Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

listermint · 01-04-2020 8:05pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

As a fairly Europhillic person who thinks Brexit is...well a number of impolite things, I would still hazard a guess that maybe the actual story isn't quite as straightforward as that. Just saying we have plenty of real reasons to dislike Brexit and by extension the Tory government attempting to undertake it, no need to create false ones.

Doubt it. Stuff in Tory world is usually not complicated at all. Gtech CEO doesn't get on with Dyson CEO lot of history there.

With the Tories your either an insider nor your not.

Look after our own , even over the country should be their motto. Giving them some credence is more confusing..

serfboard · 02-04-2020 12:37pm

listermint wrote: »

Look after our own , even over the country should be their motto.

An ideal politician's priorities should be country, party, self. (Some/Most?) Actual politicians' priorities are self, party, country.

johnnyskeleton · 02-04-2020 7:05pm

Mod note:

This thread is about Brexit. If anyone wants to discuss another aspect of the EU, that can be done in another thread, provided it is within the charter.

Enzokk · 02-04-2020 7:15pm

The EU isn't about unity 100% of the time. It is about reaching a position agreed by 27 countries when there is a difference on how to go about it. This is the same as the GFC or the immigration crises, there will be competing opinions on how to sort it out but in the end an agreement will be reached that all agree to abide by. The Brexit negotiations were one of the first times there was almost 100% agreement with the EU position.

Sam Russell · 02-04-2020 8:12pm

Enzokk wrote: »

The EU isn't about unity 100% of the time. It is about reaching a position agreed by 27 countries when there is a difference on how to go about it. This is the same as the GFC or the immigration crises, there will be competing opinions on how to sort it out but in the end an agreement will be reached that all agree to abide by. The Brexit negotiations were one of the first times there was almost 100% agreement with the EU position.

A lot of the issues to do with the pandemic are not within the EU competences but some are - eg border controls in time of crisis. Co-operation takes time to organise. The EU is not a Government or a super state.

This was true of many of the Brexit claims - they were about powers that were not EU competencies, or were shared competences. Immigration was probably the major one.

fash · 03-04-2020 7:02am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Just quoting to embed:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1245403758458273792

... And let's have a look what the treaty they just signed requires of the UK in this instance...
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1245446182417162245?s=20[/url/]

Leroy42 · 03-04-2020 7:40am

Seems to me that the UK are arguing over a permanent office for EU personnel in Belfast. This is purely political.

But it is easily resolved. Have the office set up on the ROU side of the border and travel across. Not a major issue really.

If staff need to be close to whatever port hire people and provide accommodation if necessary.

This is nothing more than the UK trying to act big as they don't like reality and are trying to pick a fight. But it meaningless in the overall.

eire4 · 03-04-2020 5:06pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Seems to me that the UK are arguing over a permanent office for EU personnel in Belfast. This is purely political.

But it is easily resolved. Have the office set up on the ROU side of the border and travel across. Not a major issue really.

If staff need to be close to whatever port hire people and provide accommodation if necessary.

This is nothing more than the UK trying to act big as they don't like reality and are trying to pick a fight. But it meaningless in the overall.

Would be funny if the EU and Ireland called their bluff or should I say bluster on this one and did what you suggest there and just open an office on our side but in a location easily within reach of Belfast. It is really a very easy issue to put to bed.

Leroy42 · 03-04-2020 5:15pm

eire4 wrote: »

Would be funny if the EU and Ireland called their bluff or should I say bluster on this one and did what you suggest there and just open an office on our side but in a location easily within reach of Belfast. It is really a very easy issue to put to bed.

These are the cheap 'wins' that the likes of the Express will fawn over. Johnson giving the EU what for, sticking it to the faceless bureaucrats. Of course buried in it will be the details like the UK will have to help cover the costs etc.

But better (from the UK POV) to be talking about issues like this then having people focus on the fact that checks really are happening, regardless of where the actual office is.

It is so obvious that it is almost comical.

RobMc59 · 03-04-2020 5:20pm

eire4 wrote: »

Would be funny if the EU and Ireland called their bluff or should I say bluster on this one and did what you suggest there and just open an office on our side but in a location easily within reach of Belfast. It is really a very easy issue to put to bed.

I hope I'm wrong but it could be the UK is preparing for no deal,nothing to do with bluff or bluster.

Leroy42 · 03-04-2020 5:37pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I hope I'm wrong but it could be the UK is preparing for no deal,nothing to do with bluff or bluster.

Then why sign the WA? If they are having second thoughts it will surely go down as one of the worst political decisions ever to have signed it only to dump it a number of months later.

And they can't simply walk away. The WA has been passed by the HoC, it is law (AFAIK).

Of course they could go with No Deal, but it would be No Deal forever, or at least until they meet their agreed obligations within the WA.

RobMc59 · 03-04-2020 5:57pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Then why sign the WA? If they are having second thoughts it will surely go down as one of the worst political decisions ever to have signed it only to dump it a number of months later.

And they can't simply walk away. The WA has been passed by the HoC, it is law (AFAIK).

Of course they could go with No Deal, but it would be No Deal forever, or at least until they meet their agreed obligations within the WA.

I'd prefer the UK to ask for a 12 to 24 month extension in view of the current situation and can't see how the UK can possibly expect to conclude negotiations before the end of the year.

reslfj · 03-04-2020 6:11pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

RobMc59 wrote: »

I hope I'm wrong but it could be the UK is preparing for no deal,...

Then why sign the WA? ...

And they can't simply walk away. The WA has been passed by the HoC, it is law (AFAIK).

This is very much more than a British Law. The WA is a ratified international treaty.

The UK can decide to have a 'No Trade Deal' future, but not to have a 'no WA' or a 'no GFA' future.

I fail to see the EU27 or any of the 27 member states being willing to give up even a single centimetre of the WA.

Remember here and almost everywhere the UK is now and will continue to be the 'rule-taker' - so they better get use to 'taking rules'

Lars

Leroy42 · 03-04-2020 6:22pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd prefer the UK to ask for a 12 to 24 month extension in view of the current situation and can't see how the UK can possibly expect to conclude negotiations before the end of the year.

Apologies, I should have been clearer. When I said No Deal, I meant no trade deal. Regardless of what they may wish to happen the WA is now in force.

As I said, if they look to renege on it, then Johnson and the government need to answer why they proposed it in the 1st place. And by exstension, they will have lied to get elected as essentially the election was a vote on the WA.

They have no mandate to renege on the WA, not a single bit.

Griselda · 03-04-2020 6:33pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Apologies, I should have been clearer. When I said No Deal, I meant no trade deal. Regardless of what they may wish to happen the WA is now in force.

As I said, if they look to renege on it, then Johnson and the government need to answer why they proposed it in the 1st place. And by exstension, they will have lied to get elected as essentially the election was a vote on the WA.

They have no mandate to renege on the WA, not a single bit.

100% this.

RobMc59 · 03-04-2020 6:40pm

reslfj wrote: »

This is very much more than a British Law. The WA is a ratified international treaty.

The UK can decide to have a 'No Trade Deal' future, but not to have a 'no WA' or a 'no GFA' future.

I fail to see the EU27 or any of the 27 member states being willing to give up even a single centimetre of the WA.

Remember here and almost everywhere the UK is now and will continue to be the 'rule-taker' - so they better get use to 'taking rules'

Lars

The Taoiseach has quite rightly said the UK and Ireland has to honour the GFA and there must not be a hard border.The UK has said they won't erect one.

Griselda · 03-04-2020 6:45pm

border is non negotiable.

johnnyskeleton · 03-04-2020 7:45pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Then why sign the WA?

A couple of reasons:

1. They would have to find a solution to Northern Ireland and outstanding payments anyway. The withdrawal agreement puts those matters to bed (hopefully);

2. It buys him a further year to get ready for no deal (although it's not clear that anything significant is being done in this regard);

3. He can sell the idea that they have now left and the sky hasn't fallen in, while ignoring the fact that they are still, for all intents and purposes, within the Single Market and Customs Union;

4. It allows him to paint the EU as the bad guys, "I entered the Withdrawal Agreement in good faith, but the E.U. refused to negotiate" etc. It's not true, but it is something he can spin politically; and

5. He believes that if he presents it to the EU as a Canada style FTA or nothing, that the EU will crack. A lot of Brexit commentators say that the EU does nothing until the last minute, what they really mean is that they intend to run the clock down to the last minute as their strategy, and if it doesn't work they can still blame the EU.

So if his plan was to get no deal all along, entering the WA was politically shrewd.

Peregrinus · 04-04-2020 2:42am

RobMc59 wrote: »

The Taoiseach has quite rightly said the UK and Ireland has to honour the GFA and there must not be a hard border.The UK has said they won't erect one.

"The UK has said that they won't erect one" is not really good enough, if at the very moment they are saying it they are also unilaterally withdrawing from all the arrangements that currently keep it open, and are not willing to enter into effective arrangements to replace them. The default is a controlled border; an open border requires agreements on both sides, implemented on both sides. If the UK won't make or implement those agreements, then it is erecting a hard border, and saying that it isn't would be what we in the plain-speaking trade call a lie.

Though, to be clear, I am not saying that the UK is lying. The UK has never said that it won't erect a hard border; just that it won't introduce border controls on the UK side immediately after withdrawal/end of transition. The liars are those who have duped Rob into believing that the UK has said that it won't erect a hard border.

Peregrinus · 04-04-2020 2:48am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

. . . So if his plan was to get no deal all along, entering the WA was politically shrewd.

Except for this bit:

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

. . . 1. They would have to find a solution to Northern Ireland and outstanding payments anyway. The withdrawal agreement puts those matters to bed (hopefully) . . .

If your plan is no deal, then you don't have to find a solution to withdrawal payments; you can just decline to make them.

In signing the withdrawal agreement, the UK has accepted a binding treaty obligation to make payments to the EU over the next few years of something like GBP 30 billion. (More, if sterling continues to fall, which is likely if there i a no-deal exit from transition.) People might reasonably ask what the UK has secured for this? Deferral of a no-deal situation for 11 months? That seems like poor value for money. Expect Johnson's critics, both within and without the Tory party, to point this out.

RobMc59 · 04-04-2020 1:12pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

"The UK has said that they won't erect one" is not really good enough, if at the very moment they are saying it they are also unilaterally withdrawing from all the arrangements that currently keep it open, and are not willing to enter into effective arrangements to replace them. The default is a controlled border; an open border requires agreements on both sides, implemented on both sides. If the UK won't make or implement those agreements, then it is erecting a hard border, and saying that it isn't would be what we in the plain-speaking trade call a lie.

Though, to be clear, I am not saying that the UK is lying. The UK has never said that it won't erect a hard border; just that it won't introduce border controls on the UK side immediately after withdrawal/end of transition. The liars are those who have duped Rob into believing that the UK has said that it won't erect a hard border.

If the EU erect a border,its them doing it.The 'look what you made me do' line wouldn't be right just as the UK walking away from the EU using the same defence would be wrong.

Imreoir2 · 04-04-2020 1:22pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

If the EU erect a border,its them doing it.The 'look what you made me do' line wouldn't be right just as the UK walking away from the EU using the same defence would be wrong.

If the UK fails to implement the terms of the WA and the EU has to erect a border as a result, that it the UK's fault and no-one elses.

RobMc59 · 04-04-2020 1:24pm

reslfj wrote: »

This is very much more than a British Law. The WA is a ratified international treaty.

The UK can decide to have a 'No Trade Deal' future, but not to have a 'no WA' or a 'no GFA' future.

I fail to see the EU27 or any of the 27 member states being willing to give up even a single centimetre of the WA.

Remember here and almost everywhere the UK is now and will continue to be the 'rule-taker' - so they better get use to 'taking rules'

Lars

I'm in favour of very close ties with the EU Lars but perhaps diplomacy isn't your strong point.If Michael Barnier and his team used terms like 'rule taker' etc negotiations probably wouldn't last very long ,those tactics would be counterproductive.

Ben Done · 04-04-2020 2:07pm

Has anyone seen any update on Barnier's health?

Hope he makes a speedy recovery.

I believe the British negotiator Frost had the dose too..

reslfj · 04-04-2020 6:34pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm in favour of very close ties with the EU Lars but perhaps diplomacy isn't your strong point.If Michael Barnier and his team used terms like 'rule taker' etc negotiations probably wouldn't last very long ,those tactics would be counterproductive.

Michel Barnier is always very diplomatic, but do not for even a minute misunderstand his nice language. There are very few and small concessions to the UK within his polite words.

I'm trying to get you to understand that the UK has next to no power/cards/leverage in any trade deals with the EU (or US/China). Walking out on the PD framework will be a pure UK disaster on many fronts.

Basically the UK will get very little and has to say 'Yes' to the rest. Otherwise the EU27 will not approve a deal and this will effectively kill large sectors of the UK economy - e.g. fish, farm, auto, and significant parts of UK industry.
Then comes the for the UK all important service sector - financial and even non financial.

Whatever cards you believe the UK has, the facts are the EU27 is 6-7 times larger than the UK and has 50+ years experience in judging the strength of their opposing negotiation partners - and they mostly get it right.

You may think it is unfair, but international trade deals are not fair and they not supposed to be fair. They are almost totally based on relative size and strength of the negotiating partners.

Fairness is simply not a concept here.

Lars

PS! Do understand the UK has also lost most of its goodwill within very large parts of EU27 voters too.

RobMc59 · 04-04-2020 6:59pm

reslfj wrote: »

Michel Barnier is always very diplomatic, but do not for even a minute misunderstand his nice language. There are very few and small concessions to the UK within his polite words.

I'm trying to get you to understand that the UK has next to no power/cards/leverage in any trade deals with the EU (or US/China). Walking out on the PD framework will be a pure UK disaster on many fronts.

Basically the UK will get very little and has to say 'Yes' to the rest. Otherwise the EU27 will not approve a deal and this will effectively kill large sectors of the UK economy - e.g. fish, farm, auto, and significant parts of UK industry.
Then comes the for the UK all important service sector - financial and even non financial.

Whatever cards you believe the UK has, the facts are the EU27 is 6-7 times larger than the UK and has 50+ years experience in judging the strength of their opposing negotiation partners - and they mostly get it right.

You may think it is unfair, but international trade deals are not fair and they not supposed to be fair. They are almost totally based on relative size and strength of the negotiating partners.

Fairness is simply not a concept her.

Lars

PS! Do understand the UK has also lost most of its goodwill within very large parts of EU27 voters too.

I'm not saying anything about what the UK has or hasn't got but if what you're saying is true,the EU isn't actually 'negotiating'and is being disingenuous if the script is 'you have nothing and WILL do as you're told,you're a rule taker'...etc..Do you consider that conducting themselves and negotiating honourably?I've said on numerous occasions I'm totally against brexit and would prefer a close relationship with the EU,probably as described as brino as I understand it.

Seth Brundle · 04-04-2020 8:24pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm not saying anything about what the UK has or hasn't got but if what you're saying is true,the EU isn't actually 'negotiating'and is being disingenuous if the script is 'you have nothing and WILL do as you're told,you're a rule taker'...etc..Do you consider that conducting themselves and negotiating honourably?I've said on numerous occasions I'm totally against brexit and would prefer a close relationship with the EU,probably as described as brino as I understand it.

I take it that you're unfamiliar with business or trade negotiations.
There usually is one party stronger than the other. This side usually has more to offer than the other side and therefore expect to receive more from the other side.

Even when shopping in an ordinary market, if each stall is selling apples then one individual stall can't charge high prices as the consumer won't buy from them. The consumer in this example is the stronger party!

reslfj · 04-04-2020 8:27pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

... but if what you're saying is true,the EU isn't actually 'negotiating'and is being disingenuous if the script is 'you have nothing and WILL do as you're told,you're a rule taker'...etc..
Do you consider that conducting themselves and negotiating honourably?

Even if one side has next to all the power, there is nothing disingenuous in getting everything and still being willing to write the treaty text together.

The UK being the tiny part here must - hopefully by themselves - understand the situation as it is and act accordingly. The EU27 will not want to provoke a showdown of the UK's 'rule taking' position. But this will require the UK to accept the real 2020-world and keep 'its lips tight' in public.

Being delusional, shout and act like a small kid will not end well.

The UK likely has the chance to get some words included in the trade treaty more easily sold domestically.
And the UK has the option - metaphorically and maybe even physically - to get the future Brexit trade deal printed on 'red, white and blue' paper, but that's about it.

You may not like it, but then the UK should not have brought itself in the present extraordinarily weak position.

Lars

RobMc59 · 04-04-2020 8:30pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I take it that you're unfamiliar with business or trade negotiations.
There usually is one party stronger than the other. This side usually has more to offer than the other side and therefore expect to receive more from the other side.

Even when shopping in an ordinary market, if each stall is selling apples then one individual stall can't charge high prices as the consumer won't buy from them. The consumer in this example is the stronger party!

Yes but the UK is constantly being lambasted for being 'perfidious albion' yet you casually dismiss a high handed,arrogant approach as the norm.I'd say if that's the EU strategy that would mean they've deceived the UK which may bring any agreement into dispute imo.

Seth Brundle · 04-04-2020 8:53pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Yes but the UK is constantly being lambasted for being 'perfidious albion' yet you casually dismiss a high handed,arrogant approach as the norm.I'd say if that's the EU strategy that would mean they've deceived the UK which may bring any agreement into dispute imo.

What?
How have they deceived the UK?
The UK chose the position it believed would be best for the UK. Everything by the EU has been transparent.

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments