Brexit

[Irons]

A government minister interviewed on national news was more then happy to admit that it broke international law. I found this odd as the normal course would be with serious face claim black is white. I can only think the UK thinks the game is up, negotiations are going nowhere and Northern Ireland would still keep the UK shackled to the EU. Or more likely, this is a move on the chessboard of negotiations to put Barnier on the back foot. The EU have called the shots and set the agenda from day one and before going back to Cameron.

[Que]

I'm flabbergasted by the UK govt's latest move....

I think the only reason that Johnson signed the withdrawal agreement was the hope of continued access to the internal market on his terms. Now that seems unlikely and the benefits of the transition period have already been reaped, it is for the Tories too high a price to pay for Brexit. Signing the withdrawal agreement was the means to a political end.

For the EU the withdrawal agreement was always a settlement on pre-existing international obligations in relation to the peace in Northern Ireland and financial obligations the UK had already committed to.

What the UK does now, seems an attempt to blackmail to me. The exit bill will not be paid and the NI protocol will be breached.

A dangerous strategy that will fail and could blow up relations with the EU, Anglo-Irish relations and last but not least: peace in Northern Ireland.


Breaking the law over Brexit: how the UK is playing dirty in EU talks

Q

[J.A.W.]

Why negotiate any longer with people who obviously cannot be trusted and who are prepared to break treaties they signed? A waste of time.

[JBS]

A tweet in my Twitterfeed today brought up the point that one part of this Internal Market bill gives Westminster powers in areas devolved to the government of Scotland.

IOW, they are shafting both Northern Ireland and Scotland.

[Que]

Well, Johnson certainly got the attention of the world now.. 


And in a statement yesterday, Pelosi said: "Whatever form it takes, Brexit cannot be allowed to imperil the Good Friday agreement, including the stability brought by the invisible and frictionless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

The UK must respect the Northern Ireland protocol as signed with the EU to ensure the free flow of goods across the border.

If the UK violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/09/brexit-bill-northern-ireland-criticised-as-obvious-breach-of-international-law

[J.A.W.]

The latest developments: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54097320

[Herman]

I have a hard time picturing the EU leveling a fine at the UK.

A) What are they going to do if Boris says "f*ck you, I'm not going to pay fines."

B) The minute the EU does this Putin is going to call Boris and do the sweet talk.

C) Boris and the Real Brexiteers (it's not a band) will use this (A) in the next election to boost Tory chauvinism, and Europe will have another rogue state on its hands.

[Que]

So the EU has already made clear any deal is off unless the UK govt backs down.

And it probably won't...

I always thought these negotiations would go out with a whimper, but is with a bang! 

Q

[Que]

Joke I read on the internet:

A Spanish annexation of Gibraltar would only breach the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) "in a very specific and limited way".

Q

[Iota]

Joke I read on the internet:

A Spanish annexation of Gibraltar would only breach the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) "in a very specific and limited way".

Q

Heh.

Well, Johnson certainly got the attention of the world now.. 


And in a statement yesterday, Pelosi said: "Whatever form it takes, Brexit cannot be allowed to imperil the Good Friday agreement, including the stability brought by the invisible and frictionless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

The UK must respect the Northern Ireland protocol as signed with the EU to ensure the free flow of goods across the border.

If the UK violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/09/brexit-bill-northern-ireland-criticised-as-obvious-breach-of-international-law

I'm surprised that the Pelosi statement didn't get a bit more attention, but perhaps she's not really in a position to be so unequivocal with November elections coming up that may alter the balance of power in the House. If it was a non-negotiable US position, I'd have thought even the crass Johnson and his vacuity-burbling cohorts can't just ignore it. Though there's much in the labyrinthine maneuverings of poiltics that's not clear to me ..

[Que]

Another Boris lie:

PM Johnson accuses EU of using threatening food blockade (Reuters)


So, the Tories want to paint the EU as "the enemy" real bad....
But I guess by now it's their only option to save their own skin, though is really sad to see to what level to UK has sunk to...

Do I hear a death knell ringing for the UK's political system, and possibly for the UK as a state?

Q

[Irons]

Another Boris lie:

PM Johnson accuses EU of using threatening food blockade (Reuters)


So, the Tories want to paint the EU as "the enemy" real bad....
But I guess by now it's their only option to save their own skin, though is really sad to see to what level to UK has sunk to...

Do I hear a death knell ringing for the UK's political system, and possibly for the UK as a state?

Q

Why is it bad, they are. For political purposes from day one - and I did say it way back on this thread - the main aim of the EU is for the UK to come out of Brexit badly. I do not blame them for one minute, if the UK rides off into a prosperous sunset others will follow with probably Italy next.

So the EU take the moral high-ground? Yeah right!

Like the idiot he often is Johnson knowing a deal is increasingly unlikely tries to wriggle out out of an agreement signed by him that ties him up like a kipper. He shouldn't have signed it in the first place! Anyway, I think it unlikely he will get the bill in it's present state through both houses. Just another episode in the delightful process of Brexit. I am sick of it!

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Why is it bad, they are. For political purposes from day one - and I did say it way back on this thread - the main aim of the EU is for the UK to come out of Brexit badly. I do not blame them for one minute, if the UK rides off into a prosperous sunset others will follow with probably Italy next.

So the EU take the moral high-ground? Yeah right!

Like the idiot he often is Johnson knowing a deal is increasingly unlikely tries to wriggle out out of an agreement signed by him that ties him up like a kipper. He shouldn't have signed it in the first place! Anyway, I think it unlikely he will get the bill in it's present state through both houses. Just another episode in the delightful process of Brexit. I am sick of it!

I feel for you--particularly with everything else going on in the world these days! 

PD

[Que]

[...] the main aim of the EU is for the UK to come out of Brexit badly. I do not blame them for one minute, if the UK rides off into a prosperous sunset others will follow with probably Italy next.

[...]

I have to - strongly - disagree. And that assumption is the root of the whole lack of trust...
The aim of the EU is to minimise the economic damage by forming a new economic relationship with the UK that is as
close as possible without undermining the integrity of the internal market.

The EU doesn't have to make any effort whatsoever to make the UK "worse off"... The UK has already done that to itself by leaving the EU and deciding to leave the internal market as well.

Full economic benefits are only possible if you're part of the internal market - and a country can't be 
simultaneously "in" and "out". That should make any sense... at least that is what Theresa May discovered.
A country can however be outside of the EU,  but still be part of the internal market (without participating in the EU decision making process) - an option that the UK has rejected (after the referendum).

What the EU won't agree to is a "free rider" status for the UK. This would, given the size of the UK economy, severly disrupt the level playing field within the internal market. Apart from the fact that other countries might want the same - which is quite impossible, since it would mean the end of the internal market. If every member state would turn into an economic parasite, there wouldn't be anything to feed on...

Q

[Mandryka]

Why is it bad, they are. For political purposes from day one - and I did say it way back on this thread - the main aim of the EU is for the UK to come out of Brexit badly. I do not blame them for one minute, if the UK rides off into a prosperous sunset others will follow with probably Italy next.

So the EU take the moral high-ground? Yeah right!

Like the idiot he often is Johnson knowing a deal is increasingly unlikely tries to wriggle out out of an agreement signed by him that ties him up like a kipper. He shouldn't have signed it in the first place! Anyway, I think it unlikely he will get the bill in it's present state through both houses. Just another episode in the delightful process of Brexit. I am sick of it!

Tied up like an oven ready chicken. They don't call us Perfidious Albion for nothing.

[Irons]

I have to - strongly - disagree. And that assumption is the root of the whole lack of trust...
The aim of the EU is to minimise the economic damage by forming a new economic relationship with the UK that is as
close as possible without undermining the integrity of the internal market.

The EU doesn't have to make any effort whatsoever to make the UK "worse off"... The UK has already done that to itself by leaving the EU and deciding to leave the internal market as well.

Full economic benefits are only possible if you're part of the internal market - and a country can't be 
simultaneously "in" and "out". That should make any sense... at least that is what Theresa May discovered.
A country can however be outside of the EU,  but still be part of the internal market (without participating in the EU decision making process) - an option that the UK has rejected (after the referendum).

What the EU won't agree to is a "free rider" status for the UK. This would, given the size of the UK economy, severly disrupt the level playing field within the internal market. Apart from the fact that other countries might want the same - which is quite impossible, since it would mean the end of the internal market. If every member state would turn into an economic parasite, there wouldn't be anything to feed on...

Q

Good points well made, but everything you say is from the EU perspective. What the EU is prepared or not to do which would leave the UK as a vassal state much worse off in all respects then being a member of the Union. I regret us leaving but a disgrace that after over four years from a democratic vote the leaving process has not completed. Johnson has got many things wrong but insisting that the transition period ends in December, deal or no-deal, is right.

PS. How do you know Britain has made itself worse off by leaving the EU when it has yet to happen?

[Madiel]

PS. How do you know Britain has made itself worse off by leaving the EU when it has yet to happen?

But you have already left the EU.

There is sometimes a deeply weird mindset about all this in the UK, that seems to involve not understanding that once you leave the EU your notional legal starting point is to be in exactly the same position as all the countries that have never been in the EU. All of the arrangements have to be negotiated. If you want an arrangement similar to Norway or Switzerland then you have to organise that with the EU, just like they have.

The thing is, you have already organised it. Some of the language out of the UK about all the glorious international post-Brexit deals tends to ignore that the very first deal has already been done. It was with the EU. And now the UK government seems to think that it's perfectly okay to break it's very first post-Brexit deal, as if the rest of the world wouldn't think, what's the point of negotiating a deal with these guys?

You're outside the EU now. You get to negotiate with the EU just the same way that Australia does. Only for various reasons, including the fact that you have a land border and a lot of strong trade links, the EU is probably a lot more interested in having trade deals with you. But they're hardly going to be interested in negotiating further deals with you when you tear the first one up.

This is not an "EU perspective". I'm not in the EU. This is an "anyone outside the UK who hasn't been drinking the kool-aid" perspective. This whole process within the UK seems to have been affected by some extremely weird notions, starting with how the UK Parliament acted as if its internal negotiations were the ones that mattered rather than just being internal squabbles on one side of the negotiating table. And now there seems to be a lack of recognition that Brexit has already started. You're in a transitional arrangement that the EU offered in an attempt to help everyone, not in an attempt to make the UK worse off. The EU has no reason to want the UK worse off. What the EU is doing is trying to respect the UK's wishes, which unfortunately is made nearly impossible by the UK's wishes being nearly incoherent and mutually exclusive.

[Que]

What the EU is prepared or not to do which would leave the UK as a vassal state much worse off in all respects then being a member of the Union.

I agree that remaining in the internal market but leaving the EU and giving up a substantial influence in the decision making process, doesn't make much sense for a large country like the UK. But neither does leaving in the first place.

I don't agree that the term "vassal state" is an appropriate term for countries that bind themselves tho the rules of the internal market, like Norway, even though they are set by the EU. Firstly, "vassal states" are states that are sovereign in name only and are mainly allowed to run their internal affairs, while their external policies and defence are run by a foreign power. Secondly, the internal market rules does not cover all policies, non-economical ones are excluded. BTW treaties covering human rights etc. are not part of the EU. Thirdly, the system of the European Economic Area allowes for some deviations and derogations,  mainly in regards to the free movement of persons.

I regret us leaving but a disgrace that after over four years from a democratic vote the leaving process has not completed. Johnson has got many things wrong but insisting that the transition period ends in December, deal or no-deal, is right.

The cause of that is IMO due to a democratic vote that was based on wrong assumptions. Which resulted in a political process with a strategy that was out of touch with reality. Just look at how May struggled to retain all the benefits of being part of the internal market, while wanting to leave it. I am frankly surprised about the lack of knowledge in the UK among public and politicans alike about the economic and political mechanisms of the EU.

PS. How do you know Britain has made itself worse off by leaving the EU when it has yet to happen?

I'm not an economist, but this is economic reality.
Free trade creates substantial economic gains, losing it will create substantial economic losses.
Even the most hardcore Brexiteers (now) admit that. But their story is that these lost trade opportunities will be replaced by other opportunities in trade with other countries and by new opportunities in developing the national economy that were previously impossible. By the admission of Brexiteers themselves this process of compensation could take as long as ten years (!) But the UK is now completely sovereign, which is according to them worth every penny.

Firstly, the argument of compensating trade deals denies the fact that trade relations are dominated by geographic proximity.
No trade deals with the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand are going to make up for lost trade with your neighbours. Secondly, trade between the UK and a lot of those countries was already covered by a trade deal - with the EU.
Only if the terms of the bilateral deal the UK will negotiate are more beneficial than the existing (EU) deal, there would any amount of additional benefit. Extremely unlikely, if you ask me... Though this is indeed the claim of the UK govt. on the pending deal with Japan. I would have to see confirmation by independent experts to believe it. And even then, the terms of
a deal are not decisive on the actual amount of trade that will be conducted. The UK outside of the EU could possibly be less attractive for Japanese companies to do businesses with.

Q

[Irons]

But you have already left the EU.

We most certainly have not.

[Que]

We most certainly have not.

The UK is no longer a member state,  but due the transition period  it is still part of the internal market.
It has, temporarily, a status similar to that of Norway, if you like.

Q