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 XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zubeneschamali

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Getting full access to services will be more difficult

From what I have seen, the UK are not even asking for access for services, so No chance the EU will grant it.

alentejo

I can't think of a worse time for the UK to negotiate a trade deal with the US with that lovely president in charge!

Looking forward to the sunny uplands!

wexfordman2

Inquitus wrote: »

Our network infrastructure for 5G will be Huawei in the main, but then Trump can't try and strong arm us on the matter. A majority of the UK's 4G infrastructure is also Huawei and it is in both the core and the periphery, BT expects the cost of undoing this to be some £500m.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bt-outlook/bt-warns-of-650-million-hit-from-british-limits-on-huawei-idUSKBN1ZT0ML

Actually, thats not quite true. EIR have announced they are using huawei for their 5g access network, going for a complete vendor swap across 3g,4g and 5g.

3irl currently use samsung for 4g, nsn for 3g, and I believe are going for a full vendor swap to e//

And vodafone is already e// for it's full access network.

So in reality only eir, the smallest operator in the country are using huawei.for 5g access

[Deleted User]

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

From what I have seen, the UK are not even asking for access for services, so No chance the EU will grant it.

The EU will grant certain things it benefits from for limited periods of time.

fash

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

From what I have seen, the UK are not even asking for access for services, so No chance the EU will grant it.

I understand a deal involving services will always be a "mixed agreement" and so need to be approved unanimously by all national and sub national parliaments- plus takes longer than a year - so was always difficult to achieve and with the year self imposed UK deadline, impossible.
So it was ruled out by the UK.

Lumen

Here's a 74 page UK parliamentary research briefing on services published in December, if anyone is really interested.

I skimmed it and still don't "get it", perhaps because there is no "it" to get.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8586

RobMc59

fash wrote: »

I understand a deal involving services will always be a "mixed agreement" and so need to be approved unanimously by all national and sub national parliaments- plus takes longer than a year - so was always difficult to achieve and with the year self imposed UK deadline, impossible.
So it was ruled out by the UK.

Looking at the EU deal with Canada,that still hasn't been signed off by all nations.

reslfj

RobMc59 wrote: »

Looking at the EU deal with Canada,that still hasn't been signed off by all nations.

The trade part has been (provisionally) activated.

Only the parts of CETA needing full ratification are not yet active.

Lars

listermint

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Actually, thats not quite true. EIR have announced they are using huawei for their 5g access network, going for a complete vendor swap across 3g,4g and 5g.

3irl currently use samsung for 4g, nsn for 3g, and I believe are going for a full vendor swap to e//

And vodafone is already e// for it's full access network.

So in reality only eir, the smallest operator in the country are using huawei.for 5g access

Smallest operator?

You have current customer figures?

Bit cynical

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU will grant certain things it benefits from for limited periods of time.

This will be handy if a deal is made and there's a delay with some countries ratifying it e.g. Spain.

Capt'n Midnight

Remember people who voted for Brexit because of immigration ?

Immigration: Salary threshold set to be lowered

Irish Praetorian

I wrote the following in answer to a now deleted thread but I think it might be of some use here:

I've little time for this idea that the EU should be judged purely on whether or not a countries government is getting a red or black figure from it. This ceaseless process of miserly calculation that is occurring in more and more aspects of government services, appears to play a big role in reducing quality of life. It seems to be the same kind of thinking that leads hospitals to say 'well it's cheaper for us to hire an agency to send someone in for 2 hours a day to clean the bins and contract out repair work rather than hire a janitor' without accounting for the kind of unspoken benefit that can arise from having another regular person on hand to provide help. Or the idea that instead of having a water service run efficiently on a national level, the best course is to farm it out to a private company so they can make a profit off of it in exchange for fielding the complaints about quality. There is value to be had beyond the cents and pennies and I would argue the EU is a prime example of it.

Now it was not so long ago that this country would not have qualified as a modern economy and if anything our predominant export was people looking for a better life in shores farther away. Joining the EU and receiving not just the investment of funds but also foreign expertise and an exchange of peoples, was key to bringing our nation in the modern era. Today we are a more prosperous nation and many of our neighbours to the East are in the position we were in not so long ago - I do not care to pull up the ladder behind me after I have climbed it myself. I would much rather lend a helping hand to my fellow EU states in the expectation that with time they too will enjoy the prosperity that we now enjoy and all our peoples may benefit from the liberty to study and work across this continent whilst we pool our efforts toward shared endeavours.

Now I don't want to give people the opinion that these aspirations lead me to an entirely deluded view of how we should interact with the modern world - I don't share a lot of the views that presently hold sway in much of the modern media. A cursory view of my posting history will back this up, I've no time for unfettered mass migration, or endless government spending, nor do I embrace the almost inquisitorial attitude that abounds today on certain topics. Even more, I do not see any absolutes in our world, least of all that the EU is some kind of perfect creation. Yet I fear a society cannot recuse itself from dreaming of a better tomorrow without doing much damage to itself. In the UK they have turned in on themselves and are apparently amidst the process of putting a price on everything, whilst knowing the value of naught; I fear the only dream they have is one where every man had better have money in his bank account or else find himself a cliff from which he might fling himself. I think we have a better dream, a moderate dream, and an attainable dream in our minds, and I think the EU is part of achieving that.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU will grant certain things it benefits from for limited periods of time.

Not quite.

It works like this: If the EU makes a deal with a third country that deals entirely with matters that are within the competence of the EU itself, then individual member states don't need to ratify that deal - it just gets rativied by the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, and it can enter into force.

But if the deal includes matters that are within the competence of Member States, then the Member States have to ratify it as well.

Right. A mixed deal addresses some matters that are with in the competence of the EU, and some that are within the competence of Member States; it needs to be ratifed both by the Commission/Parliament and by all of the Member States, in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures and requirements.

This can take a while. So there's an arrangement whereby the parts of the deal that are within the competence of the EU can be "provisionally applied" once ratified by the Council/Parliament and by the third country, while the rest of the deal, addressing matters within the competence of the Member States, doesn't take effect until all the Member State ratification processes have been successfully completed.

Provisional application isn't automatic; the EU needs to be satisfied that the parts than can be provisionally applied are capable of standing alone and operating independently of the parts that can't, and that operating them independently makes sense. Plus, it doesn't happen unless they are pretty confident that the entire deal will be ratified and will enter into force.

It's not "the parts of the deal that are beneficial for the EU" that can be provisionally applied ahead of the rest of it; it's the parts of the deal that are within the competence of the EU.

And, crucially, it does have to be part of the deal, which means that it's somethng that the third country has agreed to, and has ratified. So if the UK doesn't seek access for services, access for services won't be part of the deal, and so can't be provisionally applied by a decision of the EU institutions.

banie01

The latest UK quarterly economy released this morning figures show 0% GDP growth last quarter.

Now in terms of manufacturing orders and output the last QTR of a year is usually flat, this is offset by growth in retail and services output at the busiest retail time of the year.

That the quarter was flat, that the Car manufacturers in particular are hanging fire whilst rejigging JiT supply chains should be quite worrying for the Brexiteer camp.

ambro25

banie01 wrote: »

The latest UK quarterly economy released this morning figures show 0% GDP growth last quarter.

Now in terms of manufacturing orders and output the last QTR of a year is usually flat, this is offset by growth in retail and services output at the busiest retail time of the year.

That the quarter was flat, that the Car manufacturers in particular are hanging fire whilst rejigging JiT supply chains should be quite worrying for the Brexiteer camp.

With this annoucement a mere month into Q1 2020, and crunch time for the negotiations not expected until around mid-June 2020, I wouldn't expect the headline figures to improve much in the first half of the year, tbh.

I wonder what percentage of UK plc is familiar with Incoterms, letters of credit, and all those other procedural niceties that they've got 11 months to get (back) to grips with...without spooking their EU27 counterparts off.

banie01

ambro25 wrote: »

With this annoucement a mere month into Q1 2020, and crunch time for the negotiations not expected until around mid-June 2020, I wouldn't expect the headline figures to improve much in the first half of the year, tbh.

I wonder what percentage of UK plc is familiar with Incoterms, letters of credit, and all those other procedural niceties that they've got 11 months to get (back) to grips with...without spooking their EU27 counterparts off.

I cannot wait to see the shít fly when carnet are required for bringing high value electronics on business trips.

I cannot understand how so much of the UK electorate are blind to the consequence of what they voted for?

I do note that all these terrible things are now the fault of the EU! Rather than the normal mode of international trade and commerce when not in a reciprocal trade agreement.

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted. Please do not just post silly comments with tweets.

Seth Brundle

ambro25 wrote: »

With this annoucement a mere month into Q1 2020, and crunch time for the negotiations not expected until around mid-June 2020, I wouldn't expect the headline figures to improve much in the first half of the year, tbh.

I wonder what percentage of UK plc is familiar with Incoterms, letters of credit, and all those other procedural niceties that they've got 11 months to get (back) to grips with...without spooking their EU27 counterparts off.

I note the last paragraph of the statement...

This is aimed at GB/EU traders. This approach does not apply to the flow of trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and GB.

So they're leaving a big wide door open there :rolleyes:

ambro25

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I note the last paragraph of the statement...

So they're leaving a big wide door open there :rolleyes:

That paragraph looks like gaslighting to me, given the frontstop ratified by the UK, which requires it to roll out NI/GB controls (since they are intent to roll out controls for EU goods).

I'd like predict brown stuff flying from Barnier & team on that...if I didn't already know, from ample precedent by now, that Barnier & team won't let themselves be trolled by it, and will simply point out the inaccuracy then request, for the n-th time in 3 years, that Johnson & kiddies go back to the playpen and let the adults in the room work away.

Leroy42

I think the Uk are preparing the ground for a row back on the WA. My thinking on thier thinking is that they always wanted the NI border to be dealt with as part of the trade negotiations and will use a possible default, and thus a hard border, to force the EU to give them what they want.

Will the rest of the EU miss the chance of a trade deal simply because of NI border?

It is repeat of the thinking they have tried throughout the process, so I cannot see how it could work, but it is the logic that I can ascertain from their repeated insistence that there will be no border checks between NI and GB.

listermint

german online bank N26 shutting down entire uk operationn and UK accounts.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the Uk are preparing the ground for a row back on the WA. My thinking on thier thinking is that they always wanted the NI border to be dealt with as part of the trade negotiations and will use a possible default, and thus a hard border, to force the EU to give them what they want.

Will the rest of the EU miss the chance of a trade deal simply because of NI border?

It is repeat of the thinking they have tried throughout the process, so I cannot see how it could work, but it is the logic that I can ascertain from their repeated insistence that there will be no border checks between NI and GB.

They have also repeatedly insisted there will be no border checks between NI and RoI.

The logic is they are lying. The EU will go without the deal or have no Irish border. It doesn't want chaos at the EU border at all times.

moon2

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the Uk are preparing the ground for a row back on the WA. My thinking on thier thinking is that they always wanted the NI border to be dealt with as part of the trade negotiations and will use a possible default, and thus a hard border, to force the EU to give them what they want.

A position of "we're reneging on the treaties we just negotiated with you" would hardly increase the strength of their negotiating position. If anything, abiding by the letter and spirit of the recently agreed protocol for Northern Ireland would be one of the best ways to show the UK can be trusted to adhere to it's obligations. That may help unlock concessions.

sondagefaux

Getting Brexit done.

With the UK having left the EU at the end of January, we will in due course no longer be able to operate in the UK with our European banking licence. Therefore we will be leaving the UK and closing all accounts in the coming months.

We’ve planned the next steps carefully to ensure this process is as smooth as possible.

What will happen next?

We will close all accounts on 15 April 2020, in line with our terms and conditions(new tab). Customers will shortly receive a formal termination notice.

https://support.n26.com/en-gb/getting-started/account/my-account

sondagefaux

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not quite.

It works like this: If the EU makes a deal with a third country that deals entirely with matters that are within the competence of the EU itself, then individual member states don't need to ratify that deal - it just gets rativied by the Council of Ministers and the Parliament, and it can enter into force.

But if the deal includes matters that are within the competence of Member States, then the Member States have to ratify it as well.

Right. A mixed deal addresses some matters that are with in the competence of the EU, and some that are within the competence of Member States; it needs to be ratifed both by the Commission/Parliament and by all of the Member States, in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures and requirements.

This can take a while. So there's an arrangement whereby the parts of the deal that are within the competence of the EU can be "provisionally applied" once ratified by the Council/Parliament and by the third country, while the rest of the deal, addressing matters within the competence of the Member States, doesn't take effect until all the Member State ratification processes have been successfully completed.

Provisional application isn't automatic; the EU needs to be satisfied that the parts than can be provisionally applied are capable of standing alone and operating independently of the parts that can't, and that operating them independently makes sense. Plus, it doesn't happen unless they are pretty confident that the entire deal will be ratified and will enter into force.

It's not "the parts of the deal that are beneficial for the EU" that can be provisionally applied ahead of the rest of it; it's the parts of the deal that are within the competence of the EU.

And, crucially, it does have to be part of the deal, which means that it's somethng that the third country has agreed to, and has ratified. So if the UK doesn't seek access for services, access for services won't be part of the deal, and so can't be provisionally applied by a decision of the EU institutions.

It 'just gets ratified by the Council of Ministers' is incorrect: it's the European Council, made up of all the leaders of the member states which plays this role. It does so by Qualified Majority Vote, at least 55% of the 27, with a combined 65% share of the population of all the EU member states is required under QMV for a proposed treaty between the EU and another party to be approved at Council level.

A so-called 'mixed' agreement, in which some elements are covered by exclusive EU powers and some elements are covered by exclusive member state powers, can only be partly implemented using the Union ratification process: the full agreement must still be ratified by all member states before it can be fully implemented.

The parameters of which elements of a 'mixed' agreement fall under exclusive EU powers and which elements fall under exclusive member state powers were clarified by a 2016 CJEU judgment about the then proposed EU-Singapore trade agreement.

In respect of services, full access requires membership of the Single Market as either a member of the EU or as an EFTA-EEA state, and would require the UK to participate fully in the Single Market, accepting the four freedoms: free movement of people, free movement of goods, free movement of money, and free movement of services.

Absent that, the most the EU will offer is much more limited access, through unilateral acceptance by the EU that a third country's regulatory regimes for designated services are equivalent to the EU's regulatory regimes for those services.

Granting equivalency as it's called, is a unilateral decision by the EU, not a joint decision, does not give anywhere near the same level of access as Single Market membership, and can be withdrawn unilaterally by the EU, with as little as 30 days notice depending on the EU law basis on which it was granted.

As the example of the n26 bank deciding to withdraw from the UK my post above shows (https://support.n26.com/en-gb/getting-started/account/my-account), losing Single Market rights is going to lead to some service providers withdrawing from the UK entirely.

Enzokk

It is interesting to me that the EU has quickly gotten to the idea that the UK will be looking at trading with WTO rules instead of an FA. This is apparent by the UK calling for an Australia deal with the EU, with Australia not having a trade deal with the UK it means WTO.

Michael Gove confirms post-Brexit trade barriers will be imposed

Echoing Boris Johnson’s comments in a speech last week, Gove spoke of pursuing a Canada or Australian-type deal, which EU trade commissioner Phil Hogan has said was “code for no deal” as the bloc does not have a deal with Australia.

According to attendees, Gove was also adamant that the government would stick to its vow to no longer follow EU rules that would allow it to minimise future barriers in cross-border trade.

As long as the UK is transparent with it's objectives it gives the EU a fighting chance to mitigate the damage.

As for potential checks and delays,

https://twitter.com/donnyc1975/status/1227144936434405376?s=20

Twitter thread in one link

Basically if the same amount of checks are done as at the Swiss border it means around 20% of shipments will need to have queries done on them due to errors in documentation. This would then need the courier would need to get in touch with the dispatching company to resend the correct documents. If the company isn't open after hours and they happen to be at the border after closing time, then it means hours of delays until the corrected documents can be sent.

serfboard

Leroy42 wrote: »

they always wanted the NI border to be dealt with as part of the trade negotiations and will use a possible default, and thus a hard border, to force the EU to give them what they want.

To which the EU response will be: "If you want to walk, there's the door."

sondagefaux

Enzokk wrote: »

It is interesting to me that the EU has quickly gotten to the idea that the UK will be looking at trading with WTO rules instead of an FA. This is apparent by the UK calling for an Australia deal with the EU, with Australia not having a trade deal with the UK it means WTO.

Michael Gove confirms post-Brexit trade barriers will be imposed

As long as the UK is transparent with it's objectives it gives the EU a fighting chance to mitigate the damage.

As for potential checks and delays,

https://twitter.com/donnyc1975/status/1227144936434405376?s=20

Twitter thread in one link

Basically if the same amount of checks are done as at the Swiss border it means around 20% of shipments will need to have queries done on them due to errors in documentation. This would then need the courier would need to get in touch with the dispatching company to resend the correct documents. If the company isn't open after hours and they happen to be at the border after closing time, then it means hours of delays until the corrected documents can be sent.

The checks required on entry to the EU and/or UK will be more intense than required between Switzerland and the EU.

This is because Switzerland has agreed to implement EU food production and food safety law, Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) law, and so Swiss/EU animals and foods of animal origin (meat, fish/seafood, dairy products, eggs, poultry, processed foods with these as ingredients) aren't subject to SPS checks when traded between Switzerland and the EU.

As Michael Gove's speech stated, these checks will be required on these products being traded between the EU and Britain (also between NI and Britain and vice versa, as NI will use EU rules), and this will lead to physical checks in some cases and document checks (plenty of scope for clerical errors!) in all cases, both in Britain and the EU/NI.

This is very far from the frictionless trade between the UK and Europe promised by Gove during the referendum campaign, when those saying customs and regulatory checks would be needed were dismissed as promoting 'Project Fear'.

sondagefaux

An article about trade in services and how Brexit may affect it:

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/british-services-have-played-second-fiddle-in-the-brexit-debate/

Peregrinus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I note the last paragraph of the statement...

So they're leaving a big wide door open there :rolleyes:

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the Uk are preparing the ground for a row back on the WA. My thinking on thier thinking is that they always wanted the NI border to be dealt with as part of the trade negotiations and will use a possible default, and thus a hard border, to force the EU to give them what they want . . .

Gove's announcement is about import controls, i.e. controls on goods imported into the UK. Whereas the EU's concern regarding the NI/GB border is about goods exported from GB to NI. If the UK fails to control imports from NI to GB, this doesn't greatly bother the EU.

It create's a problem for the UK, though, since as Seth points out it provides a handy route for people who want to import goods into the UK without having them controlled or inspected. If the goods don't orginate in Ireland, shipping them to Ireland in order to move them to NI and then bring them into GB without inspection could be quite time-consuming/expensive, and HMG may be relying on this to limit the size of the wide open door. But for low-bulk, high value goods - e.g. pharmaceuticals - it'll be very attractive. And of course for illegal goods, contraband, etc. Sounds like HMG is intent on creating a nice new line of business to ensure a steady income stream for The Lads.