nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Depends what you mean by "force" another referendum. The only authority that can intervene to do that is parliament. It would need enough MPs of whatever party to agree - and in effect cause the disintegration of the Tories (for sure) and probably Labour.

I don't think there is enough MPs with the conviction and courage to put the country before their seat, or abandon their party system.

There is not. This can only happen if one of the major parties changes its position and backs a second referendum, and the other is sufficiently divided that they are unable to prevent it.

Realistically, I do not see this happening. Brexit will proceed.

I agree

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This wasn't a small part of the leave campaign with Gove himself invoking his adopted father whose business he alleged was destroyed by quotas. There are probably larger concerns at the moment but it will be interesting to see if pro-Brexit newspapers make hay with this.

I was expecting a climbdown given all the drip drop of allowing some countries continued access , but not a complete capitulation this early.

It was supposed to be about the small fisherman. There's a finite amount of fish and large boats are more efficient.
http://britishseafishing.co.uk/cornelis-vrolijk/

In November 2014 the British media reported that a single Dutch trawler, the Cornelis Vrolijk, had the right to catch 23% of England’s entire fishing quota (1). To put this into perspective the entire small inshore fishing fleet for the whole England is given 4% of the quota.
...
the vessel lands all of its catch in the Dutch port of IJmuiden

Water John

Brexit will happen. What we realistically hope is that, in the end, the UK stays in the CU and SM.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Brexit will happen. What we realistically hope is that, in the end, the UK stays in the CU and SM.

Corbyn is OK with the Customs Union but has redlines over the Single Market because it would prevent the (re)nationalisation of key industries.

It's almost as if he wants to buy votes by giving people jobs for life. Really it's just another form of corporate welfare but bypassing the trickle down.

So both sides want to take back control and a generous helping of cake.

Water John

If LB and some Tories see the CU as ok, then that would be half the problem solved. A good start. Over negotiations one would see what agreement could be worked out on the SM. Corbyn might have notions, but the reality of power will mean having to make choices.

Leroy42

Looks like transition deal is close. The EU have, apparently, called a meeting this week to discuss it and the news in the UK is that something is pretty close and they can move on to the trade deal.

trellheim

Correct. The Danes and the Dutch redlines on Brexit would have fishing in there

As for reversing Brexit, if Parliament voted to reverse the Article 50 process tomorrow it would strike off a crisis of confidence in the political system there (not civil war, no Wars of the Roses here, or Cromwell getting the Rump to sling their hook , but you know what I mean )

In the UK - I'm over weekly at the moment - Theres a deep sense of being sold a pup by a lot of folk, but not enough to say "hold everything". The extreme danger for the remainers is forcing the majority into the Dunkirk Spirit " we will fight on alone etc etc " as once that happens the Brexiteers have the country behind them fully.

Leonard Hofstadter

And the UK is still agreeing to the backstop (if what Michel Barnier just said is to be believed), the precise text needs to be clarified but the principle has been agreed.

Bernard Jenkin still complaining about the border and basically saying it will be the EU's fault if there is a border because the UK Government doesn't want one.

trellheim

Withdrawal agreement draft ( source DExEu)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691366/20180319_DRAFT_WITHDRAWAL_AGREEMENT.pdf

With respect to the DRAFT PROTOCOL ON IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND, the negotiators agree that a legally operative version of the “backstop” solution for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, in line with paragraph 49 of the Joint Report, should be agreed as part of the legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement, to apply unless and until another solution is found.

(chuckle) can-kicking in the extreme ...

Nody

trellheim wrote: »

Withdrawal agreement draft ( source DExEu)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691366/20180319_DRAFT_WITHDRAWAL_AGREEMENT.pdf

(chuckle) can-kicking in the extreme ...

I'm not sure DUP will accept that to be honest; it basically writes a deal with one side that does not include their agreement (I know it's seen as internal politics but DUP don't want to see a difference). That could put things at it's tip if they are to flip May's government or not on the issue (it's a lose / lose for them but DUP are fanatics so I can easily see them vote against the deal on principle alone).

Professor Moriarty

captainspeed wrote: »

And the UK is still agreeing to the backstop (if what Michel Barnier just said is to be believed), the precise text needs to be clarified but the principle has been agreed.

Bernard Jenkin still complaining about the border and basically saying it will be the EU's fault if there is a border because the UK Government doesn't want one.

Good luck selling that to the DUP.

MrPudding

Skedaddle wrote: »

The French checks may still be in the UK as the juxtaposed border controls are a bilateral agreement between the two that don't really get impacted by this. It's the rules of the border that change.

Either way, you're going to have huge queues in both directions as trade will still have to somehow go on.

From a logistical point of view, you can't really let trucks into France and have then choke up inside the ports. That's why you have to have the checks in the UK for France and France for the UK. Otherwise, it would become impossible and you'd have trucks stuck on ferries.

The problem is where are they going to do all these checks? The infrastructure in place is deigned for current needs, not checking every single vehicle. How are they going to build all that and recruit and train the necessary staff by next year?

There isn't really a precedent for this level of disruption. Most borders are either very old and have evolved, or have come about in quite conflicted areas of the world without much trade anyway. The sheer volume of goods that move across those borders and the level of integration of the economies will make any kind of checking like that extremely logistically difficult.

What's being proposed is just incredibly disruptive and can't but have economic consequences.

This stuff is all fine and well in some right wing politician's imagination. Implementing it will just be absolutely chaos.

It's a bit like asking someone to unscramble an egg.

I use Portsmouth and Ouistreham pretty much every week. Neither of them were geared up for this. A couple of weeks ago one of the ferries coming into Portsmouth was late, so two ferries arrived as once. It was utter chaos. My boarding and departure was delayed for over an hour because the port could not handle vehicles coming off two ferries at he same time, while trying to load another ferry.

I am not an expert on this kind of thing, but from seeing how Portsmouth works (or doesn't work as the case may be) it seems to me that any delays in getting vehicles out of the port, be they cars or lorries, will cause major problems.

Ouistraham is even worse. They have 3 lanes for checking cars and only one for trucks. They do have a fairly large area, but not large enough I fear.

MrP

J Mysterio

Man, this is huge. Fantastic news.

From a UK perspective though... Another huge climb down. What happened to "no UK PM could ever agree to this?". Those were strong words.

Sam Russell

J Mysterio wrote: »

Man, this is huge. Fantastic news.

From a UK perspective though... Another huge climb down. What happened to "no UK PM could ever agree to this?". Those were strong words.

They have not agreed to it yet. It is all coloured white, while most of Euratom is coloured green.

There is that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' little hurdle. Will the EU insist on everything agreed on the withdrawal agreement by Friday - or nothing?

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

They have not agreed to it yet. It is all coloured white, while most of Euratom is coloured green.

There is that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' little hurdle. Will the EU insist on everything agreed on the withdrawal agreement by Friday - or nothing?

The deadline for agreeing everything in the Withdrawal Agreement (or nothing) is not Friday; it's next October.

What has been agreed today is this; If a Withdrawal Agreement is concluded next October, it will contain "a legally operative version of the “backstop” solution for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, in line with paragraph 49 of the Joint Report". If the UK doesn't sign up to a "legally operative version" of the backstop by October, there'll be no Withdrawal Agreement, no transition period and a hard Brexit (and a hard border, of course).

What hasn't been agreed is this: the terms of the "legally operative version" of the backstop. The EU has put forward draft terms; parts of these draft terms are now considered settled (e.g. provisions relating to the Common Travel Area), parts are agreed as to the policy outcome but not as to the exact text (e.g. provisions relating to the single electricity market), and parts are not yet agreed either as to text or policy outcome (e.g. provisions as to the common regulatory area).

Significantly, what has been agreed (as to both text and policy) includes a provision relating to the areas of North-South co-operation in which there is to be full regulatory alignment. It's agreed that these will include environment, health, agriculture, transport, education, tourism, energy, telecommunications, broadcasting, inland fisheries, justice, security, higher education and sport. In other words, this will be a very broad arrangement, not a narrow one confined to beef and dairy produce, and similar high-volume cross-border trades, as some on the UK side were at one time advocating.

At this point reaction of the DUP is the thing to watch. But after what happened in December you have to assume that Teresa will have kept them onside, and not taken them for granted.

LeinsterDub

https://www.open-britain.co.uk/background_briefing_seven_broken_promises_on_transition

Excellent post from Open Britain listing 7 of the many broken brexit promises.

The seven promises that were made were:

A transition period will be about ‘implementing’ the future relationship, not negotiating it
The UK will not pay money to the EU after March 2019
The UK will not have to abide by EU rules during transition
The UK will ‘take back control’ of fisheries policy
Free movement will end in March 2019
The UK will have new trade deals ready to come into force on 29 March 2019
The implementation period would last for two years and should not be time limited

Leroy42

So the NI question has been pushed back again. It seems, IMO, that the EU despite their claims, do not count NI and Ireland as the top of their agenda (understandably but no less important for Ireland's POV).

We had the unclear December fudge, and now an apparent transition deal, neither of which deal with the issue except to say that it must be dealt with.

Now I understand that that doesn't mean it is off the table by any means, but the time to sort things out is at the start, before it can be used as a bargaining chip.
I am starting to get concerned that this will end up as a fudge with Ireland paying the price.

Nate--IRL--

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the NI question has been pushed back again. It seems, IMO, that the EU despite their claims, do not count NI and Ireland as the top of their agenda (understandably but no less important for Ireland's POV).

We had the unclear December fudge, and now an apparent transition deal, neither of which deal with the issue except to say that it must be dealt with.

Now I understand that that doesn't mean it is off the table by any means, but the time to sort things out is at the start, before it can be used as a bargaining chip.
I am starting to get concerned that this will end up as a fudge with Ireland paying the price.

What would you have like to have seen in the draft text??

Nate

trellheim

So the NI question has been pushed back again. It seems, IMO, that the EU despite their claims, do not count NI and Ireland as the top of their agenda (understandably but no less important for Ireland's POV).

We had the unclear December fudge, and now an apparent transition deal, neither of which deal with the issue except to say that it must be dealt with.

Now I understand that that doesn't mean it is off the table by any means, but the time to sort things out is at the start, before it can be used as a bargaining chip.
I am starting to get concerned that this will end up as a fudge with Ireland paying the price.

In all fairness I have been thinking the exact same for the last hour or two , this lets the Brits do Trade before locking down NI

Leroy42

I think at this stage we should be expecting some short of outline of what the final outcome on the NI question will actually be. They haven't even settled on what the positions are, never mind working on achieving them.

We are no closer to knowing what is coming at us from April 2019 than we were in 2016. It seems they are able to get agreement on other areas but are prepared (the EU) to allow the UK to continue to push out the date of when decisions are actually going to happen.

If a hard border is indeed required, the time frames means that it is almost a given that we cannot achieve the required infrastructure and systems in time.

Nate--IRL--

Would not a hard Border only arise if there is breakdown in negotiations?

Or is the current text allowing for that also?

Nate

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think at this stage we should be expecting some short of outline of what the final outcome on the NI question will actually be. They haven't even settled on what the positions are, never mind working on achieving them.

The EU position is very well defined and they can't force the UK to define theirs

Leroy42

The latest deal seems to cement the December agreement (which the UK claimed was merely a talking point) into a backstop position. In other words if the other two options (technical solution to allow frictionless border or the UK remains in the CU) are not delivered then NI becomes separate in regulatory terms from Great Britain.

The problem is that none of these options are remotely achievable. NI cannot be seen to be separated, the technology does not exist. So the only realistic solution is to remain in CU, which is never going to float in the UK.

So what is the point of postponing the inevitable? Why are the EU allowing the UK to simply push this further down the track? Are they hoping that at some stage the UK will cave, but they have shown no indication that they will to this point.

My worry is that this will become a last minute "deal breaker" and as such with a deal so close both sides will simply fudge it. The EU, seeing that continued trade with the UK is almost within reach and thus avoiding many of the issues that could arise may see it as a price worth paying.

EU have shown before that no one country is above the long term future of the EU (Ireland & Greece for example) and I fear that will happen again.

So the UK avoid a hard brexit but we are left with a border. Effectively we are left to pay the price

Leroy42

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The EU position is very well defined and they can't force the UK to define theirs

Of course they can. No movement until you define your final position on NI.

When, how,how much, what will happen in X, Y & Z.

Nate--IRL--

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course they can. No movement until you define your final position on NI.

When, how,how much, what will happen in X, Y & Z.

So even if they sign up to the backstop you won't trust them. What would make you trust any answers they give on the above?

To me - I can see this draft falling down on the Border question anyway, there's very little chance the UK will sign up to what they agreed to in December. I can't see this text being ratified in time.

Nate

Professor Moriarty

Still more uncertainty. The problem is the same for all concerned. You must begin to plan and focus your resources on whatever outcome you think is likely. The more uncertainty continues, the more governments and business will assume a hard Brexit whatever the witterings of the Tories. This will then become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Leroy42

Its not about trust, but yes I do trust a country like GB to stick to international agreements. If not, then what is the point of the negotiations in the first place?

I totally agree that this looks like it will be nothing more than a postponement of the final hard brexit but it is because of that that I don't understand why the EU are doing it.

If they are pretty sure that there is no solution (other than NI to remain) then why even go along with this fudge? They have continually allowed, from day 1, the UK to fudge seemingly awaiting on the UK coming up with a plan, but we are still no closer to that than on day 1.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

The latest deal seems to cement the December agreement (which the UK claimed was merely a talking point) into a backstop position. In other words if the other two options (technical solution to allow frictionless border or the UK remains in the CU) are not delivered then NI becomes separate in regulatory terms from Great Britain.

The problem is that none of these options are remotely achievable. NI cannot be seen to be separated, the technology does not exist. So the only realistic solution is to remain in CU, which is never going to float in the UK.

Seems to me that NI's future has just been guaranteed. NI will remain in the EU, there won't be another viable solution.

Leroy42

J Mysterio wrote: »

Seems to me that NI's future has just been guaranteed. NI will remain in the EU, there won't be another viable solution.

Yes, that is my reading of it as well, but th (at will never be accepted in the UK. Only two weeks ago May stated that no PM could ever accept that.

So why the fudge. They (EU) have agreed a step when they know the UK has no intention/ability to deliver on it. So why even bother?

It gives the PM some more breathing space. Look at how they have sold the December agreement. "People said we couldn't get a Phase 1 deal but we did" is how the PM and the cabinet have sold it.

And this will be another one. They will focus on being able to undertake trade negotiations after March 2019 (which was always the case I think) as the big win.

IMO, this just means that NI is simply going to be collateral damage and we will end up paying the price. Its just a continuation of the 'lets park that there for the moment' that has been going on since Day 1.

Nate--IRL--

There will be no transition deal without a solution to the Border question however, they form parts of the same treaty. So that is going to concentrate minds.

Nate