Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

03-03-2021 5:43am

Akrasia wrote: »

The Guardian are reporting that the UK violated EU regulations by failing to inform their EU partners about criminal convictions for 8 years. involving over 112k criminals including over 200 murderers and rapists.

And they knew about their broken reporting system for the past 6 years but didn’t tell anyone because it might harm the UKs reputation

Do the words good riddance have more meaning?

https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2021/mar/02/uk-failed-to-inform-eu-countries-about-almost-200-killers-and-rapists

And they expect to be trusted now as a non-member. Shocking but not surprising about sums up everything out of the UK in the last five years.

fash · 03-03-2021 5:53am

Hurrache wrote: »

The argument that some in the UK are making around the fishing industry is getting more amusing.
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1366834934795624452?s=19

I was reading that the UK is//will be applying the same rule to incoming class B shellfish from Ireland/NI exported to GB. Is that correct? It seemed shockingly hypocritical - even for Brexiters (complain about a law being applied by the EU saying it was totally unreasonable, while doing it yourself).

Peregrinus · 03-03-2021 7:06am

fash wrote: »

I was reading that the UK is//will be applying the same rule to incoming class B shellfish from Ireland/NI exported to GB. Is that correct? It seemed shockingly hypocritical - even for Brexiters (complain about a law being applied by the EU saying it was totally unreasonable, while doing it yourself).

UK does have exactly the same rules regarding importing and selling shellfish as the EU has. They haven't been enforcing them up to now because they haven't been enforcing any of their import rules against imports from the EU because — surprise, surprise! — at the end of transition they were wholly unprepared to implement their own rules.

But they will be implementing them — some rules will be enforced from 1 April, others from 1 July. I'm not sure where the shellfish rules fit on that timetable.

They are entitled to enforce the rules against class B shellfish imported from NI to GB, but they're not obliged to — it's a domestic matter. EU doesn't care whether they do or not, and they certainly have no obligation to. And given that they made a commitment to Unionists at one point that NI would enjoy unfettered access to the GB market, you'd have to think that they probably won't.

But that, of course, creates a (perhaps theoretical) opportunity for IRL producers to export their Class B shellfish to NI without pre-purification , from where — if UK operates no controls on the NI>GB shellfish trade — they could be further exported to GB.

But this may be more theoretical than real, for a couple of reasons.

First, it's not only illegal to import unpurified class B shellfish; it's illegal to sell them to consumers. So - unless the importer intends to flout this law also - importing the unpurified fish only makes sense if you have facilities to purify them in the UK before selling to consumers. And the reason the UK is in a tizz about this is because they have limited purification capacity, so it would be difficult for the importer of the unpurified fish to get them purified in GB.

Secondly, with shellfish it's all about speed. Having to send shellfish IRL>NI, and then send them NI>GB, with presumably some repackaging or relabelling or other jiggery-pokery to conceal the fact that they were imported into NI, would presumably make the journey a bit fraught, and introduce delay or the risk of delay. And that's not a viable business model for shellfish.

It should be noted that Ireland has a lot of production beds in class A waters; shellfish from those beds do not need purification to be imported to GB or sold there. I don't have any figures for what proportion of Irish shellfish production is from class A waters, but it must be signficant.

dogbert27 · 03-03-2021 7:12am

Denmark are to begin sending Syrian refugees home as Syria is now considered safe to return.

An EU country making a sovereign decision regarding it's own borders.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9316633/Denmark-European-country-Syrian-migrants-country.html#comments

Kind of blows that Brexiteer argument out of the water really.

redcup342 · 03-03-2021 9:51am

dogbert27 wrote: »

Denmark are to begin sending Syrian refugees home as Syria is now considered safe to return.

An EU country making a sovereign decision regarding it's own borders.

*link removed*

Kind of blows that Brexiteer argument out of the water really.

They lost the Dublin Protocol, they have a new law they passed in December that if a refugee travels through a safe country they will try to return them there.

They need a replacement deal for that though since they left the EU and the framework.

Peregrinus · 03-03-2021 10:19am

redcup342 wrote: »

They lost the Dublin Protocol, they have a new law they passed in December that if a refugee travels through a safe country they will try to return them there.

They need a replacement deal for that though since they left the EU and the framework.

Meh. This is showboating.

UK is a party to the Refugee Convention, under which if someone has a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds etc etc in their home country, you can't deny them refugee status on the basis that they could have sought refugee status in another safe country through which they passed, but didn't. Asylum-seekers are under no obligation to seek refugee status in the first safe country to which they come. (The reasons for this rule will be obvious to anyone who gives the matter a moment's thought.)

This doesn't mean that you can't return them to a another safe country though. You have to afford them protection as refugees, but not necessarily by letting them settle in your own country; you can do it by arranging for them to settle in another safe country. Obviously, that requires the agreement of the other country.

As pointed out, the Dublin Protocol is such an agreement, allowing (but not requiring) EU countries to return refugees to other EU countries through which they have passed. But the UK is no longer a party to the Dublin Protocol.

The recent change in law in the UK purports to allow the UK, not to grant you refugee status and then protect you by arrangement with another safe country, but to deny you refugee status, send you to another safe country and tell you to seek protection there.

This seems contrary to the obligations the UK has accepted in the Refugee Convention and, when challenged in the courts, will very likely be struck down.

But it won't be challenged in the courts until the UK attempts to deport someone to a safe country through which they passed to have their refugee status determined there. And that's unlikely to happen because no country is likely to accept a deportation under those conditions.

So, the UK has this illegal but fascist-pleasing "get tough with asylum-seekers" law on the books, but it won't be struck down because it can't be operated, and the UK gets to blame other countries for the fact that it can't be operated, when in fact the reason the other countries won't co-operate with it is because it's illegal. What's not to like?*

* [Unless you're an asylum-seeker, languishing in indefinite detention because the UK refuses to adjudicate your claim for protection. But who cares about them?]

Hurrache · 03-03-2021 10:37am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

EU brings in repairable for 10 years law.

This means UK manufacturers will have to comply for goods for sale to the EU

Shoddy UK journalist assumes the UK will implement the same laws for UK consumers.

That's actually a great law.

schmoo2k · 03-03-2021 10:45am

Hurrache wrote: »

That's actually a great law.

I think the UK announced a similar law already (it was mentioned earlier in this thread).

ancapailldorcha · 03-03-2021 10:57am

schmoo2k wrote: »

I think the UK announced a similar law already (it was mentioned earlier in this thread).

Not that I recall. I think there was an ongoing debate in the EU over the right to repair which would suggest that this law is the culmination of that debate.

It's pretty disgusting to see people throwing out functioning devices after a short period of time. It's horrendous for the environment and hopefully this makes manufacturers design them with longevity in mind.

Sam Russell · 03-03-2021 11:51am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

EU brings in repairable for 10 years law.

This means UK manufacturers will have to comply for goods for sale to the EU

Shoddy UK journalist assumes the UK will implement the same laws for UK consumers.

I have a Dyson hand held vacuum cleaner that has a failed battery. The battery includes a circuit that disables the whole thing and flashes a red light to show it has failed. It cannot be repaired even though the unit was functioning fine before. The battery is designed to be impossible to take apart so any attempt at repair will damage the plastic parts that snap together never to part. Batteries have a short life and need to be repairable and it is important that recycling occurs for the cells as they contain valuable elements, but are hazardous.

Repair is not the only problem. I want to upgrade the memory in my computer, but the particular chip in unobtainable because the design of memory is constantly changing - due to new technology. Speed increases, voltage changes, and the socket it plugs into changes.

One thing that could help would be for those domestic appliances that go for recycling are disassembled and the good parts offered for use to repair other examples of that model that need repairs.

This type of legislation is one of the brilliant aspects of the EU that brings sanity to everyday life. They did it with inefficient vacuum cleaners, and with mobile phone chargers. They did it with roaming charges. Let us hope they do not stop here.

CelticRambler · 03-03-2021 1:14pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

EU brings in repairable for 10 years law.

This means UK manufacturers will have to comply for goods for sale to the EU

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK is a rule-taker now. This is one of the rules they have to take.

It'll be interesting to see how this is spun as a Great Tory Idea To Benefit the British Consumer, as has been done to so many previous life-improving EU directives.

03-03-2021 1:32pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I have a Dyson hand held vacuum cleaner that has a failed battery. The battery includes a circuit that disables the whole thing and flashes a red light to show it has failed. It cannot be repaired even though the unit was functioning fine before. The battery is designed to be impossible to take apart so any attempt at repair will damage the plastic parts that snap together never to part. Batteries have a short life and need to be repairable and it is important that recycling occurs for the cells as they contain valuable elements, but are hazardous.

Repair is not the only problem. I want to upgrade the memory in my computer, but the particular chip in unobtainable because the design of memory is constantly changing - due to new technology. Speed increases, voltage changes, and the socket it plugs into changes.

One thing that could help would be for those domestic appliances that go for recycling are disassembled and the good parts offered for use to repair other examples of that model that need repairs.

This type of legislation is one of the brilliant aspects of the EU that brings sanity to everyday life. They did it with inefficient vacuum cleaners, and with mobile phone chargers. They did it with roaming charges. Let us hope they do not stop here.

Those "countdown to death" timers can sometimes be defeated by disconnecting one battery terminal for a few minutes then reconnecting it.
Not really brexit related as it is mainly the multinationals that have pushed the planned obsolescence model, so the more countries that inhibit that the better

Kermit.de.frog · 03-03-2021 1:32pm

UK to announce measures to ease NI protocol later today.

Brandon Lewis, the SoS, said in the commons they are doing this because of the EU's actions in January which were "unacceptable".

The EU gave them this space through absolute negligence and incompetence so we can't really complain.

CelticRambler · 03-03-2021 1:39pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

UK to announce measures to ease NI protocol later today.

Are they your words, or cribbed from somewhere/someone else ... because they make no sense. The NI Protocol cannot be "eased" - it can be amended, or disrespected, or violated, but not "eased".

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The EU gave them this space through absolute negligence and incompetence so we can't really complain.

What space? How can you accuse the EU of "absolute negligence and incompetence" when you haven't actually specified what this "eased" NI protocol will involved.

schmoo2k · 03-03-2021 1:44pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Are they your words, or cribbed from somewhere/someone else ... because they make no sense. The NI Protocol cannot be "eased" - it can be amended, or disrespected, or violated, but not "eased".

The effects can be eased by implementing some of the outstanding allowances (within the current protocol)?

Hurrache · 03-03-2021 1:45pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see how this is spun as a Great Tory Idea To Benefit the British Consumer, as has been done to so many previous life-improving EU directives.

It may happen yet, but here's a Brexit victory out of leftfield, "he makes use of the UK's freedom outside of the EU".
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1367090179652136960

Kermit.de.frog · 03-03-2021 1:49pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Are they your words, or cribbed from somewhere/someone else ... because they make no sense. The NI Protocol cannot be "eased" - it can be amended, or disrespected, or violated, but not "eased".

What space? How can you accuse the EU of "absolute negligence and incompetence" when you haven't actually specified what this "eased" NI protocol will involved.

It will be announced later today. Mr Lewis said in the commons it's as a result of that action in January.

Some measures will be eased in agrifood, specifically goods going to supermakets, and the charging regime.

The problem for us is that it's weakening single market protection even if temporary.

It leaves us more exposed to EU coastal states perhaps deciding that there is an unacceptable gap in the single market they might decide to fill on our behalf.

The moral ground was ceded and that's the be all and end all of it and we didn't even receive as much as a text message.

Gross incompetence and negligence to try make such a consequential action.

It can't be defended. Even the most europhile know they screwed up big time.

03-03-2021 1:49pm

Hurrache wrote: »

It may happen yet, but here's a Brexit victory out of leftfield, "he makes use of the UK's freedom outside of the EU".
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1367090179652136960

This has nothing to do with brexit, what a nonsense headline.

Hurrache · 03-03-2021 1:53pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It will be announced later today. Mr Lewis said in the commons it's as a result of that action in January.

Some measures will be eased in agrifood, specifically goods going to supermakets, and the charging regime.

It'll be a unilateral decision, which is not going to work out very well for them in the long run. Are you still tying to use what the UK threatened more than once as a means of justification?

Kermit.de.frog · 03-03-2021 1:56pm

Hurrache wrote: »

It'll be a unilateral decision, which is not going to work out very well for them in the long run.

Why not? We are the exposed ones.

We are the ones at risk of being excluded from the single market if there is a hole.

All it will take is France, Denmark or Spain to decide they now need checks between them and ROI.

I don't accept the UK is more exposed to these decisions than us.

Kermit.de.frog · 03-03-2021 1:58pm

Hurrache wrote: »

Are you still tying to use what the UK threatened more than once as a means of justification?

I think you're missing the point.

We had them on the back foot over that. They had nowhere to go. We had the moral high ground.

And with one action (all be it not carried through) that was all gone.

It can't be overstated what a politically disasterous move that was for us.

We are now in a situation where what do we say? How do we counter these moves? What can we do?

Enzokk · 03-03-2021 1:59pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It will be announced later today. Mr Lewis said in the commons it's as a result of that action in January.

Some measures will be eased in agrifood, specifically goods going to supermakets, and the charging regime.

The problem for us is that it's weakening single market protection even if temporary.

It leaves us more exposed to EU coastal states perhaps deciding that there is an unacceptable gap in the single market they might decide to fill on our behalf.

The moral ground was ceded and that's the be all and end all of it and we didn't even receive as much as a text message.

Gross incompetence and negligence to try make such a consequential action.

It can't be defended. Even the most europhile know they screwed up big time.

So to UK will enact article 16 of the NI Protocol and they will justify it by saying that because the EU thought about using article 16 they are now entitled to use it. Seems legit and in no way will come back to haunt the UK in any way, shape or form.

This is nothing more than the Tories and Brexiteers not having a freaking clue about Brexit and trying to fix their own stupidity. They have been given a sliver by the EU and will use this as justification for their own mistakes and incompetence. The worrying thing is, you are still believing this is all on the EU and not what is actually happening here.

Hurrache · 03-03-2021 1:59pm

They're treading invoking article 16 in all but name.

schmoo2k · 03-03-2021 2:06pm

Interesting - April 2023 UK will up corporate tax to 25% (from 19%?).

Kermit.de.frog · 03-03-2021 2:07pm

Enzokk wrote: »

They have been given a sliver by the EU and will use this as justification for their own mistakes and incompetence. The worrying thing is, you are still believing this is all on the EU and not what is actually happening here.

I never said it's all on the EU.

I'm saying they undermined the whole position. That this was about the peace process and all that stuff. That was the narrative throughout.

Prior to that everything was in our favor. Like I say the Tories had no where to go.

Now they have been provided with some justification and why wouldn't they use it?

They are using it now.

My worry is that if they wanted to they could go a lot further.

Seth Brundle · 03-03-2021 2:10pm

schmoo2k wrote: »

Interesting - April 2023 UK will up corporate tax to 25% (from 19%?).

is that definite or currently just speculation?

Hurrache · 03-03-2021 2:14pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

is that definite or currently just speculation?

Definitive
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1367098386386735104

schmoo2k · 03-03-2021 2:15pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

is that definite or currently just speculation?

25% is - I am not 100% what the old rate was (this is tax on profits)

03-03-2021 2:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This has nothing to do with brexit, what a nonsense headline.

It does somewhat afaik.
Payment limits without authentication is defined by the European Banking Agency as €50.

Payments above that require stronger authentication.

Hurrache · 03-03-2021 2:17pm

It's a Brexit bonus for muggers and pick pockets anyway.

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Comments