RugbyRebels

We are negotiating, okay it's a style akin to a suicide jumper atop the Shard wearing an explosive vest pointing a gun at our head, our demands make no sense and vary wildly, we go back and forth on our resolution to jump such most onlookers don't think we want to but we're also too scared and embarrassed to climb down, but it is a negotiation. Sort of

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Ian Dunt has been superb on Brexit from day one.

His whole column is spot on, but this sums up our current plight perfectly for me -

"But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase.

That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy.

On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking"

I’m not arguing that we’ve handled this anything but abysmally, but isn’t this how the EU have conducted their negotiations? Regional parliaments in Belgium demanded changes to CETA, and were accommodated, after negotiators had agreed the treaty. Are we now saying that parliament must just give a tacit nod to any treaty put before them, rather than scrutinise them and ask for changes if they feel it necessary?

The difference is that Parliament aren't asking for specific changes that can be agreed or disagreed with, but the removal of something vital to the working of the treaty with unspecified "alternative arrangements". We're not negotiating, we're simply refusing and hoping the problem goes away.

Puja

That may be true but the analyst 5P quotes is not demanding that we come up with ideas but that ‘This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner’, ie our negotiating team agreed something but then our legislature had the temerity to ask for a change, exactly as the Wallonian parliament did.
Also, it’s not vital to the working of the treaty. It is solely there if the aim of the treaty - a comprehensive deal - is not achieved.
Finally, UK politicians have given examples of what they would like, eg time limited backstop, unilateral revocation of the backstop, no backstop whatsoever. They have also given the example of Max Fac which was repeatedly poo pooed when the UK suggested it but was suggested by Barnier when looking at ways to avoid a no deal hard border.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I’m not arguing that we’ve handled this anything but abysmally, but isn’t this how the EU have conducted their negotiations? Regional parliaments in Belgium demanded changes to CETA, and were accommodated, after negotiators had agreed the treaty. Are we now saying that parliament must just give a tacit nod to any treaty put before them, rather than scrutinise them and ask for changes if they feel it necessary?

The difference is that Parliament aren't asking for specific changes that can be agreed or disagreed with, but the removal of something vital to the working of the treaty with unspecified "alternative arrangements". We're not negotiating, we're simply refusing and hoping the problem goes away.

Puja

That may be true but the analyst 5P quotes is not demanding that we come up with ideas but that ‘This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner’, ie our negotiating team agreed something but then our legislature had the temerity to ask for a change, exactly as the Wallonian parliament did.
Also, it’s not vital to the working of the treaty. It is solely there if the aim of the treaty - a comprehensive deal - is not achieved.
Finally, UK politicians have given examples of what they would like, eg time limited backstop, unilateral revocation of the backstop, no backstop whatsoever. They have also given the example of Max Fac which was repeatedly poo pooed when the UK suggested it but was suggested by Barnier when looking at ways to avoid a no deal hard border.

The difference is that the Wallonian parliament wanted something specific and asked for it. We are saying we'd like things different, we're not sure how, and even if you give it to us it's not certain that it'd get through Parliament anyway cause an indicative, non-binding vote passed on the shallowest majority.

Also, what is the point of a backstop with a deadline or that can be unilaterally revoked?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
The difference is that Parliament aren't asking for specific changes that can be agreed or disagreed with, but the removal of something vital to the working of the treaty with unspecified "alternative arrangements". We're not negotiating, we're simply refusing and hoping the problem goes away.

Puja

That may be true but the analyst 5P quotes is not demanding that we come up with ideas but that ‘This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner’, ie our negotiating team agreed something but then our legislature had the temerity to ask for a change, exactly as the Wallonian parliament did.
Also, it’s not vital to the working of the treaty. It is solely there if the aim of the treaty - a comprehensive deal - is not achieved.
Finally, UK politicians have given examples of what they would like, eg time limited backstop, unilateral revocation of the backstop, no backstop whatsoever. They have also given the example of Max Fac which was repeatedly poo pooed when the UK suggested it but was suggested by Barnier when looking at ways to avoid a no deal hard border.

The difference is that the Wallonian parliament wanted something specific and asked for it. We are saying we'd like things different, we're not sure how, and even if you give it to us it's not certain that it'd get through Parliament anyway cause an indicative, non-binding vote passed on the shallowest majority.

Also, what is the point of a backstop with a deadline or that can be unilaterally revoked?

Puja

Mostly agreed but, again, the analyst is saying we are unreliable negotiating partners, ie our legislature haven’t just given the deal the ok. I’m not arguing that parliament have acted correctly (who would), just that the accusation of us being an unreliable negotiating partner is either wrong or, by association, saying the EU was an unreliable negotiating partner for Canada.

The point of a back stop is that if an agreement isn’t reached - by the arbitrary 31st Dec 2020 demanded by the EU - there is something in place to keep the wheels turning. The backstop therefore by definition is temporary, otherwise it wouldn’t be a backstop at all but just the final deal, so why not put a deadline on it. People want a time limited backstop as they think the EU will drag their heels and, though I disagree, it’s not a wholly unreasonable conclusion to reach.
The act of unilateral revocation would include a fairly substantial notice period. Not sure what is wrong with this request. I’m no expert but I don’t know of any international treaty or, for that matter, pretty much any form of contract in which one party can’t unilaterally walk away, albeit with a penalty to pay. Parliament have shown there is nowhere near the numbers for a no deal, which is what walking away from the back stop would be. With this now clear, what is the EU’s reason for not agreeing to it. Even if it were a 1 year notice period that would pretty much get us to the 5 years of negotiations the EU have always told us it takes to sort these kind of things.

Seems easier to give up Northern Ireland, who to isn't clear

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: That may be true but the analyst 5P quotes is not demanding that we come up with ideas but that ‘This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner’, ie our negotiating team agreed something but then our legislature had the temerity to ask for a change, exactly as the Wallonian parliament did.
Also, it’s not vital to the working of the treaty. It is solely there if the aim of the treaty - a comprehensive deal - is not achieved.
Finally, UK politicians have given examples of what they would like, eg time limited backstop, unilateral revocation of the backstop, no backstop whatsoever. They have also given the example of Max Fac which was repeatedly poo pooed when the UK suggested it but was suggested by Barnier when looking at ways to avoid a no deal hard border.

The difference is that the Wallonian parliament wanted something specific and asked for it. We are saying we'd like things different, we're not sure how, and even if you give it to us it's not certain that it'd get through Parliament anyway cause an indicative, non-binding vote passed on the shallowest majority.

Also, what is the point of a backstop with a deadline or that can be unilaterally revoked?

Puja

Mostly agreed but, again, the analyst is saying we are unreliable negotiating partners, ie our legislature haven’t just given the deal the ok. I’m not arguing that parliament have acted correctly (who would), just that the accusation of us being an unreliable negotiating partner is either wrong or, by association, saying the EU was an unreliable negotiating partner for Canada.

The point of a back stop is that if an agreement isn’t reached - by the arbitrary 31st Dec 2020 demanded by the EU - there is something in place to keep the wheels turning. The backstop therefore by definition is temporary, otherwise it wouldn’t be a backstop at all but just the final deal, so why not put a deadline on it. People want a time limited backstop as they think the EU will drag their heels and, though I disagree, it’s not a wholly unreasonable conclusion to reach.
The act of unilateral revocation would include a fairly substantial notice period. Not sure what is wrong with this request. I’m no expert but I don’t know of any international treaty or, for that matter, pretty much any form of contract in which one party can’t unilaterally walk away, albeit with a penalty to pay. Parliament have shown there is nowhere near the numbers for a no deal, which is what walking away from the back stop would be. With this now clear, what is the EU’s reason for not agreeing to it. Even if it were a 1 year notice period that would pretty much get us to the 5 years of negotiations the EU have always told us it takes to sort these kind of things.

The problem with a deadline is that what happens if the deadline passes? What happens after that? Same with the unilateral revocation. You can't say that something will disappear without saying what will happen in its place.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
The difference is that the Wallonian parliament wanted something specific and asked for it. We are saying we'd like things different, we're not sure how, and even if you give it to us it's not certain that it'd get through Parliament anyway cause an indicative, non-binding vote passed on the shallowest majority.

Also, what is the point of a backstop with a deadline or that can be unilaterally revoked?

Puja

Mostly agreed but, again, the analyst is saying we are unreliable negotiating partners, ie our legislature haven’t just given the deal the ok. I’m not arguing that parliament have acted correctly (who would), just that the accusation of us being an unreliable negotiating partner is either wrong or, by association, saying the EU was an unreliable negotiating partner for Canada.

The point of a back stop is that if an agreement isn’t reached - by the arbitrary 31st Dec 2020 demanded by the EU - there is something in place to keep the wheels turning. The backstop therefore by definition is temporary, otherwise it wouldn’t be a backstop at all but just the final deal, so why not put a deadline on it. People want a time limited backstop as they think the EU will drag their heels and, though I disagree, it’s not a wholly unreasonable conclusion to reach.
The act of unilateral revocation would include a fairly substantial notice period. Not sure what is wrong with this request. I’m no expert but I don’t know of any international treaty or, for that matter, pretty much any form of contract in which one party can’t unilaterally walk away, albeit with a penalty to pay. Parliament have shown there is nowhere near the numbers for a no deal, which is what walking away from the back stop would be. With this now clear, what is the EU’s reason for not agreeing to it. Even if it were a 1 year notice period that would pretty much get us to the 5 years of negotiations the EU have always told us it takes to sort these kind of things.

The problem with a deadline is that what happens if the deadline passes? What happens after that? Same with the unilateral revocation. You can't say that something will disappear without saying what will happen in its place.

Puja

I agree that a time limit isn’t a good idea but the UK certainly should be allowed to leave unilaterally with a decent notice period.

Stephen Crabb, a former Tory minister, says this -
"For what it's worth, a few thoughts on the backstop and why we shouldn’t be tripping over ourselves to bin it. A thread:
Peace in Northern Ireland is the biggest achievement in UK politics in last fifty years. The fruit of enormous effort and sacrifice. Successive UK governments have owned it, paying tribute along the way to the tough men and women who were big enough to compromise and do a deal.
The 1998 Belfast Agreement was always intended to be a living peace agreement with ongoing North-South economic cooperation built in. That happened within a unified framework of the Single Market & CU. The implications of Brexit for this were an afterthought at best in 2016.
In Dec 2017 we agreed to notion of a NI 'backstop’ as insurance policy that our proposed Brexit (Lancaster House) would do nothing to disrupt current patterns of economic & social life across the border.
Was clear then that the backstop would have some teeth. No one left government in protest. Joint Report hailed as a breakthrough moment in negotiations. Widely supported across Conservative party.
The final form of backstop in Withdrawal Agreement reflected a key UK demand that it should be a UK-wide arrangement rather than NI-specific. This was a concession we asked for and got. Backstop would kick in if no alternative arrangements found.
Rather than embrace the fruit of our efforts the backstop immediately slated as a trap concocted by (a) the tricky Irish to further unity aspirations and/or (b) malevolent Commission to keep UK locked into CU indefinitely & stop us doing trade deals.
9 weeks before we are due to leave the EU, the idea that our end-game strategy should now be built around proposal to gut the backstop from WA is just not in the real world & not consistent with “solemn commitment” to the people of NI.
Our reversal on backstop, along with mutterings about revisiting the Belfast Agreement or using No Deal threat to force Irish to compromise, just serves to underline the need for backstop in the first place. Backstop is about locking in something good amidst uncertainty"

On Dunt's comments, he is simply right, isnt he? Can anyone say that what we have witnessed during the last 2 and a half years isnt a terrible stain on our credibility and good standing in the world. we have made ourselves a laughing stock.
I'm embarrassed by whats gone on and angry about the pitiful performance of those in Govt, as well as the shower supposed to be in opposition.

Crabb is not too bad when he’s not being a perv.

What Dunt said above is mostly true. We are a shambles and it is embarrassing. However, I’ll argue to the cows come home that parliament not just accepting the deal put before them as fait accompli does not make us unreliable negotiating partners. I’d also point out that we’ve signed a fair few deals with non-EU27 countries for existing arrangements to continue once we leave and a lot of countries have come forward saying that they will be happy to negotiate FTA’s with us once we are able to. Though, that maybe because they think they can take us to the cleaners. A further point is that negotiating an FTA with a country you have no current relationship with is a whole lot easier than disentangling yourself from the EU whilst respecting the GFA.

Voting down May's deal is in itself fine, also voting down no deal in addition to voting down indicative votes is however pathetic. The problem of us addressing a non party political issue within party political structures is hardly unique to us, but refusing across the board to seek a unity position and even look like we'll vastly increase the powers of the executive at cost to democracy whilst simultaneously refusing to plan for the fact we don't want to make any decisions, that's not perhaps unique but rather more unusual

I've made no effort to check out the story as reported, but on the Today programme earlier they were reporting investment by car manufacturers in the UK has fallen over the last three years by 80%, maybe it's all project fear, my judgement is perhaps out on account of being so fearful

Digby wrote:I've made no effort to check out the story as reported, but on the Today programme earlier they were reporting investment by car manufacturers in the UK has fallen over the last three years by 80%, maybe it's all project fear, my judgement is perhaps out on account of being so fearful

source?

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:I've made no effort to check out the story as reported, but on the Today programme earlier they were reporting investment by car manufacturers in the UK has fallen over the last three years by 80%, maybe it's all project fear, my judgement is perhaps out on account of being so fearful

source?

The Today programme, as alluded to, I wasn't planning on contacting them to chase it further

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:I've made no effort to check out the story as reported, but on the Today programme earlier they were reporting investment by car manufacturers in the UK has fallen over the last three years by 80%, maybe it's all project fear, my judgement is perhaps out on account of being so fearful

source?

The Today programme, as alluded to, I wasn't planning on contacting them to chase it further

It sounds a bit extreme, 80% less. Maybe they're right about this project fear thing. GFCF figures look alright for the motor manufacturing industry at least up to 2017.

The effects of "no deal" by David Henig

No deal advocates have no plan for no deal.

Never mind the more excitable stories, the following WILL happen in a no-deal Brexit

1/
UK products will face tariffs if sold into the EU - for example cars at 10% and shoes at 8%. Some UK producers will become uncompetitive when facing these tariffs, especially compared to EU producers, and will therefore cease production

2/
UK products which require testing to be placed on the EU market will need a test carried out within the EU, a UK test will not be sufficient. This will add costs to production.

3/
There will be no customs cooperation between the UK and EU, thus for example no mutual recognition of the Authorised Economic Operator scheme. Products are therefore likely to take more time to go through customs checks

4/
UK agricultural exporters will face potentially even higher tariffs, such as 42% on cheddar cheese. Our access to the lower tariff rate quotas is uncertain, without which many agricultural exports will be incompetitive

5/
There will also be extensive checks on EU agricultural exports to the EU, which will further add costs, and there will not be veterinary equivalence schemes in place to facilitate these

6/
UK service providers will not have the right to sell certain services across the EU, particularly direct from the UK. In many cases they will have to set up new offices in the EU

7/
Many UK based staff will not have the right to work across the EU, for example as tour reps for UK travel companies. EU citizens would have to take these roles

8/
UK haulage companies would not be able to carry loads between EU destinations, and could for the short term only carry from UK to an EU destination and return. This will make them uncompetitive to EU hauliers

9/
The tariffs on goods, and restrictions on services, will also apply to countries with who the EU has a current trade agreement that the UK fails to replicate - for example there is likely to be no agreement with Turkey

10/
In no-deal Brexit there will be no agreement with the EU on data adequacy or financial services equivalence. This will mean extra cost for all UK companies who move data between UK and EU for example

11/
The UK Government will have to decide on whether to keep or reduce our own tariffs. This will not be an easy decision - lower tariffs may help consumers but harm UK producers and developing countries who currently get particular privileges

12/
Over 50% of UK trade will be affected by these changes. Less than 10% of EU trade will be affected by these changes. UK costs will rise, EU costs are unlikely to do so. This will be a major change to the terms of trade between us

13/
These issues are why even no-deal advocates talk of 'managed no-deal', or a deal with the EU. But if all of this is going to affect the UK more than the EU there is no reason for the EU to offer a more generous deal than that on offer now

14/
All of these are the sort of issues which are typically resolved in a free trade agreement. But these take time, typically in the EU 5-7 years. Waiting this time would mean all of these issues being maintained, affecting UK competitiveness

15/
Some no-deal advocates claim the UK could gain competitiveness by scrapping EU regulations, however it would be difficult then to negotiate a trade deal with the EU at the same time.

16/
The UK is expecting to start Free Trade Agreement negotiations with US and others in a no-deal situation. However if the UK economy is changing it will not be clear which sectors the UK should prioritise.

17/
Well known incompatibilities between US and EU will also cause problems, if we accept US agriculture this will make a good trade deal with the EU harder. It will take time for the UK to make these decisions

18/
As from the date of a no-deal Brexit UK companies will have no easy redress for business issues in the EU or countries with whom there is no trade agreement e.g. delayed containers, staff refused permission to work.

19/
The UK Government will have to take business issues up diplomatically with the EU, a process that typically takes a number of years to resolve individual issues. EU Single Market tools like Solvit will not be available

20/
It is all of these reasons - not even the more excitable shortage stories - why the EU believes the threat of no-deal to be non-credible. They believe that no UK Government could survive the economic harm likely from the above

21/
There is no plan from no-deal supporters to address the issues outlined above. The Government's plan is to hope the absolute worst doesn't happen, but they also have no realistic future plan

22/
No-deal puts up a high economic barrier between the UK and our largest and nearest trading partner. This cannot be a sustainable long term position, and never has been in 2000 years.

23/
As workers and consumers no deal has the potential to cause problems for millions in the UK, particularly if it happens in less than two months. This is now the key message that needs to be spread

24/ end

Seaborne Freight. An apology.

I have to admit that I thought Seaborne had been given a made up contract so that the government didn’t have the embarrassment of relying entirely on foreign firms to supply our freight handling contingency. It seems I was wrong. Arklow shipping (ROI) have just withdrawn their support for Seaborne meaning the contract has needed to be pulled. Anyone with a 100% British made up shipping should probably contact Chris Grayling asap.

That's just the boats. Failin' Grayling also took out that contract with no shipping routes, no staff, no funding in place and no ports available.

There has been comment Seaborne have received no public money, which makes me wonder do they mean yet, or do they mean they paid another private company and thus public money didn't directly go to Seaborne?

And the government confirms in the interests of democracy and doing something almost nobody wants the meaningful vote could well be delayed until days before we crash out

Hard to sympathise with those MPs who've previously passed on opportunities to take away control from a demented government and now declare themselves shocked that May would be so brazen

The latest idiot in the Brexit secretary job on Today this morning couldn't answer what our tariffs will be, when they'll publish a tariff schedule, what regulations will apply, when hauliers will know if they can operate in Europe...

I'm beyond feeling embarrassed about my country, or maybe it's a mix of embarrassment, anger and despair. I suppose it shows Tusk was right about the place in hell, but it's not of any use

Digby wrote:The latest idiot in the Brexit secretary job on Today this morning couldn't answer what our tariffs will be, when they'll publish a tariff schedule, what regulations will apply, when hauliers will know if they can operate in Europe...

I'm beyond feeling embarrassed about my country, or maybe it's a mix of embarrassment, anger and despair. I suppose it shows Tusk was right about the place in hell, but it's not of any use

I know. It’s incredible. I really wouldn’t blame anyone for emigrating.

Oh, and Theresa May lost the motion to approach the EU to renegotiate their exit, 303 to 258. Some outlets say it's a blow to her credibility and authority. Funny, I didn't realise she had any of either left.

Digby wrote:The latest idiot in the Brexit secretary job on Today this morning couldn't answer what our tariffs will be, when they'll publish a tariff schedule, what regulations will apply, when hauliers will know if they can operate in Europe...

I'm beyond feeling embarrassed about my country, or maybe it's a mix of embarrassment, anger and despair. I suppose it shows Tusk was right about the place in hell, but it's not of any use

Question is... how deep are they?

cashead wrote:Oh, and Theresa May lost the motion to approach the EU to renegotiate their exit, 303 to 258. Some outlets say it's a blow to her credibility and authority. Funny, I didn't realise she had any of either left.

This bit is the best bit from the BBC article: "Downing Street blamed Mr Corbyn for the defeat, saying he had "yet again put partisan considerations ahead of the national interest" by voting against the government's motion."

How dare the opposition vote against a motion endorsing the government's policy when they oppose it! It's just partisan considerations!

I just don't know what May is hoping to accomplish. Her plan doesn't have a majority by a long distance, but her only idea is to keep pushing it and hope enough people decide, "Fuck it, at least it's not no deal," before the deadline comes.

Puja

Puja wrote:I just don't know what May is hoping to accomplish.

I doubt she does either.