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

ancapailldorcha

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Another explanation would be they want to create chaos.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/18/exit-failing-grayling-the-3bn-master-of-disaster-bows-out

I don't think it's that. I genuinely do not think that anything other than plain old cronyism is at play here. The Tories have a huge mandate in Westminster and Grayling was always a Brexiter. Loyalty and obedience supercede skill and ability.

Sam Russell

GBP is on the slide again.

Nearly up to 89p=€1.

The virus, the disruption to supply chains, the extra spend in the budget, the prospect of delays to EU FTA discussions and the huge drop in the shares must be having an effect.

Nody

I wonder if the Corona virus may not be a blessing in disguise for Boris; it gives the perfect excuse not to stick to the 2021 leave date and is a great way to blame any delays of anything (not only Brexit) "Oh Corona virus caused it".

gooch2k9

Nody wrote: »

I wonder if the Corona virus may not be a blessing in disguise for Boris; it gives the perfect excuse not to stick to the 2021 leave date and is a great way to blame any delays of anything (not only Brexit) "Oh Corona virus caused it".

They've already stated they won't extend the negotiations over this. I see it more as a useful media distraction for him as they run the clock down.

They aren't showing any urgency in the UK. Their COBRA meeting is being held over lunch, at least Leo got up early to break the news.

black forest

Interesting...

https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1238417190422040580?s=21

For better reading the Threadreaderapp.

Over the day there probably will be more information coming out. The UK wishlist will follow anyway. How all this will be negotiated via video conferences will be seen.

serfboard

ECJ rulings binding on UK

Falls at the first hurdle.

Leroy42

serfboard wrote: »

Falls at the first hurdle.

Well, maybe, that is down to the UK. The EU are putting out the position, which of course is part of a negotiation, on the basis that trade offs will have to be made.

It is not a case of FTA with or without ECJ. It is a case of FTA with ECJ or some lessor version without it.

The UK's failure to have a plan, failure to provide any economic impacts statements shows one of two things. Either they genuinely have no idea what their different options cost/benefit them, or them are well aware of that but cannot let the public know.

And as we have seen throughout this process, form the very start the EU have known full well what the different scenarios mean for both it and the UK. So either way the EU have the advantage.

serfboard

Leroy42 wrote: »

Either they genuinely have no idea what their different options cost/benefit them, or them are well aware of that but cannot let the public know.

Given the way they're behaving with regard to the Corona virus, I know which one I lean towards.

black forest

Meanwhile more tangible facts are showing up.

https://twitter.com/portofantwerp/status/1238452679279591424?s=21

Add this link between Antwerp and Drogheda (even if it is only a small one) to the already existing ferry connections, new giant ferries and other new connections the UK more and more become an isolated island. At least these plans seem to work and guarantee the supply of Ireland.

johnnyskeleton

serfboard wrote: »

Falls at the first hurdle.

In the world we live in, expressing any expert or informed opinion is often met with claims of eliteism etc. The rallying cry of many brexiteers is "stop calling me stupid" as they demand stupid policies. I put this caveat out in advance - I genuinely don't want to come across as elitist or that I am looking down on people for their genuine, if uninformed, views.

But the Brexiteers would do well to ask themselves one simple question - what is the purpose of an international court such as the CJEU, whose only purpose is to resolve disputes relating to an international treaty? Other bodies have similar, less well know courts, the WTO etc. Even when there was talk about the EU/US trade deal, when people heard that there was going to be a court of international settlements, which could be used for companies to sue governments, people went apoplectic!

At the end of the day, these courts exist for one purpose - to resolve disputes. If there were no such courts, it would mean that the only sanction countries have is to leave the international organisation whenever a dispute occurs. They still retain that option, so if they really oppose any ruling of such courts, they can leave the body, but the court is there so that they don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Turning to the CJEU/ECJ in the future trade agreement, this is because it is an established body that knows the laws well and so is "oven ready", to use BJ's words, to resolve any disputes. If the CJEU ever makes a ruling that the UK really objects to, then they can always cancel the trade deal with the resultant chaos. Including the CJEU, they at least have the option of having such a dispute sent to the CJEU and if it goes against them, they still always have that option, but maybe they will accept the ruling.

So it makes complete sense to have the CJEU rule on disputes, and they are no worse off with it.

More importantly, however, is that the UK isn't really making any alternative proposals. Would they agree to the EFTA court instead which is a smaller but similar court? Do they want an entirely new dispute resolution Court to be set up between the UK and the EU?

If they would only say what they want, I'd be sure the EU would go for it. For instance, if the new Court were to be composed of say 6 CJEU Judges and 6 UK Supreme Court Judges, that would probably be ok, with each side paying for their half of the Court. It seems a little unnecessary to have a dedicated Court for such a purpose (which would require buildings, staff etc) but ok.

Maybe such a Court could be based in Lifford and Strabane, so that it is right on the border of the EU and the UK. Would be terrific for both towns to have all those clerks and lawyers eating at the local cafes and such.

The problem with the UK's "red lines" is not that they exist, but that instead of being a negotiation position, they are reasons not to negotiate.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: I've moved a few non-Brexit posts to this thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058058007

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Brickster69 permabanned for incessant trolling

sondagefaux

Nody wrote: »

I wonder if the Corona virus may not be a blessing in disguise for Boris; it gives the perfect excuse not to stick to the 2021 leave date and is a great way to blame any delays of anything (not only Brexit) "Oh Corona virus caused it".

So far, the UK government is sticking to its position that it will not seek an extension to the transition period beyond the end of this year.

Given that one round of face to face negotiations has already been postponed, this seems unsustainable, or at least it would be if the UK government was in any way rational.

The EU should take the initiative: announce that negotiations are suspended indefinitely due to the coronavirus situation, and invite the UK to request an extension, stressing that the request will be granted immediately.

Peregrinus

sondagefaux wrote: »

So far, the UK government is sticking to its position that it will not seek an extension to the transition period beyond the end of this year.

Given that one round of face to face negotiations has already been postponed, this seems unsustainable, or at least it would be if the UK government was in any way rational.

The EU should take the initiative: announce that negotiations are suspended indefinitely due to the coronavirus situation, and invite the UK to request an extension, stressing that the request will be granted immediately.

I don't think that the EU needs to "invite the UK to request an extension".

An extension happens if the Joint Committee decides that it will. Either the UK or the EU can request that the matter of an extension be put on the agenda for a meeting of the Joint Committee. Thus the EU can propose an extension itself, or propose that the question be discussed; it does not need to invite the UK to request an extension.

There is of course no point in doing so when the UK's stated position is not to agree to any extension; the only consequence of raising the matter formally will be to get the UK representatives on the Joint Committee to formally commit to the UK's current position, which wouldn't seem to acheive very much.

HMG has sought to cut off its own escape route here by having Parliament enact domestic legislation which prevents it from agreeing to an extension. Until there is sufficient political pressure within the UK for HMG to revisit that position it seems to me that an EU proposal could only entrench the current position, which the EU has no interest in doing.

People in the UK who think there should be an extension need to press for that within the UK's domestic political arena; the EU will not and, realistically, cannot ride to their rescue here. People outside the UK who would like there to be an extension cannot do better than support and encourage voices calling for one within the UK.

In Ireland, we could perhaps support and encourage NI voices. If the devolved assemblies all call for an extension and point to the dire consequences of not having one that, coupled the the developing coronavirus situation, may give HMG cover for a climbdown.

Nody

sondagefaux wrote: »

So far, the UK government is sticking to its position that it will not seek an extension to the transition period beyond the end of this year.

Boris also stated he'd died in a ditch over the delay that happened and that a deal splitting the UK in any form was unacceptable and no British PM could ever agree to it. Sorry if I don't put much faith in what ever proclamation the current government gives about "things that they will never do".

sondagefaux

Nody wrote: »

Boris also stated he'd died in a ditch over the delay that happened and that a deal splitting the UK in any form was unacceptable and no British PM could ever agree to it. Sorry if I don't put much faith in what ever proclamation the current government gives about "things that they will never do".

But why not do it now, when there's an excellent reason and nobody would complain?

The fact that they haven't requested an extension in these circumstances suggests they really are stupid enough to believe they won't need one.

The EU should publicly force them to justify why they don't want an extension, given that its own state agency, Public Health England, is stating that up to 7.9 million people in the UK could require medical treatment in hospital, and that up to 10% of medical and care staff could be off sick at any one time:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/uk-coronavirus-crisis-to-last-until-spring-2021-and-could-see-79m-hospitalised

If this worst-case scenario happens, even at 25% of the levels predicted in the Public Health England report, how would it be possible for the UK to deal wiyh the changes to its trading relationship with the EU and deal with these coronavurus impacts at the same time?

sondagefaux

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think that the EU needs to "invite the UK to request an extension".

An extension happens if the Joint Committee decides that it will. Either the UK or the EU can request that the matter of an extension be put on the agenda for a meeting of the Joint Committee. Thus the EU can propose an extension itself, or propose that the question be discussed; it does not need to invite the UK to request an extension.

There is of course no point in doing so when the UK's stated position is not to agree to any extension; the only consequence of raising the matter formally will be to get the UK representatives on the Joint Committee to formally commit to the UK's current position, which wouldn't seem to acheive very much.

HMG has sought to cut off its own escape route here by having Parliament enact domestic legislation which prevents it from agreeing to an extension. Until there is sufficient political pressure within the UK for HMG to revisit that position it seems to me that an EU proposal could only entrench the current position, which the EU has no interest in doing.

People in the UK who think there should be an extension need to press for that within the UK's domestic political arena; the EU will not and, realistically, cannot ride to their rescue here. People outside the UK who would like there to be an extension cannot do better than support and encourage voices calling for one within the UK.

In Ireland, we could perhaps support and encourage NI voices. If the devolved assemblies all call for an extension and point to the dire consequences of not having one that, coupled the the developing coronavirus situation, may give HMG cover for a climbdown.

An extension is necessary, because there isn't going to be any trade deal concluded this year.

There's no majority in the UK in favour of Brexit, there's no majority in favour of the ultra-hard Brexit the UK government wants to impose on the UK, there is massive distrust of the UK government's handling of the coronavirus situation; a suspension of negotiations by the EU, and an invitation to the UK to request an extension to the transition period would win majority public support in the UK.

If the worst case scenario set out in this report (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/uk-coronavirus-crisis-to-last-until-spring-2021-and-could-see-79m-hospitalised) comes to pass, the UK won't have the capacity to deal with any major changes to its trading relationship with the EU.

CelticRambler

sondagefaux wrote: »

The EU should publicly force them to justify why they don't want an extension, given that its own state agency, Public Health England, is stating that up to 7.9 million people in the UK could require medical treatment in hospital, and that up to 10% of medical and care staff could be off sick at any one time:

Because what the UK does is no longer any concern of the EU. There's no more reason for the EU to force the UK to justify what they're doing than there was to ask the US to justify exempting Ireland and Britain from the travel ban.

Brexit means Brexit - on both sides.

sondagefaux

CelticRambler wrote: »

Because what the UK does is no longer any concern of the EU. There's no more reason for the EU to force the UK to justify what they're doing than there was to ask the US to justify exempting Ireland and Britain from the travel ban.

Brexit means Brexit - on both sides.

The UK borders the EU, what it does affects the EU, particularly Ireland.

The EU doesn't need a rogue state next door. It's bad enough having one across the Atlantic.

CelticRambler

sondagefaux wrote: »

The UK borders the EU, what it does affects the EU, particularly Ireland.

The EU doesn't need a rogue state next door. It's bad enough having one across the Atlantic.

There's one on the other side too, UKraine. Still doesn't change the rules: Brexit means Brexit. The EU has no moral or legal right to tell the UK(GB minus NI) what to do about anything.

storker

sondagefaux wrote: »

An extension is necessary, because there isn't going to be any trade deal concluded this year.

There's no majority in the UK in favour of Brexit, there's no majority in favour of the ultra-hard Brexit the UK government wants to impose on the UK, there is massive distrust of the UK government's handling of the coronavirus situation; a suspension of negotiations by the EU, and an invitation to the UK to request an extension to the transition period would win majority public support in the UK.

If the worst case scenario set out in this report (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/uk-coronavirus-crisis-to-last-until-spring-2021-and-could-see-79m-hospitalised) comes to pass, the UK won't have the capacity to deal with any major changes to its trading relationship with the EU.

Let them go.
Let them own the consequences.
Let them back in eventually, and...
Let them accept the Euro, Schengen etc when they do.

CelticRambler

Meanwhile in Schengenland, so many countries have found that their status as independent sovereign states within the EU allows them to throw up border controls overnight. It's almost as if the Leave campaign exaggerated the effect of EU membership on national governance ... :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

CelticRambler wrote: »

Meanwhile in Schengenland, so many countries have found that their status as independent sovereign states within the EU allows them to throw up border controls overnight. It's almost as if the Leave campaign exaggerated the effect of EU membership on national governance ... :rolleyes:

I would imagine that technically, they've suspended their membership of Schengen, or at the very least broken the spirit of the EU laws around the Schengen agreement.

UK was never in Schengen, so the point does not stand.

moon2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would imagine that technically, they've suspended their membership of Schengen

Probably worth commenting on this for the benefit of the thread.

You can be in complete compliance with Schengen and have border controls. National emergencies are one of the many scenarios considered:

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control_en

ancapailldorcha

storker wrote: »

Let them go.
Let them own the consequences.
Let them back in eventually, and...
Let them accept the Euro, Schengen etc when they do.

The problem is that if they leave with no deal and go further down the road of bellicose ethnic nationalism then that could be a problem for certain EU states. There's also the issue of them undercutting the EU on regulations, workers' rights and environmental protections.

The EU would undoubtedly survive such things as it can protect itself but this could adversely affect smaller, more exposed EU member states such as Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands, ironically the three most Anglophile nations of the EU27.

Igotadose

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem is that if they leave with no deal and go further down the road of bellicose ethnic nationalism then that could be a problem for certain EU states. There's also the issue of them undercutting the EU on regulations, workers' rights and environmental protections.

The EU would undoubtedly survive such things as it can protect itself but this could adversely affect smaller, more exposed EU member states such as Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands, ironically the three most Anglophile nations of the EU27.

Nothing prevents them from getting a deal, and doing exactly as you describe. The legal frameworks put up in the presence of no deal (which really is, some kind of poor WTO deal) need to be robust enough to allow the EU to protect its interests. Beyond that, Brexit means brexit.

ancapailldorcha

Igotadose wrote: »

Nothing prevents them from getting a deal, and doing exactly as you describe. The legal frameworks put up in the presence of no deal (which really is, some kind of poor WTO deal) need to be robust enough to allow the EU to protect its interests. Beyond that, Brexit means brexit.

Insisting on successfully negotiating and ratifying a Canada+ style deal all in the next 8.5 months while legally ruling out an extension will.

The EU has largely protected its short term interests with the WA. The NI border, remaining UK contributions and debts and citizens' rights have all been addressed to the EU's satisfaction.

Leroy42

sondagefaux wrote: »

But why not do it now, when there's an excellent reason and nobody would complain?

The fact that they haven't requested an extension in these circumstances suggests they really are stupid enough to believe they won't need one.

The EU should publicly force them to justify why they don't want an extension, given that its own state agency, Public Health England, is stating that up to 7.9 million people in the UK could require medical treatment in hospital, and that up to 10% of medical and care staff could be off sick at any one time:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/uk-coronavirus-crisis-to-last-until-spring-2021-and-could-see-79m-hospitalised

If this worst-case scenario happens, even at 25% of the levels predicted in the Public Health England report, how would it be possible for the UK to deal wiyh the changes to its trading relationship with the EU and deal with these coronavurus impacts at the same time?

Because they think, just like their No Deal bluff, that the EU will actually be the one that caves. It's all about perception, the actualities or not important.

Picture this. Instead of the big 'secret' meeting with Leo, Johnson simply rang up Barnier and agreed the same deal. He would have been mocked and called a traitor. The set piece was purely for his benefit so that he could look like he forced deal. As such, any review of the deal was met with the simple line "well everybody said he wouldn't get any deal, so it a success" and thus no actual review of the deal he struct.

So they will claim to be gunning for a deal, this is just a delay in the meetings. That would be fine if they had any extra time, but they were always up against it. So they will continue to claim that no delay will be made, because to do otherwise would be to admit that everything is not 'oven ready'.

So hope that either the pandemic clears quickly, or if it doesn't the EU ask for an extension and then Johnson can claim a victory.

sondagefaux

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine that technically, they've suspended their membership of Schengen, or at the very least broken the spirit of the EU laws around the Schengen agreement.

UK was never in Schengen, so the point does not stand.

The Schengen rules permit its members to bring in border checks or even to shut their borders for reasons of public health, national security etc.

They normally have to notify the Commission in advance, although even this can be waived in emergencies.

The point is that 'take back control of borders' was yet another empty phrase as even Schengen states, let alone non-Schengen EU states, retain control of their borders.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Best achievable for who?, the EU or just a compromise because each and every country DOESN'T want a budget for the EU but a budget that suits themselves as much as possible.

The EU is a failed/failing political experiment.

Remember this, the whole EU is now proving exactly that, each little statelet within it is not for the EU but for itself.

Ven de Leyen tearing her hair out trying to get an EU response to CoVid19 rather than throwing up borders between the statelets.