Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

RobMc59

The futility of the 'pure'brexit mooted by the tories is starkly illustrated in this article about it's none existent benefits.

https://www.hospitalityandcateringnews.com/2021/07/brexit-benefits-to-hospitality/

Professor Moriarty

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117635712#Comment_117635712

Very clever!

Akrasia

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117634137#Comment_117634137

Whats your definition of 'excessive'

The EU introduced rules and bureaucracy, but in general, the effect of this was to unify many markets into one single internal market. This did not increase bureaucracy, it reduced it, not only for EU members, but for trade partners with the EU

The only reason why there is much more 'red tape' for the UK now, is because they're going from the position of being members of the low bureaucracy single market, to being a third country

The UK voted to increase red tape, and are now complaining that they got what they voted for

(well actually, if the Brexiteers were honest at the time and said voting for Brexit would mean leaving the CU and SM, they would have lost that referendum, but that's a different argument)

murphaph

The EU has gotten rid of far, far more red tape inside the single market than it has introduced. Just look at how the UK now has to negotiate 27 different regimes when exporting to the EU rather than one, their own.

Leroy42

Therein lies the crux of the issue. The Breixteers, including Johnson and Frost, by their continuous complaining about 'red tape', difficulties with NI and all the other things they never stop moaning about, are unwittingly admitting that Brexit is a disaster.

That things are worse than they were before. That Brexit has left UK with more issues, more red tape, less trade, less freedoms, less less less.

That they can still not point to anything to make all these problems worth it. Sure FoM is gone so Granny can't live in Spain anymore, but X is far better. Except there is no X. There are vague notions of something in the future, vague statements about global Britain, but nothing that anyone can get excited about.

For a cause that was delivered on sound bites and catchy slogans, suddenly they are talking about ideologies, about 50 year time frames, about nebulos concepts of freedom. Brexit was supposed to be the thing the delivered something for everyone, but now the discussions are into the boring concepts of trade agreements with Australia, about standards and regulations.

There is a very simple reason why Brexiteers stayed away from such discussions in the ref, steering clear of actual in depth discussions and simply calling for Freedom and £350 pw for the NHS. It was because people really don't care. It doesn't impact their daily lives (or at least they cannot see the direct impact).

A major failing of the remain side in the campaign was failing to highlight the benefits of EU membership. But that was, in part, down to people not wanting to bother to listen. It was boring, hard to understand. Now the Brexiteers, and Johnson and Frost in particular, are faced with the exact same problem.

How to explain to people why Brexit is a good idea after all when there is nothing to show for it? How to keep people on your side when all your have is discussions about red tape and loss of freedom.

And it is only going to get worse as the effects keep becoming clearer

reslfj

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117636653#Comment_117636653

When its about trade, the UK will negotiate with the EU in Brussels and not with individual EU members.

But there will not be much negotiation as UK products (as other 3. country products) will simply have to follow EU standards, rules and regulations - end of story.

Lars :)

Akrasia

In Brexit incompetence news

Turns out, to nobody's surprise, that the Trade Deal signed between the Uk and Ukraine last year was full of mistakes and meant that the UK was legally obligated to retain alignment with EU rules that it didn't intend to sign up for

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-ukraine-brexit-trade-security-pact-b1884518.html

While in Brexit Cruelty news

A woman who has been living in the UK almost her entire life, having moved to Britain at the age of 11 months old, has been sacked by her employers because she does not have the correct 'right to work' evidence

She says she had registered as an EU citizen but her case got lost in the backlog and despite multiple calls she could not get it processed in time

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/19/spanish-woman-in-uk-for-44-years-sacked-over-post-brexit-rules

"The 45-year-old woman, who arrived in Britain as an 11-month-old baby and who has never left the country, said she has tried more than 100 times to get through to the Home Office-run helpline in the past three weeks, but has never been able to speak to an adviser.

She has applied for EU settled status, but her application is stuck somewhere in the backlog of over 500,000 cases the Home Office has yet to process. She is the main breadwinner, with two children to support, and said her dismissal has left her struggling to buy food.

Charities helping EU nationals say the case is not unique. “We’ve seen this time and again when people with pending EUSS applications were asked to take unpaid leave, or were turned down from employment,” Dora-Olivia Vicol, CEO of the Work Rights Centre, said."

Akrasia

And in Brexit incompetence mixed with Cruelty news:

EU citizens hoping to clear up their settled status were being forced to pay a premium rate to call the government helpline

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/19/ministers-under-fire-over-69p-minute-helpline-eu-citizens

------------

Callers to the “view and prove” immigration status telephone number, 0300-790 6268, also had to preauthorise a potential £5 credit on a bank card before talking to an assistant.

Campaigners at the3million group have written to the future borders and immigration minister, Kevin Foster, to protest against charges that amount to £10.35 for 15 minutes of assistance.

----------------------

The home office had previously made assurances to the courts that these phone lines would not charge for assistance

serfboard

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117636997#Comment_117636997

The Home Office seems to be full of the nastiest of people.

And in Pritti Patel, they seem to have their ideal minister in charge.

murphaph

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117636811#Comment_117636811

Not "negotiate with", just "negotiate" :-) The UK has to negotiate/navigate the systems of 27 different EU countries (plus the EEA one and CH) rather than negotiate their own system, which had to be accepted across the single market pre-Brexit. UK businesses now have to concern themselves with all sorts of different national rules rather than just sell stuff.

reslfj

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638583#Comment_117638583

The SM for goods and services is one set of common (minimum) standards, rules, and regulations.  

They are (in relation to the outside world) controlled by the EU commission in Brussels. There are not 27 sets of rules and even where there are differences they are not subject to national negotiations.

It's "follow every EU rule" or do not export to the SM. To a large degree it's also "import EU standard products" or do not import at all.  

FoM for permanent stays and work in EU member states for 3. country citizens is (mostly) a national competency, with different personal registration rules and e.g. taxation rules. There can or will be areas where EU rules will cover. E.g. performing artist, where the EU did offer the UK common and easy rules, but were refused by Frost & Co. Lorry drivers will be offered special (non) visa rules too, if the UK reciprocates

Lars :)

Akrasia

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638583#Comment_117638583

And anyone who wants to sell goods in the UK will have to conform to their stupid new UKCA standard

This means either goods will be more expensive or just not available in the UK at all because it's just not worth it, or the goods will be inferior quality to the CE marked goods if the UK standards are not as high

Strazdas

Trouble brewing : FT reports that Frost is about to up the ante and announce provocative UK plans to change the Protocol - "UK sets collision course with EU under plans to redraw Brexit deal" is their headline (behind a paywall).

BluePlanet

What's the EU's play after Britain triggers Article 16?

Akrasia

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117639084#Comment_117639084

We will Unleash THE HOUNDS OF HELL!!!!

or else the EU will just follow the mechanisms within the NI protocol and the withdrawal agreement and take the UK to court

The EU can afford to be patient as many others have pointed out. The UK want the EU to over react, but in reality, every time the UK renege on an international treaty, they're only harming their own international reputation

The EU will follow the treaties to the letter of the agreements. Either we'll win in arbitration, or Johnson will be booted out, the Tories will lose an election and the EU will have some adults at the table who will agree to abide by the agreements or pursue a closer relationship with the EU.

ath262

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117639079#Comment_117639079

I cant see how this guy can actually claim be an international Trade Negotiator with any sort of straight face, all he seems to have done is is negotiated and signed a deal, that now claims he doesn't understand, and has spent the last few month threatening to break an international treaty... hardly promising for any other upcoming trade deals with the UK, not a good sign especially with the recent mix up with the Ukraine deal

And in more 'Brexit's going so well' news, apparently earlier today Dominic Raab was rejecting the preliminary Gibraltar deal out of hand with some of the usual waffle about sovereignty.. https://www.politico.eu/article/european-commission-releases-draft-mandate-for-post-brexit-gibraltar-talks/

Strazdas

A brief extract from the FT article :

"The UK will on Wednesday put itself on a collision course with Brussels by unveiling a new set of demands that would radically overhaul post-Brexit trading arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In a move that officials called a “wholesale change of approach”, Lord David Frost, Cabinet Office minister, will outline a strategy that seeks to eliminate most of the checks on the Irish Sea trade border that came into force in January. And in a warning that Britain could suspend the Northern Ireland protocol in its Brexit deal with the EU if the bloc does not give way, Frost will claim the UK is already within its rights to activate the Article 16 override clause in the agreement."

McGiver

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117636534#Comment_117636534

On the red tape - it is important to mention that for most of the Tories any sort of sound and comprehensive regulation framework was, is and always will be an "excessive red tape" in their heads. The current incarnation of Tories have taken it even further.

Tories are simply ideologically inimical to a proper comprehensive market regulation, of a German sort, which the Single Market regulation is modelled on. They want less market regulation, less consumer protection, less environmental protection, less social protection and also on top less international/supranational oversight so that any issues caused by the failure to properly regulate cannot be discovered, highlighted and challenged internationally.

They claim they are the proponents of the free market and laissez-faire economic policies but in reality it is just chumocracy and institutionalised corruption.

Peregrinus

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638583#Comment_117638583

No. When it comes to imports, those 27 countries all share one system, so there aren't 27 different systems to negotiate; just one. Once you have complied with whatever it is you need to do to export from the UK to (say) France, the extra compliance needed to export to any other EU country is zero.

Peregrinus

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117639084#Comment_117639084

Most of the voices calling for the triggering of Article 16 have never read Article 16, have no idea what it says, have no idea in what circumstances it can be triggered, and have no idea of what the consequences of triggering it will be. (Or they have wholly false ideas about these things.)

Article16 would allow the UK, in certain circumstances, to take "appropriate safeguard measures" to remedy "serious social, economic or environmental difficulties . . . or diversion of trade" resulting from the application of the NI Protocol. Those measures have to be limited to what is strictly necessary to remedy the situation, and they must also be limited in duration - i.e. they can't be permanent.

The UK must notify the EU of its safeguard measures, if possible a month before implementing them. The two parties then "immediately enter into negotiations" with a view to remedying the situation (i.e. to avoid the need for safeguard measures). As long as the safeguard measures are in place, there must be continuing consultation with a view to limiting or abolishing them

Separately from the consultations about the safeguard measures, if the measures create an "imbalance between the rights and obligations under the Protocol", the EU can take "proportionate rebalancing measures" (i.e. it can retaliate with counter-measures). if that happens, the counter-measures as well as the measures are to be addressed in the consultations.

The first hurdle the UK has to cross is that Art 16 can only be invoked if serious difficulties etc result from the application of the NI Protocol. But the fuss at the moment is about the chilled meats rules, which the UK has yet to apply. You can't invoke Art 16 on the basis of a part of the protocol which hasn't been applied. So if the UK purports to do this it will be in breach of its treaty obligations, and the EU can retaliate severely - e.g. by suspending parts of the TCA. Nice car plant you've got in Sunderland there, Lord Frost; be a shame if any tariffs happened to it.

RobMc59

A rather illuminating article in which the M&S boss cities 'pointless'checks and 'pettifogging enforcement 'which the EU are insisting on,not being fit for purpose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57899239.amp

peter kern

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117639804#Comment_117639804

thanks this is a really good post !

Dave0301

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117640047#Comment_117640047

Illuminating as it once again highlights the ignorance that is on display in relation to what the UK actually signed up to.

None of this was unexpected to people that actually understand how international trade works.

Ireland's European affairs minister Thomas Byrne said it was willing to discuss "any creative solutions".

"But we have to recognise as well that Britain decided itself to leave the single market of the European Union, to apply trade rules, to apply red tape to its goods that are leaving Britain, to goods that are coming into Britain," he added.

Mr Norman goes on to offer a not so creative solution by saying that trivial errors should just be ignored.

Regardless of this, he added, many problems could be solved by a willingness to overlook "trivial" errors in paperwork and efforts to set up a "trusted trader" scheme.

"Any scheme should start on the basis that we are prepared to follow EU standards for products going to Northern Ireland," he said.

"The debate is not about meeting standards, this is about what we are required to do to show we are compliant."

Peregrinus

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117640047#Comment_117640047

Where does the article say that "the EU is insisting on them"? It doesn't. So why are you choosing to frame the matter this way? Who is telling your that this arises out of the EU's insistence, and why are you believing them?

The actual facts of the matter are that the NI Protocol provides for these checks, and the NI Protocol has legal force and effect because the UK and the EU have jointly agreed it. Furthermore, they only jointly agreed it because the UK rejected a previously-agreed version of the Withdrawal Agreement which didn't include it. So if anybody insisted on the NI Protocol it was the UK, not the EU. Is the source in which you place such faith telling you this? If not, you should ask yourself why not, and you should ask yourself whether you should continue to accept what it says as uncritically as you currently do.

What has changed since the NI Protocol has agreed to make the UK so unhappy about the protocol that, at the time, it insisted on having? Is it anything the EU has done?

No, it isn't. At the time the UK and the EU agreed the NI Protocol, they also agreed a "Political Declaration" on the future relationship between them. That agreement stated that the parties would pursue "an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation with a comprehensive and balanced Free Trade Agreement at its core", which would include a "level playing field" and "deep regulatory and customs co-operation" and would uphold "the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom . . . in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change . . .".

The Political Declaration was not legally binding. It was intended as an outline agreement for the trade deal that the UK and the EU were to negotiate. That trade deal, when negotiated, signed and ratified, would be legally binding. If the trade deal had stuck to what was envisaged in the Political Declaration, then the NI Protocol would indeed have been low-impact, because GB-NI trade would have been subject neither to customs tariffs nor to much in the way of regulatory checks — the level playing field and common regulatory standards would have made this unecessary.

But that's not what happened because, some months after signing the Political Declaration, the UK decided that that's not what it wanted after all. Far from negotiating a trade agreement with a level playing filed, deep regulatory co-operation and common standards, they decided what they really wanted was a "Canada-style" agreement - zero tariffs, zero quotas, no level playing field, no regulatory co-operation, and minimal provision in relation to common standards.

In other words, the UK didn't want the trade agreement that they said they wanted when the NI Protocol was agreed, which would have made the NI Protocol low-impact. They wanted a quite different trade agreement, which would make the NI protocol high-impact. Specifically, it would mean significant regulatory checks on GB-NI Trade.

Because the Political Declaration wasn't legally binding the UK were within their rights to do this. (Assuming it represented a genuine change of mind, of course. But let's assume that.) But they are not within their rights in presenting it as something the EU insisted on because, of course, it was a unilateral decision by the UK, made with full knowledge of the impact it would have on NI, and which the EU resisted.

In other words, if the NI Protocol is proving more burdensome for NI than was anticipated when it was agreed, it's because the UK, acting unilaterally and with full knowledge of the consequences, freely decided to make it so. A source that tries to sum this up as "the EU insisted" is, frankly, lying to you.

jm08

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117640047#Comment_117640047

Marks and Spencers should be well able to fill in forms properly. They are going to have to do it if they want to continue supplying shops in EU countries. Looks like they are using NI to ease the paperwork & checks everywhere.

fly_agaric

It is not ignorance (on UK govt's part). It is malice. Not on M&S chairman's part though imo. They just want to do their business in Ireland and NI as before, which UK govt. have made impossible. He doesn't really care how that comes about...

Thought it was an interesting article. In particular for what it shows about the BBCs approach to reporting these issues and the UK relationship to Ireland post Brexit. When you don't read too closely there, NI is conflated with "Ireland". These trade barriers are also presented as a bilateral problem between UK and "Ireland".

murphaph

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117638915#Comment_117638915

I was thinking more of the UK services sector which is far more important to it than manufacturing. Services are mostly not covered by the TCA. UK service providers have a minefield of multiple regimes to negotiate now.

There are cases where the exact opposite rules apply (for example the neighbouring states of Austria and the Czech Republic's position on lawyers advising clients in country).

The way I understand the SM for goods is that there is no single rule book in Brussels. There are 27 rule books but these rule books must ultimately not fall foul of European law and crucially, each of the 27 must accept the products made under the rule books of all the others.

So, you don't trade with the single market. You are either in the single market or it's essentially irrelevant to you. You must comply with the national standards of every individual country that you are exporting to.

I remember even post 1992 (1996) having to perform type testing of electronic components for the French market. The Irish company I was then working for had to satisfy the French NF-A2P standard. This involved an annual inspection by someone from Norm Francaise to check all our paperwork. Our company was convinced this was probably illegal post '92 but we had been doing it since the early 80's and weren't about to rock the boat.

I imagine UK manufacturers of security equipment are now looking up NF-A2P or deciding it's too much trouble selling to France.

Kermit.de.frog

There is a test coming today because the UK is going to give a 3 month ultimatum as well as plan unilateral overhauls that make a land border inevitable before the end of the year.

So again I ask where is the EU standing up for a member state?

I see Michael Martin coming out yesterday weakly saying we were going to "consider carefully" what the UK govt says today. Really? Consider carefully? A deal we've signed?

What he and the EU should be saying, and what they would be saying if this were Germany, is

"OK, so you want to deviate and unilaterally change our binding agreement? Here are the list of trade and economic sanctions we will be placing on the UK the following day..."

Are we getting that? Of course not.

WHL

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117640047#Comment_117640047

Also worth pointing out that Archie Norman was a Conservative MP in the past

Professor Moriarty

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117640047#Comment_117640047

His use of language is disgraceful. Using 'incendiary' is incendiary in itself.