Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

fash

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you are being generous.

If the UK intend to go for 'No Deal', then they would be preparing like mad for such an occurrence, but they do not appear to be doing much about it. So one could assume they are not going 'No Deal'.

If the EU were expecting a last minute climb down by the UK, or if they did not, then the EU would be prepared to make significant concessions, and so would not be prepared for 'No Deal'. However, the EU *are* preparing for 'No Deal'.

So, I think you can assume from this that only one side is preparing to climb down, or are, alternatively, incompetent.

I wonder which side it is that is preparing to climb down, or will be shown to be incompetent.

I am thinking people in the private sector: holders of sterling currency who can move it, customs agents etc. Look at Peter Foster's tweets yesterday saying customs agents still aren't manning up- they are waiting for the work first then they'll do it.

As regards the UK government: it is completely incompetent. The trouble is that it is so incompetent that even if there is a deal, the deal will be awful and there will be a horrific mess of food and imports shortages, massive queues, border delays etc. - the problem being who can the UK government blame for that?
At least with a no deal, the UK can blame evil foreign forces for their incompetence - only if there is a deal does the UK have to fully own it.

ambro25

fash wrote: »

Of course. However perhaps what I'm really saying is that if I were in the position if the EU and it had come to the point that no deal was certain or almost certain, frankly, I would keep negotiating.
Aside from potentially getting more intel on the other's position, for anyone dependent on the other side who still needs to prepare in any respects for no deal, you are giving them less time to prepare and hence increasing the shock and pain of no deal as a huge change is implemented in a short time. As the UK has to make more changes then the EU, that pain is felt disproportionately.
Maybe that's just mean not being a nice person though.

It's a pragmatic take on the situation that any such people and organisation have let themselves fall into: there's nothing nice or mean about it.

Our UK group is still trying to corporate-engineer a bodge of a 'Brexit solution' right now, with less than 4 months to go. They've been at it on and off for at least the 2.5 years I've been here, without much in the way of progress -ever.

Neither my colleague nor I have been consulted about it much (we are the 2 EU-based solution enablers, in regulatory and procedural terms: the French team wants nothing to do with it, and enjoys the business factors to underwrite that corporate power play - the UK group needs them more than they need the UK group, and both sides know it). It's all still being discussed by our managing partner alone (with very scant knowledge of the ins and outs, regulatory and procedural, so he just asks us for info ad hoc) and UK partners (with exceptionalist attitudes and eyes only on maintaining full client relationship control and case profitability in the UK).

I heard the latest plan last night. If pushed forward, it will collapse inside a month come 2021, likely with substantial loss of EU business to better-prepared competition. Doesn't concern me in the least, that business isn't in my purview now, nor does it come into it under the mooted plan.

So I'm not saying anything anymore, let them learn. They can bring a larger chequebook to the problem-fixing table in 2021, than they would now.

ArmaniJeanss

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the UK set standards, they need to be able to enforce them. The EU have an inspection regime that is expensive to administer because they need vets on the ground to do that inspection.

The UK do not have such an inspection regime in place currently, and it is very expensive to set one up and it takes a long time to get it working. So we can discount that as a solution for the next few years - so it is basic standards.

Language alone would be a problem here. Presumably the EU used their Spanish and Portuguese people for the South American inspection roles.

I'm guessing that UK Vet/Administrative ability/fluent in Spanish or Portuguese is a very small amount of people.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Welol, there is a theory that it will materialise next month, the EU will say "grand, so", Boris will claim a famous victory in having stood up to the bullying jackbooted EU and got them to collapse in a heap and withdraw their threatened blockade, and Prime Minister's question time will be largely taken up with Tory backbenchers asking variations on "would my right honourable friend not agree that he is unquestionably the greatest Briton of his generation - indeed, of any generation?", to which Johnson will blushingly assent.

Meanwhile nobody will notice a few more hundred million of public money being trucked to private contractors to operate a track and trace system that does everything a track and trace system should (except for two things).

Yes, the entire 'blockaid NI food' sounded like a very much made up issue, one that was built on pretty much everything going wrong the worst possible outcome from both sides. Which is odd given that anytime a report comes out saying how terrible Brexit could be, it is pushed aside as a 'worst case scenario'.
But the EU are not going to blockaid NI, so Johnson will win a concession for something that was never going to happen in the first place

Sam Russell

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Language alone would be a problem here. Presumably the EU used their Spanish and Portuguese people for the South American inspection roles.

I'm guessing that UK Vet/Administrative ability/fluent in Spanish or Portuguese is a very small amount of people.

I would have thought that any Spanish or Portuguese speaking vets in the UK would have already left the UK because of the high level of anti-EU sentiment in the UK since the referendum.

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

The Uk government have consistently shown themselves to be incompetent. I wouldn't read not being prepared for No Deal as any indication that they don't intend to go with No Deal.

I would put it more down to them simply not understanding what No deal actually entails and continuing to believe that No Deal is no change at all.

Or (additionally) simply that the key people involved simply don't care, as they don't believe that they personally will be too badly affected. Even worse, some of them (or their backers) may be looking to make a lot of money by shorting sterling for example, so may actually have a vested interest in a no deal exit.

Peregrinus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Language alone would be a problem here. Presumably the EU used their Spanish and Portuguese people for the South American inspection roles.

I'm guessing that UK Vet/Administrative ability/fluent in Spanish or Portuguese is a very small amount of people.

The EU contract with local agencies to provide quality assurance to EU standards. The local producers pay the local agencies for inspection, assessment, certification, etc.

(This is also how the EU handle it within the EU, in some cases, though I think not for food.)

So if the UK wanted to run its own quality standards it could do the same. The main drawback is that producers would either have to pay twice for two certifications to sell into both markets, or focus on one market and pay for one certification. Since the EU is much the larger market, it's not clear that many producers would be keen to get both certifications, or just to get the UK one.

But, as pointed out, the UK can avoid all this by buying EU-certified beef.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes, the entire 'blockaid NI food' sounded like a very much made up issue, one that was built on pretty much everything going wrong the worst possible outcome from both sides . . .

It's a totally bogus issue. It could literally never happen. If the EU were to try to block food imports into NI (which they never would, because why would they?) the UK could invoke Art 16: "If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to
persist . . . the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures . . .". That certainly covers importing food to feed the starving masses.

There are no circumstances in which an attempt to block food imports to NI, if ever made, would require the UK to violate the WA. They could just invoke Art 16.

CrabRevolution

A different take by the BBC on interventions from the USA.

It claims the US stance of protecting the GFA only arose in the last 2 years as a result of meddling by Irish diplomats, and also that it was the intervention of Mike Pence that caused Varadkar to agree to the WA.

While I've no doubt that Irish diplomats are involved in promoting Irish interests especially regarding the border and brexit, and also that Pence spoke to Varadakr, the article comes across to me as saying "If it weren't for those meddling Irish things would be fine".

Hurrache

But they follow on that because Pence leaned on Varadkar which resulted in a compromise, they now believe that another word in the ear of the Irish government by America will help Britain out again with their current mess. They're completely oblivious to the fact that it's already a signed agreement, with the EU, not Ireland. I was disappointed to see this suggestion come from Faisal Islam
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1306509190584840193

Peregrinus

Hurrache wrote: »

But they follow on that because Pence leaned on Varadkar which resulted in a compromise, they now believe that another word in the ear of the Irish government by America will help Britain out again with their current mess. They're completely oblivious to the fact that it's already a signed agreement, with the EU . . .

Exactly. Pence leaned on Varadkar which resulted in a compromise , and now the British are trying to sabotage the compromise that Pence helped them to get. They expect Pence to react well to this?

Leroy42

But even if that story were true, that Irish diplomats did get involved, the 1st question is what the issue is with that but the second, more important issue from a UK POV, is how they allowed Ireland to outfox them on this issue?

With the special relationship, and remembering that a large part of Brexit thinking is based on the UK moving closer to the US and away from the EU, how could they let this happen? WHoi was in charge of making sure the US were on the UK side in all of this?

Imreoir2

Sam Russell wrote: »

So, I think you can assume from this that only one side is preparing to climb down, or are, alternatively, incompetent.

Never rule out this bit...

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

WHoi was in charge of making sure the US were on the UK side in all of this?

Visions of a room of tories all pointing fingers at each other

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

Visions of a room of tories all pointing fingers at each other

It is just that it is hardly a surprise that Ireland would try to use its relationship with the US, which everyone knows is strong, to help Ireland out should Breexit start to go certain ways.

Why wasn't this planned for? That is the question the UK need to be asking of their politicians, not getting upset because the Irish did exactly what they should have done.

And it is for this reason, blaming everyone else for their won failures, that I do think that any fallout from Brexit from 2021 will not lead to any rethinking form the UK side.

THey are so far down this hole that the only way out os to keep digging.

Imreoir2

CrabRevolution wrote: »

A different take by the BBC on interventions from the USA.

It claims the US stance of protecting the GFA only arose in the last 2 years as a result of meddling by Irish diplomats, and also that it was the intervention of Mike Pence that caused Varadkar to agree to the WA.

While I've no doubt that Irish diplomats are involved in promoting Irish interests especially regarding the border and brexit, and also that Pence spoke to Varadakr, the article comes across to me as saying "If it weren't for those meddling Irish things would be fine".

That Irish soft power seems to be outmatching British soft power in the world is very much getting under the skin of some in the British comentariate. They seem genuinely astonished that anyone would take our side over theirs.

It was framed for a long time as poor Ireland being made a pawn for others interests, but it has gone on for so long that it is starting to look like a terrible stain on British diplomacy from their perspective.

View

In the event of a no deal Brexit, the EU should require all export forms to be submitted in advance in Estonian and process them all in a very small office there. And, as Estonian is an official language of the EU, the U.K. would have few grounds for complaint. :-)

Diplomats looking after their nation's interest = meddling. :rolleyes:

CrabRevolution

Hurrache wrote: »

But they follow on that because Pence leaned on Varadkar which resulted in a compromise, they now believe that another word in the ear of the Irish government by America will help Britain out again with their current mess. They're completely oblivious to the fact that it's already a signed agreement, with the EU, not Ireland. I was disappointed to see this suggestion come from Faisal Islam
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1306509190584840193

I can't see the trick being repeatable this time. The battle lines have changed totally since 2019 and the UK is more openly pitting itself against the EU.

The UK have sort of snookered themselves in their dealings regarding Ireland.

In dealing with the EU, their tactic was to blame Ireland for being awkward. They failed in their goal of convincing the other EU states that Ireland was insignificant and that our suffering would be a small price to pay if it meant an EU-UK deal got done.

But now when it comes to the USA that has backfired somewhat. While the idea of a monolithic, powerful Irish-American lobby gets exaggerated; the very optics of the UK undoing peace in Ireland is enough to make any politician in America think carefully about how they deal with it.

Pence's intervention last year could be framed as helping 2 squabbling parties get to an agreement. The UK's actions over the last year would mean a similar intervention now would be clearly seen as picking the UK's side over Ireland.* While personally I'm sure many US politicians don't care and may even favour the UK as a way of attacking the EU, you won't find many who will be brave enough to publicly take the anti-Irish stance.

*Though,obviously it's really Ireland through membership of the EU.

ExMachina1000

Hurrache wrote: »

Scott Benton (who?), takes the cliched hold my beer method. What an earth is going through these guys heads, it's fanatical.


https://twitter.com/ScottBentonMP/status/1306627419311427584

He's retweeting that god awful Iain Martin, who's tweet was subsequently systematically destroyed by anyone with an ounce of knowledge.

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1306657465124237316

And retweets this sort of crap
https://twitter.com/NJ_Timothy/status/1305993474366410753

Nick Timothy jumped in with both feet. Pull easy Nick. You won't win

Roanmore

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Nick Timothy jumped in with both feet. Pull easy Nick. You won't win

How is that guy still relevant with all the rubbish that went on with May and the election.

ExMachina1000

Roanmore wrote: »

How is that guy still relevant with all the rubbish that went on with May and the election.

I'm not sure. I never heard of him before tbh but people keep throwing up tweets from randos as if its breaking important news from which we should all should draw our opinions from.

Its site wide at the minute.

Anyway I wouldn't think much of him if he is throwing up rubbish about the IRA

Hurrache

The thing is, they're not just randomers. They're either involved in, or have been involved with, the UK government as members of the party, or advisors to it, at some point during Brexit. It's a reflection of thinking going on within their goverment.

On the topic of soft diplomacy, Coveny tweeted this story today from the New Arab, which I found pretty interesting

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2020/9/16/irelands-growing-influence-in-the-middle-east

Sam Russell

View wrote: »

In the event of a no deal Brexit, the EU should require all export forms to be submitted in advance in Estonian and process them all in a very small office there. And, as Estonian is an official language of the EU, the U.K. would have few grounds for complaint. :-)

It is interesting that you chose Estonian, as it is the most obscure language in Europe, only related to Finish. It now has a lot of Russian absorbed from the USSR influence, but it is an extremely difficult language.

If that was a requirement, who would check it? Would all paperwork have to be sent to Tallinna for interpretation?

Double edged sword.

If I were in charge of the Brexit fiasco, I would get all UK exporters to begin dummy runs of customs documentation from the 1st of October, to be checked by the customs guys in Dover (if they have any). Not every shipment but a representative sample for each day's/week's shipments. That way they could prove they were ready, and if not, get themselves ready.

Of course that would require a level of commitment that is clearly lacking. They have not even prepared the paperwork to become a 'third country', whatever that is. [I thought all countries that were not in the EU were 'third countries' but apparently not].

So what are countries that are not EU members or 'third countries' called? North Korea?

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course that would require a level of commitment that is clearly lacking. They have not even prepared the paperwork to become a 'third country', whatever that is. [I thought all countries that were not in the EU were 'third countries' but apparently not].

A *listed* third country is the precise trrm you're looking for. Listed, as in "on the list of countries that have gone to the trouble of convincing us that they can be trusted to uphold our standards in respect of their imports and exports."

10000maniacs

If you have to use the WTO, at least have somebody on the inside. LOL.

Liam Fox, Britain’s pick for the next director general of the World Trade Organization (WTO), has made it through to the second round of the selection process.

The former international trade secretary was nominated by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in July, after current director general Roberto Azevedo stepped down following a seven-year tenure.

BluePlanet

But what about our preparations for a hard border?
Anybody seen any diggers round there lately?
We have a obligation to protect the SM.

I told ya

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I can't see the trick being repeatable this time. The battle lines have changed totally since 2019 and the UK is more openly pitting itself against the EU.

The UK have sort of snookered themselves in their dealings regarding Ireland.

In dealing with the EU, their tactic was to blame Ireland for being awkward. They failed in their goal of convincing the other EU states that Ireland was insignificant and that our suffering would be a small price to pay if it meant an EU-UK deal got done.

But now when it comes to the USA that has backfired somewhat. While the idea of a monolithic, powerful Irish-American lobby gets exaggerated; the very optics of the UK undoing peace in Ireland is enough to make any politician in America think carefully about how they deal with it.

Pence's intervention last year could be framed as helping 2 squabbling parties get to an agreement. The UK's actions over the last year would mean a similar intervention now would be clearly seen as picking the UK's side over Ireland.* While personally I'm sure many US politicians don't care and may even favour the UK as a way of attacking the EU, you won't find many who will be brave enough to publicly take the anti-Irish stance.

*Though,obviously it's really Ireland through membership of the EU.

you won't find many who will be brave enough to publicly take the anti-Irish stance.

............with the election only weeks away. But after the election, depending on the outcome....................

Zubeneschamali

BluePlanet wrote: »

We have a obligation to protect the SM.

The way to protect the SM is to force the UK to honour their commitments.

All that is required is calling their bluff. They cannot survive No Deal for long.

ZeroThreat

I told ya wrote: »

you won't find many who will be brave enough to publicly take the anti-Irish stance.

............with the election only weeks away. But after the election, depending on the outcome....................

Exactly, the Russian/US axis see their long term goal of eliminating the EU in sight so they'll resort to any means to see it achieved.