Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas

forgottenhills wrote: »

A ridiculous exaggeration. First and foremost its a big customer on our doorstep. Governments come and governments go.

Most countries that border the EU and want to do business with it like the union and genuinely wish it well (possible exception is Turkey). Could anyone say that about Brexit UK? This is the total downside of their media and politicians attacking the EU on a daily basis and blaming it for all sorts - makes the country seem shifty, unreliable and someone you couldn't trust with a new agreement.

VinLieger

forgottenhills wrote: »

A ridiculous exaggeration. First and foremost its a big customer on our doorstep. Governments come and governments go.

Indeed they do come and go but 1 of the 2 largest parties and only options for forming a government have shown themselves to be basically the definition of the phrase "perfidious albion".

Theres no point in doing business with someone who might tear up any agreements signed on a whim with a change of government.

Much in the way that even though Biden is in the white house and the democrats control both the house and senate many in the International community are not going to consider the US the 100% reliable partner they used to as the republicans have shown they cannot be counted on when in power.

forgottenhills

schmoo2k wrote: »

You were making the point that the EU should "bend" the rules for the UK:


And then pointed out that there is actually an official mechanism to achieve the same goals - IOW bending the rules suggestion is simply daft, if the UK or EU is hurting in a specific area, then there are official mechanisms in place to address them - simples.

Yes but the official mechanism to make small changes may require the flexibility to turn a blind eye to some rules in limited circumstances where everyone on the ground is happy with mutual standards and would like mutual trade to continue. Which is my point.

Seth Brundle

forgottenhills wrote: »

Yes but the official mechanism to make small changes may require the flexibility to turn a blind eye to some rules in limited circumstances where everyone on the ground is happy with mutual standards and would like mutual trade to continue. Which is my point.

Maybe we should wait until the UK government honour the existing agreement with utmost good faith before we start making amendments to it.
It is the UK who are diverging from the standards that were in place pre-Brexit. It was the UK that refused to accept to be held to EU standards. Do you think the EU should reduce its standards to meet those of the UK?

forgottenhills

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

The tools you are suggesting are the very tools the UK is currently ignoring.

There's no argument here on the UK using these tools and going through the agreed process.

But they havnt and have been insisting that they shouldnt.

You say there is anger here and we should accept the UK has left.

But it feels like we are the ones that have accepted the UK has left and it's the British who've not. We are waiting for them to go through the very channels you are suggesting but they wont.

We had a former Brexit mep blame the EU for the ending of Freedom of Movement for the UK just last week.

As far as has been reported, the UK have been participating in the various committees set up under the aegis of the Partnership Council. The question then becomes whether we are happy to see small changes occur under the PC that would benefit both sides.

The attitude on here as expressed in replies to my posts seems to be not an inch, no changes will be allowed whatsoever even if it benefits Irish/EU businesses.

Jeez, there's a lot of hardline group think on here. Hopefully you lot aren't in charge of any sort of diplomatic affairs!

timetogo1

forgottenhills wrote: »

As far as has been reported, the UK have been participating in the various committees set up under the aegis of the Partnership Council. The question then becomes whether we are happy to see small changes occur under the PC that would benefit both sides.

The attitude on here as expressed in replies to my posts seems to be not an inch, no changes will be allowed whatsoever even if it benefits Irish/EU businesses.

Jeez, there's a lot of hardline group think on here. Hopefully you lot aren't in charge of any sort of diplomatic affairs!

Has the agreement been ratified by the EU yet. Its 4 months old and you want to "tweak" it. Could those tweaks not have been done 4 months ago? What has changed hugely in that time to warrent those adjustments?

forgottenhills

Leroy42 wrote: »

Let's play this out Forgotten. Lets us say that the EU and UK agree that it is in both sides interests to sort this issue out.

The EU standards are clear and well known, the UK less so. But today, they are aligned. When the UK standards change at what point does the EU close the loophole? According to your position, there can't ever really be a point, since it is in both sides interest to just ignore it and pretend otherwise.

Now the EU are constantly worried about changes in the UK, to which of course they have no impact on or may not even be made aware of. You then get EU producers complaining that they are losing business because they are being undercut by UK producers who do not have the same requirements or obligations.

So the problem has simply been moved from the UK to the EU. Why would the EU sign up to something like that?

But, as has been the case since the deal was agreed, the main problem is that the UK are not being honest with themselves as to what they have actually agreed to. This is not being presented as an oversight or an issue for further negotiation, the UK simply want special treatment.

I'm talking about making agreements in limited circumstances WHERE BOTH SIDES WANT SOMETHING. I have made this clear in my posts. For instance Irish farmers will want to be able to continue to export their seed spuds to the UK as well as import UK seed.

BlitzKrieg

forgottenhills wrote: »

As far as has been reported, the UK have been participating in the various committees set up under the aegis of the Partnership Council.!

well thats incorrect, Michael Gove refused all but necessary actions in the partnership council until the European parliament ratified the Brexit trade deal

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-gives-eu-extra-time-to-ratify-brexit-trade-deal/

Gove said during the period of provisional application, the U.K. does not believe the EU-U.K. Joint Partnership Council and other bodies required in the Brexit trade deal should begin their work formally, except “where there are essential decisions which cannot be deferred.”

forgottenhills

CelticRambler wrote: »

Pesticides, amongst other things, are an issue, and the UK has unequivocally stated - and drafted legislation to this effect - that it will not agree to maintain the previous standards, and (as pointed out) has already exercised the option of authorising the use in the UK of products that are banned in the EU.

Hence the regulations imposed in this specific area since Jan 1st.

Also, if you don't see how pesticides are of concern beyond their use in or on fruit and vegetables for immediate consumption, you have a lot of learning to do. That may, however, explain why you don't see how your simplistic appeasement measures are neither practical nor reasonable.

Do you know that the UK will have its own set of agricultural standards too which in some cases may exceed EU standards? For instance they are talking about banning live stock exports later in the year, something which is a big problem in the EU.

Also why use loaded terms such as appeasement when I am strictly talking about mutually beneficial tweaking where it suits?

Nody

forgottenhills wrote: »

I'm talking about making agreements in limited circumstances WHERE BOTH SIDES WANT SOMETHING. I have made this clear in my posts. For instance Irish farmers will want to be able to continue to export their seed spuds to the UK as well as import UK seed.

No, what you are talking about is breaking the EU rules simply because a few people find it convenient and you wonder why you're constantly being told it will not happen. That's now how EU works or operates; the rules apply to all countries and there are specific structures to address any changes to the agreed deal. Before any such changes go live you can be sure a requirement will be that UK actually delivers what they already promised and that's before we go into the fact EU has already stated they are not going to do small side deals like that outside the main deal (Switzerland is already a nightmare as is).

That then leaves that you're saying EU should turn a blind eye on breaking the EU rules for quality and controls "because it's convenient" which in essence jeopardize the single market concept as well as WTO requirements. And if you can't figure out why that would be an issue you're a lost cause I'm afraid. There is a way to do it correctly; requirement will include UK delivering what they already said they would do as well as holding the standards to EU level; that's not a hardliner attitude as you call it but the basis of the single market to exist. It's the same reason why Norway was at a disadvantage on salmon processing compared to Scotland previously; did you see Norway getting any special treatment "because it's convenient" for a buyer to buy from them instead?

Gerry T

forgottenhills wrote:

Also why use loaded terms such as appeasement when I am strictly talking about mutually beneficial tweaking where it suits?

I think what your describing is the UK picking the bits and pieces it wants to have and agreeing on a "mutually beneficial" basis. The EU clearly stated that this is not how the EU wants to do trade deals, especially after the Swiss experience. It seems that the UK agreed the future relationship agreement just to not have "no deal" and intends to persue small area agreements.
Someone in the UK needs to listen. The EU isnt interested in doing that. Eventually the penny will drop and the UK will either go into a decade of talks for trade deal 11, or it will focus on far away fields. It's totally a UK decision, and they should just stop making the EU out as the bsd guy.

forgottenhills

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

well thats incorrect, Michael Gove refused all but necessary actions in the partnership council until the European parliament ratified the Brexit trade deal

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-gives-eu-extra-time-to-ratify-brexit-trade-deal/

Frost rather than Gove is now in charge from the UK perspective and there is no indication that committees of people from both sides are not discussing issues even if there hasn't been a formal meeting of the "Council" yet.

forgottenhills

Gerry T wrote: »

I think what your describing is the UK picking the bits and pieces it wants to have and agreeing on a "mutually beneficial" basis. The EU clearly stated that this is not how the EU wants to do trade deals, especially after the Swiss experience. It seems that the UK agreed the future relationship agreement just to not have "no deal" and intends to persue small area agreements.
Someone in the UK needs to listen. The EU isnt interested in doing that. Eventually the penny will drop and the UK will either go into a decade of talks for trade deal 11, or it will focus on far away fields. It's totally a UK decision, and they should just stop making the EU out as the bsd guy.

No there are bits and pieces that we may want to change, why make it all about the UK when that is not what I have said?

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

the official mechanism to make small changes may require the flexibility to turn a blind eye to some rules in limited circumstances where everyone on the ground is happy with mutual standards and would like mutual trade to continue.

If both sides were happy with mutual standards, then it would be very, very, very easy to sign an agreement saying "we're happy for mutual trade to continue on the basis that the current standards will serve as a guaranteed minimum going forwards."

But guess what: the UK refuses to give that guarantee - and not only to the EU, but also to its own farmers, voters and parliament.

So we have one party to the current agreement that is hell bent on being a trouble-maker, and you're proposing we allow officials to break international law in limited and specific circumstances. Now where have I heard that line before ... ? :rolleyes:

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

No there are bits and pieces that we may want to change, why make it all about the UK when that is not what I have said?

Brexit is all about the UK.

EU exporters to the UK do not face any particular restrictions at the moment. UK importers, on the other hand ... :rolleyes:

forgottenhills

Nody wrote: »

No, what you are talking about is breaking the EU rules simply because a few people find it convenient and you wonder why you're constantly being told it will not happen. That's now how EU works or operates; the rules apply to all countries and there are specific structures to address any changes to the agreed deal. Before any such changes go live you can be sure a requirement will be that UK actually delivers what they already promised and that's before we go into the fact EU has already stated they are not going to do small side deals like that outside the main deal (Switzerland is already a nightmare as is).

That then leaves that you're saying EU should turn a blind eye on breaking the EU rules for quality and controls "because it's convenient" which in essence jeopardize the single market concept as well as WTO requirements. And if you can't figure out why that would be an issue you're a lost cause I'm afraid. There is a way to do it correctly; requirement will include UK delivering what they already said they would do as well as holding the standards to EU level; that's not a hardliner attitude as you call it but the basis of the single market to exist. It's the same reason why Norway was at a disadvantage on salmon processing compared to Scotland previously; did you see Norway getting any special treatment "because it's convenient" for a buyer to buy from them instead?

Within the context of EU trade deals there are all sorts of specific deals with the different counterparties which differ from counterparty to counterparty for the same item. That isn't breaking EU rules. That's the whole point of trade deals, to move away from WTO constraints and allow quid pro quo flexibilities.

Anyway time for me to move on from this thread as I'm obviously on the EU ultra not an inch no surrender thread. Jeez....

Bigus

forgottenhills wrote: »

What narrative? I'm talking about flexibilities and cool heads all around rather than the narrative of rigidity and escalating conflict? What narrative are you espousing?

Sometimes, in an unequal relationship you have to put your foot down and let them know who’s boss before you even mention any concessions. This is especially true if you are a parent and trying to control a petulant, rude ignorant toddler who was spoilt up to now , and doesn’t yet know the consequences of THEIR actions and rude things they say to purposely hurt and undermine you.

eire4

Bigus wrote: »

Sometimes, in an unequal relationship you have to put your foot down and let them know who’s boss before you even mention any concessions. This is especially true if you are a parent and trying to control a petulant, rude ignorant toddler who was spoilt up to now , and doesn’t yet know the consequences of THEIR actions and rude things they say to purposely hurt and undermine you.

Funny and brilliantly hits the nail on the head. It is the reality of the current situation vis a v the EU and the UK for sure though.

Gerry T

forgottenhills wrote: »

No there are bits and pieces that we may want to change, why make it all about the UK when that is not what I have said?

The EU will want regulatory alignment on all food production or food related production, not just a very specific area of seed potatoes and it's particular use. So if the UK and EU want this then that area of food will need regulatory alignment, production standards with an agreed dispute resolution system and agreed upon penalties for not keeping with standards/agreements. While that may not mean all food production it would be an area of food that seed potatoes would fall under.
I agree you didn't say it's all about the UK, but I put it to you that the UK for over 5yrs has been told by the EU that a FTA will not be agreed in pieces. So why would the EU position change after a bare bones deal is agreed, do you expect the EU to now start into negotiating those "pieces".

The EU showed the Barnier step diag. which showed the UK the degree of "steps" available between no-deal and being a member. This is what the UK should use in determining the possible level of negotiating with the EU. Maybe the EU will break these into further levels but I doubt it will be taken to individual items such as seed spuds.

schmoo2k

forgottenhills wrote: »

Within the context of EU trade deals there are all sorts of specific deals with the different counterparties which differ from counterparty to counterparty for the same item. That isn't breaking EU rules. That's the whole point of trade deals, to move away from WTO constraints and allow quid pro quo flexibilities.

Anyway time for me to move on from this thread as I'm obviously on the EU ultra not an inch no surrender thread. Jeez....

I don't see anyone saying mutually advantageous agreements can't be made - just that "turning a blind eye" is not the way to do it?

breatheme

Been hearing a lot about the "British expats" forced to return home over here in Spain and the Spanish Twitterverse...

Like this article in the Mirror.

It looks like Spain may get a great Brexit benefit by keeping the undesirable British pensioners out and allowing in the ones they want.

Strazdas

breatheme wrote: »

Been hearing a lot about the "British expats" forced to return home over here in Spain and the Spanish Twitterverse...

Like this article in the Mirror.

It looks like Spain may get a great Brexit benefit by keeping the undesirable British pensioners out and allowing in the ones they want.

Incidentally, the reason the Spanish are being so strict with the British is that they have no choice but to enforce third country rules (otherwise other third countries could quite rightly claim they were being discriminated against by Spain).

reslfj

Strazdas wrote: »

Incidentally, the reason the Spanish are being so strict with the British is that they have no choice but to enforce third country rules (otherwise other third countries could quite rightly claim they were being discriminated against by Spain).

That too.

But the WA protects those UK citizens who have registered their permanent address in Spain with authorities including the Spanish tax authorities.
They can continue to live permanently in Spain (or the EU26 country where they stayed permanently before Jan 1. 2020).

Legally it is only people arriving after Jan 1. 2020 and people having tried to live 'under the Spanish radar' i.e. no registration in Spain, mostly using cash etc that will be in trouble.

And this is how it's supposed to be - in Spain and other places - even long before Brexit.

Lars

Enzokk

What forgottenhills was posting about is probably exactly what the UK wants. Just forget the rules here and look the other way there for certain goods and before you know it you have EU membership without any obligations. The EU is a rules based organisation. It is the reason why it has not fallen apart as the members are aware that you follow the rules.

So by breaking, or bending, or looking the other way without going through the recognised procedures to see that seed potatoes can be moved between a third country and the EU may seem small fry, but once you do it for seed potatoes, why not other agriculture products? Because why is seed only seed potatoes important? So why have any checks on any plant products?

And the argument that the UK has higher standards doesn't wash either. If that was always going to be true then the UK would have had no problem signing an agreement with the EU to maintain the minimum EU standards. But they didn't because they know they are probably going to have to reduce their standards to lower than EU which means no exports in that area to the EU. Just like it was easy to see how Brexit was going to work out, this is also true with the current government in charge.

So no, there should not be any looking the other way other than going through the recognised mechanisms to discuss these issues, just because it would be beneficial to both at this moment in time.

I find it interesting that this simple concept still needs to be explained, then again the solution seems to simple but reality is so time consuming to explain. It is a good example why Leave won. "Off course we will still export seed potatoes because it is in both our interests." vs "Well actually you will have to agree to abide by the minimum standards set by the EU in this area to ensure fair competition among all producers in the EU and to protect the industry. You cannot just agree it for one product though, so you will have to do it for all agriculture products, or we can go to a resolution..." Which one will the goldfish remember?

Leroy42

IMO, the main blockage to dealing with seed potatoes for example, is that the UK is still blaming the EU. ' Why no just bend the rules', places the blame on the EU rather than looking at those responsible for the mess.

Instead of asking the EU, since taking back control was the essence of Brexit and EU bureaucrats are the enemy, why are people in the UK not demanding answers from Johnson, Gove and Farage?

And their answer of "It's the EU fault" shouldn't be accepted since they told everyone the issue was EU control and everything would be sorted if power was in their hands.

IMO people are tired of brexiteer posters demanding that the EU need to sort it out or do something or bend the rules. We were told, repeatedly, that despite no apparent positives and plenty of negatives that Brexit was worth it because of sovereignty and control.

The EU didn't ask for any of this. The EU, and the individual members, pleaded with the UK to avoid this and worked hard to avoid the worst impacts but the UK didn't care or listen.

They knew better. Project Fear was thrown back at anyone that tried to raise concerns.

fash

Enzokk wrote: »

I find it interesting that this simple concept still needs to be explained, then again the solution seems to simple but reality is so time consuming to explain. It is a good example why Leave won. "Off course we will still export seed potatoes because it is in both our interests." vs "Well actually you will have to agree to abide by the minimum standards set by the EU in this area to ensure fair competition among all producers in the EU and to protect the industry. You cannot just agree it for one product though, so you will have to do it for all agriculture products, or we can go to a resolution..." Which one will the goldfish remember?

Good post.
There is also the UK's narcissistic self absorbed exceptionalism playing a role: they were given special treatment in the EU, believed they were entitled to it and more and believed that if they left the EU they could get even more.
Why should the EU allow seed potatoes from the UK or pomegranates from Turkey or children's toys from China in which do not comply with EU standards? Why should the EU, to the disadvantage of internal businesses, treat any of them exceptionally?

CelticRambler

On the subject of post-agreement tinkering, specifically with regard to the NI Protocol, the EU Ambassador has been speaking plainly:

Vale de Almeida said the EU “can look at ways and means to facilitate it [the protocol] and make it even more flexible” and was examining an overdue plan for the implementation of the agreement delivered by London to Brussels last Thursday.

The solutions, he said, would come from “implementing the protocol, implementing it fully; implementing it well”.

A not-so-subtle reminder to the hashtag-take-back-controllers that they ought to exercise that control by doing what they said they'd do.

And for those who think that it's all so unfair?

"... those who negotiated ... they turned every stone to try to find alternatives to this protocol. No one came with a better idea – even those who attack the protocol today, who would like to see it scrapped, have no alternative to the protocol. ..."

A very polite way of saying "put up or shut up" ... although I'm not sure the target audience is receptive to such politesse.

Sam Russell

On seed potatoes, I always thought that Donegal supplied our seed potatoes - when did that change?

yagan

Seeing the rioting in Larne it's not hard to imagine that this will only further drive divergence from Britain as NI hauliers will divert to Dublin, Warronpoint and Rosslaire to avoid such trouble if it persists.

Sam Russell

yagan wrote: »

Seeing the rioting in Larne it's not hard to imagine that this will only further drive divergence from Britain as NI hauliers will divert to Dublin, Warronpoint and Rosslaire to avoid such trouble if it persists.

It would solve a lot of problems if the ports of Larne and Belfast were closed temporally until they built the infrastructure and got the full inspection regime in operation. The checks in Dublin port should be identical to the ones in Northern ports.

Alternatively, move the checks to the GB departing ports.