Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

I think London has a strategy, touched on most recently by Peregrinus. In that the UK are spoiling for a fight. Look at the hay they made out of the quickly resolved matter over Art 16 and the vaccine. The UK needs an enemy. The whole point of extending the deadlines is that the UK knows that it cannot live with the deal that it signed, but cannot be seen to admit that they got it wrong, it must be that the EU are in the wrong.

We have already seen the groundwork for this being laid with the line that the Protocol is not being interpreted correctly by the EU, in other words Johnson and Frost signed a brilliant deal, but those rotters in the EU are wrecking everything.

Anyone with any degree of critical thinking can see that, despite whether one thinks the EU is too soft etc, these continual pushbacks of implementation is an acceptance by the UK that Brexit is nothing but negatives. If there were positives, they would be crowing about them and demanding implementation sooner rather than a delay.

Unfortunately, the media in the UK will not even broach that subject. You won't hear the likes of LK, Express, Times etc asking that question of why another delay is required and when exactly will Brexit actually be done.

Lots of noise this morning about proposals to hike National Insurance to fund the NHS (where'd that £350m a week that they were promised go you might ask?) which seems not to be going down well amongst the public.

The vaccination programme, and all of the wins that the Tories put down as a benefit of leaving the EU, looks set to be undone as there appears to be an increasing likelihood that the UK may well have to once again face more lockdowns heading into winter.

On top of all the other Brexit issues which are not going away, quite the opposite in fact as we head towards Christmas I imagine supply chain issues will become far more apparent and harder felt by all, it's truly setting up to be a winter of discontent.

Johnson's"let's put Union Flags on the vials" over the top backing of the "British" vaccine Astrazenica does look set to backfire as it becomes clear that it is a much weaker defense than the MRNA vaccines

No, it is not. Hiking income tax (not NI) to fund the backlog of NHS treatment is a good idea. Raising NI to protect the inheritance system is a bad idea

It has broken one of their manifesto pledges. I imagine the angle from the opposition will be to attack them for breaking one manifesto pledge followed by immediately questioning their truthfulness on others, i.e. whether Brexit did, in fact, get done. And just where did that extra £350m a week go?

What's even more mind boggling, is that if you were to say "Well they will raise NI to keep the pensioner voting base on side", I'd probably accept that - except it looks like they're not going to stand over their triple-lock commitment either!

Better together 😂

I want Scottish Independence just out of pure revenge so we can see how the English who ignored all questions about NI and cant even find Derry on a map can finally experience having to live with a real border and not just a tunnel that they sweat so much about

The point is that goods allowed into NI can freely enter the Single Market so, yes, if the UK were to let noncompliant goods into NI the EU would have a legitimate gripe. The NI Protocol is the agreed arrangement to ensure that this does not happen.

No, they've said nothing about that. But obviously they run the risk that if they move out of alignment with the EU in relation to goods that are the subject of the grace periods, that increases the risk of non-compliant goods entering the Single Market via NI, and the EU may resume its enforcement action against them. The UK doesn't want that, so that gives them a reason not to move out of alignment.

What the UK has said is that it's extending the grace periods ""to provide space for potential further discussions, and to give certainty and stability to businesses while any such discussions proceed". This is also their rationale for not nominating a new end point for the extended grace period; "in terms of creating the space for talks about substance more deadlines aren't helpful."

In other words, it's all about extending the grace period while discussions about a long-term resolution continue. The corollary is that, if discussions cease, the UK's rationale for extending the grace periods evaporates.

In response to the unilateral extension, the EU has said it "reserves its rights in respect of infringement proceedings" and that "we will not agree to a renegotiation of the Protocol".

Putting all this together, the UK will want to keep talks with the EU going, since once those talks stop on the UK's own account there is no justification for continuing the grace periods, and the EU will likely resume enforcement measures. But if the UK tries to make those talks about "a renegotiation of the protocol" the EU will stonewall them, provoking an end to the talks and the resumption of enforcement proceedings, which the UK very much does not want. So the UK is incentivised to engage in talks about how to implement the Protocol, not how to renegotiate it — which is what the EU has wanted all along. So - as so often during the Brexit process - the particular standoff appears to be sidling towards a resolution on the terms the EU wants more than on the terms the UK wants. Fingers crossed, anyway.

On top of all this is the matter of the UK's import controls on goods imported into GB from the EU. You'll recall that, when the transition period ended, the UK was woefully underprepared to operate these, so it gave itself until 1 October before it would implement them. The EU was fine with this, since it confers an advantage on EU producers - they have unfettered access to the GB market, while third-country producers do not, and while GB producers do not have unfettered access to the EU market. When the UK finally does start applying import controls to goods imported into GB from the EU, this will hit Irish producers - particularly the agrifood industry - pretty hard.

The Irish government is trying to link the two issues - suggesting that, in return for the EU accepting the extension of the NI grace periods, the UK will refrain from imposing import controls on EU imports to GB. The UK government denies that there is any link, and says that it hasn't decided what it is going to do about import controls into GB.

Quite a number of observers have pointed out that the UK still seems to be woefully underprepared, in practical terms, to operate import controls. Plus, of course, doing so can only exacerbate the disruption and shortages that GB is already experiencing, and will likely drive up inflation. So they reckon that, whether or not there's any link to the extension of the grace periods, the UK will not be imposing many new import controls on 1 October. It would suit Ireland well if the two issues were linked, since that provides a further reason why the UK would be slow to impose import controls, but the UK doesn't seem to be falling for that.

Thank you for your response. Yes I get that about non-compliant goods going into NI, which is why I referred to Britain rather than UK. But does NI import that much from elsewhere than the EU? If there were a surge in imports then the EU could get interested, but goods going into Britain are supposed to be controlled between Britain and NI at the sea border, is that being ignored too?

NI currently imports much more from GB that it does from the EU, and the risk is that noncompliant goods imported from GB might find their way from NI into the EU.

Goods going into GB from NI (or from the EU) not been controlled on entry into GB is indeed being ignored by the EU. But why would the EU object? In the first place, it is advantageous for the EU. In the second place, and not unrelated, UK has not made, and was never asked to make, any commitment to the EU which is being breached by not controlling EU-GB imports.

The people who might reasonably object to unregulated imports into GB are (a) Brexiters , who were told that Brexit was about recovering control of borders, not abandoning it, and (b) third countries, who are unfairly disadvantaged by having their exports to GB controlled when EU exports to GB are not controlled. But Brexiters vie with one another in demonstrating their willingness to allow Boris Johnson to piss all over them, so they are not likely to raise any objection. And the recourse available to aggrieved third countries via the WTO complaints process is very slow; they'll mostly be hoping the situation resolves itself by political means in less time than it would take to pursue a WTO grievance.

I dunno. I could see a US president getting quite shirty if US goods were subject to all kinds of expensive delays and checks and standards on being imported to the UK, while competing EU goods were waved through. That's obviously not a level playing field for US producers. I think he would argue strongly that if the UK unilaterally grants uncontrolled entry to EU goods when not obliged to by a trade agreement, then the most-favoured-nation principle requires it to grant similar uncontrolled entry to the goods of other nations with which they don't have a trade agreement (including the US).

Yes, I suppose it can't last forever. Some country will complain if it goes on too long (say, years rather than months) and it could be the US. I think the UK will have done something about it before then though, even if they are in a bind right now because this will be another shock/disruption for the UK economy on top of everything else. The current situation is quite unfair to their own exporters vs the potential competitors in the EU exporting goods to the UK post Brexit.