Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Sam Russell

According to The Times, HM Customs say:

Annual £7.5bn cost of EU trade as bad for business as no-deal Brexit

Given that the UK contribution was GB£9.4 billion, that GB£7.4 billion equals 80% of that contribution that simple give problems for UK business, causes supply chains to reorganise to avoid the UK, cause delays which add other costs.

Who ever thought that leaving the single market was a good idea?

Strazdas

Sam Russell wrote: »

According to The Times, HM Customs say:



Given that the UK contribution was GB£9.4 billion, that GB£7.4 billion equals 80% of that contribution that simple give problems for UK business, causes supply chains to reorganise to avoid the UK, cause delays which add other costs.

Who ever thought that leaving the single market was a good idea?

Which makes the overall effect even worse. Costs them £7.5bn to be outside the EU but have lost a huge amount of trade and custom in the process (and a lot more besides).

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

Given that the UK contribution was GB£9.4 billion, that GB£7.4 billion equals 80% of that contribution that simple give problems for UK business, causes supply chains to reorganise to avoid the UK, cause delays which add other costs.

Who ever thought that leaving the single market was a good idea?

ONS figures suggest it was more like 100%. And the Foreign Aid didn't stay in the EU.

The UK’s annual five-year average (2014 to 2018) net contribution on this wider basis was £7.8 billion; lower than the £9.8 billion ONS estimate of the annual five-year average which only captures official transactions between the EU and the UK government.
...
In 2018 the Department for International Development paid £452 million in overseas aid via EU institutions

Looks like an extension to the grace period has been agreed.

Not sure that I like to see this appeasement

Batrachotox

Batrachotox wrote: »

Looks like an extension to the grace period has been agreed.

Not sure that I like to see this appeasement

How could you possibly be unsure if you call it appeasement?

Sam Russell

I am disappointed that they did not link this extension to an extension by the UK to the settled status time frame, or to the provision of inspection infrastructure in Larne and Belfast and elsewhere it is needed.

However, it retains the need to keep the EU standards for SPS.

Nody

In another "What a surprise /s" moment the Belfast high court has ruled that the UK parliament can do what they want when it comes to Brexit to the disappointment of the yet again jilted unionists.

Opponents of the Northern Ireland Protocol have been dealt a blow after the High Court threw out a bid for the Brexit deal to be declared unlawful.

Unionist leaders launched the legal challenge in protest at the agreement – signed by Boris Johnson and the EU – creating a trade border in the Irish Sea, disrupting supplies.

But a judge in the court in Belfast ruled that the EU Withdrawal Act overrides claims that the Protocol breaches the Acts of Union between Britain and Ireland.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How could you possibly be unsure if you call it appeasement?

What?

I think you misread my comment

ambro25

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am disappointed that they did not link this extension to an extension by the UK to the settled status time frame, or to the provision of inspection infrastructure in Larne and Belfast and elsewhere it is needed.

However, it retains the need to keep the EU standards for SPS.

Luxembourg extended it for Brits, unilaterally, to 31 December 2021 last Monday (IIRC).

With reference to a recent exchange with Celtic in here, France has yet to.

I did mention that it had been a commo clusterf***, and clearly it still is as of today.

Methinks the French gvt prepared an extension and informed local authorities in readiness, but with a commo embargo/reserve on it, and a couple Préfectures dropped the ball, hence the confusion.

Today is one of the sadder days, insofar as Brexit consequences go.

CelticRambler

ambro25 wrote: »

With reference to a recent exchange with Celtic in here, France has yet to.

I did mention that it had been a commo clusterf***, and clearly it still is as of today.

Methinks the French gvt prepared an extension and informed local authorities in readiness, but with a commo embargo/reserve on it, and a couple Préfectures dropped the ball, hence the confusion.

Indeed.

Could this be a sign that there was a quid pro quo involved in the NIP extension - because we're still at the "is expected to announce" stage in that drama too, with less than 12 hours to go.

awec

Nody wrote: »

In another "What a surprise /s" moment the Belfast high court has ruled that the UK parliament can do what they want when it comes to Brexit to the disappointment of the yet again jilted unionists.

So elements of the Withdrawal Act of 2018 repeal part of the Act of Union.

That will go down well.

Strazdas

awec wrote: »

So elements of the Withdrawal Act of 2018 repeal part of the Act of Union.

That will go down well.

Can't be blamed on Ireland or the EU either. Purely an internal matter for the British and they ratified it in their own Parliament.

amacca

Strazdas wrote: »

Can't be blamed on Ireland or the EU either. Purely an internal matter for the British and they ratified it in their own Parliament.

That won't matter....when you are inextricably linked to an ideology so much so that you see you're survival depending on it then the fault is always external, even if it isn't.

Just as it's the EUs fault in the British media it will be Ireland and EUs fault there.....to do otherwise would be admitting you were wrong and that can't happen.....

Mr.Nice Guy

https://twitter.com/J_Donaldson_MP/status/1410210665562783745

The principle of consent and various agreements didn't matter when Jeffrey and co. held the balance of power and were pushing through the hardest possible Brexit with their mates in the ERG, despite the fact most in NI voted against it.

McGiver

UK has no proper, codified constitution so any sort of ruling on "constitutional matters" in the UK is a joke - can go both ways really...

Seth Brundle

Jeffrey Robinson wrote:

This decision is very politically significant. It confirms the protocol damages our constitutional position in the UK contrary to the principle of consent & various agreements. If not resolved it will have potential consequences for the future stability of political institutions

What exactly are the issues?
What exactly does he want done?
Who does he expect to make the changes (UK or EU)?

Ellian

McGiver wrote: »

UK has no proper, codified constitution so any sort of ruling on "constitutional matters" in the UK is a joke - can go both ways really...

I think that in a lot of these cases the Law Lords tend to run to a book called An Introduction to the Study of the law of the Constitution by AV Dicey - somewhat ironically in this case, I think Dicey was a strong supporter of the Act of Union and very much opposed to the formation of the Irish Free State.

Nody

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What exactly are the issues?
What exactly does he want done?
Who does he expect to make the changes (UK or EU)?

That the court rules that the deal approved by the UK parliament and signed by Boris is declared illegal (tail wagging the dog...). The core of the argument is basically that NI is longer part of UK and hence the brexit deal breaches the treaties; UK's government argument is "NI is still part of UK and in the UK customs union so they are wrong". The problem with the argument is simply that parliament can vote and implement what ever they want basically as there's no constitution to fall back on and that makes the parliament the ultimate decider on issues (though implementation can be challenged in court as has been done in the past but that rarely changes the fundamentals).

54and56

Bad day all round for the DUP, Ben Habib and all the other Brexit Fundamentalists.

1. NIP is legal and the cherry on top is part of the act of union is repealed.

2. The EU has granted the UK an extension to the grace period in order to finalise pragmatic accommodation's within the framework of the NIP.

Not only did BoJo and co throw NI Unionists under the bus but he has reversed back up to make sure the job is well and truly done.

When BoJo said he had an oven ready deal the DUP didn't realise they were the turkey's who were about to get roasted in the oven.

Seth Brundle

The EU has put forwards a balanced package of measures to address some of the most pressing issues related to the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. It demonstrates the EU's strong commitment to finding creative solutions – including by changing its own rules – with the core purpose of benefitting people in Northern Ireland.

• Extension of the grace period for chilled meats until 30 September 2021
• Practical solutions for Northern Ireland in terms of
  • Medecines
  • Guide Dogs
  • Green Card
  • Movement of certain animals

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_3324

CelticRambler

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The EU has put forwards a balanced package of measures to address some of the most pressing issues related to the implementation of the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland. ...

• Extension of the grace period for chilled meats until 30 September 2021

From the press release:

the meat products that are subject to the channelling procedure ... must remain under the control of the Northern Ireland competent authorities at all stages of that procedure. These meat products must be accompanied by official health certificates issued by the UK competent authorities, can exclusively be sold to end consumers in supermarkets located in Northern Ireland, and must be packed and labelled accordingly. The EU also underlines the importance of ensuring that Border Control Posts in Northern Ireland have the necessary infrastructure and resources to be able to perform all the controls required by the EU's Official Controls Regulation.

I'm not seeing much of a concession here, on the part of the EU. What additional restrictions were supposed to come in tomorrow - was it a complete ban?

Capt'n Midnight

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'm not seeing much of a concession here, on the part of the EU. What additional restrictions were supposed to come in tomorrow - was it a complete ban?

It's enough that it could be painted as a "win" by the other side.

PokeHerKing

CelticRambler wrote: »

From the press release:


I'm not seeing much of a concession here, on the part of the EU. What additional restrictions were supposed to come in tomorrow - was it a complete ban?

There was never going to be any concessions on the integrity of the SM. Maybe the DUP can sell a headline as a win. I doubt the vast majority of their voters read past that anyway.

McGiver

Nody wrote:

The problem with the argument is simply that parliament can vote and implement what ever they want basically as there's no constitution to fall back on and that makes the parliament the ultimate decider on issues (though implementation can be challenged in court as has been done in the past but that rarely changes the fundamentals).

Exactly.

1. No codified constitution limiting the government.
2. The Parliament is sovereign - can modify or repeal any previous laws including "constitutional" (simply because there are no constitutional laws per se).
3. Each HMG controls the majority in the Parliament and can thus pass or repeal any laws without any restrictions.
4. Each Parliament cannot be removed from power unless 5 years elapse since the last General Election or it calls a general election voluntarily.


That means:
Each HMG has basically an ability to create, change and repeal constitution on the go without any limit and can do so for 5 years and can't be removed because 1-party government simply won't call no confidence vote. And all this is possible with little as 35% of the votes!

Scary stuff - what if some lunatics come to power (you know like Gove, Johnson or JRM)?

Ironically, the only positive thing about this system is that the next government can repeal all the potentially malicious laws of the previous government. Doesn't sound like a stable system the UK system claims to be.

But what if the current government rigs the system by making it impossible or difficult to repeal its laws or by ensuring perpetual majority for the party etc?

Again scary and look at last 10 years in Hungary or Poland how this could evolve into situation like this. And both these countries have PR not FPTP. It's much harder to rig PR...

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

From the press release:


I'm not seeing much of a concession here, on the part of the EU. What additional restrictions were supposed to come in tomorrow - was it a complete ban?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's enough that it could be painted as a "win" by the other side.

I'd have preferred the UK to align with EU standards so all this wouldn't have happened(obviously no brexit would have been the best situation).
Having said that,the EU agreeing to an extension is giving in to the UK . Certainly not the scenario predicted by a number of posters here which usually pans out as the UK over a barrel .
I'm disappointed with the EU as they enable Johnson and co,just when the pro brexit voters are waking up to what a sleazy bunch the tories are.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd have preferred the UK to align with EU standards so all this wouldn't have happened(obviously no brexit would have been the best situation).
Having said that,the EU agreeing to an extension is giving in to the UK . Certainly not the scenario predicted by a number of posters here which usually pans out as the UK over a barrel .

I cannot find any online publication of the UK's counterpart unilateral declaration, which has been referred to in various communications, but it seems like at least one paragraph of that is indeed a commitment on the part of the UK to not diverge from their current standards (i.e. remain aligned with the EU standards transposed into UK law) ... but only for the three months.

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd have preferred the UK to align with EU standards so all this wouldn't have happened(obviously no brexit would have been the best situation).
Having said that,the EU agreeing to an extension is giving in to the UK . Certainly not the scenario predicted by a number of posters here which usually pans out as the UK over a barrel .
I'm disappointed with the EU as they enable Johnson and co,just when the pro brexit voters are waking up to what a sleazy bunch the tories are.

The UK is aligning by rules it has no say over and which prevents it from signing trade deals it wants to. Admittedly it is only for the next 3 months, but it is still not an ideal situation for a country that prides itself on making its own rules and decisions and being free of Brussels and those unelected bureaucrats making the rules you are forced to abide by.

I don't really care how Johnson is able to sell this, there is a sickness in the UK politics at the moment and selling this as a win is part of it. It is not the EU job to paint the Tories as liars. You get what you deserve in life and if you get liars and charlatans leading the country, maybe a little introspection is needed from the UK people on what is happening in their world right now.

Leroy42

Rob, the UK have been insisting for months that any alignment with EU standards basically means no Brexit. Only yesterday, Frost was saying that people simply needed to accept that things have changed and get on with it.

And after telling everyone that the NIP is completely unworkable, they have agreed not only to a second extension (which you may recall they deemed completely unnecessary last November) they have not only agreed to keep following the EU rules, but to implement all aspects of the NIP in the meantime.

What exactly do you think the EU climbed down on? The EU, yet again, got exactly what they wanted. They get to keep the UK within its rules (and thus avoiding potential issues with RoI and SM/CU, they put the pressure back on the UK to live up to the NIP.

I have been critical of the EU during this whole mess, calling a few times for the EU to get tough etc. But in this instance, there is literally no downside to the EU agreeing to this and plenty of upside.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd have preferred the UK to align with EU standards so all this wouldn't have happened(obviously no brexit would have been the best situation).
Having said that,the EU agreeing to an extension is giving in to the UK . Certainly not the scenario predicted by a number of posters here which usually pans out as the UK over a barrel .
I'm disappointed with the EU as they enable Johnson and co,just when the pro brexit voters are waking up to what a sleazy bunch the tories are.

It's not the EU's job to 'wake up' the UK voters. We in the EU want to keep the SM secure, it was done again today. The Protocol is fully enacted and the UK have 3 months to use the in-built flexibilities and easements or we are back to here, again.

RobMc59

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

We’re you not one of those calling for EU to be “flexible” earlier up thread?

The ball is back in Boris’s court let’s see how he manages to turn this into an own goal

As time passes and the antics of johnson and co get more outrageous,extensions granted,brexit transition coming and going with no noticeable progress and not acted upon,anyone who had fleeting hopes it will work out in the end is bound to be dispondant when the EU enable the ERG and the rest of them.
Yes,I did try to give the government the benefit of the doubt in the beginning.