Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

Talks will only resume next year IF the two parties agree to them. If either side aren’t willing to talk, they won’t.

Yes, and since No Deal will be damaging trade and costing the EU a lot of money, the EU will be willing to talk, just as they are now. Talk is, literally, cheap.

The UK may walk away and announce No Deal is Cool and the Brexiteers may cheer, but in January reality will hit them like a train. Before the summer, they will have finally, finally after years and years of playacting, been taught that they really do need a deal.

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

I mean if you are UK citizen, pure average there are quite literally no upsides to you as an individual. Zero , NADA.
Less travel rights, more red tape even for a basic trip away, less money physically in your pocket, and more expense on daily items.


Why would anyone be even remotely and I mean an inkling of being pro Brexit given its an attack on their own household.

You've put into words all the feelings I have about brexit,I'd go even further and say the UK has already lost the battle of brexit because any deal we get,however wonderful won't be remotely as good as what we had before.

View

Peregrinus wrote: »

This won't happen, because:

(a) The EU is always keen to talk, and is especially keen to talk to its near neighbours. It's what they do. And . .

(b) No-deal Brexit will be incredibly painful for some EU members (including Ireland). The EU will have no desire to extend this unnecessarily.

I think if there's no FTA by the end of transition the EU position will be, basically, "Well, that's most unfortunate, but we should carry on talking with the new aim of arriving at an FTA as soon as is practicable after the end of transition".

Point a is incorrect. There are very many countries that the EU is not holding trade talks with and that it has never held trade talks with.

Point b is beside the point. Again there are very many countries that the EU does not have a trade deal with (eg the USA & China, both major trading partners of every single EU country) and trade continues with them, be it “painful” or not. And every member country that it may be painful for has had several years to prepare for the much threatened no deal scenario - it isn’t as if this is the first time anyone has heard about the concept.

Lastly, the only point in engaging in talks with any country is if there is a serious desire on their part to work toward a deal. That has been completely absent from the talks with the U.K. as they have preferred constant theatrics to actual progress in the talks. The EU has a responsibility to us to act so that such nonsense comes to an end. Brexit means the U.K. is gone, not that it gets to hang around like a ghost at a feast, haunting the proceedings and never going away.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and since No Deal will be damaging trade and costing the EU a lot of money, the EU will be willing to talk, just as they are now. Talk is, literally, cheap.

The UK may walk away and announce No Deal is Cool and the Brexiteers may cheer, but in January reality will hit them like a train. Before the summer, they will have finally, finally after years and years of playacting, been taught that they really do need a deal.

There is no point in continuing to waste taxpayers money on negotiations with a country that isn’t serious about a deal and that is more interested in theatrics, than progress.

The U.K. will only get serious when the EU says enough is enough, otherwise they will merely continue with their strategy of brinkmanship.

It is an article of faith amongst Brexiters that the EU is weak and will cave to them if they just hang tough long enough. The only way to counteract that is to demonstrate to them that their belief is fundamentally wrong.

reslfj

Peregrinus wrote: »

This won't happen, because:
...
(b) No-deal Brexit will be incredibly painful for some EU members (including Ireland). ...

Looking from outside Ireland, I'm convinced you are much too worried about the EU and Ireland.
For the EU members the difference - in terms of trade - between a NoDeal and the likely FTA is very small. Some sectors mostly some agri. products will initially be hurt, but the huge SM and EU's external FTAs will fast 'consume' any surplus. China e.g. is currently buying most 'Danish Bacon' and other pork exports.
Besides farming for export is a small sector in the economies of most EU countries.

The UK will need imported food and any high (MFN) tariffs will hurt UK consumers badly.

The UK can't replace imported industrial products anytime soon, and will have to continue to buy and pay often high NTBs and with a NoDeal a small tariff too.

As I see it, the main differences between a NoDeal and a FTA will be in the non-trade areas, where a NoDeal will stop much needed cooperation - in a NoMiniDeal environment- and due to the lower value of the GBP after a NoDeal.

NI will be hit by a falling GBP, but can always be supplied from/via Ireland, I believe.

For GB it's going to be hard. Chaos from day one.
But the medium and long term effects will be much worse and much more an unsolvable problem. Fewer exported goods and services, smaller inflow of foreign currency and potential serious balance of payment problems for the UK. Red tape as the UK has never seen before.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and since No Deal will be damaging trade and costing the EU a lot of money, the EU will be willing to talk, just as they are now. Talk is, literally, cheap.
...
Before the summer, they will have finally, finally after years and years of playacting, been taught that they really do need a deal.

Money are much talked about, but is something the EU and EU members can handle and easily afford. UK is/was about 7 % of their current (external and SM) export and much will continue to the UK, as it is very much needed (e.g. medicine, food, even Mercedes cars)

Even if half the export to the UK is lost, it's only 3-3.5% export each EU member has to find new markets for - within the SM or using the EU's FTAs.
It's next to nothing compared to the covid19 economical disruptions.

The EU may well be better off now by a NoDeal with no EU mitigation , and wait on a UK which clearly and into its bones understands - we absolutely need to agree and being together.


Lars

hirondelle

Just in relation to the proposed not-truckparks being added to the Kent Border fiasco:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/08/plans-inland-border-sites-cope-brexit-congestion

I'm interested that there are no provisions for Scotland- obviously Stranraer links to another part of the UK, but nothing near the east coast either? Is this inadvertently revealing that the Tories are factoring out Scotland in it's planning? I don't mean this in a tinfoil hat sense, I am interested if there are logistics reasons negating the need for any customs/traffic control facilities there.
The map itself is linked here:
https://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader/embed/2020/10/lorry-parksmap/giv-39025ORDSu1407Gx/

Sam Russell

hirondelle wrote: »

Just in relation to the proposed not-truckparks being added to the Kent Border fiasco:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/08/plans-inland-border-sites-cope-brexit-congestion

I'm interested that there are no provisions for Scotland- obviously Stranraer links to another part of the UK, but nothing near the east coast either? Is this inadvertently revealing that the Tories are factoring out Scotland in it's planning? I don't mean this in a tinfoil hat sense, I am interested if there are logistics reasons negating the need for any customs/traffic control facilities there.
The map itself is linked here:
https://interactive.guim.co.uk/uploader/embed/2020/10/lorry-parksmap/giv-39025ORDSu1407Gx/

I would think that the Stranraer or Cairnryan are probably not that busy either direction - 60% of NI freight to GB goes through Dublin.

54and56

View wrote: »

Point a is incorrect. There are very many countries that the EU is not holding trade talks with and that it has never held trade talks with.

It obviously takes two to talk.

Can you give a single example of a country which wanted to talk to the EU about a trade deal whose request was declined by the EU?

View

54and56 wrote: »

It obviously takes two to talk.

Can you give a single example of a country which wanted to talk to the EU about a trade deal whose request was declined by the EU?

Offhand, no.

I also can’t give you any example of either a country that claims it wants a deal with the EU engaging in even a fraction of the theatrics that Brexit Britain has engaged in, or, of a country that deliberately breached an agreement that it has concluded with the EU within a year of doing so.

Both of those reasons are perfectly valid reasons for the EU not to engage in new talks with the U.K. for the foreseeable future (ie a decontamination period). Brexiters have long claimed that “WTO rules are perfectly fine”, so let’s all give them what they want and see how their electorate like them.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

I also can’t give you any example of either a country that claims it wants a deal with the EU engaging in even a fraction of the theatrics that Brexit Britain has engaged in, or, of a country that deliberately breached an agreement that it has concluded with the EU within a year of doing so.

The theatrics are for a UK audience, the EU only cares about the talks, not what some grandstanding politician says about the talks.

And the UK have not broken the WA. They have proposed a law which would break it if it passes, which will likely be earliest in a years time, long after the transition period ends and whatever is to follow it, deal or no deal, becomes reality.

I understand that the Tories are horrible and annoying, but that is not the EUs problem, it is the British public's problem.

hirondelle

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would think that the Stranraer or Cairnryan are probably not that busy either direction - 60% of NI freight to GB goes through Dublin.

Oh I get that- my question (not put clearly) was the lack of anything on the east coast- Leith, Aberdeen or Peterhead, surely the trade routes to the "dear friends" in the EU would include the trade to do with fossil fuel extraction, wind and all the other trade that is centred on Scotland with Norway and Denmark just across the way. I mean Leith is the port for Edinburgh- maybe too politically sensitive to lean on the SNP for Brexit real world fallout infrasctructure.

hirondelle

hirondelle wrote: »

Oh I get that- my question (not put clearly) was the lack of anything on the east coast- Leith, Aberdeen or Peterhead, surely the trade routes to the "dear friends" in the EU would include the trade to do with fossil fuel extraction, wind and all the other trade that is centred on Scotland with Norway and Denmark just across the way. I mean Leith is the port for Edinburgh- maybe too politically sensitive to lean on the SNP for Brexit real world fallout infrasctructure.

Long journey time, probably sufficient to check documentation before landing.

Gerry T

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The theatrics are for a UK audience, the EU only cares about the talks, not what some grandstanding politician says about the talks.

And the UK have not broken the WA. They have proposed a law which would break it if it passes, which will likely be earliest in a years time, long after the transition period ends and whatever is to follow it, deal or no deal, becomes reality.

I understand that the Tories are horrible and annoying, but that is not the EUs problem, it is the British public's problem.

Art5 of the WA covers "good faith", by passing the bill the UK is breaking this clause and therefore is breaking the WA. I think this is the course the EU is planning on taking. From the agreement

They shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from this Agreement and shall refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement.

View

Gerry T wrote: »

Art5 of the WA covers "good faith", by passing the bill the UK is breaking this clause and therefore is breaking the WA. I think this is the course the EU is planning on taking. From the agreement

They shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising from this Agreement and shall refrain from any measures which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement.

This is correct. International (UN) law specifically requires a country to act in good faith and refrain from engaging in actions to deliberately undermine international agreements that it has entered into, which is exactly what the Conservatives have deliberately done and it does constitute a breach of international law.

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1314551192505081864

Rather misleading tweet on three levels, as firstly Lithuanians can't be asylum seekers, secondly the UK always had the power to deport EU criminals, and finally if they were non-EU nationals, they wouldn't be sent to Lithuania.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The theatrics are for a UK audience, the EU only cares about the talks, not what some grandstanding politician says about the talks.

And the UK have not broken the WA. They have proposed a law which would break it if it passes, which will likely be earliest in a years time, long after the transition period ends and whatever is to follow it, deal or no deal, becomes reality.

I understand that the Tories are horrible and annoying, but that is not the EUs problem, it is the British public's problem.

Who the theatrics are for is irrelevant. A country that engages in such theatrics is not acting in good faith when it approaches talks on an agreement, much less when it deliberately sets out to undermine what it agreed to a few months beforehand.

And Brexiters will continue to engage in such theatrics up until the point that the EU says “Stop or the talks end”. Brexiters would never dream of trying such nonsense in talks with the US because the US would walk out the door and Brexiters know that. Their interpretation of the EU not walking out the door is that the EU is too weak to do so, hence they (Brexiters) are in a strong position. The only way to end that delusion is to puncture their ballon. It will only be after that happens that there will be less nonsense and more serious negotiations from London.

Leroy42

According to Tony Connelly, the issue of a EU office in NU to help with the implementation of the NI protocol and custom regime is coming back as an issue.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1314517897658675200

Strazdas

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1314551192505081864

Rather misleading tweet on three levels, as firstly Lithuanians can't be asylum seekers, secondly the UK always had the power to deport EU criminals, and finally if they were non-EU nationals, they wouldn't be sent to Lithuania.

Extremely misleading in fact. Nothing in that tweet has anything to do with the asylum system and asylum seekers.

Zubeneschamali

Gerry T wrote: »

by passing the bill the UK is breaking this clause and therefore is breaking the WA.

They haven't passed it.

The EU is going to argue that just proposing it is bad faith, but long before the bill passes or the EU complaint is decided, Jan 1st will be here.

Both the bill and the complaint are just gambits in the talks, neither really matter as they can't affect anything before the real deadline.

I happen to agree with the EU, and I also think declaring an intention to tear up the WA is a really stupid gambit, but it can't work and so doesn't affect the outcome much.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They haven't passed it.

The EU is going to argue that just proposing it is bad faith, but long before the bill passes or the EU complaint is decided, Jan 1st will be here.

Both the bill and the complaint are just gambits in the talks, neither really matter as they can't affect anything before the real deadline.

I happen to agree with the EU, and I also think declaring an intention to tear up the WA is a really stupid gambit, but it can't work and so doesn't affect the outcome much.

The legislation will almost certainly be on the UK statute books within a month or so, since even if the HoL rejects it, the HoC will just rubber stamp it as soon as it gets back to them and that’s it apart from Royal Assent which is a formality.

Detritus70

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They haven't passed it.

The EU is going to argue that just proposing it is bad faith, but long before the bill passes or the EU complaint is decided, Jan 1st will be here.

Both the bill and the complaint are just gambits in the talks, neither really matter as they can't affect anything before the real deadline.

I happen to agree with the EU, and I also think declaring an intention to tear up the WA is a really stupid gambit, but it can't work and so doesn't affect the outcome much.

I have to take issue here. Declaring an intention to break any agreement in the future usually isn't a good negotiation strategy. If you were to lease a car and stated to the salesman that you don't intend to honour the contract, do you think this would help your case?
The attitude here is, this has to be off the table, or otherwise there can be no progress in talks. You're saying it's not illegal yet, but that is beside the point.
This link is in German, but here's an excerpt

Pikanterweise könnte aber die pure Existenz dieses Sicherheitsnetzes die Verhandlungen mit Brüssel gefährden oder sogar platzen lassen. Vielleicht ist das aber genau das Johnsons Ziel.

Ironically the pure existence of this safety net could endanger or even scupper the negotiations with Brussels. And maybe that is even Johnson's aim

https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/binnenmarktgesetz-101.html

swampgas

Detritus70 wrote: »

I have to take issue here. Declaring an intention to break any agreement in the future usually isn't a good negotiation strategy. If you were to lease a car and stated to the salesman that you don't intend to honour the contract, do you think this would help your case?
The attitude here is, this has to be off the table, or otherwise there can be no progress in talks. You're saying it's not illegal yet, but that is beside the point.
This link is in German, but here's an excerpt



https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/binnenmarktgesetz-101.html

Putting on my tin foil hat (again),I can imagine Dominic Cummings (and Gove perhaps) reassuring Johnson that this is a clever strategy designed to get some small level of face-saving in the inevitable FTA agreement. The MAD strategy - convince the enemy that you might do something crazy. But knowing all the while that it's just going to force a hard exit, which is their true intention.

All speculation of course. Johnson does seem to be a puppet in all this, with Cummings and Gove the ideologues driving the agenda.

Zubeneschamali

Detritus70 wrote: »

I have to take issue here. Declaring an intention to break any agreement in the future usually isn't a good negotiation strategy.

You are not disagreeing with what I wrote.

Imreoir2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The theatrics are for a UK audience, the EU only cares about the talks, not what some grandstanding politician says about the talks.

And the UK have not broken the WA. They have proposed a law which would break it if it passes, which will likely be earliest in a years time, long after the transition period ends and whatever is to follow it, deal or no deal, becomes reality.

I understand that the Tories are horrible and annoying, but that is not the EUs problem, it is the British public's problem.

They have infact broken the WA. The terms of the WA committed both sides to act in good faith. By intorducing the Internal Market Bill to Parliament, the British government breached this provision. That is why the EU launched proceadings against the UK, they would have no basis to do so had the treaty not been breached.

Imreoir2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They haven't passed it.

The EU is going to argue that just proposing it is bad faith, but long before the bill passes or the EU complaint is decided, Jan 1st will be here.

Both the bill and the complaint are just gambits in the talks, neither really matter as they can't affect anything before the real deadline.

I happen to agree with the EU, and I also think declaring an intention to tear up the WA is a really stupid gambit, but it can't work and so doesn't affect the outcome much.

No, the UK breached its treaty commitments and the EU is taking a case against them as a result, thats all there is to it. The EU is a rules based organisation and the UK broke the rules they signed up to. This is damaging to the trade talks becasue it shows that the UK is not to be trusted, but its not ultimatly about the trade talks.

Gerry T

Zubeneschamali wrote:

They haven't passed it.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The EU is going to argue that just proposing it is bad faith, but long before the bill passes or the EU complaint is decided, Jan 1st will be here.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

They haven't passed it.

Good point, it doesn't matter if it passes or not, what matters is Art5 is being breached by the mere fact the UK is intent on making a provision which allows them to overrule elements of the WA.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The EU is going to argue that just proposing it is bad faith, but long before the bill passes or the EU complaint is decided, Jan 1st will be .

The end game is s trade deal, thats what both the EU and UK want. This course makes that more difficult, if you were playing chess the UK just gave away its queen.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Both the bill and the complaint are just gambits in the talks, neither really matter as they can't affect anything before the real deadline.

the bill is idiotic and the complaint hopes to encourage the UK to do the right thing, failing that the UK will face proceedings that will force the UK to get in line. The resulting lesson will be the UK realising exceptionalism thinking no longer works.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

I happen to agree with the EU, and I also think declaring an intention to tear up the WA is a really stupid gambit, but it can't work and so doesn't affect the outcome much.

if the EU sits back thats what the UK will do, its historically a rule giver, it needs time to adjust but the EU will in a measured way ensure its interests are best served.

Detritus70

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are not disagreeing with what I wrote.

Well, I am not entirely. I do disagree with this bit though

Both the bill and the complaint are just gambits in the talks, neither really matter as they can't affect anything before the real deadline.

I say it really does matter, you cannot look purely at the supposed legality or illegality of the bill or the veracity of the complaint.
The UK is conducting negotiations whilst bringing in laws that will allow them to break the agreement afterwards.
And don't forget, EU statements and press coverage is an entirely different animal than the UK counterparts.
They are actually truthful.
So if the EU states that this is a deal-breaker and the German press reports it, it isn't propaganda in order to swing the public's mood and confuse the "enemy", it is actual, truthful reporting.
The fact of the matter is, as long as this "Binnenmarktgesetz" (as Germans call it) is on the table, there is no deal.
Johnson can act hurt, surprised, angry or outraged all he wants, it carries no weight with anyone here.
That's the main flaw in his plan. No one is buying his bulls*t here.

fash

Detritus70 wrote: »

I say it really does matter, you cannot look purely at the supposed legality or illegality of the bill or the veracity of the complaint.
The UK is conducting negotiations whilst bringing in laws that will allow them to break the agreement afterwards.

Not just that: the UK is saying "we know that the only reason you gave us this withdrawal agreement with transition period, various other protections and concessions etc. was on the basis of coming up with an "all weather" solution to the British border in Ireland - however we are reneging on that - give us a favourable deal or we will renege on previous unrelated commitments - specifically give us a favourable trade deal or we will bring back civil war to Northern Ireland".
The primary purpose was blackmail for negotiating leverage: they think that the EU cares more about peace in Northern Ireland than they do.

The effect on future agreements is very much secondary.

Zubeneschamali

Detritus70 wrote: »

The UK is conducting negotiations whilst bringing in laws

My point is that the negotiations will be over, one way or another, before the bill is law.

Just as they will be over before the EU complaint about the law is heard.

I am not saying the Bill is great, I'm saying the EU is correct to object to it and keep talking. If a deal is agreed, it will include scrapping the objectionable parts of that bill. If No Deal is agreed, the EU will have a lot of leverage over the UK to force them into line.

54and56

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The theatrics are for a UK audience, the EU only cares about the talks, not what some grandstanding politician says about the talks.

And the UK have not broken the WA. They have proposed a law which would break it if it passes, which will likely be earliest in a years time, long after the transition period ends and whatever is to follow it, deal or no deal, becomes reality.

I understand that the Tories are horrible and annoying, but that is not the EUs problem, it is the British public's problem.

I think the act of proposing the IM bill does in fact breach the WA as it triggers the bad faith clause which to paraphrase will be something like "...to not do anything which could undermine or negate any of the provisions in the this agreement ...."