suit both and the uk setting its own standards is the way to go

True however the UK has been informed what the condition precedent to "changes to suit both" are: implemention of the previous agreement or nothing.
The UK is likely to again focus on putting pressure on Ireland to change its position in relation to Northern Ireland.

Let's see how things evolve - especially if we get a Sinn Fein government. (wouldn't that be funny?)

View

Hurrache wrote: »

Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone really,

https://twitter.com/nicktolhurst/status/1305796490045067274

This is entirely predictable.

The reality is that our government has gone out of their way to push the idea that a hard border is a “holy cow” for us and is completely unacceptable and unthinkable.

Doing so, our government handed the Brexiters a “hostage” for them to (try and) threaten us with at any time.

The only way to counteract that was to have demonstrated that we were perfectly willing to think the unthinkable and accept the unacceptable and put up a hard border at anytime.

At the very minimum to show we were serious about this, the government should have put legislation through the Oireachtas to deal with this possibility. They should have drawn up detailed plans for a hard border and have had compulsory purchase orders in place for any lands needed to turn this into a reality.

Because our government didn’t do this, they gave the impression that all Brexiters need to do is push and our government will immediately crumble rather than face up to sacrificing the “holy cow”.

BonnieSituation

Ah come on now, they've been threatening this nonsense for such a long time now. How have you gotten wrapped into it today?

View

Hermy wrote: »

I asked the question because I'm not sure I've read any informed comments in thread critical of the EU position.

And that's not to say there should be criticism.

My own view is that, while they may have taken a tough stance, the EU have played fair.

The UK on the other hand have not and consequently no one will smell of anything remotely rosy when all is said and done.

The EU should have been far less generous in what it was willing to offer the U.K. in the Political Declaration, as it would have been far harder for the Brexiters to present the WA & PD deal as being good if it was clear that any post-transition deal would result in thin gruel at best. By being generous to Brexiters during the negotiations, the EU aided them (Brexiters) and undermined pro-EU parties in U.K. domestic politics.

BonnieSituation

View wrote: »

The EU should have been far less generous in what it was willing to offer the U.K. in the Political Declaration, as it would have been far harder for the Brexiters to present the WA & PD deal as being good if it was clear that any post-transition deal would result in thin gruel at best. By being generous to Brexiters during the negotiations, the EU aided them (Brexiters) and undermined pro-EU parties in U.K. domestic politics.

But it never mattered. You could offer nothing to the UK and conversely we could have offered EVERYTHING to the UK and they'd still be acting the maggot.

ExMachina1000

fash wrote: »

True however the UK has been informed what the condition precedent to "changes to suit both" are: implemention of the previous agreement or nothing.
The UK is likely to again focus on putting pressure on Ireland to change its position in relation to Northern Ireland.

Let's see how things evolve - especially if we get a Sinn Fein government. (wouldn't that be funny?)

If the UK leave the EU (which they have) then they are a sovereign country who can set standards regarding labour, food safety etc as they see fit. They can also ban European fishing vessels from their waters.

If they want a free trade deal with the EU then they must agree to EU standards.

Maybe they dont want a free trade deal and would prefer to go down the world trade organisation rules or a Canada or Norway type deal.

It's in Irelands interest to see a free trade deal but downing street has it's own ideas and plans. That's their prerogative