BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

if the UK wants to depart from EU regulations, somewhere there will be a border.

If they want NI to stick with UK regs, the border will be there with Ireland. If not, they can stick it in the Irish sea.

That's about the size of it. I can't see any other way around this other than the UK staying in the EU/single market & customs union.

But then it all comes back to this. There's no squaring the circle.

Some see a border as a price worth paying.

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

They certainly could have framed it better. Tony Connelly wrote a good article on it. The issue at hand is that both sides (EU and UK) were trying to use NI to gain advantage in future negotiations. Without any commitment, the UK could try to force the EU into a favourable position for the UK (in Dover for example) based on the need to protect the GFA/BA. Equally, with a backstop, the EU could try to force regulatory compliance onto the UK.

The whole thing is a shambles, but the phasing (no future relationship talk) is a complete disaster.

Ireland is far from blameless though, and having been dealt a bad hand decided to triple down on it, instead of talking to the EU26 about what would be acceptable.

Ok so what changes occur if we include future relationship talk at this stage, and what time frame do we give the future relationship talks.

Theoretically the back stop is (as I understand) an insurance policy against the future relationship talks not proving fruitful. I imagine, given the current political situation, even if we had negotiated a future relationship over the past 2 years, it still would have had difficulty passing through parliament. At which point we'd just end up with no deal again?

I feel like a lot of blame is put on the sequencing of the talks, when the reality is that whatever way round you carry out the negotiations, it's going to be challenging to come out with all the benefits of a customs union and single market, but have none of the regulations, and be able to do your own trade deals.

If you agree what the future relationship looks like then you can agree what you are going to do about the Irish border.

rick_chasey

Something particularly amusing about leaks about politicians warning people about the consequences of leaking stuff.



Enjoyed the specific "7.55am" detail.

rick_chasey

I'm glad the government is still very keen to do something that requires billions of pound emergency preparation, stockpiling of essentials, the biggest public information warning campagin since the biggest war the UK has ever fought and suspending laws.

Sounds like it's obviously going to be f*cking great.

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

They certainly could have framed it better. Tony Connelly wrote a good article on it. The issue at hand is that both sides (EU and UK) were trying to use NI to gain advantage in future negotiations. Without any commitment, the UK could try to force the EU into a favourable position for the UK (in Dover for example) based on the need to protect the GFA/BA. Equally, with a backstop, the EU could try to force regulatory compliance onto the UK.

The whole thing is a shambles, but the phasing (no future relationship talk) is a complete disaster.

Ireland is far from blameless though, and having been dealt a bad hand decided to triple down on it, instead of talking to the EU26 about what would be acceptable.

Ok so what changes occur if we include future relationship talk at this stage, and what time frame do we give the future relationship talks.

Theoretically the back stop is (as I understand) an insurance policy against the future relationship talks not proving fruitful. I imagine, given the current political situation, even if we had negotiated a future relationship over the past 2 years, it still would have had difficulty passing through parliament. At which point we'd just end up with no deal again?

I feel like a lot of blame is put on the sequencing of the talks, when the reality is that whatever way round you carry out the negotiations, it's going to be challenging to come out with all the benefits of a customs union and single market, but have none of the regulations, and be able to do your own trade deals.

If you agree what the future relationship looks like then you can agree what you are going to do about the Irish border.

It's also much harder to agree, in a legal document, how you are going to agree something in the future, than simply agreeing something now. The situation is not without precedent in that regard.

Yes, it may still not have found a solution, but it would have been more likely to find one.

In terms of time, three years has been spent on this, and very little has been accomplished, so that time could have been used. Looking forwards, they would need to come up with some sort of fudged A50 extension / transition period to negotiate it.

With regard to the blame, I don't see many people other than me blaming the sequencing or May for agreeing to it. Davis was completely against it. He was also against a backstop without a time limit. May chose to ignore his advice.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Something particularly amusing about leaks about politicians warning people about the consequences of leaking stuff.



Enjoyed the specific "7.55am" detail.

Meanwhile, as Boris’s chief adviser, he admits the he “doesn’t know very much about very much.”.
We’re doomed. Doomed I tell you. :? :shock:

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

They certainly could have framed it better. Tony Connelly wrote a good article on it. The issue at hand is that both sides (EU and UK) were trying to use NI to gain advantage in future negotiations. Without any commitment, the UK could try to force the EU into a favourable position for the UK (in Dover for example) based on the need to protect the GFA/BA. Equally, with a backstop, the EU could try to force regulatory compliance onto the UK.

The whole thing is a shambles, but the phasing (no future relationship talk) is a complete disaster.

Ireland is far from blameless though, and having been dealt a bad hand decided to triple down on it, instead of talking to the EU26 about what would be acceptable.

Ok so what changes occur if we include future relationship talk at this stage, and what time frame do we give the future relationship talks.

Theoretically the back stop is (as I understand) an insurance policy against the future relationship talks not proving fruitful. I imagine, given the current political situation, even if we had negotiated a future relationship over the past 2 years, it still would have had difficulty passing through parliament. At which point we'd just end up with no deal again?

I feel like a lot of blame is put on the sequencing of the talks, when the reality is that whatever way round you carry out the negotiations, it's going to be challenging to come out with all the benefits of a customs union and single market, but have none of the regulations, and be able to do your own trade deals.

If you agree what the future relationship looks like then you can agree what you are going to do about the Irish border.

It's also much harder to agree, in a legal document, how you are going to agree something in the future, than simply agreeing something now. The situation is not without precedent in that regard.

Yes, it may still not have found a solution, but it would have been more likely to find one.

In terms of time, three years has been spent on this, and very little has been accomplished, so that time could have been used. Looking forwards, they would need to come up with some sort of fudged A50 extension / transition period to negotiate it.

With regard to the blame, I don't see many people other than me blaming the sequencing or May for agreeing to it. Davis was completely against it. He was also against a backstop without a time limit. May chose to ignore his advice.

It was Davis that agreed to it. That’s been widely reported.

bobmcstuff

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

if the UK wants to depart from EU regulations, somewhere there will be a border.

If they want NI to stick with UK regs, the border will be there with Ireland. If not, they can stick it in the Irish sea.

That's about the size of it. I can't see any other way around this other than the UK staying in the EU/single market & customs union.

But then it all comes back to this. There's no squaring the circle.

Some see a border as a price worth paying.

That's fine but someone needs to own up to that - at the moment both sides are saying there needs to be an open border in Ireland and we are saying there can't be one in the Irish Sea either, which doesn't leave many options other than those already on the table. If the UK came out and said they were prepared to accept a border somewhere then maybe it would be different - at the moment the UK is still in "cake and eat it" mode.

Can't help thinking that if May had managed to keep her majority then with her red lines we might already be out with a border in the Irish sea.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

With regard to the blame, I don't see many people other than me blaming the sequencing or May for agreeing to it. Davis was completely against it. He was also against a backstop without a time limit. May chose to ignore his advice.

It was Davis that agreed to it. That’s been widely reported.

It was going to be "the row of the summer" then he gave it up on day 1 of the negotiations. He clearly was against it, but rolled over for whatever reason.

rick_chasey

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

With regard to the blame, I don't see many people other than me blaming the sequencing or May for agreeing to it. Davis was completely against it. He was also against a backstop without a time limit. May chose to ignore his advice.

It was Davis that agreed to it. That’s been widely reported.

It was going to be "the row of the summer" then he gave it up on day 1 of the negotiations. He clearly was against it, but rolled over for whatever reason.

To illustrate how little leverage he had with a petty symbolic story; every time him and Barmier made an announcement, it would be done in Brussels or Strasbourg. This was despite the fact David Davis was really insistent that it be held in alternate venues to show the parity. Apparently every time they announced it he would get his team to set up the paraphernalia in the UK and every time it ended up being pointless as it was always done on the continent.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

With regard to the blame, I don't see many people other than me blaming the sequencing or May for agreeing to it. Davis was completely against it. He was also against a backstop without a time limit. May chose to ignore his advice.

It was Davis that agreed to it. That’s been widely reported.

It was going to be "the row of the summer" then he gave it up on day 1 of the negotiations. He clearly was against it, but rolled over for whatever reason.

To illustrate how little leverage he had with a petty symbolic story; every time him and Barmier made an announcement, it would be done in Brussels or Strasbourg. This was despite the fact David Davis was really insistent that it be held in alternate venues to show the parity. Apparently every time they announced it he would get his team to set up the paraphernalia in the UK and every time it ended up being pointless as it was always done on the continent.

That sounds like the EU from Varoufakis' book too. If it was always going to end up like this, they should have read that and understood what he was getting at.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

With regard to the blame, I don't see many people other than me blaming the sequencing or May for agreeing to it. Davis was completely against it. He was also against a backstop without a time limit. May chose to ignore his advice.

It was Davis that agreed to it. That’s been widely reported.

It was going to be "the row of the summer" then he gave it up on day 1 of the negotiations. He clearly was against it, but rolled over for whatever reason.

To illustrate how little leverage he had with a petty symbolic story; every time him and Barmier made an announcement, it would be done in Brussels or Strasbourg. This was despite the fact David Davis was really insistent that it be held in alternate venues to show the parity. Apparently every time they announced it he would get his team to set up the paraphernalia in the UK and every time it ended up being pointless as it was always done on the continent.

What does Barnier have to show for his negotiating excellence?

rick_chasey

I don’t really get this line of argument.

The U.K. wants to leave, it can’t come to an agreement on how it wants to do it but now it’s Barnier’s fault?

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t really get this line of argument.

The U.K. wants to leave, it can’t come to an agreement on how it wants to do it but now it’s Barnier’s fault?

The UK has nothing to show for its three years either. There are currently no winners only losers. May resigned (albeit six months later than she should), Robbins resigned, Weyland was promoted and Barnier remains with his agreement that can't be agreed. So, does it matter that he managed to beat David Davis in the photo op competition? Or that he "won" the sequencing argument which has been a complete failure. Just like May and Robbins, he has failed in the one job he had. Of course, he can say that is entirely the UK's fault, but only a fool would believe that.

As an aside, the TV series Ransom is about negotiation. The main character always repeats the mantra about providing what someone needs not what they want. The UK of GB and NI needs sovereignty (e.g. an exit clause to the WA), it wants a trading only membership of the EU that it doesn't need to pay for plus some perks. Any deal had to include the former, it didn't have to include the latter.

rick_chasey

I think we disagree over what the U.K. needs and wants and I don’t think the U.K. parliament agrees with itself either.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think we disagree over what the U.K. needs and wants and I don’t think the U.K. parliament agrees with itself either.

Are you contesting that the UK doesn't need sovereignty, or that the WA isn't a loss of sovereignty? I would have thought the former is indisputable for any country. You can probably argue about the latter, but I would have thought it would be quite a weak argument.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t really get this line of argument.

The U.K. wants to leave, it can’t come to an agreement on how it wants to do it but now it’s Barnier’s fault?

The UK has nothing to show for its three years either. There are currently no winners only losers. May resigned (albeit six months later than she should), Robbins resigned, Weyland was promoted and Barnier remains with his agreement that can't be agreed. So, does it matter that he managed to beat David Davis in the photo op competition? Or that he "won" the sequencing argument which has been a complete failure. Just like May and Robbins, he has failed in the one job he had. Of course, he can say that is entirely the UK's fault, but only a fool would believe that.

As an aside, the TV series Ransom is about negotiation. The main character always repeats the mantra about providing what someone needs not what they want. The UK of GB and NI needs sovereignty (e.g. an exit clause to the WA), it wants a trading only membership of the EU that it doesn't need to pay for plus some perks. Any deal had to include the former, it didn't have to include the latter.

I'll say it again. Barnier has not completely failed. The integrity of the SM is maintained and others agitating to leave have been dissuaded. We on the other hand have...

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think we disagree over what the U.K. needs and wants and I don’t think the U.K. parliament agrees with itself either.

Are you contesting that the UK doesn't need sovereignty, or that the WA isn't a loss of sovereignty? I would have thought the former is indisputable for any country. You can probably argue about the latter, but I would have thought it would be quite a weak argument.

Given the UK's continuing membership of things like Nato, the UN etc, I don't think sovereignty is that important, as it gives up elements of sovereignty to be a member.

I would contest that in reality, the economic advantages it enjoys are probably a higher priority for most people-day-to-day.

Even if you disagree, I think it's hard to say parliament is unified in what it wants out Brexit, as every conceivable option was ruled out in parliament.

I would contest that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate with a side that does not know what it wants.

Barnier came to an agreement with the UK, which was the withdrawal agreement. The UK government thought it would pass through parliament (otherwise why did they agree to it) but the UK threw its toys out the pram.

This, when you consider the consistent rhetoric during the referendum suggests the challenges are on the UK's side, as its position has not been, and still isn't, consistent, whereas, for all its faults, the EU's has, and it has actually come to an agreement at some point.

It has even said, if the UK wants to redraw its red lines, they will re-open negotiations, but that is not on the cards.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t really get this line of argument.

The U.K. wants to leave, it can’t come to an agreement on how it wants to do it but now it’s Barnier’s fault?

The UK has nothing to show for its three years either. There are currently no winners only losers. May resigned (albeit six months later than she should), Robbins resigned, Weyland was promoted and Barnier remains with his agreement that can't be agreed. So, does it matter that he managed to beat David Davis in the photo op competition? Or that he "won" the sequencing argument which has been a complete failure. Just like May and Robbins, he has failed in the one job he had. Of course, he can say that is entirely the UK's fault, but only a fool would believe that.

As an aside, the TV series Ransom is about negotiation. The main character always repeats the mantra about providing what someone needs not what they want. The UK of GB and NI needs sovereignty (e.g. an exit clause to the WA), it wants a trading only membership of the EU that it doesn't need to pay for plus some perks. Any deal had to include the former, it didn't have to include the latter.

I'll say it again. Barnier has not completely failed. The integrity of the SM is maintained and others agitating to leave have been dissuaded. We on the other hand have...

That could have been achieved by an inanimate statue unless you believe his photo ops have been truly persuasive. I'm not overly ambitious, but I do like to outperform inanimate objects.

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t really get this line of argument.

The U.K. wants to leave, it can’t come to an agreement on how it wants to do it but now it’s Barnier’s fault?

The UK has nothing to show for its three years either. There are currently no winners only losers. May resigned (albeit six months later than she should), Robbins resigned, Weyland was promoted and Barnier remains with his agreement that can't be agreed. So, does it matter that he managed to beat David Davis in the photo op competition? Or that he "won" the sequencing argument which has been a complete failure. Just like May and Robbins, he has failed in the one job he had. Of course, he can say that is entirely the UK's fault, but only a fool would believe that.

As an aside, the TV series Ransom is about negotiation. The main character always repeats the mantra about providing what someone needs not what they want. The UK of GB and NI needs sovereignty (e.g. an exit clause to the WA), it wants a trading only membership of the EU that it doesn't need to pay for plus some perks. Any deal had to include the former, it didn't have to include the latter.

I'll say it again. Barnier has not completely failed. The integrity of the SM is maintained and others agitating to leave have been dissuaded. We on the other hand have...

That could have been achieved by an inanimate statue unless you believe his photo ops have been truly persuasive. I'm not overly ambitious, but I do like to outperform inanimate objects.

Nevertheless, while they won't escape unscathed, they will have achieved two of their goals.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think we disagree over what the U.K. needs and wants and I don’t think the U.K. parliament agrees with itself either.

Are you contesting that the UK doesn't need sovereignty, or that the WA isn't a loss of sovereignty? I would have thought the former is indisputable for any country. You can probably argue about the latter, but I would have thought it would be quite a weak argument.

Given the UK's continuing membership of things like Nato, the UN etc, I don't think sovereignty is that important, as it gives up elements of sovereignty to be a member.

The UK is able to leave those organisations. It is not free to leave the WA.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I would contest that in reality, the economic advantages it enjoys are probably a higher priority for most people-day-to-day.

That's a pro-colonialism / anti-democracy argument. The people of HK may be better off under Chinese rule, but I support their rights to self-determination

Rick Chasey wrote:

Even if you disagree, I think it's hard to say parliament is unified in what it wants out Brexit, as every conceivable option was ruled out in parliament.

The Brady amendment had a majority.

Rick Chasey wrote:

I would contest that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate with a side that does not know what it wants.

It is hard negotiating with someone incompetent, but it is not impossible. That's where the actual skill comes in.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Barnier came to an agreement with the UK, which was the withdrawal agreement. The UK government thought it would pass through parliament (otherwise why did they agree to it) but the UK threw its toys out the pram.

I am not convinced they thought it would. I think they thought it might eventually. May was desperate enough to try.

Rick Chasey wrote:

This, when you consider the consistent rhetoric during the referendum suggests the challenges are on the UK's side, as its position has not been, and still isn't, consistent, whereas, for all its faults, the EU's has, and it has actually come to an agreement at some point.

It has even said, if the UK wants to redraw its red lines, they will re-open negotiations, but that is not on the cards.

Even if the UK decided to join the EEA. I think the WA would still need to be signed. That's the one with no break clause.

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t really get this line of argument.

The U.K. wants to leave, it can’t come to an agreement on how it wants to do it but now it’s Barnier’s fault?

The UK has nothing to show for its three years either. There are currently no winners only losers. May resigned (albeit six months later than she should), Robbins resigned, Weyland was promoted and Barnier remains with his agreement that can't be agreed. So, does it matter that he managed to beat David Davis in the photo op competition? Or that he "won" the sequencing argument which has been a complete failure. Just like May and Robbins, he has failed in the one job he had. Of course, he can say that is entirely the UK's fault, but only a fool would believe that.

As an aside, the TV series Ransom is about negotiation. The main character always repeats the mantra about providing what someone needs not what they want. The UK of GB and NI needs sovereignty (e.g. an exit clause to the WA), it wants a trading only membership of the EU that it doesn't need to pay for plus some perks. Any deal had to include the former, it didn't have to include the latter.

I'll say it again. Barnier has not completely failed. The integrity of the SM is maintained and others agitating to leave have been dissuaded. We on the other hand have...

That could have been achieved by an inanimate statue unless you believe his photo ops have been truly persuasive. I'm not overly ambitious, but I do like to outperform inanimate objects.

Nevertheless, while they won't escape unscathed, they will have achieved two of their goals.

And the UK achieves its goal of leaving the EU. Rejoice. I hope your architectural standard is higher than "well the building is still standing at the end of the project"!

rjsterry

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Even if you disagree, I think it's hard to say parliament is unified in what it wants out Brexit, as every conceivable option was ruled out in parliament.

The Brady amendment had a majority.

It was so vague as to mean anything to anyone. Nobody has presented a specific detailed proposal of what 'alternative measures' means, even to parliament, let alone the EU. We've had a group belatedly working on it, but so far we just have some possibilities that might become workable solutions at some point.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Even if you disagree, I think it's hard to say parliament is unified in what it wants out Brexit, as every conceivable option was ruled out in parliament.

The Brady amendment had a majority.

Was that a demand to replace the backstop with a non-defined “alternative arrangements”?


Ahahahahahaha. It rejected every other alternative arrangement in the meantime.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Even if you disagree, I think it's hard to say parliament is unified in what it wants out Brexit, as every conceivable option was ruled out in parliament.

The Brady amendment had a majority.

Was that a demand to replace the backstop with a non-defined “alternative arrangements”?


Ahahahahahaha. It rejected every other alternative arrangement in the meantime.

Yes, having said no to the backstop, the Brady amendment formalised that as wanting something else.

fenix

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don’t really get this line of argument.

The U.K. wants to leave, it can’t come to an agreement on how it wants to do it but now it’s Barnier’s fault?

Everyone can see this is going to be a disaster for the UK so now the government have to spin it that it's somehow the fault of the evil EU. Despite the UK not knowing what it wants or having any clue at all what to do with the Border in Ireland.

The forthcoming drug and food shortages will also be painted as the EU being mean to us - when it's the incompetence of our Government to blame.

surrey_commuter

the public information campaign will be interesting. They have to be scary enough for people/businesses to make appropriate arrangements but presumably have to still be able to claim that it is all a big fuss about nothing.

fenix

Surrey Commuter wrote:

the public information campaign will be interesting. They have to be scary enough for people/businesses to make appropriate arrangements but presumably have to still be able to claim that it is all a big fuss about nothing.

But eventually IF we brexit - the sh** will hit the fan. And seeing as people called 999 when KFC ran out of chicken - I don't see the public being happy about empty shelves for no good reason...

tailwindhome

NI agrifood preparations for Brexit.

Short version - invest in having facilities both sides of the border, same as they did in 1922



https://twitter.com/JP_Biz/status/11590 ... 16801?s=19

I would recommend JP Campbell BBC NI business editor on all things business and Brexit relating to NI.

fenix

Incredibly expensive to have two locations when you only needed one. This will undoubtedly kill businesses.