Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

fash

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The IM bill is pretty much just more clear cut evidence of a lack of good faith on the uk side. I still fail to see any useful purpose to it. They surely always knew it was doomed on its passage through the lords anyway, so other than antagonising and throwing another spanner in the works, what was it ever designed to achieve? If they somehow thought it was going to give them some leverage in the talks, then they've learned nothing in four very painful years. Are they just trolling now? Either Johnson backs down like he did last year or they go full kamikaze to the end, that's the only way this process ascends to next level.

From an outside (or objective) perspective, yes it is bad faith.
From a brexiter /brexiter sheep perspective, if the UK doesn't get what it wants in an FTA, it wants as much leverage as possible moving forward. It believes that restarting the troubles in Northern Ireland/imposing a hard border in Northern Ireland assists that.
Furthermore, they wanted to start the ball rolling on this early to control the narrative about being a victim/blaming the EU for their gullible followers - of which there are many.

Joe_ Public

fash wrote: »

From an outside (or objective) perspective, yes it is bad faith.
From a brexiter /brexiter sheep perspective, if the UK doesn't get what it wants in an FTA, it wants as much leverage as possible moving forward. It believes that restarting the troubles in Northern Ireland/imposing a hard border in Northern Ireland assists that.
Furthermore, they wanted to start the ball rolling on this early to control the narrative about being a victim/blaming the EU for their gullible followers - of which there are many.

Maybe so, but like i said, this bill cant/won't pass through the lords in its current form so before it can draw the disgust and horror of most of the planet down on them, it will simply poison the well of British politics further. I will charitably afford these people the courtesy of assuming they are not stupid, but this just seems like one they haven't fully thought through. It's not great for us but so much worse for them in so many heaps of ways.

fash

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Maybe so, but like i said, this bill cant/won't pass through the lords in its current form so before it can draw the disgust and horror of most of the planet down on them, it will simply poison the well of British politics further. I will charitably afford these people the courtesy of assuming they are not stupid, but this just seems like one they haven't fully thought through. It's not great for us but so much worse for them in so many heaps of ways.

I believe that the HoL can delay this for up to 1 year - but cannot ultimately prevent the bill from becoming law. Furthermore as the more serious breach is the one suggested to be contained in the financial bill, they would have even less control over that.

Joe_ Public

fash wrote: »

I believe that the HoL can delay this for up to 1 year - but cannot ultimately prevent the bill from becoming law. Furthermore as the more serious breach is the one suggested to be contained in the financial bill, they would have even less control over that.

I'm not 100 per cent sure on the procedure but the lords do have some powers and such is the hostility towards this bill i think there is every chance they will use them to the utmost to frustrate it as much as they can (depending on how eu talks go, of course). They can seek to amend, throw it back to commons for another set to, and again if they wish, which could potentially drag it on for months so that, at best for government, it could be some time in 2022 when the bill actually saw light of day. I wonder too about the potential for legal challenges on some basis or other. Bottom line, lots of potential for this to get even messier for the uk internally than it already is.

fash

fash wrote: »

From an outside (or objective) perspective, yes it is bad faith.
From a brexiter /brexiter sheep perspective, if the UK doesn't get what it wants in an FTA, it wants as much leverage as possible moving forward. It believes that restarting the troubles in Northern Ireland/imposing a hard border in Northern Ireland assists that.
Furthermore, they wanted to start the ball rolling on this early to control the narrative about being a victim/blaming the EU for their gullible followers - of which there are many.

... Just to add/respond to my comment here. To a certain extent, the UK position could only work if the EU member states were a bunch of wishy washy hand-wringers.

If the EU has its own power-play playing actors - all they'll see is some silly nonsense between the UK and a neighbour - why should a politician in Austria or Romania deep down really care about a border dispute a few thousand kilometres away any more than one in Canada or Japan? How would that influence their interests? All they see is an untrustworthy partner who is likely to act in bad faith again and try to blackmail you if they have the chance.

johnnyskeleton

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I'm not 100 per cent sure on the procedure but the lords do have some powers and such is the hostility towards this bill i think there is every chance they will use them to the utmost to frustrate it as much as they can (depending on how eu talks go, of course). They can seek to amend, throw it back to commons for another set to, and again if they wish, which could potentially drag it on for months so that, at best for government, it could be some time in 2022 when the bill actually saw light of day. I wonder too about the potential for legal challenges on some basis or other. Bottom line, lots of potential for this to get even messier for the uk internally than it already is.

Does dragging it out not benefit the Brexit government? If they are using it as a negotiating chip, the longer it is in yhe process the longer they can say "well it hasnt passes yet" to the EU.

Now, the EU dont seem to care about such niceties anyway, but the longer the lords drag it out the longer Johnson can pursue this cul de sac of a strategy

ancapailldorcha

Apparently, Nigel Farage has been branded a traitor for defending the European Commission's decision to take legal action over the Internal Market bill:

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1311601064777527296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311601064777527296%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theneweuropean.co.uk%2Fbrexit-news%2Fwestminster-news%2Fbrexit-party-leader-slammed-for-eu-supporting-tweet-268040

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/brexit-party-leader-slammed-for-eu-supporting-tweet-268040?dhdh

Farage stood down his Brexit party MP's in 2019 in constituencies where they might have adversely affected the chances of a Tory win and now he's done something of a volte face. I wonder if this is the Brexit coalition falling apart or just a glitch. Either way, I think the WA has as much of a democratic mandate as Brexit itself given how prominently it featured in Johnson's campaign so seeing the party trying and alter it unilaterally just reeks of hypocrisy, corruption and ineptitude in my opinion.

Leroy42

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Could you maybe explain this a bit more to me please? My understanding is that since the Internal Markets Bill was published, the only concessions have been that the UK has suggested a 3 year transition period for fishing, and I haven't heard any response from the EU about same. It seems like a pretty crumby concession from the EU's point of view, but has caused considerable angst amongst the hard Brexiteers.

If anything, the attitude of the EU since the Internal Markets Bill was published is that they are willing to talk, but their position remains the same, and that they aren't going to negotiate if the IMB is used as a gun to their heads. So I struggle to see how the IMB has got the EU moving. If anything, the UK has offered one small concession after they published the bill, but saying that that was prompted by the IMB doesn't really follow.

It is not about the concession per see, it is about optics. A few weeks ago even the 3 years transition period concession would have been seen as treachery, but it is easler to sell if one can portray it as a small concession in the overall win.

The fact that the EU are not walking off, and are indeed still talking, whilst it was always the case anyway, whilst Gove etc continue to fire barbs, makes it look like they are standing up for Britain, showing those continentals who's boss.

IMB was always about optics, it was about creating a issue so that they could be seen to resolve it. They will, with great fanfare, cancel the IMB when they have got a deal. A deal that the EU would never have given save for the brave and courageous moves by Johnson.

Joe_ Public

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Does dragging it out not benefit the Brexit government? If they are using it as a negotiating chip, the longer it is in yhe process the longer they can say "well it hasnt passes yet" to the EU.

Now, the EU dont seem to care about such niceties anyway, but the longer the lords drag it out the longer Johnson can pursue this cul de sac of a strategy

Not certain how any of this plays out tbh. But i would say, as a bargaining chip, i think this whole strategy is rubbish. If there was some willingness within the eu to offer concessions, i can only imagine the IBM merely lessens it. It's just needlessly provocative and self harming, almost as if that's the point. And it destroys whatever hopes they had of securing a US trade deal, supposedly the holy grail for so many fanatical brexiteers. It makes no sense on any level to me. It's a mighty hit to take just to feed your battered ego in terms of the blame game imo.

Also, by the time the lords deliberate, we'll likely know anyway whether they are definitely headed towards no deal so it's more or less an internal uk matter at that point anyway if the talks still haven't advanced.

johnnyskeleton

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is not about the concession per see, it is about optics. A few weeks ago even the 3 years transition period concession would have been seen as treachery, but it is easler to sell if one can portray it as a small concession in the overall win.

Perhaps, but from a UK perspective. From an EU perspective its largely irrelevant. They want a permanent and legally enforceable deal. They will rightly assess it not on its merits but whether its a good excuse to get beyond fishing, which is a tiny industry.

But IMO they wont. Theyre committed to a fishing deal. The only way I can see it happening is if, at the end of the 3 year period, the UK ending their participation in the CFA will result in immediate and full tarriffs on UK imported fish by the EU. That would be a good deal for the EU as the cost of leaving the CFA woulf be borne entirely by the fishing industry with limited impact on other areas (mostly logistical impact).

That said, I dont think the EU would go for that or even if its allowable under WTO rules.

The fact that the EU are not walking off, and are indeed still talking, whilst it was always the case anyway, whilst Gove etc continue to fire barbs, makes it look like they are standing up for Britain, showing those continentals who's boss.

The EU are quite rightly (or cynically, depending on your world view) not walking away because they dont want to be perceieved as ending the talks. But they are not budging on their position which is effectively just a politer way of achieving the same thing.

IMB was always about optics, it was about creating a issue so that they could be seen to resolve it. They will, with great fanfare, cancel the IMB when they have got a deal. A deal that the EU would never have given save for the brave and courageous moves by Johnson.

I think youre suggesting that its being done for internal consumption rather than to threaten the EU. If so I agree. But I dont think it will help Boris sell the deal. If anything it will only highlight the concessions he is about to make (if indeed he is about to make them). My read on it is that the internal politics angle is being done to get his own party in line for a no-deal, and its testing the waters. If MPs dont rebel over this, then they wont rebel if he refuses to get a deal with the EU and so far its looking that way.

That, or it could be part of Cummings' plan to soread confusion and unceetainty. To what end, who can say!

Hermy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If they are using it as a negotiating chip, the longer it is in yhe process the longer they can say "well it hasnt passes yet" to the EU.

According to Tony Connelly's tweet about the EU's legal advice re the IMB posted by Enzokk a while back it seems that merely proposing to alter the WA is a breach so that won't wash.

Tony Connelly
While the Bill only gives the UK the option of taking unilateral measures contrary to the Protocol, simply proposing it means the UK is in breach of the Article 5 good faith requirement of the WA "because this bill jeopardises the attainment of the objectives of the Agreement

Snickers Man

Sam Russell wrote: »

Believers - Brexit just need people to believe harder. The EU will capitulate any time now.

Just believe.

Indeed. Look at some of the things the Brexiteers want people to believe.

The [url=
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1342311/Irexit-EU-Ireland-Brussels-Brexit-European-Union-referendum-news-latest]Daily Express[/url] wants people to believe that the "leading Irish politicians" are preparing the country to leave the EU. It's true. It's in the papers today.

But to "Believe" that, you've also got to believe some of the basic premises in the article.

You've got to "believe" that Ray Bassett is a leading politician; he's not a politician at all. He's a retired civil servant.
You've got to believe that the Irish Freedom Party has some "leading Irish polticians"; it doesn't. Its leader is a British subject and former PR man for Nigel Farage's European party grouping.
You've got to believe that the Irish Freedom Party is a "leading Irish Party"; it's not. It got minuscule support in any election in which it put up candidates.

Far better to believe that the Express is a chauvinistic, xenophobic, hysterical Tory rag that gets ever more shrill in its denunciation of those it doesn't like as the realisation of the train wreck brought about by its own rabid delusions becomes apparent.

Now that I can believe.

Snickers Man

Snickers Man wrote: »

Indeed. Look at some of the things the Brexiteers want people to believe.

The [url=
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1342311/Irexit-EU-Ireland-Brussels-Brexit-European-Union-referendum-news-latest]Daily Express[/url] wants people to believe that the "leading Irish politicians" are preparing the country to leave the EU.

Another thing I can't believe is the number of times that assinine article has been retweeted by people who clearly think it's true!!

God, some people are dumb.

Nody

Snickers Man wrote: »

Another thing I can't believe is the number of times that assinine article has been retweeted by people who clearly think it's true!!

God, some most people are dumb.

Fixed that for you. I think it's always been the case to be honest but the social media of today has enabled people to have to go from broad stupidity spheres ala TV to more localized and deeper stupid spheres were the stupidity can be more tailored and hence deeper by comparison. It's all control via media on what people think but with twitter, facebook etc. it can be done on a more "personal" level and variety instead. Before you might think of yourself as alone as thinking something but now you can find a community of same ideas and get emboldened that "this is normal" when it's not.

An Ciarraioch

The Guardian is rather more sober today than the BBC were yesterday, reporting a meeting between Johnson and van der Leyen tomorrow, but with no expectation of significant progress:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/02/boris-johnson-to-speak-to-ec-chief-ursula-von-der-leyen-saturday-in-last-ditch-brexit-talks

Leroy42

I wonder whatthe point of the meeting actually is? Surely all vdL is going to do is demand that the IMB is cancelled, as a sign of good faith and that once that is done the trade deal an be worked on. That Johnson set the deadline of 15th himself, yet it is his bill that is causing the hold up.

Once Joohnson refuses, not really much else to talk about.

Remembering of course that Johnson already did this a few months ago (June or July I think) and he said he wanted a a deal by September. And of course his meeting with Leo which lead to the WA and moved the whole process on.

Sam Russell

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Guardian is rather more sober today than the BBC were yesterday, reporting a meeting between Johnson and van der Leyen tomorrow, but with no expectation of significant progress:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/02/boris-johnson-to-speak-to-ec-chief-ursula-von-der-leyen-saturday-in-last-ditch-brexit-talks

That meeting is a telephone call.

VinLieger

NI just announced 934 cases..... ill take a hard border if its still on offer please

Dymo

VinLieger wrote: »

NI just announced 934 cases..... ill take a hard border if its still on offer please

I don't think that's too surprising, looking at sports events there was very little crowd control or crowd numbers being limited including GAA events. I can only presume the rest of the counties were the same.

An Ciarraioch

Meanwhile, Michel Barnier is travelling to Germany on Monday:

https://twitter.com/thomas_sparrow/status/1312028262558846977

An Ciarraioch

He has also just released the Round 9 update - upbeat on progress in some areas, but no change on the key issues of State aid, NI and fisheries:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_1817

johnnyskeleton

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Meanwhile, Michel Barnier is travelling to Germany on Monday:

https://twitter.com/thomas_sparrow/status/1312028262558846977

Katya is reading too much into the fact of the meeting. Or maybe I'm reading too much into the way she makes it seem like the meeting is some kind of significant event or illustrates a dramatic movement.

She isn't, for example, reporting that Barnier is due to meet Juan Manuel Moreno Bonilla, President of the Spanish Regional Council of Andalusia on Monday.

It all feeds into the long debunked theory that Germany has control over the EU. So Barnier going to Berlin is like a flat Earther being able to see Calais from Dover on a clear day!

druss

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Katya is reading too much into the fact of the meeting. Or maybe I'm reading too much into the way she makes it seem like the meeting is some kind of significant event or illustrates a dramatic movement.

She isn't, for example, reporting that Barnier is due to meet Juan Manuel Moreno Bonilla, President of the Spanish Regional Council of Andalusia on Monday.

It all feeds into the long debunked theory that Germany has control over the EU. So Barnier going to Berlin is like a flat Earther being able to see Calais from Dover on a clear day!

The accidental fact that Germany currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the EU helps to feed that narrative as well! It's would have wrecked conspiracy theorists heads if it was Spain!

joeysoap

Who is it on 1st January?

druss

joeysoap wrote: »

Who is it on 1st January?

Portugal follow Germany.

The UK themselves were due to hold it in 2017 and their programme was already quite advanced by the time Brexit happened.

Estonia moved up into the UK spot at short notice and Croatia, which would have been due in 2026, moved into this year.

reslfj

joeysoap wrote: »

Who is it on 1st January?

Council presidencies up to 2022

Portugal: January-June 2021
Slovenia: July-December 2021
France: January-June 2022

Note the next 'trio' will be these countries and as show will include France.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/presidency-council-eu/

Lars

BonnieSituation

reslfj wrote: »

Council presidencies up to 2022

Portugal: January-June 2021
Slovenia: July-December 2021
France: January-June 2022

Note the next 'trio' will be these countries and as show will include France.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/presidency-council-eu/

Lars

And we're up on July-December 2026.

Shelga

Marr giving Johnson the easiest ride ever on his show now. When Marr asked him “are you at all worried about the prospect of a no-deal, on top of coronavirus?” Johnson replies “we will more than cope with an Australian-style exit”- such utter drivel. No follow up questions from weak Marr.

I would have asked- “are you not ashamed to face CEOs up and down the country- 88 days away from the end of the transition period, and they have absolutely no idea what terms they will be trading on then? What are the positives here for them?”

Joe_ Public

Marr just never seems great with these big interviews. Too many general, unspecific questions that just allows Johnson to launch into comfortable bombast and bluster mode. "Are you worried about a no deal brexit in the middle of a pandemic?" isn't going to extract anything useful. "What would you say to President Trump if he was sitting here now?" was like a question Johnson's aide might have planted.

Contrast with the interview he did on Scottish tv the other day when the interviewer really nailed him on detail and had him squirming in his seat.

joeysoap

reslfj wrote: »

Council presidencies up to 2022

Portugal: January-June 2021
Slovenia: July-December 2021
France: January-June 2022

Note the next 'trio' will be these countries and as show will include France.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/presidency-council-eu/

Lars

Portugal are our oldest allies. Our being the UK.As if that a game changer.