Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Hurrache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Apparently UK is telling EU and EU leaders now that the backstop is illegal under the treaties.

The EU is still waiting
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1095361002634428416?s=19

Spanish Eyes

Well, having followed all this since the vote on Brexit, I can only say now that UK still has an empirical mindset and think they rule the waves.

I do try to see both sides, but it is very difficult for me now. I cannot see ONE benefit of UK leaving either for themselves, and of course ROI, we are just collateral damage. NI will suffer greatly too <snip - please read the charter>

It is just mad. I cannot put any other words on it now.

Tell me how

EU pretty much throwing all their cards on the table in hoping that there will be enough on all sides of the house, fearful of a No Deal to push for acceptance of May's deal.

I wonder though, have they something they are willing to offer as a sign that such cross party work actually resulted in a meaningful change to the agreement? (Or at least meaningful enough that it can be described as having only been achieved because the two parties got together)

I expect though that the Brexiteers use this to point to the EU trying to tell the HoC what to do?

johnnyskeleton

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Apparently UK is telling EU and EU leaders now that the backstop is illegal under the treaties.

Do you have a source please?

Havockk

Tell me how wrote: »

It is a measure of just how bad Corbyn is (and Labour by extension) that the Tories are still the strongest party in the UK.

It really cannot be forgotten and should be a foot note in every comment about Theresa May's performance that not once in the whole of the Brexit experience has Labour got the better of them.

They will try to blame this experience on the Tories but they have facilitated May through their sheer ineptitude. There are some shining lights in their party (as there are in the conservatives) but their leadership and particularly Corbyn, Abbott, Thornberry seem to be playing politics in responding to any topic simply in the way they learnt to when they first joined Labour youth.

1 - Blame the Tories
2 - Say that we would do much better
3 - Refuse to say how we would do much better

Yeah, it's the fault of the opposition. Not the fault of the lads in charge.

zapitastas

Tell me how wrote: »

It is a measure of just how bad Corbyn is (and Labour by extension) that the Tories are still the strongest party in the UK.

It really cannot be forgotten and should be a foot note in every comment about Theresa May's performance that not once in the whole of the Brexit experience has Labour got the better of them.

They will try to blame this experience on the Tories but they have facilitated May through their sheer ineptitude. There are some shining lights in their party (as there are in the conservatives) but their leadership and particularly Corbyn, Abbott, Thornberry seem to be playing politics in responding to any topic simply in the way they learnt to when they first joined Labour youth.

1 - Blame the Tories
2 - Say that we would do much better
3 - Refuse to say how we would do much better

This whole debacle is down to one party. They are responsible for the referendum and everything that has gone on subsequently.

RobMc59

Havockk wrote: »

Yeah, it's the fault of the opposition. Not the fault of the lads in charge.

Labour has gone downhill since Blair was exposed in full glorious technicolour as a scheming lier in cahoots with bush who was only interested in furthering his own companies interests.
Gordon Brown had absolutely no charisma which although not a requirement for a PM,when coupled with some of the horrendous gaffs he made (particularly his treatment of Iceland over repayments of collapsed bank funds)The latest encumberant Corbyn has dithered when he had TM on the ropes and is a big disappointment to the rank and file traditional labour voter.
So really,although TM and co. are a nightmare to any rational person-a Corbyn led labour is an absolute disaster!
I'm a member of the Labour party by the way!

Mr.Nice Guy

So a lengthy delay is the stick May intends to use.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1095392728383455233

BobbyBobberson

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

So a lengthy delay is the stick May intends to use.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1095392728383455233

This made me laugh. Big Olly after a skip of pints telling all whats going to happen!

Tell me how

Havockk wrote: »

Yeah, it's the fault of the opposition. Not the fault of the lads in charge.

zapitastas wrote: »

This whole debacle is down to one party. They are responsible for the referendum and everything that has gone on subsequently.

I'm not suggesting otherwise.

I am suggesting that Labour have failed entirely in their role of providing adequate opposition. Entirely.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is an interesting comment piece on what could happen in the event of no deal.

A no-deal Brexit won’t result in a siege. The EU will be more clinical than that

The author says that the EU will systematically put pressure on those industries in the UK until in a decade there will be not much left in the UK. Part of this is due to the swivel from manufacturing during the Thatcher years which means and that base doesn't exist any longer to swivel from international to domestic production.

A no-deal Brexit would hand the EU enormous power: it would decide how and when to introduce new frictions between the UK and the single market, giving sufficient time for firms like Airbus, Nissan or AstraZeneca to relocate production. As recent decisions have demonstrated, even seemingly fixed capital investment is more mobile than many Brexiters imagine.

This is so true. Any UK production line that isn't as efficient as one in the EU or somewhere with an FTA with the EU may not win a companies internal competition to build a new model.


Investment in UK car industry used to be about £2.5Bn a year, last year it was less than £0.6Bn. And there's been a drip drip of stuff like Jaguar starting to build in China and Peugeot and Ford and Tata and Airbus and Dyson not giving firm commitments to continue to invest in the UK. Some have offshored already.


Meanwhile Intel are investing $8Bn here in Leixlip.

RobMc59

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This is so true. Any UK production line that isn't as efficient as one in the EU or somewhere with an FTA with the EU may not win a companies internal competition to build a new model.


Investment in UK car industry used to be about £2.5Bn a year, last year it was less than £0.6Bn. And there's been a drip drip of stuff like Jaguar starting to build in China and Peugeot and Ford and Tata and Airbus and Dyson not giving firm commitments to continue to invest in the UK. Some have offshored already.


Meanwhile Intel are investing $8Bn here in Leixlip.

There hasn't really been a UK car industry since the demise of British Leyland-they are all foreign/foreign owned now.

Folkstonian

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

This is so true. Any UK production line that isn't as efficient as one in the EU or somewhere with an FTA with the EU may not win a companies internal competition to build a new model.


Investment in UK car industry used to be about £2.5Bn a year, last year it was less than £0.6Bn. And there's been a drip drip of stuff like Jaguar starting to build in China and Peugeot and Ford and Tata and Airbus and Dyson not giving firm commitments to continue to invest in the UK. Some have offshored already.


Meanwhile Intel are investing $8Bn here in Leixlip.

Whilst it is true, what has Jaguar’s decision to start building cars in China got to do with Brexit? It’s a trend that started long before Britain voted to leave the EU unfortunately. As soon as Jaguar stopped being a british brand, it was inevitable. The emotional attachment to the English Midlands and the company’s British hereitage vanished overnight

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

Help me here. The bit I don’t get is that many on here seem to be very concerned about a hard border yet you won’t swallow your pride to suggest that you may have some responsibility in finding a solution. All the stuff you say about me I fairly much feel about southerners who won’t countenance any renegotiation of the backstop. Even though it is that very renegotiation that could prevent a hard border.
You are playing a very risky game

How should the backstop be changed?

If it is time limited, then we get a hard border after the time limit, if the UK can revoke it unilaterally, then we get a hard border whenever it suits the UK. That is not acceptable.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

They bang on about this £39bn (payable to 2060 I believe), but we have laready seen with TM's recent trip to Africa and the promise of £4bn aid, that there will be plenty of side deals to get the main deal done.

Will they give in anything on the Falklands for example in order to get better trade terms with Argentina. What about extra visas for India? What about 1st pick on infrastructure investments to the Chinese?

None of these will make the news until well after the deals are done but that will be the true cost of Brexit.

Brexit is only starting.

Brexit is only starting. Level one is almost over.

On March 29th the UK gets to decide if they want to spend at least two years learning how to do trade deals in easy mode on Level Two within the EU trading safety.

Or go straight onto Level Three at maximum difficulty.

Or press the reset button.


So far the deals are

South Africa and the 7 Dwarfs - less that 2% of UK exports, only cost £4Bn in aid and sales haven't increased despite the fall in Sterling.

Faroe Islands - The UK gets to buy it's own fish back. And it will only cost the seats of a dozen Scottish Tory MP's.

These two I haven't checked fully
Chile - No tariffs on wine. And then there's the rivalry with Argentina to factor in.

Switzerland - Status Quo mostly. Gold transfer is a huge thing.

J Mysterio

Folkstonian wrote: »

Whilst it is true, what has Jaguar’s decision to start building cars in China got to do with Brexit? It’s a trend that started long before Britain voted to leave the EU unfortunately. As soon as Jaguar stopped being a british brand, it was inevitable. The emotional attachment to the English Midlands and the company’s British hereitage vanished overnight

Ah come here. What's it got to do with Brexit?! You're saying that these companies are leaving for cheap labour in China and because they have no emotional attachment to Blighty. Be honest with yourself here, that's nonsense.

These companies have explicitly said they are moving operations because of Brexit. Many of them have said they are sorry to have to do this. The reason they are leaving is not cheap labour elsewhere, its because they want their bases and manufacturing in the single market. It's painful for these companies to make these moves - they have all the infrastructure, employees, supply lines all set up - but the UK are promising to devastate their business, and have forced the hand.

Also,.other businesses which are English and do have 'emotional attachment' have or are moving operations. They have to make these business decisions. The rug is being pulled out from under them.

CelticRambler

Folkstonian wrote: »

Whilst it is true, what has Jaguar’s decision to start building cars in China got to do with Brexit?

In itself, nothing. But we have been told that the Great Brexit Dividend will come from wonderful trade deals done with the emerging economies of China, India and other places like ... ummm ... Swaziland and Lesotho? To date, I have not heard any reasonable description of what Britain is going to trade with these other places.

The Jaguar/Ford/Nissan/Airbus/Dyson stories are the reality that counteract the Unicorn economics of Brexiteers. Why would a Chinaman buy a Jaguar made in England if he could by a genuine Jag made in China for one fifth of the price? Why would Mr. Dyson make vacuum cleaners destined for the Asian market in the UK and transport them half way around the world, when he could make them more cheaply and efficiently on Asia's doorstep ... and then bank the profits in Singapore?

I have asked this question at least twice before on this thread, but am still waiting for an answer: what does a post-Brexit Britain offer to any other country or trading bloc that can't be more easily or more cheaply found elsewhere?

Capt'n Midnight

Folkstonian wrote: »

Whilst it is true, what has Jaguar’s decision to start building cars in China got to do with Brexit?

In and of itself nothing.

But it sure ain't helping. And it means the UK operation now has another competition in the groups internal market.

Brexit means going it alone in the big bad world.

Like you said there is no real attachment to the UK for most of the foreign owned companies.


It's foreign companies making the decisions. When you start to offshore production then you may start to get parts locally too. It's investment that won't be going to the UK. It's like death by 1,000 cuts. They might be tempted to use the new supplier for the UK too.


There's a tipping point with UK car manufacturing. Once imported content exceeds a certain % then they are no longer consider UK made from a WTO perspective.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/ukvoteremain/status/1095405793187450882


More from Olly Robbins (overheard)

Capt'n Midnight

Hurrache wrote: »

Johnson wants out of the backstop, but there's also no point in having a time limit backstop without it ending before the next general election

In an environment where the Scottish Tories, ERG or DUP could trigger an election anytime ?

A completely worthless backstop from a completely worthless man.

Capt'n Midnight

The shambles continues.

UK sued by Channel tunnel firms over Brexit ferry plans They're claiming it's an unfair subsidy for ferry companies.

The regulator forced Eurotunnel to shut down their own ferry company, MyFerryLink, a few years ago so I'd imagine they are a little miffed about the whole thing.

breatheme

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ukvoteremain/status/1095405793187450882


More from Olly Robbins (overheard)

A trade deal alone won't eliminate the need for the backstop... But I guess people remain ignorant...

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/aqbyrne/status/1095372308515078146

Of course "indefinite" and "temporary" aren't contradictory.

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ukvoteremain/status/1095405793187450882


More from Olly Robbins (overheard)

But isn't that what is says already? The backstop is only needed until a trade deal is negotiated that either doesn't need checks or if checks are needed in the trade deal then if technology means checks doesn't have to take place at the border.

So there will be a fudge, but a fudge on the current deal and backstop.

Just as to the link with the possible strategy from the EU with no deal, Ian Dunt was on this already in December when the EU released their plans for no deal. That was then they released the plans on aviation and haulage and we had the discussion on whether this meant that no deal was a hoax or this was only done for the EU benefit.

EU no-deal plans: Our childish outburst has put us at their mercy

Here is an article about what is happening to get all the legislation through before March 29th. I can see a lot of problems coming up after 29th March because they are not doing things properly and it will be interesting to see what happens and what the consequences will be later.

Theresa May is about to force through an avalanche of new Brexit laws

Theresa May's government is trying to sneak through vast swathes of new legislation in the final weeks before Brexit without proper democratic checks, her opponents have warned.

Ministers are pushing hundreds of pieces of secondary legislation — known as statutory instruments (SIs) — through Parliament in the final weeks before the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on March 29.

SIs pass through parliamentary committees but do not always require full House of Commons approval. May's government has around 600 SIs relating to Brexit which it aims to get through Parliament before Brexit day on March 29.

However, just 117 SIs had completed their passage through Parliament at the time of writing, while up to 40% hadn't even been laid before Parliament to begin their journey through Westminster.

briany

Imreoir2 wrote: »

How should the backstop be changed?

If it is time limited, then we get a hard border after the time limit, if the UK can revoke it unilaterally, then we get a hard border whenever it suits the UK. That is not acceptable.

As I'd said before, maybe a 10 year time limit with some clauses could work.

Clause 1 - If the UK have not come up with a satisfactory solution to the border question within that 10 years, then they face one of two options. Either they extend the backstop by 5 years, or they void their whatever deal they have with the EU.

The UK will notify the EU whenever within this 10 year period that they feel they have a satisfactory solution to the border question. They could even notify the EU more than once.

Clause 2 - Upon notification of a solution by the UK to the EU, EU inspectors will be invited to assess it themselves. If their opinion is in the affirmative, then the backstop ceases. If it is in the negative but the EU can see progress they can come back and reassess. If not, then the choice in Clause 1 is triggered. This choice would be a free vote would be made via a free vote in the UK parliament.

Clause 3 (optional) - If the UK and EU cannot agree over the proposed border solution, an independent opinion could be sought, such as the UN. If the UK and EU are at such a point of bad faith, this could be a way forward.

Again, the choice to quit the backstop would not be without consequence.

A key difference between this deal and the one on the table would be the UK wouldn't be so paranoid they'd be 'locked-in' to the backstop, and the EU could be sure that the UK couldn't try to pull the slowest fast one in history by simply waiting out the time limit.

ThePanjandrum

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In and of itself nothing.

But it sure ain't helping. And it means the UK operation now has another competition in the groups internal market.

Brexit means going it alone in the big bad world.

Like you said there is no real attachment to the UK for most of the foreign owned companies.


It's foreign companies making the decisions. When you start to offshore production then you may start to get parts locally too. It's investment that won't be going to the UK. It's like death by 1,000 cuts. They might be tempted to use the new supplier for the UK too.


There's a tipping point with UK car manufacturing. Once imported content exceeds a certain % then they are no longer consider UK made from a WTO perspective.

So what do you say about BMW, Mecedes Benz/Daimler and Volkswagen which all manufacture in China?

Akrasia

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

So a lengthy delay is the stick May intends to use.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1095392728383455233

The EU aint gonna put up with 'a lengthy delay' followed by the same headless chicken delaying tactics which would just extend the period of uncertainty and impose costs on EU businesses and the institutions of the EU.

Not to mention disruption to the EU parliament elections in July

J Mysterio

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/aqbyrne/status/1095372308515078146

Of course "indefinite" and "temporary" aren't contradictory.

This is an embarassing route to take as the backstop element clearly states 'unless and until'. Shame on UK attorney general too.

Really, I think we may as well all switch off until the vote as there's just going to be a lot of nonsense thrown about to kill the time. I'd like to know when that vote might be though... as close to March 29th as possible you would expect.

Infini

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is an interesting comment piece on what could happen in the event of no deal.

A no-deal Brexit won’t result in a siege. The EU will be more clinical than that



The author says that the EU will systematically put pressure on those industries in the UK until in a decade there will be not much left in the UK. Part of this is due to the swivel from manufacturing during the Thatcher years which means and that base doesn't exist any longer to swivel from international to domestic production.

Basically death by a 1000 cuts. Thats the thing these Brexiteers refuse to care about. Once you leave all these agreements the EU can either choose to stop everything or take a surgical approach and dismantle them one sector at a time at their leisure. Any sector covered by former trade agreements are essentially in sunset mode liable to be terminated at a time of the EUs choosing or if any significant violations of standards are detected. It lets the EU adapt over a longer time and if they wish hit the UK with changes that suit themselves no matter how painful it hurts the UK and it wont even be out of spite or that it will simply because it suits the EU to do so.

johnnyskeleton

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/aqbyrne/status/1095372308515078146

Of course "indefinite" and "temporary" aren't contradictory.

Nor does the word "temporary" actually appear in Article 50. The closest thing is this part of Art 50.2:

the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.

Requiring the framework of the future relationship to be taken into account is very different from requiring the withdrawal agreement to be temporary by its nature.

Youve gotta admire the ability of the UK gov to invent a new section of EU law then give out to the EU because they breached its non existent terms.