Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

The UK voted for a deal. No Deal was never offered up as an option by Brexiteers. It was talked about by Remainers and it was branded Project Fear. Johnson got his current majority on the back of getting a deal.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK voted for a deal. No Deal was never offered up as an option by Brexiteers. It was talked about by Remainers and it was branded Project Fear. Johnson got his current majority on the back of getting a deal.

Leaving the single market was not an option according to the Leave campaign before the vote.

The only result of leaving the EU was Unicorns and Sunny Uplands, where the UK could resume its place as a major Empire once again, making Britain great again.

moon2

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

In this paragraph you appear to be supporting the position: the EU will not give the UK what they're asking for, so this must end in a no-deal situation.

You previously said:

UK will end up with a free trade agreement and be able to act as a full sovereign country.

Barnier will blink

This implies you believe the EU will drop their demand and give the UK what they're asking for.

Which position are you supporting as they appear to be incompatible.

moon2

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Impose an "import tax" (maybe call it a green tax an tie it to total UK environmental performance or CO2 emissions) on anything arriving from UK, we already doing that with VRT and cars...

How do you track what is being imported from the UK - a customs border. You're suggesting a customs border which doesn't have capacity to process every import, which is probably an acceptable temporary measure, but one will be required to carry out your plan.

(Just want to point out that "anything arriving from the UK" would include all goods prepared by a European country which happen to transit across the UK. I doubt you want to levy those EU goods which were made to EU standards).

View

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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.

That is precisely why the EU countries should have been much, much less generous in what they were prepared to offer the Brexiters leading Britain and that should have applied (and still apply) in both a joint (EU level) approach and also in bilateral approaches by the individual countries (ie no cosy side deals to keep the status quo on issues between the U.K. and Ireland).

Being less generous would have meant that the Brexiters claims of a great deal to be done with them standing tough against the EU would have run into the sand much earlier, and exposed them to much stronger domestic criticism from pro-Remain parties.

View

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

When you import a car from UK do you get stopped at border for VRT to be collected? No its down to company/individual to comply with the tax law.

You dont track everything, no one would care about your mom and pop shopping in Newry or a sheep crossing a farmers field on the border. These are peanuts in the larger picture.

What you do do is comedown like a ton of bricks on any company that is importing goods from UK and not reporting things to Revenue correctly and paying the "UK tax", Revenue keep companies inline with VAT already not by checking every single receipt but by random (and not so random on cases) audits and steep penalties and naming+shaming for non compliance.

A flat 30% tax (which can go up/down based on environmental factors from UK like CO2 emmisions and importation by them of GM/chlorinated food) on everything coming from UK

This would raise a **** ton of money which could be spend on the border region bringing the locals on board. Over time it simply becomes pointless for businesses to deal with UK forcing them to look elsewhere or risk audits and steep fines. If any business complains the government can point that they tried hard for years to reach a deal with UK but any deal would not be worth the paper its written on.

A U.K. only tax would violate WTO regulations.

The method required would be to treat the U.K. as every other non-EU country. And that does require a hard border since both EU & WTO rules require the duties to be levied at Customs (in the absence of a FTA). The no border solution merely creates a smugglers charter (even if the U.K. were willing to operate everything on good faith).

Charles Babbage

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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

It is their prerogative for GB, but not for NI.

theguzman

I feel there has to be the hardest of borders and the EU have to give the UK a bad as possible deal, i.e a good kicking, otherwise what is going to stop Italian populists, Greeks or Polish from leaving and if they don't deal with the UK as harshly as possible then they risk the integrity of the entire EU. Sadly Ireland will be treated as collateral damage and with traitor FF Micheal Martin at the helm you can be sure we will get the raw end of the stick entirely, he will find someway to enrich his corrupt cronies whilst ordinary people here get destroyed by this the Greatest Depression, Brexit and the Covid19 fallout. When the annals of Ireland are written the last general election will be shown as a serious disaster for this country.

An Ciarraioch

A propos which, the Telegraph has a long article and thread claiming the EU want to ban UK exports, but the crux of the story ultimately proves to be the SPS standards applying in GB after 2021, which after all is the basis of the current standoff:

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1305821897343602688

An Ciarraioch

theguzman wrote: »

I feel there has to be the hardest of borders and the EU have to give the UK a bad as possible deal, i.e a good kicking, otherwise what is going to stop Italian populists, Greeks or Polish from leaving and if they don't deal with the UK as harshly as possible then they risk the integrity of the entire EU. Sadly Ireland will be treated as collateral damage and with traitor FF Micheal Martin at the helm you can be sure we will get the raw end of the stick entirely, he will find someway to enrich his corrupt cronies whilst ordinary people here get destroyed by this the Greatest Depression, Brexit and the Covid19 fallout. When the annals of Ireland are written the last general election will be shown as a serious disaster for this country.

A) All the parties in the last GE shared the same position on Brexit.
Even Salvini has backtracked on both the euro and the EU.

https://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1WT1R2?__twitter_impression=true

BonnieSituation

theguzman wrote: »

I feel there has to be the hardest of borders and the EU have to give the UK a bad as possible deal, i.e a good kicking, otherwise what is going to stop Italian populists, Greeks or Polish from leaving and if they don't deal with the UK as harshly as possible then they risk the integrity of the entire EU. Sadly Ireland will be treated as collateral damage and with traitor FF Micheal Martin at the helm you can be sure we will get the raw end of the stick entirely, he will find someway to enrich his corrupt cronies whilst ordinary people here get destroyed by this the Greatest Depression, Brexit and the Covid19 fallout. When the annals of Ireland are written the last general election will be shown as a serious disaster for this country.

While I want the UK to get a good thrashing and reap what they have sown, it still must be said that WE ARE THE EU!

Nody

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

A propos which, the Telegraph has a long article and thread claiming the EU want to ban UK exports, but the crux of the story ultimately proves to be the SPS standards applying in GB after 2021, which after all is the basis of the current standoff:

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1305821897343602688

Which brexiteers are now claiming a) is proof EU threaten to block food exports to NI and b) at the same time UK would never allow such a block to happen when even May managed to get this approved (but Boris pulled back the promise of not lowering the standards and said some would be "changed" without being able to state what said changes would be to enable it again). Times like this is when double facepalms are not enough

BonnieSituation wrote: »

While I want the UK to get a good thrashing and reap what they have sown, it still must be said that WE ARE THE EU!

I honestly don't think EU needs to do anything but simply wait and do it by the books; the pain will be plenty enough and by being true to your values (EU) and not kicking a country down (UK) will simply ensure a faster future reconciliation in some form (which is the ultimate goal after all).

fash

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

A propos which, the Telegraph has a long article and thread claiming the EU want to ban UK exports, but the crux of the story ultimately proves to be the SPS standards applying in GB after 2021, which after all is the basis of the current standoff:

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1305821897343602688

Can someone explain this SPS thing? I don't understand how it can be said that SPS is a restriction on "sovereignty to set rules" - one can get American steaks in the EU for example (but one assumes that they comply with EU regulations) - and the US has approved testing/certifying facilities - yet is not in any way bound to follow EU food regulations.

Strazdas

theguzman wrote: »

I feel there has to be the hardest of borders and the EU have to give the UK a bad as possible deal, i.e a good kicking, otherwise what is going to stop Italian populists, Greeks or Polish from leaving and if they don't deal with the UK as harshly as possible then they risk the integrity of the entire EU. Sadly Ireland will be treated as collateral damage and with traitor FF Micheal Martin at the helm you can be sure we will get the raw end of the stick entirely, he will find someway to enrich his corrupt cronies whilst ordinary people here get destroyed by this the Greatest Depression, Brexit and the Covid19 fallout. When the annals of Ireland are written the last general election will be shown as a serious disaster for this country.

There is no "leave the EU" movement anywhere in Europe. The Eurosceptics on the Continent merely want reform of the EU, none of them want to leave.

Nody

fash wrote: »

Can someone explain this SPS thing? I don't understand how it can be said that SPS is a restriction on "sovereignty to set rules" - one can get American steaks in the EU for example (but one assumes that they comply with EU regulations) - and the US has approved testing/certifying facilities - yet is not in any way bound to follow EU food regulations.

In so many words EU wants to be able to see that a country has good enough rules on how meat and animals are treated to ensure they can trust the country not to cause a pandemic in EU or export diseased meat etc. This is a combination of legal requirements and factual handling which is usually carried out by EU vets going over to see them in practice in butcheries etc. and based on that do a risk evaluation lowering the check rate from 80%+ to what ever (for example NZ lamb has 1 or 2% check rate). The problem is UK (Boris) have stated they are going to change the law on handling but have not specified what said changes will actually be; hence EU can't evaluate the new laws and then set an appropriate control test rate and due to this can't list UK as an approved third party country. The problem is Boris et al probably don't even know what changes they want to do (or are afraid to speak out loud on the topic; i.e. chlorinated chicken etc.); UK can still export under such rules but then basically every single piece of meat, animal etc. will be stopped at the border for a full suite of checks and lab controls making it in practice impossible to actually export for profit.

BonnieSituation

Nody wrote: »

I honestly don't think EU needs to do anything but simply wait and do it by the books; the pain will be plenty enough and by being true to your values (EU) and not kicking a country down (UK) will simply ensure a faster future reconciliation in some form (which is the ultimate goal after all).

Oh I know that. It's just a personal want as, like most, I have a pain in my hoop with them now.

CelticRambler

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Not if wrapped in environmental mumbo jumbo dependant on UK environmental progress, Revenue are good at that kinda stuff just look at VRT

VRT is a bad example, as it applies to continental imports too. Only you don't often see people importing from France or Germany because they don't want LHD vehicles, so it looks like a tax on UK imports, but it's more than that.

Try importing from the US and see how expensive it gets!

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Over time it simply becomes pointless for businesses to deal with UK forcing them to look elsewhere or risk audits and steep fines. If any business complains the government can point that they tried hard for years to reach a deal with UK but any deal would not be worth the paper its written on.

Your suggestion is a non-runner, because for Revenue to find these companies importing from the UK, they'll have to audit every company, regardless of whether they are importers or not, because you can become an importer overnight with a single order. Apart from being of dubious legality, it's using a sledgehammer to crack a stone that you thought was a nut and weren't going to eat anyhow.

I know there's a huge focus on the Irish Situation on this forum, but it's really not what the Brexiters - or boards.ies - should be worrying about. As reslfj has pointed out several times, what happens between Lifford and Strabane is going to be of no consequence compared to the almighty chaos that'll hit the UK if traffic across the English Channel is reduced to a trickle as a result of no deal being made.

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

I know there's a huge focus on the Irish Situation on this forum, but it's really not what the Brexiters - or boards.ies - should be worrying about. As reslfj has pointed out several times, what happens between Lifford and Strabane is going to be of no consequence compared to the almighty chaos that'll hit the UK if traffic across the English Channel is reduced to a trickle as a result of no deal being made.

It might not be restricted to Dover Calais, but might spread to flights ex Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, and a few other major airports like Glasgow, Manchester, Edinburgh, East Midlands, or in fact all airports. Aircraft certification might be required to be redone by EASA. OK for EU owned planes, but not UK owned ones. Also a loss of fifth freedom rights, so only there and back routing,

Lorry drivers might need EU licences, so trucks can only be driven by Pierre, Pedro, Ivan, or Olaf, but not Nigel or Norman. The trucks themselves might need to be re-certified also. No cabbotage, and perhaps a road tax added as well, just to add a bit of spice.

Of what a complex web we weave, when we stupidly try to leave.

Imreoir2

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.

It seems to me unlikely that the UK will secure a deal, and much less likely now that government policy is to breach the deal they just signed. I can't see much chance at all of anything other than no-deal now, without a major UK climedown which seems rather unlikely.

That said, we live in a very unlikely world so who knows what the next few months will bring.

An Ciarraioch

Euro clearing will continue in London until June 2022, largely to allow European alternatives to build their capacity:

https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1305757879740309505

briany

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Oh I know that. It's just a personal want as, like most, I have a pain in my hoop with them now.

The UK's behaviour is making me think of that famous quotation, "What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

The entire premise of Brexit is founded upon populist lies, and the government of the UK has had to lie some more to keep the whole Brexit show on the road. Agreeing to the backstop in 2017 and then immediately reneging on that was an act of duplicity. Attempting to prorogue parliament so that a no-deal Brexit had more of a chance of happening by default was a deeply cynical political act that was found to be against the law. And now they're admitting to breaking international law by introducing this Internal Market bill. At what point do you admit that Brexit is being led by people who are morally bankrupt?

There was just no thought given to this whole Brexit idea in the first place. When the Scottish referendum was held, the manifesto of what an independent Scotland would look like consisted of hundreds of pages of detail. The Leave manifesto, on the other hand, consisted of.... a couple of leaflets. No detailed plan, no nothing. Just soundbites. Just 'it'll be great'. Just 'it'll be easy'.

View

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Euro clearing will continue in London until June 2022, largely to allow European alternatives to build their capacity:

https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1305757879740309505

Brexiters will interpret this as proof of the “success” of Johnson’s strategy.

They threaten and suddenly there’s movement which benefits major U.K. businesses and gives the U.K. plenty of time to negotiate a subsequent mini-deal once they “no deal” at the end of the transition period.

BluePlanet

View wrote: »

Brexiters will interpret this as proof of the “success” of Johnson’s strategy.

They threaten and suddenly there’s movement which benefits major U.K. businesses and gives the U.K. plenty of time to negotiate a subsequent mini-deal once they “no deal” at the end of the transition period.

I agree, and the question must be asked, why wasn't this in place already?

reslfj

BluePlanet wrote: »

View wrote: »

Brexiters will interpret this as proof of the “success” of Johnson’s strategy.

They threaten and suddenly there’s movement which benefits major U.K. businesses and gives the U.K. plenty of time to negotiate a subsequent mini-deal once they “no deal” at the end of the transition period.

I agree, and the question must be asked, why wasn't this in place already?

There will be very little in terms of mini deals. EU has ruled mini deals out. I think 'Freedom of the Air' 3 landing and 4 fly back (restricted and reciprocal) and practical border procedures may well be all now under EU rules after mid/late 2021.

The extended money clearing has been planed and communicated by the EU Commission way back as "... until sometime after the end of transition".
It's a unilateral decision by the EU, and the EU Council will get it on its table before January 1. It's not political except in the UK.

It's just the end date that has now been suggested as June 2022 and the very fixed goal of getting clearing moved into the Euro-zone within this period.

Lars

PS! Remember when the EU has agreed and recommend 'moving within the Eurozone' the banks better do it in full and in time.

Leroy42

Yeah, the Clearing house extension will be sold as a win for Brexit, but actually it is a significant loss.

The EU are now going to actively seek to move it from CoL, so the idea that it will stay is gone.

18 months is not really that long, and banks and people will want to start the process of moving so as to avoid issues in June 2022.

Its a stay of execution, but it is a fairly serious impact on CoL.

Peregrinus

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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.

They were a sovereign country even before they left the EU. All of the EU member states are sovereing.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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

And, if they do, they'll still be a sovereign country.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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.

If that's what they want, they could have it very easily, at much less cost to themselves and with much harm to themselves than is caused the route they are in fact following. So either (a) they are astonishly, self-harmingly stupid, or (b) this route is supposed to lead to some other ourcome, and if it leads to no-FTA that will mean whatever strategy they think they are following has failed.

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

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

Indeed. But, free trade deal or not, we also want no hard border in Ireland, and so (if they are to be believed) does the UK - "no hard border" is one of their red lines. And yet the UK appears to be going out of its way to ensure that there will be a hard border.

Spleodar

It would seem the British (English?) Government said that no hard border was a red line to placate the Irish Government and the EU, when in reality it would seem they couldn’t care less if there were a hard border or not. They just “said stuff” to get past the preliminary talks to the juicer trade talks. That’s all they ever cared about. The “Irish Question” to the Tories was just another stumbling block to be dealt with by lies and deception.

The whole withdrawal agreement was done with fingers crossed behind their back and was clearly entirely about lying and manipulating to get to the trade talks and yet they’re the ones accusing the EU of negotiating in bad faith. They’re utterly untrustworthy. They lied to get elected. They lied to get Brexit to happen in the first place and they’re lying continuously during the negotiations.

From what I can see they don’t care about anything, as long as they’re getting the right tabloid headlines.

Peregrinus

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Which is the aim of what I propose, make importing from UK a burden on businesses

Pass a law that importers/companies have to keep a large bond with Revenue in escrow if they want to import from UK to ensure they dont skip on standard import taxes.

Above would not violate WTO and achieve the desired result

I think it would - most favoured nation, and all that. You can't impose burdens on the UK that you don't impose on all countries with which you have no trade deal.

Plus, I'm pretty sure it would also be in breach of European law. Customs are a Union competence, so the Union gets to write the rules. (And any customs duties we collect on imports from the UK would go to the Union, just like any customs duties we currently collect on imports from outside the EU.)

CelticRambler

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Which is the aim of what I propose, make importing from UK a burden on businesses

Pass a law that importers/companies have to keep a large bond with Revenue in escrow if they want to import from UK to ensure they dont skip on standard import taxes.

In the event of no FTA, it already will be enough of a burden, between customs declarations, conformity documentation, checking and paying tariffs, calculating how much of your product or service is "non-EU" so that you can safely re-sell into the rest of the EU or to other civilised trading blocs.

There's no need to make life extra difficult for companies that just want to get on with their business by inventing new hurdles out of spite. The UK will have more than enough trouble exporting stuff that it can't make because it no longer has easy access to the sub-components that came from the EU, or the foodstuffs that it can't sell legitimately because the whole supply chain has been contaminated with American Listeria, E.coli and Salmonella ...

Again, any Irish business that is still in hock to the UK four years after the Brexit vote, to the extent that it needs to engage in dodgy imports, is a business that deserves to collapse. Competitors in the same sector won't be long about pointing out to customers that they're getting a crap product not covered by EU guarantees.

farmerval

Spleodar wrote: »

From what I can see they don’t care about anything, as long as they’re getting the right tabloid headlines.

Is that the point for this government, this brazen attitude, a bit like Trump, or even Putin, just saying we know this unacceptable under any normal government but what are you going to do about it.

When Miliband offered to defer to BoJo to show what part of the withdrawal agreement prevented food exports from England to NI and Boris had to just sit there was quite amazing. It was the PM admitting he lied to parliament a few minutes earlier. And the outcry is only from the opposite side, in the press and politics, which amazingly quite like the US has now taken on an "if upsets the remoaner bitches, I'm happy" attitude. It's really stunning.