Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Timm]

14 minutes ago, thehowler said:

That's a good point, I've updated my list of possible outcomes - and added my own view in brackets:

1 - we get a hard border. (Not going to happen.)

2 - UK govt takes the deal already proposed. (Doesn't look good given the govt bill this week - but possible they cave.)

3 - we get a new FTA where EU agrees to dilute SM controls (and LPF/state aid requests) in NI under the protocol. (Still my pick.)

4 - we devise a new fudge for the GFA open border. (Possible, the EU is very good at this, but no sign of it happening.)

5 - Irish reunification removes border problem. (Need a referendum, potential for unionist outrage/violence, lengthy litigation.)

And we stay in transition until then?

Sorry. We move into the glorious uplands of the post transition continuity agreement. *cough*

[thehowler]

4 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

We're not Canada. We are huge economic competitors on their doorstep. No other country would agree to deep market access in those conditions without LPF rules. We're also asking for more than Canada anyway (bilateral financial service rules). We also have the border between Ireland and NI to worry about.

This has been explained to you already, no? 

You either consider LPF as absolute and requiring dynamic alignment with EU rules and regs or you think it's a question of nuance and scale.

And when's the last time you heard a govt minister asking for bilateral financial service rules under equivalence? My impression is that the govt have thrown the City to the wolves. We'll be lucky to get equivalence.

[smash]

5 minutes ago, kzb said:

They are connected.  I didn't watch Newsnight fortunately.

Dunno what "connected" would mean or have any basis legally. Jenkin was implying that the WA was signed conditionally, no idea if there are any clauses to that effect in the WA. 

[dugsbody]

3 minutes ago, thehowler said:

And when's the last time you heard a govt minister asking for bilateral financial service rules under equivalence? My impression is that the govt have thrown the City to the wolves. We'll be lucky to get equivalence.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-finance/britain-eu-clash-over-financial-market-access-diplomats-idUKKBN2392ER

June

Quote

But Britain wants special treatment to ensure its finance industry has more predictable access to the EU, which is Britain’s biggest financial services export market, worth about 26 billion pounds annually.

“The UK is seeking co-management of financial equivalence decisions,” an EU diplomat said on Tuesday.

“They want an in-built consultation process so that unilateral revoking of any licences would not be as easy as it is for third countries currently,” the person said.

 

[rollover]

3 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

I don't think the EU is pushing the UK, it's just the reality of the situation - Brexit is essentially incompatible with one or more of fully UK integrity and the GFA. This has been pointed out repeatedly over the last 3 years and isn't any less true now. It's like BJ is saying if he jumps off a cliff he can fly and the EU keeps reminding BJ that gravity exists, then BJ insisting that gravity is an evil EU plot. It doesn't make gravity not exist just because you believe it doesn't and it doesn't make you a traitor if you believe in gravity.

It's almost like a dream come true for some people who would like to return into dark ages of persecution and mistreat people for not believing in Brexit miracles.

[thehowler]

6 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

You're now going back to your bad old ways where you're completely biased. There is no "ceding" NI to the EU, any more than the GFA agreement was "ceding" NI to Ireland.

I'm not going to bother replying sensibly to nonsense posts like this. Stick with the facts please.

The facts are all in the Internal Markets Bill, I suggest you take a look. The UK are saying - as explicitly as possible given a minister has stated they'll break international law to do it - that they will not accept some EU rules and regs in NI under the protocol.

Got that?

Thus, if the EU want to protect said rules and regs they will need border checks NI-ROI or checks between ROI and the EU.

Or they'll need to negotiate a FTA that dilutes said rules and regs to a point where the UK govt agrees to abide by them.

[kzb]

6 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

It's not coercion. 

The US demands for a FTA, are they coercion?

Fishing grounds and NI border are nothing to do with a trade deal.

State subsidy would be, I admit, but most countries manage to compromise on this.

It is looking like we'll join the CPTPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) long before we get a FTA with the EU, precisely because the CPTPP is about trade, not internal affairs.

[IMHAL]

39 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Ah, the old 'agency' argument is never settled.

May I ask, is there any time limit on the EU's get-out-of-jail card that absolves them of any responsibility/co-authorship/responsibility for the nature of our future relationship that's being negotiated as we speak? Will they be free of culpability until the world ends, as said relationship evolves? Might they take on some share of responsibility for how the relationship develops after a UK GE or two, or are future generations of Brits condemned to forever shoulder sole and total blame for the Great Brexit Betrayal?

The terms you use suppose that the EU is somehow at fault. The EU's responsibility is to it's members and their interests. If the UK suffers in the process then that is not of their making. If the EU also suffers in the process then the EU will be guilty of that and that alone. It's a balancing act where they really only need to consider their position.......I thought that much would be obvious.

[erat_forte]

1 minute ago, thehowler said:

The facts are all in the Internal Markets Bill, I suggest you take a look. The UK are saying - as explicitly as possible given a minister has stated they'll break international law to do it - that they will not accept some EU rules and regs in NI under the protocol.

Got that?

Thus, if the EU want to protect said rules and regs they will need border checks NI-ROI or checks between ROI and the EU.

Or they'll need to negotiate a FTA that dilutes said rules and regs to a point where the UK govt agrees to abide by them.

Or, sicne the UK has signed the WA as an international treaty, the EU could use the courts to force the UK to abide by what it signed up to?

[dugsbody]

10 minutes ago, kzb said:

It is looking like we'll join the CPTPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) long before we get a FTA with the EU, precisely because the CPTPP is about trade, not internal affairs.

Want to bet on that?

Edited September 10, 2020 by dugsbody

[kzb]

4 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

The terms you use suppose that the EU is somehow at fault. The EU's responsibility is to it's members and their interests. If the UK suffers in the process then that is not of their making. If the EU also suffers in the process then the EU will be guilty of that and that alone. It's a balancing act where they really only need to consider their position.......I thought that much would be obvious.

Same for UK.  Assuming you live in the UK, why are you not sticking up for your own side?

[rollover]

2 hours ago, smash said:

The underlying thing appears to be a personal idealism - people saying to themselves (and others) "Its should work like this..." without any consideration to factors outside of the abstract, which is why nothing has been made real out of brexit. You can see the same indulgence here on the dinghy migrants thread with "tw@t up their boats mid channel.." and "I think that application for asylum should be done at the UK embassy in their home country...". There's no consideration of the fact that the UK is tied to safety of life at sea agreements and tw@tting up dinghys will have consequences or the international asylum system and agreements. You know, the actual practical realities of the situation.

You mean something like "Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way." ?

[IMHAL]

40 minutes ago, kzb said:

Other trade deals do not expect one of the signatories to compromise their sovereignty.

Has Canada or Japan sacrificed sovereignty in their EU trade deals?

Is there an example where a trade deal depended on one state having jurisdiction over fishing in the other states' waters?

Trade deals are all about compromising your sovereignty in some way...by agreement. These treaties mean that you cannot unilaterally change terms willy nilly, hence your sovereignty IS compromised....by agreement....usually because you feel it is of advantage to do so.

In this case NI complicates matters greatly...but that was know from the onset and the risks apparent..... #theyknewwhattheyvotedfor......#projectfear means that risks do not apply to Brexiteers.... yeah right! 

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by IMHAL

[kzb]

1 minute ago, dugsbody said:

Want to be on that?

It looks a lot better now that the US has dropped its conditions (by walking).

[erat_forte]

1 minute ago, kzb said:

Same for UK.  Assuming you live in the UK, why are you not sticking up for your own side?

Great idea. Lets start with that most British of institutions - the Rule of Law.

[IMHAL]

1 minute ago, kzb said:

Same for UK.  Assuming you live in the UK, why are you not sticking up for your own side?

Of course I live in the UK and I am sticking up for my own side that is why  I voted Remain so that we did not have to go through this idiotic chit.

[thehowler]

12 minutes ago, Timm said:

And we stay in transition until then?

Sorry. We move into the glorious uplands of the post transition continuity agreement. *cough*

Drat. Another good point. And another update required!

1 - we get another transition/implementation period (The "Timm Extension") from Jan 1st 2021, delaying things to a point unknown. (I know some posters still want this...but look at the Johnson govt! I think it's unlikely.)

2 - we get a hard border NI/ROI. (Not going to happen.)

2a - we get a border between ROI and EU. (Would lead instantly to legal challenge. ROI very unhappy but could get EU grants.)

3 - UK govt takes the deal already proposed. (Doesn't look good given the govt bill this week - but possible they cave.)

4 - we get a new FTA where EU agrees to dilute SM controls (and LPF/state aid requests) in NI under the protocol. (Still my pick.)

5 - we devise a new fudge for the GFA open border. (Possible, the EU is very good at this, but no sign of it happening.)

6 - Irish reunification removes border problem. (Need a referendum, potential for unionist outrage/violence, lengthy litigation.)

Place your bets!

[dugsbody]

5 minutes ago, thehowler said:

The facts are all in the Internal Markets Bill, I suggest you take a look. The UK are saying - as explicitly as possible given a minister has stated they'll break international law to do it - that they will not accept some EU rules and regs in NI under the protocol.

Got that?

Oh sure, that was what happened yesterday. That isn't my point. You're back to using misleading emotive language designed to paint the EU negatively. There is no "ceding" NI to the EU in the agreement, unless you also think the GFA was "ceding" NI to Ireland. 

Do you?

5 minutes ago, thehowler said:

Thus, if the EU want to protect said rules and regs they will need border checks NI-ROI or checks between ROI and the EU.

Or they'll need to negotiate a FTA that dilutes said rules and regs to a point where the UK govt agrees to abide by them.

Again, I agree that your'e describing the actions of the UK government. A government that previously signed this agreement and lied to the public about it in an election manifesto. 

What happens next is guesses but my guess is no deal. The EU should not bow to hostage takers and deal breakers. No other country would and so far the patience by the EU has been remarkable.

I have a vested interest in the UK and EU agreeing a fantastic deal but I just don't think that fantastic deal exists that will allow the Tory government to retain its majority due to a small minority of swing voters and hard-headed nutcases.

 

[thehowler]

15 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-finance/britain-eu-clash-over-financial-market-access-diplomats-idUKKBN2392ER

June

 

Nothing there from the UK govt and proposal rejected outright anyway.

We're not asking for very much and we're going to get even less.

[Riedquat]

12 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

The terms you use suppose that the EU is somehow at fault. The EU's responsibility is to it's members and their interests. If the UK suffers in the process then that is not of their making. If the EU also suffers in the process then the EU will be guilty of that and that alone. It's a balancing act where they really only need to consider their position.......I thought that much would be obvious.

In negotiations all positions need to be considered, not just your own, if you want an outcome that actually works - it stands a greater chance of success if it's mutually beneficial. The EU has the added burden (which its supporters refuse to face) that it also needs to consider whether something that's good for the EU is also good for its members or not, and not just take a dogmatic view that they're one and the same.

Nothing anyone's said has convinced me that the EU isn't still acting like a spoiled child being told another kid doesn't want to play with them right now, that it's more interested in getting one over the UK and thus creating an ongoing sour relationship than having any interest in trying to find if there's anything mutually beneficial. You may well say the UK's no better, but that doesn't let the EU off the hook.

Edited September 10, 2020 by Riedquat

[dugsbody]

Just now, thehowler said:

Nothing there from the UK govt and proposal rejected outright anyway.

We're not asking for very much and we're going to get even less.

We're asking for

• a comprehensive low tariff trade deal
• reversing the joint fishing rights we previous agreed on
• bilateral rights to agree the rules of equivalence for selling financial services into a foreign sovereign territory
• enjoy all the benefits of a stable Europe created via the union but without contributing anything to maintaining that union

Sounds like quite a lot to me. But then, I'm no expert on international trade agreements, just like 99.9% of the rest of the population.

[thehowler]

10 minutes ago, erat_forte said:

Or, sicne the UK has signed the WA as an international treaty, the EU could use the courts to force the UK to abide by what it signed up to?

Void given the UK govt have just said they will not abide by international law. Of course, the EU can pursue sanctions and other actions - justified in my view - but it will take years and it won't deal with the NI-ROI border problem for the EU - keeping it open while protecting the integrity of the SM.

[IMHAL]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

In negotiations all positions need to be considered, not just your own, if you want an outcome that actually works - it stands a greater chance of success if it's mutually beneficial. The EU has the added burden (which its supporters refuse to face) that it also needs to consider whether something that's good for the EU is also good for its members or not, and not just take a dogmatic view that they're one and the same.

Only in so much as you have to consider any ill efects that it will have on you...that's it...period. In this case it looks like no-deal is better than a bad deal....for the EU at least.

Now if the UK wanted a Norway type deal....we would not have an issue. Afterall.... it's still Brexit..and that is what the majority of voters would actually accept as a compromise.

[thehowler]

16 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

The terms you use suppose that the EU is somehow at fault. The EU's responsibility is to it's members and their interests. If the UK suffers in the process then that is not of their making. If the EU also suffers in the process then the EU will be guilty of that and that alone. It's a balancing act where they really only need to consider their position.......I thought that much would be obvious.

Wait, if the EU suffers because of the Brexit process that will be solely the fault of the EU!

I think of it more as a shared - though unwelcome - enterprise, with degrees of responsibility for the outcome.

[dugsbody]

9 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Nothing anyone's said has convinced me that the EU isn't still acting like a spoiled child being told another kid doesn't want to play with them right now

Of course it hasn't, because you're blinded by bias.