Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha · 08-07-2020 05:14PM

At the risk of catching flak, I know someone who worked in Fox's department. Apparently, he was quite pleasant as far as secretaries of state go. He was always reasonable and open to expert advice I'm told.

This forum has a rule prohibiting insults so I won't relay my friend's words about the current secretary of state.

Seth Brundle · 08-07-2020 05:33PM

Evidently, the UK doesn't like to be rushed when it comes to deadlines...

https://twitter.com/bbaschuk/status/1280901640124497921

Leroy42 · 08-07-2020 07:09PM

Some on here would view that as the UK compromising on the deadline!

Fox should be given the job due balance it up.

Frank Bullitt · 09-07-2020 05:48PM

https://twitter.com/winding_sios/status/1281279793582018567

Along with holding the UN Security Council seat...not bad for a little country. The Brexiteers will love that.

View · 09-07-2020 06:25PM

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/winding_sios/status/1281279793582018567

Along with holding the UN Security Council seat...not bad for a little country. The Brexiteers will love that.

“Ireland” doesn’t hold those (EU) positions. Individuals who are Irish do and they are required to act in an impartial fashion on behalf of all the EU/Eurogroup countries.

moon2 · 09-07-2020 07:02PM

View wrote: »

“Ireland” doesn’t hold those (EU) positions. Individuals who are Irish do and they are required to act in an impartial fashion on behalf of all the EU/Eurogroup countries.

100% agree. Taking into account that perfect impartiality is exceedingly rare, it's reasonable to assume that this will give Irish views a stronger voice in these areas. It doesn't mean it'll be "Ireland in charge", but every little helps.

10-07-2020 02:10PM

Interesting typo!

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0710/1152546-eus-michel-proposes-5bn-brexit-fund/

Negotiations have so far stalled over differences on fisheries and fair competition guarantees, among others. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson only wants a loser trade pact with the EU from 2021, while the bloc seeks much closer links in many other areas, including security.

Winters · 10-07-2020 03:07PM

Remember that email from Mark Francois to Michel Barnier?

Here is the reply. Such class.

https://twitter.com/Barnes_Joe/status/1281261419472838656

Tell me how · 10-07-2020 03:17PM

Winters wrote: »

Remember that email from Mark Francois to Michel Barnier?

Here is the reply. Such class.

I can't help but think some thought even went in to the timing of the reply. That could have been written ten minutes after they received Francois's letter but he waited two weeks.
This is where the ERG are in the pecking order as far as Michel Barnier is concerned.

Leroy42 · 10-07-2020 03:57PM

My reading of that is that far from the EU moving closer to the UK positions, Barnier (at least) is pretty confident that they have all the cards.

His repeated reference to the QA (signed by your PM) is a clear indication that the EU believe that they have already agreed the substantive arguments.

But one of the aspects in all this 'Johnson is happy with No Deal' line is that nobody in the UK seems to questioning what the point of the WA actually was if they are just going to No Deal anyway? Why didn't Johnson pull the plug last year, instead of costing the UK 30bn and the sectioning off of NI?

It seems an incredibly high price to pay if they are only getting 11 months additional transition time out of it, particularly given the line that No Deal is not a problem so why even worry about the extra 11 months?

But it seems nobody is asking that question

First Up · 10-07-2020 04:07PM

Leroy42 wrote:

But one of the aspects in all this 'Johnson is happy with No Deal' line is that nobody in the UK seems to questioning what the point of the WA actually was if they are just going to No Deal anyway? Why didn't Johnson pull the plug last year, instead of costing the UK 30bn and the sectioning off of NI?

Because they are stumbling from day to day and making it up as they go along.

It reminds me of the old one "when you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember you are supposed to be draining the swamp".

Tell me how · 10-07-2020 05:05PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

It seems an incredibly high price to pay if they are only getting 11 months additional transition time out of it, particularly given the line that No Deal is not a problem so why even worry about the extra 11 months?

But it seems nobody is asking that question

To be fair, no one foresaw the impact Covid-19 had on the transition timeframe facilitating preparations.
If you were writing a script of the Brexit experience and added a global pandemic and the PM ending up in ER within the final few months before a No Deal exit, you'd get some raised eyebrows.

timetogo1 · 10-07-2020 05:18PM

Tell me how wrote: »

To be fair, no one foresaw the impact Covid-19 had on the transition timeframe facilitating preparations.
If you were writing a script of the Brexit experience and added a global pandemic and the PM ending up in ER within the final few months before a No Deal exit, you'd get some raised eyebrows.

No, nobody foresaw Covid. What a chance to extend the transition period without losing face though.

A Dub in Glasgo · 10-07-2020 05:33PM

timetogo1 wrote: »

No, nobody foresaw Covid. What a chance to extend the transition period without losing face though.

Which the UK govt has double down on it and stuck 2 fingers up

Tell me how · 10-07-2020 05:39PM

timetogo1 wrote: »

No, nobody foresaw Covid. What a chance to extend the transition period without losing face though.

Yeah, I suppose that supports Leroy42's incredulity. Why have the TA if they didn't care to avail of it or not.

Maybe they knew they'd be hammered in a straight No Deal if/when things get difficult so by having the TA, they could tell the UK public that they had tried.

I suspect less than 5% of people actually pay attention to the minutiae of the interaction between them and the EU.

MBSnr · 10-07-2020 08:23PM

Emergency purchase of land in Kent for customs clearance just announced in the papers. Things start to get real.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/10/vast-brexit-customs-clearance-centre-to-be-built-in-kent

CelticRambler · 10-07-2020 10:17PM

MBSnr wrote: »

Emergency purchase of land in Kent for customs clearance just announced in the papers. Things start to get real.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/10/vast-brexit-customs-clearance-centre-to-be-built-in-kent

No indication yet as to how many weeks' worth of NHS funding they spent on acquiring the land. But, sure, it's money well spent on taking back control ... :rolleyes:

(Just hope they remember that these mega-facilities have to be staffed too - they wouldn't want a repeat of the Nightingale hospital fiasco, would they?)

MBSnr · 11-07-2020 09:32AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

No indication yet as to how many weeks' worth of NHS funding they spent on acquiring the land. But, sure, it's money well spent on taking back control ... :rolleyes:

(Just hope they remember that these mega-facilities have to be staffed too - they wouldn't want a repeat of the Nightingale hospital fiasco, would they?)

From another forum 15bn GBP cost for customs clearance form filling.

https://www.accountex.co.uk/insight/2019/10/08/hmrc-price-of-brexit/amp/

Enzokk · 12-07-2020 04:48AM

My sort of tweet here, having a go at a Brexiter but teaching you something as well,

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1282033376397008896?s=20

Thread with the information why the car park is needed

Basically, paperwork. If no deal then more paperwork will be needed and if trucks go to the port and has the incorrect paperwork it will take time to fix. As for Damian Green, well it seems like NIMBYism at its best. He doesn't seem to object to the truck car park, just that it is in his constituency.

Enzokk · 12-07-2020 05:24AM

And another one that marries Brexit and Covid-19, I have posted this already in the Covid-19 UK response thread but seeing that it seems like most of the money paid for this company was actually Brexit related, seems to fit that it is posted here as well.

Just how does public money end up in the pockets of Cummings' friends?

According to ‘transparency data’ published on the Government website, the Cabinet Office paid Public First:

on 18 March 2020, £58,000 in respect of “GOV COMMS EU EXIT PROG”;
on 20 March 2020, £75,000 in respect of “INSIGHT AND EVALUATION”;
on 2 April 2020, £42,000 in respect of “EU EXIT COMMS”; and
on 27 May 2020, £78,187.07 in respect of “COVID-19”.

So a couple of interesting things here, the company, Public First, was awarded a contract that could be worth up to £840 000. As we can see the information they have is that most of the work so far is related to Brexit, but it seems like they used the pandemic as an excuse to award the contract without putting it out to tender and added some Covid-19 work to try and squeeze it through. Also, the company just happens to be close to all those think tanks in 55 Tufton Street, they are in 11 Tufton Street.

Seems like the associations with Gove and Cummings go way back. It started before 2004 but Cummings and James Frayne set up a think tank in 2004 that was the start of the EU referendum battle.

Mr Frayne and Mr Cummings were co-founders of the New Frontiers Foundation think-tank. According to Mr Cummings’ blog, he and Mr Frayne, in 2004, “set up the campaign to fight the referendum on the North East Regional Assembly as a training exercise for an EU referendum."

The other owner of the company has worked extensively with Gove as she was an advisor to him and she worked on the Conservative manifesto in 2019 as well. It will be interesting to see what other information they can find from the legal action.

Hermy · 12-07-2020 07:20AM

'It's unfair to Ashford... it will be hugely disruptive for everyone in the area'

Never mind that among other things it's been hugely disruptive to UK society generally, UK politics most especially, UK-EU relations unfortunately, and the Peace Process unforgivably.

This Brexit madness has got to stop.

Disrupting the daily lives of the people of Ashford is just too high a price to pay.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-07-2020 10:20AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Just how does public money end up in the pockets of Cummings' friends?
...

So a couple of interesting things here, the company, Public First, was awarded a contract that could be worth up to £840 000.

That's practically ethical compared to what happened with the first UK Covid app that was supposed to save lives. The deeper you dig the worse it gets because it's pure Brexit :mad:

They spent millions on the Centralised NHSx Covid App that keeps data for 20 years and was developed by people with questionable to illegal ethics IMHO.
https://bylinetimes.com/2020/05/06/whitehall-analytica-vote-leave-firm-tied-to-cambridge-analytica-will-configure-nhsx-contact-tracing-app/

An artificial intelligence firm previously hired by Dominic Cummings to work on the Vote Leave campaign has been intimately involved in R&D for the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) contact tracing app.

£11.8m spaffed up the wall so far. Our app cost €0.85m and is up and running. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.covidtracker.hse
So that's at least £11m wasted or slushed to the cronies.

Actually the rest of the money was totally wasted too.
The planned app faced immediate criticism about risks to privacy and data security but trials on the Isle of Wight showed it had a bigger problem: it didn’t work.

NI will be using an app compatible with the Irish one. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.hscni.covid19ni

The UK went back to manual track and trace through call centres

But now that they are doing a second app and Brexiteers will be please to know that
Germany is helping the UK develop its COVID-19 contact-tracing app, says ambassador

It's just another UK 'word beating' 'go it alone' stance they've had to roll back on after shelling out lots of taxpayers money.

ArmaniJeanss · 12-07-2020 01:40PM

Enzokk wrote: »

My sort of tweet here, having a go at a Brexiter but teaching you something as well,

Basically, paperwork. If no deal then more paperwork will be needed and if trucks go to the port and has the incorrect paperwork it will take time to fix. As for Damian Green, well it seems like NIMBYism at its best. He doesn't seem to object to the truck car park, just that it is in his constituency.

I clicked via the tweet into the Kentish Express article.
There's this wonderful series of quotes from a Kent councillor.

Ashford's deputy council leader Paul Bartlett (Conservative), who lives just a stone's throw away from the land, spotted activity at the site this week.
"Lots of suspicious characters have been walking around Church Road in suits and with lanyards on recently," he said.
"It has all been very strange - I saw all these people mooching around and now we know why.

"The important thing will be that the lorries turn over quickly.
"The worst thing for residents would be lorries queueing at the site waiting to be dealt with.
"But I think with modern technology, they will know full well when lorries are arriving at Dover and they will be able to plan ahead.
"It is really important for Brexit. We have got to get Brexit done and it is a vital element in that.

View · 12-07-2020 02:24PM

Hermy wrote: »

Never mind that among other things it's been hugely disruptive to UK society generally, UK politics most especially, UK-EU relations unfortunately, and the Peace Process unforgivably.

This Brexit madness has got to stop.

Disrupting the daily lives of the people of Ashford is just too high a price to pay.

No it doesn’t have to stop. This is what Brexiters voted for and if they didn’t understand it, too bad.

As an EU member state, our obligation is to have plans for a hard border drawn up and ready to be put in place should either Brexiters renege on their commitments in the WA (a likely probability) OR cross-border smuggling flare up again as that would most definitely threaten the integrity of the SM.

Bit cynical · 12-07-2020 02:30PM

View wrote: »

As an EU member state, our obligation is to have plans for a hard border drawn up and ready to be put in place should either Brexiters renege on their commitments in the WA (a likely probability) OR cross-border smuggling flare up again as that would most definitely threaten the integrity of the SM.

However, a hard border is not acceptable in Ireland.

View · 12-07-2020 03:14PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, a hard border is not acceptable in Ireland.

If the Brexiters renege on their promise to operate a No-GB border or there is massive cross-border smuggling that threatens the integrity of the SM, then, if Ireland wants to remain an EU member, we must operate a hard border.

Also, lest you missed it, in the four years since the Brexit referendum, the politicians/people of NI haven’t exactly voted for, never mind negotiated on, possible unification (never mind actual unification) to avoid the possibility of a hard border, so the latter (ie the border) is clearly more acceptable to them than the former (ie avoiding a hard border by opting for unification within the EU).

RobMc59 · 12-07-2020 03:31PM

View wrote: »

If the Brexiters renege on their promise to operate a No-GB border or there is massive cross-border smuggling that threatens the integrity of the SM, then, if Ireland wants to remain an EU member, we must operate a hard border.

Also, lest you missed it, in the four years since the Brexit referendum, the politicians/people of NI haven’t exactly voted for, never mind negotiated on, possible unification (never mind actual unification) to avoid the possibility of a hard border, so the former is clearly more acceptable to them than the latter.

If Ireland operates a hard border wouldn't that go against the GFA?

CelticRambler · 12-07-2020 04:33PM

View wrote: »

If the Brexiters renege on their promise to operate a No-GB border or there is massive cross-border smuggling that threatens the integrity of the SM, then, if Ireland wants to remain an EU member, we must operate a hard border.

And let's not forget, either, that in the very, very recent past, the EU had no qualms about leaving Ireland out of the pan-European travel rules because the people of Ireland (Republic) have shown no inclination to prioritise Schengen Area membership over the CTA with the UK.

KildareP · 12-07-2020 04:43PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

If Ireland operates a hard border wouldn't that go against the GFA?

The UK are bound by treaty (the WA) to ensure no hard border returns as an outcome of Brexit - a treaty which survives a No Deal outcome beyond 31st December of this year.

For Ireland to face implementing a hard border will require the UK to breach said treaty, imposing irreperable damage to its reputation.

It would also be the height of hypocrisy to wave the very agreement (the WA and GFA) it shredded immediately prior in front of the Irish government.

CrabRevolution · 12-07-2020 05:10PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

If Ireland operates a hard border wouldn't that go against the GFA?

After 4 years of brexit discussion I refuse to believe you're honestly asking that question as if it's the first time the whole topic has occured to you.

Hard borders aren't about the actual border itself. Countries don't just decide to have hard or soft borders with no regard to what's on the other side of that border. Hard borders occur when there are major differences in the regimes on either side of that border. It's the front or interface between 2 very different systems that forms the border.

If a neighbouring country has a system that's totally incompatible with yours (be it the people, economics, goods etc.) you have to have a hard border otherwise there would be no controls on the potential harm to your country. Vice versa, a country with harmonious systems to yours can be met with a soft border, because your systems are compatible. It follows then that you don't bring a hard border into being by simply making it tough to get across the border, but by changing the regime in place on one side to such a degree that a hard border is required.

Since Brexit is 100% the UK's doing and the entire aim of Brexit is to radically change the systems in place in the UK and reduce their compatibility with those in Ireland and the wider EU, it's utterly laughable to suggest that anyone other than the UK are responsible for any hard border. Any breaches of the GFA due to brexit are the UKs doing, as Ireland had no intention of changing anything

The "simple" answer to this, suggested by some is that ourselves and the UK simply ignore the border and have no controls of any form. This is of course a stupid idea as:

1. You now have no control over your borders and smuggling and abuse would be rampant.

2. EU laws require their external borders be controlled.

3. The WTO rules so beloved of brexiters would quickly be their undoing as by announcing they're giving unlimited trade access to Ireland with no reciprocity would result in every country on earth demanding the same treatment through MFN terms.

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments