Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.The UK signed up to the WA in good faith that there would be genuine negotiations.If as you say the 'negotiating'by the EU is 'do as you're told '.Then perhaps that could be viewed as an unfair contract thus null and void.

Negotiations of any kind are never "fair" as the object of the exercise is always to get the best deal possible. This implies that each party will aim to get more than their absolute minimum requirements, which means that the other party will have to give up more than their preferred maximum.

What's "unfair" in this case is that the UK has decided to be the first country in history to enter trade negotiations with the objective of signing a worse trade deal than they had when they started. The EU is perfectly entitled to insist on the UK doing as it's told if the UK wants to trade with EU member states. Just as they do and did when negotiating deals with every other third country.

Oh, and all of this was already set out and agreed between the EU and the UK last year - that was the whole point of the WA and PD, and that package was approved by the UK electorate on the back of Johnson's "oven ready Brexit" campaign. Are you saying it's fair to the British people for the current administration to rewrite what was put to the vote in 2019?

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.The UK signed up to the WA in good faith that there would be genuine negotiations.If as you say the 'negotiating'by the EU is 'do as you're told '.Then perhaps that could be viewed as an unfair contract thus null and void.
WTO rules won't suit the EU,they don't always rule in their favour, as with the spat over unfair EU aid to airbus.

You're being disingenuous now.
Everyone knew the EU's position beforehand. The UK are trying to get out of what they initially agreed to!

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK has probably been naive in thinking there will be fair 'negotiations'but that sounds like an unfair contract to me.

Here's more of this nonsense. The negotiations have been fair. They just don't suit the UK because the UK wants to have it's cake and eat it whilst being led by both blind incompetence and arrogant nationalistic jingoism.
But trade negotiations don't work that way!

Leroy42

And to dispel this myth. The UK are not being told what to do. They are, being a sovereign nation, being given options. Johnson did not have to sign the deal. As as been pointe out since almost the day after the vote, the UK has, and always had, the option to walk away with nothing.

They had continuously chosen not to do that. They chose, first Johnson, then the cabinet, then the people the the HoC, to opt to accept the WA. At any time any of those parties could have refused. As they did with TMs WA.

Igotadose

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Here's more of this nonsense. The negotiations have been fair. They just don't suit the UK because the UK wants to have it's cake and eat it whilst being led by both blind incompetence and arrogant nationalistic jingoism.
But trade negotiations don't work that way!

I can imagine how bad it will go for the 'free' UK when they negotiate with unfriendly powers, like China. They think the amazingly patient and tolerant EU are being unfair? Just wait..

Or the hyper-one-sidedness that's characteristic of negotiation with the US.

I imagine India is going to push the UK around quite a bit as well, they're the market and the UK the dwindling, smaller market. Plus a fair amount of schadenfreude possible in those negotiations.

It really seems like it'll be bleak in the UK for the next generation or two.

RobMc59

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You're being disingenuous now.
Everyone knew the EU's position beforehand. The UK are trying to get out of what they initially agreed to!


Here's more of this nonsense. The negotiations have been fair. They just don't suit the UK because the UK wants to have it's cake and eat it whilst being led by both blind incompetence and arrogant nationalistic jingoism.
But trade negotiations don't work that way!

I'd say the UK has been very naive to think the EU would actually negotiate and not just dictate what will happen.
Possible grounds to claim an unfair contract?I'd guess the UK is exploring that option and its possible ramifications.

Capt'n Midnight

Igotadose wrote: »

I imagine India is going to push the UK around quite a bit as well, they're the market and the UK the dwindling, smaller market. Plus a fair amount of schadenfreude possible in those negotiations.

Interesting distinction in Saturday's announcement by the Indian Trade Minister.

India has started trade talks with the EU and is open to dialogue with the United Kingdom for a free trade agreement.


To get a trade deal with India the UK will have to offer visa, visas, and more visas.

ath262

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd say the UK has been very naive to think the EU would actually negotiate and not just dictate what will happen.
Possible grounds to claim an unfair contract?I'd guess the UK is exploring that option and its possible ramifications.

The conditions and rules to go with any future trade relationship between the EU with the UK have been clearly and publicly declared in advance - and signed off in the Withdrawal Agreement and Political declaration.

swampgas

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd say the UK has been very naive to think the EU would actually negotiate and not just dictate what will happen.
Possible grounds to claim an unfair contract?I'd guess the UK is exploring that option and its possible ramifications.

Well, consider that the EU isn't some single monolithic entity like China or the USA. It's actually 27 other countries who have an agreed set of rules, built up in a painstaking way over decades, for how they trade between each other, and how they trade with 3rd countries.

The UK was part of that, and has left, and now they want the EU to tear up its own rulebook just so they can dig themselves out of a hole.

This isn't the EU being awkward or vindictive, it's the UK simply refusing to understand that the EU is a rules based organisation. If you want to be in it, you play by the rules. If the rules are unacceptable, you go your own way on the outside instead.

timetogo1

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd say the UK has been very naive to think the EU would actually negotiate and not just dictate what will happen.
Possible grounds to claim an unfair contract?I'd guess the UK is exploring that option and its possible ramifications.

Well pretty much everybody except the leave side thought the EU was the stronger party. And I'd think only kids would expect negotiations to be fair. Good luck when they have to negotiate with the US or China. Especially if they can't manage to keep to agreements that they've already signed up to.

Imagine signing an agreement and then 6 months later trying to get out of it. I'd say the other blocks are dying to start their negotiations with the UK after seeing how great the UK is managing so far. If they have any sense though they'll probably wait until 2021. The UK will be getting more desperate then.

Sam Russell

timetogo1 wrote: »

Well pretty much everybody except the leave side thought the EU was the stronger party. And I'd think only kids would expect negotiations to be fair. Good luck when they have to negotiate with the US or China. Especially if they can't manage to keep to agreements that they've already signed up to.

The UK are trying to get Huawei out of their G5 network, and admonishing China over Hong Kong. I wonder how they start that conversation :-

Secretary Truss - "We would like to do a trade deal - one of the quickest in history - that includes technology - maybe not - autos - perhaps not - hormone beef and GMO cereals - perhaps not - and chlorinated chicken - perhaps not. Well we would like a trade deal - perhaps cheese!"

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd say the UK has been very naive to think the EU would actually negotiate and not just dictate what will happen.
Possible grounds to claim an unfair contract?I'd guess the UK is exploring that option and its possible ramifications.

The EU have negotiated. They went with the backstop, changed to UK wide, then reopened the WA to agree a frontstop.

They agreed to an extension, then another one, then a transition.

Negation doesn't mean agreeing to the other side for nothing.

What are the UK willing to compromise on? Fishing, ECJ, standards, LPF?

According to Frost, none of it. They want a FTA for nothing.

ancapailldorcha

In yet another episode of Brexit-related irony, the residents of Ashford are raging at government plans to construct a lorry park to prepare for Brexit:

But from Monday the victory for wildlife will end as the first machines and crews start work on a 27-acre Brexit customs clearance centre to process lorries coming from the EU into Dover from January, prompting anger from local residents, a Tory MP and other politicians.

It is the first official infrastructure the government has finalised as part of a £705m package to put a Brexit border in place, with new IT systems and 500 extra Border Force officials. On Sunday, Michael Gove denied it amounted to a vast lorry park.

The plans were secret until Friday when the local council was contacted out of the blue by the Department for Transport and told the land was now in public ownership and earmarked for “temporary capacity for the holding of delayed HGVs and facilities for border-related controls to be carried out by government agencies”.

The lack of consultation has triggered anger. Damian Green, the town’s Conservative MP and a former close ally of Boris Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, said he was opposed to the site, tweeting that it was “unfair to Ashford” as it was “too near too many homes”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/12/local-anger-over-plans-for-post-brexit-lorry-park-at-ashford?CMP=share_btn_tw

There's a troubling theme emanating from the UK where people who were incredibly vocal about how much they wanted Brexit at any cost (to other people of course) now baulk at any preparations affecting them in any way.

Kent was very enthusiastically pro-Brexit. It was UKIP's main support base. With so much information being available about the EU customs union, one would think that this might have affected their decision.

Shelga

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In yet another episode of Brexit-related irony, the residents of Ashford are raging at government plans to construct a lorry park to prepare for Brexit:



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/12/local-anger-over-plans-for-post-brexit-lorry-park-at-ashford?CMP=share_btn_tw

There's a troubling theme emanating from the UK where people who were incredibly vocal about how much they wanted Brexit at any cost (to other people of course) now baulk at any preparations affecting them in any way.

Kent was very enthusiastically pro-Brexit. It was UKIP's main support base. With so much information being available about the EU customs union, one would think that this might have affected their decision.

How do people like Damian Green not realise how much they're embarrassing themselves?

I see the UK government is spending tens of millions of pounds on yet another advertising campaign, imploring businesses to prepare for Brexit:

"Created by MullenLowe ahead of the end of Britain’s transition period on 31 December, "Check, change, go" urges businesses to "get moving" and "seize new opportunities"."

Could this be any more banal and meaningless? What are businesses meant to get ready for? If it's going to be no deal, they need to start being explicit about that, because at the moment they are just insulting the intelligence of every business owner in the UK.

"Take back control" really meant giving it all away to the altar of Tory hard-right ideology.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

And therein lies the problem.The UK signed up to the WA in good faith that there would be genuine negotiations.If as you say the 'negotiating'by the EU is 'do as you're told '.Then perhaps that could be viewed as an unfair contract thus null and void.
WTO rules won't suit the EU,they don't always rule in their favour, as with the spat over unfair EU aid to airbus.

Clearly the UK did not sign up to the WA in good faith - unlike the EU. The EU was very clear where this was going and what was possible within the time frame demanded by the UK: an all or nothing FTA - because something in between gets into details which take years to work out line by line. On the basis of the undertakings of the UK, the member states agreed their mandate- what in that mandate is out of line with what was explained in detail in 2019? The only country reneging here is the UK - still looking to cherry pick, still looking to parasite off the EU.

As for the loser's talk about "wah, WA was so unfair, let's renege. The UK blinked when it had more negotiating power than it does now. Brexiters will need to quickly learn to lie back and take the humiliation- - close their eyes and think of England - it will be easier for them that way.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In yet another episode of Brexit-related irony, the residents of Ashford are raging at government plans to construct a lorry park to prepare for Brexit:

<snip>

There's a troubling theme emanating from the UK where people who were incredibly vocal about how much they wanted Brexit at any cost (to other people of course) now baulk at any preparations affecting them in any way.

Kent was very enthusiastically pro-Brexit. It was UKIP's main support base. With so much information being available about the EU customs union, one would think that this might have affected their decision.

Ashford 2016 referendum result: 59+% Leave, 40+% Remain.

Ashford GE 2019 vote result: Cons 37k (Damian Green MP, hold), Lab 13k, LibDem-Greens-1 other around 8k.

I'd say that they're getting exactly what they repeatedly voted for, tbh.

All preparation required can be plainly and clearly ascertained from the EU's plentiful, thorough, and very accessible Readiness Notices. Peeps had better start with the 'general' 09 July Notice at the top of the EU website's page.

fash

.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd say the UK has been very naive to think the EU would actually negotiate and not just dictate what will happen.
Possible grounds to claim an unfair contract?I'd guess the UK is exploring that option and its possible ramifications.

The EU has been far more flexible than the UK.
The UK has 40 years of experience of how the EU negotiating process works. Are you saying they never worked it out in that time?

RobMc59

fash wrote: »

Clearly the UK did not sign up to the WA in good faith - unlike the EU. The EU was very clear where this was going and what was possible within the time frame demanded by the UK: an all or nothing FTA - because something in between gets into details which take years to work out line by line. On the basis of the undertakings of the UK, the member states agreed their mandate- what in that mandate is out of line with what was explained in detail in 2019? The only country reneging here is the UK - still looking to cherry pick, still looking to parasite off the EU.

As for the loser's talk about "wah, WA was so unfair, let's renege. The UK blinked when it had more negotiating power than it does now. Brexiters will need to quickly learn to lie back and take the humiliation- - close their eyes and think of England - it will be easier for them that way.

Perhaps you`re right although the proposed customs area in Kent and elsewhere could suggest the UK is preparing for no deal and not ready to lie back for anyone. Rejecting the WA terms would be very risky unless the UK can show the EU misled them although I imagine that option is/has been looked at.
As the leaving date approaches brexiteers may look at how European countries have tried to woo UK holidaymakers back despite covid still being active,money may talk louder than`we are the EU`mantras.I`m convinced there are some very unhappy european countries behind closed doors.

Silent Running

RobMc59 wrote: »

Perhaps you`re right although the proposed customs area in Kent and elsewhere could suggest the UK is preparing for no deal and not ready to lie back for anyone. Rejecting the WA terms would be very risky unless the UK can show the EU misled them although I imagine that option is/has been looked at.
As the leaving date approaches brexiteers may look at how European countries have tried to woo UK holidaymakers back despite covid still being active,money may talk louder than`we are the EU`mantras.I`m convinced there are some very unhappy european countries behind closed doors.

I've seen this kind of talk on various sites that the leaving date approaches, or that the UK should somehow stay in the EU. Has that ship not sailed? Didn't Britain leave at the start of this year? We are in a transition phase to allow a smooth move to a trade agreement... or not.

Is there a feeling in the UK that the door might still be open to stay? Do you feel that the UK hasn't left yet?

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

Perhaps you`re right although the proposed customs area in Kent and elsewhere could suggest the UK is preparing for no deal and not ready to lie back for anyone.

The Farage garage is required for all versions of leaving the transition period.
"No deal" is lying back - let's get the popcorn.

Rejecting the WA terms would be very risky unless the UK can show the EU misled them although I imagine that option is/has been looked at.

I am honestly concerned about the sanity of anyone who believes this (I am not accusing you of actually believing what you wrote).

As the leaving date approaches brexiteers may look at how European countries have tried to woo UK holidaymakers back despite covid still being active,money may talk louder than`we are the EU`mantras.I`m convinced there are some very unhappy european countries behind closed doors.

Almost as unhappy as Scotland. We should all be prising Scotland free from the unelected kleptocrats in England who refuse to heed the will of the people of Scotland.

In the real world though, the UK cannot use its trusty "divide and conquer"- aside from the fact that the EU mandate is done and can't be changed for months at least, the UK requires EU states to be unified in order to come to an agreement. Trying to break that consensus only works if it intends not to have a deal and the easiest way to do that anyway is to not agree.


Edit: just thinking again about the mind-boggling nonsense of the UK questioning the "good faith" of the EU. Has the UK ever entered a treaty in good faith in its history? China and Hong Kong? The carving out of Northern Ireland? Chagos islands? The Act of Union? It's literally called "Perfidious Albion!"

fash

.

RobMc59

Silent Running wrote: »

I've seen this kind of talk on various sites that the leaving date approaches, or that the UK should somehow stay in the EU. Has that ship not sailed? Didn't Britain leave at the start of this year? We are in a transition phase to allow a smooth move to a trade agreement... or not.

Is there a feeling in the UK that the door might still be open to stay? Do you feel that the UK hasn't left yet?

I did`nt want to leave and can`t see any advantage to brexit although I sometimes wonder do all those who voted to leave know something I don`t?

Silent Running

RobMc59 wrote: »

I did`nt want to leave and can`t see any advantage to brexit although I sometimes wonder do all those who voted to leave know something I don`t?

You didn't answer my question. You said that the leaving date approaches. Do you think that the UK hasn't left yet?

ambro25

Silent Running wrote: »

I've seen this kind of talk on various sites that the leaving date approaches, or that the UK should somehow stay in the EU. Has that ship not sailed? Didn't Britain leave at the start of this year? We are in a transition phase to allow a smooth move to a trade agreement... or not.

Is there a feeling in the UK that the door might still be open to stay? Do you feel that the UK hasn't left yet?

There are noises by the #Rejoin movement, about a fast-tracked readmission under Art.49. They're little different from the earlier 2nd Ref efforts, and have no more or better prospects of success, esp.given the timescale at hand.

The glaring points they're in danger of missing are-

in terms of the Fixed Term Parliament Act and the Tories' 80 seat majority, how?

in terms of financials, with how UK plc balance sheet and its currency look like currently, does the UK meet the EU thresholds or do they need a 'Greek rejig' by Goldman Sachs?

in terms of politics, at what price (rebate, opt-outs, Schengen, €...)?

I mean, I'm sure the EU would entertain the notion. In good faith, as well. It is absolutely in its geopolitical interest to be magnanimous - and to move fast.

But I very much doubt that the EU27 would pass *all* the opportunities which Brexit is creating for them, including that of checkmating as much British exceptionalism as they can within EU politics for good measure.

54and56

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd say the UK has been very naive to think the EU would actually negotiate and not just dictate what will happen.
Possible grounds to claim an unfair contract?I'd guess the UK is exploring that option and its possible ramifications.

So let meet understand this.

The UK freely signs into law an international treaty cashed the WA and agrees a political declaration with the EU which sets out a framework for and key objectives to be achieved in the FTA negotiations including agreement on a level playing field, state aid, fisheries etc then refuses to negotiate these items and cries foul that the EU, who are sticking to the framework of the mutually agreed political declaration, are somehow being unfair and treating the UK poorly etc?

First Up

fash wrote:

The EU has been far more flexible than the UK. The UK has 40 years of experience of how the EU negotiating process works. Are you saying they never worked it out in that time?

It is taking the UK a long time to realise that the EU is much more accommodating of the needs of members than it is to third countries - especially to a third country that has chosen to leave.

Igotadose

swampgas wrote: »

Well, consider that the EU isn't some single monolithic entity like China or the USA. It's actually 27 other countries who have an agreed set of rules, built up in a painstaking way over decades, for how they trade between each other, and how they trade with 3rd countries.

The UK was part of that, and has left, and now they want the EU to tear up its own rulebook just so they can dig themselves out of a hole.

This isn't the EU being awkward or vindictive, it's the UK simply refusing to understand that the EU is a rules based organisation. If you want to be in it, you play by the rules. If the rules are unacceptable, you go your own way on the outside instead.

One of the twitter threads had this gem today: "Britannia waives the rules."

First Up

Igotadose wrote:

One of the twitter threads had this gem today: "Britannia waives the rules."

Not exactly a new one.

Leroy42

54and56 wrote: »

So let meet understand this.

The UK freely signs into law an international treaty cashed the WA and agrees a political declaration with the EU which sets out a framework for and key objectives to be achieved in the FTA negotiations including agreement on a level playing field, state aid, fisheries etc then refuses to negotiate these items and cries foul that the EU, who are sticking to the framework of the mutually agreed political declaration, are somehow being unfair and treating the UK poorly etc?

It is almost as if the brexiteers believe that simply agreeing to something, but then finding out that it isn't what you thought it was going to be is enough of a reason to have another go.

Which is strange, because up until now they have been very much of the mind that people know what they vote for and democracy is about not revisiting a decision.

Capt'n Midnight

UK government marks 'at least' £115m for new Brexit systems against backdrop of chequered IT project history in customs and border control

So the UK is putting up real money to sort out customs for Brexit ?

It's not much compared to recent overspends. And Brexit will have costs like this all over.

In 2015, the UK spending watchdog National Audit Office pointed out the Home Office had spent at least £830m between 2003 and 2015 on an e-borders programmes but had failed to deliver the full vision. In that time it spent £150m on the settlement with Raytheon and £35m on legal costs ending the contract with the firm.

...
In September last year, the Home Office signed a £45m, 33-month contract extension with IBM to cover the Brexit period.

...
Of course there was also another costly failure that would be remiss not to mention: HMRC’s Aspire contract with Capgemini, which cost £7.9bn between July 2004 and March 2014, and about which the NAO said: “HMRC was overly dependent on the technical capability of the Aspire suppliers between 2004 and 2012, which limited its ability to manage the contract commercially.”

£7.9bn :eek: