Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Yes, but the UK has been an independent state all along. It was always free to terminate the arrangements under which it enjoyed free movement - as evidenced by the fact that it has in fact terminated them.

So, the UK was always free to switch to a needs-base immigration policy. It has now terminated free movement, but not to switch to a needs-based policy which, for the reasons pointed out, doesn't seem to them to be a practicable or attractive policy for the UK.

Having "control" to let immigrants in is so very far away from the advantages of freedom of movement though, something they can't replicate now. I moved to the UK when I was young, studied a Masters there, did some part time odd jobs to pay my way during my studies and went job searching after that, eventually worked my way up my chosen career, became a founder at a company founded 100% by immigrants that went on to employ dozens of British people and paid a fortune in tax, while I also personally paid tax, contributed to the local economy etc etc.

I never would have moved there if I didn't know I'd have everything I have at home in terms of being able to search for and switch jobs, having a safety net if things go wrong, being able to do all of that without excessive paperwork or immigration issues hanging over my head. It's a million miles away from being told that if you're already a qualified truck driver you'll be "allowed" to come over for a few months before being kicked out again. They're not going to find good people like that.

I'm back home now (along with my partner who left her job in an NHS hospital, a role that has still not been filled 2+ years later according to her former colleagues), not directly because of Brexit because as Irish citizens we still have the common travel area that confers most of the benefits, but raising a child in a country with those values was certainly one of the things that played into my decision (and that's not just something "in the media", I experienced increased racism from people in pubs etc in the last few years there), along with the fear of the economic consequences they're beginning to see, what that might mean for the prospects of my family, if our home would lose value etc.

I have friends from mainland Europe who also left the UK, leaving behind well paid, highly taxed jobs with much more tangible Brexit related reasons - they did qualify for visas but were facing lots of paperwork and just didn't have the confidence they could continue their lives there and wouldn't have the rug pulled out from under them if they left their job or needed healthcare or whatever.

As said by others: UK always had that. The status quo ante remains the same for 90-95% of the world population - the UK can implement any "points based system" it wanted - and nothing has changed.

In relation to Ireland, the UK retains its status quo arrangement of free movement under the CTA.

All that has changed is that the UK has made changes to a category of people who are not "rest of world" and are not "Irish".

And let's consider what the UK did previously in relation to the category and what is appropriate for that category from a UK perspective. Up to 2016, the UK proactively encouraged migration from this category - and failed to implement any of its powers to exclude anyone from this category.

Furthermore, as regards where the UK is now, the HGV representatives had been screaming for months if not years about the lack of HGV drivers and the shortages that would result. The UK government ignored them and delayed and finally implemented a half hearted response.

Fruit and vegetables have rotted, food spoiled, milk poured down the drain, pigs and turkeys need to be culled as a result of an inefficient migration system.

All that is "unwieldy" and "cumbersome". Please don't pretend that it is not.

Furthermore it is expensive and slow - drivers need passports, visas, health insurance etc - adding substantial and otherwise unnecessary costs.

Lord Frost is still banging his deluded drum. No matter how many times he says it it doesn't change the fact that this was his agreement that he signed up to and what the EU is asking the UK to keep their legal word to.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10056391/Lord-Frost-drawn-plans-replace-Northern-Ireland-Protocol.html

He said: 'All history, all experience, shows that democratic countries with free economies, which let people keep more of the money they have earned, make their own decisions, and manage their own lives, are not just richer but also happier and more admired by others.

'That is where we need to take this country. The opportunities are huge. The long bad dream of our EU membership is over. The British renaissance has begun.'  

Complete nonsense with no substance.

Finland and Denmark have both been the happiest countries in the world in the last number of years. Both democratic countries, both in the EU.

The British renaissance has begun 🙄

I’ve taken to call this a capacity crisis, more than a labour supply crisis as such: thousands of EU27 artics that were present within UK supply chains at any given time under cabotage rules (what your first paragraph describes), representing a domestic haulage capacity in aggregate, that gradually ceased to exist from 01/01/21 onwards, moreover as UK>EU27 exporting loads were also drying up fast.

This is feeding a significantly worse supply chain crisis in the background, right now and which still very few are talking about (beside some logistics experts and specialists at the coalface): the cancellation of new fret for the UK at exporters across the world, because non-moving UK-bound fret already ‘in the pipe’ is backing up and filling up available storage volumes, causing port operators, customs agents (etc) to increasingly refuse UK-bound fret drops.

One wonders if the Brexiteer outright denials that there is anything wrong with Brexit will seriously derail any attempts to fix it? How do you solve a problem if you claim that the problem doesn't even exist or if you attribute it to something else, not even connected to it?

But it seems patchwork or done in the manner of 'firefighting'. They're still claiming Brexit is a fantastic idea, is a big success with no downsides and should be pursued with zeal.

"If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol."

Im not worried. A16 can't undermine the protocol.

Brexit is clearly a standalone ideology like communism or socialism (or even fascism). Its adherents believe that the UK cannot belong to any form of political or economic union and must be 'sovereign' at all costs.

The problem with an ideology though is that it can never be wrong. If you believe in it, you believe in it 100% and therefore it can have no negatives or drawbacks.

Article 16 doesn't get rid of the Protocol though. This is a common misconception among the Brexiteers. It would merely allow the UK to take certain unilateral actions (such as how it conducts customs checks etc). But it is very much part of the Protocol and cannot be used to get rid of the Protocol itself. For that to happen, the Brexiteers would have to rip up the entire Protocol or announce they are walking away from it.

If this Tory government could have justifiably invoked A16 on anything they would have done so by now.

They have nothing.

They are a pretty extraordinary government from that point of view. They don't seem to have any sort of long term plan or strategy. They don't even seem to believe in Brexit - it's just a convenient tool for them. Stay in power for the sake of being in power and gaslight their voters with slogans and propaganda.

The UK can invoke "diversion of trade" as a mechanism for triggering Art 16 because it says they can, right there in Art 16. The fact that other things can lead and have led to much greater diversions of trade is irrelevant.

The real question is, what is meant by "diversion of trade"? All deals that regulate the terms and conditions on which trade is conducted lead to some diversion of trade — that's usually the whole point. We tinker with the rules so as to cause trade to happen that wouldn't otherwise happen, or so as to cause trade to happen this way rather than that way. Obviously, that kind of diversion of trade isn't a problem; far from it.

So, in the trade nerd world, when a trade deal talks about "diversion of trade" as something that might require action to address it, the trade nerds understand that to mean something like "diversion of trade that we didn't expect and don't want". And, in the Art 16, context, that reading makes particular sense, since "diversion of trade" is grouped along with "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist" as something that entitles a party to take remedial action.

So, if the UK is going to invoke Art 16, and is going to rely on "diversion of trade' as the grounds for doing so, they are going to have to point the particular diversion of trade that bother them (fulminating vaguely about British sausages isn't going to cut it; we need facts, details, data) and then argue that that's something that the parties didn't intend when they made the deal.

A difficulty they will face here is establishing what they intended when they signed up. At the time of the deal and for well after they lied blatantly and publicly about what the deal provided, how it would operate, etc, etc. So they don't come into this dispute exactly trailing clouds of good faith, and their statements about what they intended and expected will lack credibility. They're going to have to rely very heavily on the evidence/intentions of the parties as stated in or inferred from the Protocol itself. And, unhelpfully for them, the Protocol states that its objectives are "to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, to maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation, to avoid a hard border and to protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions". The objectives do not include the protection of the UK internal market. The only specific references are in Article 6, which says that:

"Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom's internal market"; and

"Having regard to Northern Ireland's integral place in the United Kingdom's internal market, the Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours to facilitate the trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom, in accordance with applicable legislation and taking into account their respective regulatory regimes . . . "

There's not a lot there for the UK to hang its hat on, frankly.