Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Water John wrote: »

It may come down to what type of whip Lb imposes. If it, as is hinted do not expel and deselect those that vote with the Govn't, the Deal has a good chance of passing. It is a debate going on in the party today. Sturgeon has been stirring it by saying that by not imposing a full whip, it leaves Lb off the hook. Secretly letting the Deal through.

Theres no question they have to be effectively booted out if they defy whip. Absolute abandonment of every labour principle, regardless of who voted to invoke A50 or not. Anyone who votes for this deal has no real business being in labour party imo. They need to spell thst out very clearly.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

FTA deals normally takes 5-10 years. If the UK puts pressure on negotiators to do it faster, they will have to accept a worse deal.

So they will either extend the transition period for a minimum of 5 years or get reamed in the FTA talks.

Don't forget that the EU have a really professional, experienced team who have been doing trade deals all around the world for decades. The UK have whoever they have managed to rope in during the last 3 years. What professional negotiator would want to work for the UK side after the last 3 years of utter incompetence on the political side?

I saw a tweet a week or so ago on why FTA takes a long time to agree. It is not the time spent sorting out what each side wants that takes time but the legalese from these negotiations that takes the most time. So in a 7 year timeframe it would be 2 years negotiations, then having those agreements converted to legal text. Then having the legal text checked by either side and if one isn't happy than it has to be changed. Once all legal texts are ready it goes for ratification in the EU case all 27 nations and a few regional parliaments can object. If they do object then they have to go back again and find a solution, convert it to legal text again, check that all is okay and have it confirmed by the relevant parties. Once all of that is done then the agreement can be signed by the leaders and the deal can be implemented.

That is why it takes years to complete and why there cannot really be a quick solution as it just takes time to complete, especially with the EU involved. There are examples of FTA's done in 2 years, the Australia-US one springs to mind but because it was rushed there are analysis that show it could have hurt trade with closer neighbours while increasing trade further away, so a net loss for Australia.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The EU don't want to be responsible for letting the UK crash out which is why they've agreed to the extensions. When Brexit fails, it needs to be the UK's own fault, not the EU's.

Either way the British media and the Brexiters are going to blame someone else when it doesn't work out as rosey as they claimed.

Just wait until all these supposed brilliant open trade deals don't pan out.
It will all be the fault of EU for not allowing them trade.

First Up wrote: »

The EU doesn't set up customs posts.

But hasn't there been something about having EU personnel check goods coming into NI destined for ROI ?

Maybe someone can answer this?
I got part of interview with some lady I believe is related to NI trade representative body this morning on radio.
She actually answered question about how a trader in NI selling goods onto person from ROI would not have tarrifs applied to those goods.

Is there stipulation that tarrifs will apply if goods are sold on from ROI to elsewhere?

It just sounds like a fudge and possibly unworkable due to level of tracking involved.

Maybe someone can elaborate and provide some enlightenment on what exactly will transpire?

At this point surely the DUP have to backtrack and support revoke? Two deals negotiated, both differentiating NI from the rest of UK. Brexit is only going one way for them. The best thing they can do "for the union" is to swallow their pride and change tack.

So the only difference with this deal, as far as I can see, is that the backstop is now permanent (although having given Stormont the illusion of power over it), and we no longer call it the backstop? Is that accurate?

Also what happens if Stormont is still not sitting when the first vote on maintaining the not-a-backstop is due?

Why some people in RoI enthusiastically embrace the idea of worsening our own standard of living to take on this basket case of a region, is beyond me.

Shelga wrote: »

So the only difference with this deal, as far as I can see, is that the backstop is now permanent (although having given Stormont the illusion of power over it), and we no longer call it the backstop? Is that accurate?

Also what happens if Stormont is still not sitting when the first vote on maintaining the not-a-backstop is due?

Why some people in RoI enthusiastically embrace the idea of worsening our own standard of living to take on this basket case of a region, is beyond me.

I reckon Stormont will have to overturn it so that if it was not sitting the status quo would remain. This gives Sinn Fein an effective veto as they can stop Stormont from running again if they feel the DUP will get rid of the backstop.

Yeah. It is largely just not calling a backstop the backstop which seems to be the key to getting the ERG on board.

Shelga wrote: »

Why some people in RoI enthusiastically embrace the idea of worsening our own standard of living to take on this basket case of a region, is beyond me.

Exactly my thoughts.
Reunification would destroy our economy for years.
Instead of London having to deal with almost half the population that do not view themselves as British, we would have to deal with half the population that do not view themselves as Irish.
After 20 years of no killing, there seems to have been almost no reconciliation between both sides. They seem as far away from each other now as they were 20 years ago.

Christy42 wrote: »

I reckon Stormont will have to overturn it so that if it was not sitting the status quo would remain. This gives Sinn Fein an effective veto as they can stop Stormont from running again if they feel the DUP will get rid of the backstop.

Totally wrong. That eventuality has been covered.

Yeah. It is largely just not calling a backstop the backstop which seems to be the key to getting the ERG on board.

From an all island perspective it is IMO a wonderful piece of maneouvering as it takes away any prospect of hiding behind doublespeak or outside influence or power.

For a Hard Border to now appear on this island, a political party will have to front up and campaign/vote for it.

Brilliant in every way.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes, it's a possibility ... but one that, at the moment, seems to be as much of a unicorn as the greater Brexit project. I have yet to see anything that indicates that NI will enjoy more advantageous access to the GB market than any EU country. This deal adds two levels of extra bureaucracy to internal (UK) market trade - customs declarations and VAT declarations - for no demonstrable benefit whatsoever.

Even if there was a functioning government in NI, I can't see how it could sell the region as a better place to do business than either a pure GB or a pure EU location. Keeping the land border "invisible" is great for the RoI, for ordinary cross-border daily life and very good for NI farmers (compared to a hard border), but that's about the extent of it. All the wonderful new FTAs that the UK is going to get are
(a) probably going to be no better than those that the EU has already agreed with the same countries;
(b) based overwhelmingly on what's good for London/GB, not NI; and
(c) not signed until long after NI has lost all of its EU subventions and been locked out of the EU agencies that generate so much of the added value that influences FDI decisions.

Those are all fair points, but until we see the details, we have no way of knowing, and even then it all depends on the ability of NI to exploit its unique situation.

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think that case has a hope in hell.

Government's sign deals that are illegal all the time, that is why most international treaties need implementing legislation - to change the law.

Well no they don't really, yes agreements often need implementing legislation, but it's a bit different when the agreement itself is contrary to what is permitted in law as is the alleged case here.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Nothing that can't be fixed with an amendment to change the law.

Oh indeed and that has been recognised by both sides in the court, but the issue is that it is alleged it is unlawful as the law stands today.

Assuming the court held in the petitioners favour then (emergency) legislation would be required to rectify.

blanch152 wrote: »

If you are correct, every time our Irish government signed a new European agreement, they were not only acting illegally but also unconstitutionally, as a referendum is needed to change the Constitution to accept the Agreement.

Signature and ratification are two different concepts in international law. In this case, all we have is signature, and whatever relevant amendments to the law are required will form part of the ratification process.

How do you come to that conclusion? The authority to conclude international agreements is already given to the Government under our Constitution, this is a different issue.

The issue is not about signatures or ratification or even implementation, as it stands, the law does not allow the Government to enter into any arrangements which will see NI in a separate customs territory than the rest of the UK, if the court uphold this it makes any "arrangement" unlawful until the law is changed.

The WA is nothing more than an arrangement with the EU which then needs various forms of legislation for implementation.

Strazdas wrote: »

He's deluded on this score. I haven't heard anyone talk of Brexit UK being an attractive place for FDI.

Is he aware Amazon and the like pay Next to zero tax in the UK.

That may have passed him by. They already have all these benefits.

beggars_bush wrote: »

How much will the DUP have to be given to change their stance?

Seems to be the only thing that turns their heads anymore

It would look like they refused a massive bribe already.