Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

PeadarCo

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

Did Biden ring him?

It's not the first time he's flown kites only to find they've been struck by lightening.

The thing to remember about the whole Brexit process is that the UK has regularly come out with provocative statements and never followed through. Remember all the drama about the scheduling of the talks, the divorce bill, the Irish border a number of times at this stage. And that's only some of the most high profile issues.

On a regular basis the UK government has come out with something outrageous and then quietly backed down later. Not exactly a good negotiating strategy in terms of global image but the UKs bark has been worse than its bite. The EU has been the opposite spoken softly but carried a big stick which has been quietly used

McGiver

PeadarCo wrote:

On a regular basis the UK government has come out with something outrageous and then quietly backed down later. Not exactly a good negotiating strategy in terms of global image but the UKs bark has been worse than its bite. The EU has been the opposite spoken softly but carried a big stick which has been quietly used

Yes, but this time they're actively reneging on the WA by unilateral derogations and also not implementing customs procedures they agreed to etc.

What can the EU do exactly? Not much apart from not ratifying the TCA but that comes at a cost (both sides lose, just UK much more). The same applies for financial services and euro clearing. The EU doesn't have the capacity yet, that's why they need the UK, at least for now.

HalfAndHalf

McGiver wrote: »

Yes, but this time they're actively reneging on the WA by unilateral derogations and also not implementing customs procedures they agreed to etc.

What can the EU do exactly? Not much apart from not ratifying the TCA but that comes at a cost (both sides lose, just UK much more). The same applies for financial services and euro clearing. The EU doesn't have the capacity yet, that's why they need the UK, at least for now.

Unless I’m missing something I’m not sure not ratifying the TCA makes any difference?

It’s in force provisionally, same as CETA and that’s been running for 4 years provisionally without being ratified.

Is there a difference I’m missing?

Patser

CelticRambler wrote: »

If that's their plan, it's up there with their greatest delusions. Financial services require regulation; regulation in one territory requires the (mutual) recognition of regulation in the other; mutual recognition requires trust; trust is seriously undermined by unilateral breaches of agreements, especially when the sole real justification for the supposedly necessary breach is the breachers' failure to put in place the regulatory and supervisory measures it agreed to.

Until the UK gets its act together, every time they ask for equivalence in any domain, the EU will reply: "How can we trust you? Look at what you did with respect to NI."

Exactly, this is the leash to make them comform.

Johnson would love to divide the EU, place all the emphasis on them putting a border in Ireland, pressuring Ireland to either follow EU rules and enforce customs on the North, or have a somewhat lessened arrangement with the EU. Make us do the messy work.

London's financial status is too key to Johnson and the Tories to worth risking. So rather than get dragged into a dirty war about the North, squeeze them at their financial heart. Make it quietly implicit that it's about following the agreement, without loudly making it explicit that its about the North, as Johnson will use the UK press to say the EU are trying to break up the union.

So don't get dragged into war of words, just turn up heat on Financial agreement, point to them being untrustworthy, and say you're more than happy to do deals and FOLLOW deals

Leroy42

McGiver wrote: »

Yes, but this time they're actively reneging on the WA by unilateral derogations and also not implementing customs procedures they agreed to etc.

What can the EU do exactly? Not much apart from not ratifying the TCA but that comes at a cost (both sides lose, just UK much more). The same applies for financial services and euro clearing. The EU doesn't have the capacity yet, that's why they need the UK, at least for now.

They are extensions that the EU was likely to agree to anyway. The EU are not interested in inflaming tensions in NI. To the EU, it is an entirely immaterial area. So even if smuggling were to happen it would have little impact and since the UK do still have the same standards the regulations are still aligned.

All this is to make it look like HMG forced to EU to back down. By threatening to leave, by threatening a No Deal. Where have we heard that before?

This is all about the domestic audience. What the EU needs to be careful is that the optics for other countries, like USA or China, that might think the EU can be bullied. But I would reckon that most politicians can see what is happening here and the real-politik that is going on.

But it certainly plays into the EU's hand, as there is a price to pay for all this cooperation. Financial services has been mentioned, the next round of fishing talks etc.

fly_agaric

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Unless I’m missing something I’m not sure not ratifying the TCA makes any difference?

It’s in force provisionally, same as CETA and that’s been running for 4 years provisionally without being ratified.

Is there a difference I’m missing?

As far as I understand it is only in place temporarily (till end of April).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU%E2%80%93UK_Trade_and_Cooperation_Agreement#cite_note-E210431-3

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-uk-negotiations-on-the-future-relationship/

I assume it can lapse if it is not ratified in the European parliament & the Council/Commission doesn't extend this period.
That seems unlikely...but I suppose if UK continues down the road it is on you never know what could happen.
I think CETA has gone through the European parliament already.

Enzokk

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Unless I’m missing something I’m not sure not ratifying the TCA makes any difference?

It’s in force provisionally, same as CETA and that’s been running for 4 years provisionally without being ratified.

Is there a difference I’m missing?

The difference is one is an agreement for a closer relationship with a friendly party. The other is a agreement for a relationship further away than before with a arguably hostile party. There is no incentive to wait to ratify the agreement with the UK but there is for CETA.

HalfAndHalf

Enzokk wrote: »

The difference is one is an agreement for a closer relationship with a friendly party. The other is a agreement for a relationship further away than before with a arguably hostile party. There is no incentive to wait to ratify the agreement with the UK but there is for CETA.

This is just your opinion based on not liking the U.K. I was asking for actual answers. Thanks though.

Enzokk

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

This is just your opinion based on not liking the U.K. I was asking for actual answers. Thanks though.

Sure, my opinion not based on facts.

EU Parliament declines to set EU-UK trade deal vote

Meanwhile, the European Commission has said that the EU could bring infringement proceedings against the UK as a result of the unilateral action.

A spokesman told RTÉ News: "A breach of the obligations under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland would allow the EU to have recourse to the legal remedies available under the Withdrawal Agreement.

"This involves, as a first step, bringing an infringement proceeding in the specific cases provided for by the Protocol (Article 12(4)). Work on legal action is currently ongoing."

The spokesman said the UK move amounted "a violation of substantive provisions of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and the good faith obligation under the Withdrawal Agreement".

In a strongly worded statement last night, the European Commission said the UK was in breach of the good faith provision of the Withdrawal Agreement, and was set to breach international law for a second time.

How about some more?

EU negotiating with partner it cannot trust - Coveney

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has said the EU is negotiating with a partner it simply cannot trust following yesterday's move by the British government to unilaterally change how the Northern Ireland Protocol is implemented.

My post wasn't just my opinion, it is obvious that at the moment the UK is not a trusted partner. It is also a basic fact that the difference between CETA and TCA is the purpose of both agreements, one for a closer relationship and one that moves the parties away from each other even if both are FTA's.

HalfAndHalf

Yea that’s great thanks. Not sure why your posting news on things that have happened which are completely unrelated to my question.

My question simply asked what difference would it make that the TCA isn’t ratified when it’s already in place provisionally seeing as it hasn’t impacted CETA that hasn’t been ratified for 4 years.

Posting links to news we’ve all read about the U.K. doing X Y Z doesn’t answer my question.

Thanks though.

ckeng

Presumably, if it hasn't been ratified, the EU can terminate provisional application whenever it wants and revert back to WTO terms?

Strazdas

ckeng wrote: »

Presumably, if it hasn't been ratified, the EU can terminate provisional application whenever it wants and revert back to WTO terms?

Yes, if the Parliament cannot ratify the trade deal, it is simply scrapped.

But the Withdrawal Agreement and Irish Protocol of 2019 remains in place (a completely separate agreement which has already been ratified by the EU states).

BlitzKrieg

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Unless I’m missing something I’m not sure not ratifying the TCA makes any difference?

It’s in force provisionally, same as CETA and that’s been running for 4 years provisionally without being ratified.

Is there a difference I’m missing?

difference is CETA has been ratified in the European Parliament (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20170209IPR61728/ceta-meps-back-eu-canada-trade-agreement), it's not been ratified by individual member states to be part of their national law.

Functionally this means the aspects of CETA that deal with the custom union and trade in and out of the EU have been ratified as they'd fall under EU competence [article 3 of the functioning of the European union treaty. quoted below]

but other aspects of the CETA agreement that would fall under member state competence or shared competence [articles 4-6 of the functioning of the European union treaty]

which CETA due to being primarily a trade agreement does not have a lot, but it does have a few I think in relation to climate and education. These will not take full affect until the member states ratifies the agreement.

Which is why the EU's position is that the agreement has not taken 'full' effect but it is functional in its current form.


Brexit on the other hand is being threatened at the European parliament's ratification stage which means if the EU refuses to ratify then agreement doesn't come into effect in relation to the customs union and single market. Because that all falls under EU exclusive competence.

from the EU treaties:

Article 3

1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:

(a) customs union;

(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market;

(c) monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro;

(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy;

(e) common commercial policy.

That's pretty much all the key aspects of Boris's deal pretty much. I'm not even sure if it's been stated that member states need to ratify Brexit nationally since it's such a barebones treaty? Unless I think they need to ratify the withdrawal agreement, but I think that's gone through already separately (a quick check confirms, yes the withdrawal agreement was already ratified)?

Peregrinus

ckeng wrote: »

Presumably, if it hasn't been ratified, the EU can terminate provisional application whenever it wants and revert back to WTO terms?

Either side can. But not "whenever it wants"; provisional application has been agreed until 30 April, so that's locked in. If it hasn't been ratified by both sides by then (and the UK has already ratified it, so in practice this means if it hasn't been ratified by the EP) then it lapses, unless UK and EU agree to a further extension of provisional application. So either side could cause it to lapse by refusing to agree an extension.

As Strazdas points out, the Withdrawal Agreement (inc. NIP) would continue to apply, but the NIP would become even more onerous than it already is, as it would require the UK to collect tariffs on goods imported to NI from GB. So that would be a big escalation, and I doubt the EU would want to go there.

Seth Brundle

Tony Connelly has a report on RTE.ie about how the EU is proceeding ahead with moves to

RTÉ News understands there will be two parallel legal moves against the UK, which could be finalised this week.

He mentions how one of the moves involves the ECJ whilst the other involves invoking Articles 167 and 169 of the Withdrawal Agreement (involving bilateral agreement of the application and implementation of the WA)...

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1369186083422998528

Meanwhile, apparently the FT are reporting (paywalled) that Frost is being asked to calm down the anti-EU rhetoric by UK business groups (for obvious reasons)...

fly_agaric

Peregrinus wrote: »

As Strazdas points out, the Withdrawal Agreement (inc. NIP) would continue to apply, but the NIP would become even more onerous than it already is, as it would require the UK to collect tariffs on goods imported to NI from GB. So that would be a big escalation, and I doubt the EU would want to go there.

I suppose it becomes a bit academic because I think if things deteriorate to that point, it will be clear the UK have no intention at all of implementing the protocol (and letting the Trade agreement lapse would be a retaliation for that by the EU + a likely a last ditch effort to try & force them do so).

It seems (to me) that ratification in parliament will be long fingered for a while more (with extensions if needed) while the EU watches to see if the UK will actually implement what it has signed up to as regards NI.

BonnieSituation

And as sure as night follows day, Mícheal Martin is quizzed on the hypothetical offer of vaccines from the UK. So that's today's line of Brexit news for us to gab over.

Kermit.de.frog

Problem is the EU has let itself down extremely badly in recent months. As countries in the EU now move to do their own thing on vaccines for obvious reasons we are now placed in yet another dilemma

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1369253553899003906

Accepting vaccines from Britain would hopelessly undermine any pushback to Britain on their own behaviour.

On the other hand how would it look if we refuse internally?

It does not matter how pro or anti EU you are, it's been a dreadful few months for the bloc and people should be angry and asking real questions.

I mean it's embarrassing at this point.

I think we should source vaccines ourselves. We are sovereign country, we have that right. Obviously keep the stock coming from the EU.

If every country in the EU had foreseen this they would have told the EU commission, upon their request to act on their behalf, a simple "no".

Under no circumstances should we accept vaccines from Britain.

We'd look utterly ridiculous and we'd be compromising our own broader interests.

Ramasun

One of the benefits of being led by former journalists is that the current UK government have been very media savvy despite failures in many areas.

The UK began it's vaccine procurement while under EU rules but has somehow spun the notion that it's success is related to leaving the EU.

schmoo2k

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Problem is the EU has let itself down extremely badly in recent months. As countries in the EU now move to do their own thing on vaccines for obvious reasons we are now placed in yet another dilemma

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1369253553899003906

Accepting vaccines from Britain would hopelessly undermine any pushback to Britain on their own behaviour.

On the other hand how would it look if we refuse internally?

It does not matter how pro or anti EU you are, it's been a dreadful few months for the bloc and people should be angry and asking real questions.

I mean it's embarrassing at this point.

I think we should source vaccines ourselves. We are sovereign country, we have that right. Obviously keep the stock coming from the EU.

If every country in the EU had foreseen this they would have told the EU commission, upon their request to act on their behalf, a simple "no".

Under no circumstances should we accept vaccines from Britain.

We'd look utterly ridiculous and we'd be compromising our own broader interests.

IMO need to treat this hypothetical situation in isolation to Brexit as a whole, if the UK has surplus (which they will do), then it is to their advantage to ensure their neighbors are also vaccinated.

Had we done our own thing precuring vaccines there is a very real chance we could have less than we have now (having paid a higher price), the EUs rollout is slower than the UKs but its faster than an awful lot of other places...

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Problem is the EU has let itself down extremely badly in recent months. As countries in the EU now move to do their own thing on vaccines for obvious reasons we are now placed in yet another dilemma

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1369253553899003906

Accepting vaccines from Britain would hopelessly undermine any pushback to Britain on their own behaviour.

On the other hand how would it look if we refuse internally?

It does not matter how pro or anti EU you are, it's been a dreadful few months for the bloc and people should be angry and asking real questions.

I mean it's embarrassing at this point.

I think we should source vaccines ourselves. We are sovereign country, we have that right. Obviously keep the stock coming from the EU.

If every country in the EU had foreseen this they would have told the EU commission, upon their request to act on their behalf, a simple "no".

Under no circumstances should we accept vaccines from Britain.

We'd look utterly ridiculous and we'd be compromising our own broader interests.

Boris has ruled out giving us vaccines according to Micheal Martin this morning.

yagan

schmoo2k wrote: »

IMO need to treat this hypothetical situation in isolation to Brexit as a whole, if the UK has surplus (which they will do), then it is to their advantage to ensure their neighbors are also vaccinated.

If they have a surplus its because they're way behind us on second jabs.

The Brazilian variant looks like it could seriously undo the UK strategy pretty fast.

Kermit.de.frog

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Boris has ruled out giving us vaccines according to Micheal Martin this morning.

Do you have a link?

That's good in my view. I don't see how us sourcing from Britain is worth a few months delay.

Enzokk

schmoo2k wrote: »

IMO need to treat this hypothetical situation in isolation to Brexit as a whole, if the UK has surplus (which they will do), then it is to their advantage to ensure their neighbors are also vaccinated.

Had we done our own thing precuring vaccines there is a very real chance we could have less than we have now (having paid a higher price), the EUs rollout is slower than the UKs but its faster than an awful lot of other places...

Don't know why people are fretting about the vaccines, by all account we will have our fair share in a month and a bit. Also, if the UK were generous to send us vaccines it would only make sense, seeing as there is an open border between us and their own citizens. That alone should be a reason to consider doing it, but with the current politics it will not be considered and will most likely be used to extract something from the EU.

I mean its not like we need all the world to be vaccinated to get over this pandemic, otherwise their stance would just look silly, wouldn't it.

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Do you have a link?

That's good in my view. I don't see how us sourcing from Britain is worth a few months delay.

https://www.thejournal.ie/no-surplus-vaccines-from-uk-ireland-5376074-Mar2021/?utm_source=twitter_short

murphaph

If the "banking bailout loan" we got from the UK is anything to go by they would charge us more than they paid for the vaccines themselves. Let us stick with our own EU programme. Supply in the EU is due to be ramped up significantly. It's really not as bad as people are making out. We'll be talking crossing the vaccination finish line a matter of weeks after the UK, nothing worse than that.

yagan

yagan wrote: »

If they have a surplus its because they're way behind us on second jabs.

The Brazilian variant looks like it could seriously undo the UK strategy pretty fast.

If there were any surplus, it would be diverted into doing the second jab for the vulnerable people first.

yagan

Deleted User wrote: »

If there were any surplus, it would be diverted into doing the second jab for the vulnerable people first.

They're already encountering problems getting people to turning up for the second jab as people are seeing the death numbers falling and hearing Boris talking about reopening for good as signs that the danger has passed for them.

Many vulnerable people in England are more concerned about how soon they can get back to Benidorm rather than getting fully innoculised.

yagan

yagan wrote: »

They're already encountering problems getting people to turning up for the second jab as people are seeing the death numbers falling and hearing Boris talking about reopening for good as signs that the danger has passed for them.

Many vulnerable people in England are more concerned about how soon they can get back to Benidorm rather than getting fully inoculated.

The vulnerable are unlikely to refuse the second jab if they're in fear of getting the virus.
If they're not fully vaccinated, then they may be refused entry, so I don't expect many of that particular group refusing.

Hurrache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I mean it's embarrassing at this point.

You need to adjust what you're focussing on. We're doing great worldwide and within the EU when you look at the proportion of our population that we've vaccinated so far.