Brexit Consequences

[sheldrake]

Using the the EU's suggestions as a basis for negotiations would also be better for both economies if, that is, the Conservatives are serious about making the protocol and the Brexit deal they negotiated, signed, ratified, and told us was marvellous and Oven Ready, actually work for Northern Ireland. The proposal is more than generous. There's movement to be made with the ECJ by, perhaps adding a conflict resolution mechanism similar to that used between the EU and Switzerland, where the ECJ still has ultimate oversight, but there's an arbitration panel before then made up of members from both sides to try and resolve any problems amicably. And the good news is that the legislation basically already exists in EU law because such a system is already used with another country that is outside the EU but is for all intents and purposes within the single market.

Switzerland isn't the UK though. We're a much larger economy, and we're less intertwined with the EU than Switzerland. I see no reason why the ECJ needs to arbitrate things happening in UK territory.

Why do you think the EU is more worried about us breaching agreements on what can cross into the Republic of Ireland than we are about what can cross from the Republic into the North?

And the bonus of the EU's suggestion is that it's workable and not reliant on "hey, trust us" from an untrustworthy government who's already suggested breaking the law to get what they want.

We haven't broken any laws. The EU accusing anybody else of being untrustworthy is pretty comical.

[Cardinal Fang]

Using the the EU's suggestions as a basis for negotiations would also be better for both economies if, that is, the Conservatives are serious about making the protocol and the Brexit deal they negotiated, signed, ratified, and told us was marvellous and Oven Ready, actually work for Northern Ireland. The proposal is more than generous. There's movement to be made with the ECJ by, perhaps adding a conflict resolution mechanism similar to that used between the EU and Switzerland, where the ECJ still has ultimate oversight, but there's an arbitration panel before then made up of members from both sides to try and resolve any problems amicably. And the good news is that the legislation basically already exists in EU law because such a system is already used with another country that is outside the EU but is for all intents and purposes within the single market.

Switzerland isn't the UK though. We're a much larger economy, and we're less intertwined with the EU than Switzerland. I see no reason why the ECJ needs to arbitrate things happening in UK territory.

Ahh the "we're special because we're British" argument.

If NI is going to remain in the single market for goods, in order that the Good Friday Agreement is upheld and the NI protocol continues, then the rules governing it need to be enforced by someone. With the SM it's the ECJ. Who would you have instead?

Why do you think the EU is more worried about us breaching agreements on what can cross into the Republic of Ireland than we are about what can cross from the Republic into the North?

1. It's the EU's job to be concerned about what is coming in to the EU. Kinda in their basic job description.
2. EU is a much bigger market than the UK. Therefore higher probability of flow going that way
3. UK business ARE worried. If the government isn't then it's probably part of the "F*ck business" strategy that was once just a Boris outburst and now seems to be official policy.

And the bonus of the EU's suggestion is that it's workable and not reliant on "hey, trust us" from an untrustworthy government who's already suggested breaking the law to get what they want.

We haven't broken any laws. The EU accusing anybody else of being untrustworthy is pretty comical.

Our government negotiated and signed the agreement, said it was wonderful, then a few months later started saying it was bad and overtly has tried to renege on promises they made in a legally binding international treaty, whilst simultaneously putting a second legally binding international treaty at risk, tried to insert clauses into legislation that would have actively broken international law...

But you don't think they're untrustworthy?

(And that's even before we get on to things like handing millions of pounds of money to cronies for things they didn't deliver)

Mate, I would like some of whatever you're smoking.

CF

[sheldrake]

Ahh the "we're special because we're British" argument.

That's kind of a mischarcterisation, but not completely. The reality is that the UK situation is different from the Swiss situation in several important ways.

If NI is going to remain in the single market for goods, in order that the Good Friday Agreement is upheld and the NI protocol continues, then the rules governing it need to be enforced by someone. With the SM it's the ECJ. Who would you have instead?

I think UK courts should enforce agreements in UK territory.

1. It's the EU's job to be concerned about what is coming in to the EU. Kinda in their basic job description.
2. EU is a much bigger market than the UK. Therefore higher probability of flow going that way

Not really, the UK already has a trade deficit with the EU (net flow is our way), although that is shrinking.

3. UK business ARE worried. If the government isn't then it's probably part of the "F*ck business" strategy that was once just a Boris outburst and now seems to be official policy.

Well we can defuse that with our proposals too.

Our government negotiated and signed the agreement, said it was wonderful, then a few months later started saying it was bad and overtly has tried to renege on promises they made in a legally binding international treaty, whilst simultaneously putting a second legally binding international treaty at risk, tried to insert clauses into legislation that would have actively broken international law...

You just keep ignoring those clauses where the EU signed up to make a sincere effort to protect the customs integrity of the UK, and then failed to.

[Gfamily]

The NI Protocol was contingent on the EU making best efforts to ensure the customs integrity of the UK and subject to democratic re-ratification after 5 years. The EU failed to do make said best effort. Article 16 exists in the deal precisely to allow its suspension when one party isn't satisfied that the other party is upholding it's obligations fully.

ETA https://www.independent.co.uk/independe ... 38432.html

Just in case anyone hasn't checked - it's slightly different to how it is presented here (pdf).

Having regard to Northern Ireland's integral place in the United Kingdom's internal market, the
Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours to facilitate the trade between
Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom, in accordance with applicable
legislation and taking into account their respective regulatory regimes as well as the
implementation thereof. The Joint Committee shall keep the application of this paragraph
under constant review and shall adopt appropriate recommendations with a view to avoiding
controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible

Worth noting ...
What does Shelly say "The NI Protocol was contingent on the EU making best efforts..."
What does the Protocol say "the Union (EU) and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours..."
So a mis statement of the obligations

But, 'best endeavours' to do what ... ?
What does Shelly say "to ensure the customs integrity of the UK ."
What does the Protocol say "to facilitate the trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom[/b]
So a mis statement of the intentions

There's then a phrase "The EU failed to do make said best effort" which has at least 1 verb too many to properly parse, and at least 1 item of evidence too few to support it.

There's then a totally false appraisal of Article 16
So a mis statement of the remedies.

So a clear bad-faith argument in almost all respects

[Martin_B]

Ahh the "we're special because we're British" argument.

That's kind of a mischarcterisation, but not completely. The reality is that the UK situation is different from the Swiss situation in several important ways.

OK, explain, in detail, these 'several important ways' that the UK situation is different to the Swiss situation. And the idea that the UK was in the EU and is trying to disentangle isn't an 'important way' in which the situation is different. That's history, rather than what the UK should be working towards.

If NI is going to remain in the single market for goods, in order that the Good Friday Agreement is upheld and the NI protocol continues, then the rules governing it need to be enforced by someone. With the SM it's the ECJ. Who would you have instead?

I think UK courts should enforce agreements in UK territory.

It's good that you think. In this case, what you think is incorrect. You think that only UK courts should enforce agreements in UK territory? Do you think it reasonable that the EU would think that EU courts should enforce agreements in EU territory? But travel of goods between the UK and the EU isn't either solely in UK or EU territory. The travel of goods is governed by a trade deal, which is currently the Single Market, and the Single Market is overseen by the ECJ.

The UK was in the Single Market and is trying to disengage, and has signed an agreement that agrees that any half-way house of trade rules will also be overseen by the ECJ. To be honest, if there is an agreement worked out on the borders and both the UK generally and NI specifically can disengage with the Single Market but will then set up a trade deal with the EU there still needs to be an absolute arbiter to oversee any disputes within that trade deal. The EU will insist on it being the ECJ (one of their red lines) although they may agree to a Swiss-style panel to rule on disputes prior to the ECJ. The ECJ would still be the ultimate court, though. Why would the EU agree to a deal where the Single Market, or any other deal with the UK, has an ultimate arbiter and court which lies within the jurisdiction of the minor partner in the deal?

Why do you think the EU is more worried about us breaching agreements on what can cross into the Republic of Ireland than we are about what can cross from the Republic into the North?

1. It's the EU's job to be concerned about what is coming in to the EU. Kinda in their basic job description.
2. EU is a much bigger market than the UK. Therefore higher probability of flow going that way

Not really, the UK already has a trade deficit with the EU (net flow is our way), although that is shrinking.

This is missing the point. The EU generally has stricter rules on what can cross into their members than the UK does (especially as the UK has openly admitted that it will reduce the rules on imports). So of course the EU is more worried about what is travelling south across the RoI/NI border than the UK is worried about what's travelling north. There probably isn't a great deal of stuff for which if it meets EU rules and regulations it doesn't meet UK rules and regulations.

3. UK business ARE worried. If the government isn't then it's probably part of the "F*ck business" strategy that was once just a Boris outburst and now seems to be official policy.

Well we can defuse that with our proposals too.

That proposal was the NI protocol, which the government has now admitted it wants to rip up. One thing which does worry business is uncertainty, and a government which openly claims to want to renegotiate an agreement it just signed creates uncertainty.

Our government negotiated and signed the agreement, said it was wonderful, then a few months later started saying it was bad and overtly has tried to renege on promises they made in a legally binding international treaty, whilst simultaneously putting a second legally binding international treaty at risk, tried to insert clauses into legislation that would have actively broken international law...

You just keep ignoring those clauses where the EU signed up to make a sincere effort to protect the customs integrity of the UK, and then failed to.

You do realise that 'best endeavours' has no legally binding meaning? It's lawyer speak for crossing your fingers behind your back and hoping you don't have to do anything. Even so, the EU has made endeavours to sort out the issues around the NI protocol. You claimed:

That only happened since we said we'd invoke article 16 unless they started showing enthusiasm.

Well, yes. Up until then the EU probably assumed that the UK would uphold their requirements under the NI protocol and so had no particular need to make any endeavours to help the UK out. In fact, any effort by the EU before the UK said that they'd invoke article 16 would be seen to be the EU trying to undermine a legally binding agreement, so they'd be quite careful about making no overt show of amending the NI protocol, even if it didn't seem to be working.

I'll try and post CF's image below, as I think it's rather good.

brexit trilemma.png (95.77 KiB) Viewed 2438 times

[sheldrake]

The UK has different treaty relationships with the EU than Switzerland, a larger, more complex economy and the history of NI sectarian tensions all make this different from the Swiss case.

I think UK courts should have jurisdiction over goods moving from one part of the UK to another (e.g wales and NI) just as I would expect EU courts to have jurisdiction over goods moving between France and the republic of ireland

[plodder]

The UK has different treaty relationships with the EU than Switzerland, a larger, more complex economy and the history of NI sectarian tensions all make this different from the Swiss case.

I think UK courts should have jurisdiction over goods moving from one part of the UK to another (e.g wales and NI) just as I would expect EU courts to have jurisdiction over goods moving between France and the republic of ireland

So you're in favour of "B" above. Good to see your cards on the table.

[sheldrake]

The UK has different treaty relationships with the EU than Switzerland, a larger, more complex economy and the history of NI sectarian tensions all make this different from the Swiss case.

I think UK courts should have jurisdiction over goods moving from one part of the UK to another (e.g wales and NI) just as I would expect EU courts to have jurisdiction over goods moving between France and the republic of ireland

So you're in favour of "B" above. Good to see your cards on the table.

Nope. I'm in favour of a fudge a bit like today but with far fewer checks and UK courts adjudicating on adherence to agreements within UK territory.

[temptar]

Dude, if you guys stopped with the fudges you might not wind up in the mess you have been in since forever.

NI doesn't comply with UK directive when it feels like it. Cf abortion, which is now legal but in practical terms still impossible in NI after directive from the UK. There are still different campaign finance laws there (cf DUP spending 400k on proBrwxit advertising targeted at London residents for which they don't have to account the way a mainland party would have to).

Cf the DUP deciding being Irish and selling Irish meat was handy when British beef had no market.

Fudge between NI and Great Britain so that you guys can comply with your obligations and stop asking the rest of us to keep getting you out of the holes you keep digging for yourselves. You're constantly fudging anyway. Not sure why this is an issue.

[plodder]

I think UK courts should have jurisdiction over goods moving from one part of the UK to another (e.g wales and NI) just as I would expect EU courts to have jurisdiction over goods moving between France and the republic of ireland

So you're in favour of "B" above. Good to see your cards on the table.

Nope. I'm in favour of a fudge a bit like today but with far fewer checks and UK courts adjudicating on adherence to agreements within UK territory.

That's not a fudge, it crosses a red line. A fudge would be the UK accepting the ECJ but pretending it didn't matter, like the NI protocol deal we just signed.

[sheldrake]

That's not a fudge, it crosses a red line.

It's funny how red lines can move in negotiation.

[plodder]

What's your point? That it's theoretically possible for the EU to concede on ECJ jurisdiction within the SM? It's theoretically possible for anyone to agree to anything.

It's very unlikely in this case though. More likely the smaller partner will have to concede ground.

[sheldrake]

What's your point? That it's theoretically possible for the EU to concede on ECJ jurisdiction within the SM? It's theoretically possible for anyone to agree to anything.

It's very unlikely in this case though. More likely the smaller partner will have to concede ground.

That's not what we've seen so far. Our economy is smaller than the EUs, but we run a trade deficit with them (we're a significant external market) and both sides benefit from a less restrictive arrangement.

[plodder]

Prediction noted.

[Bird on a Fire]

Ah, the "trade deficit" argument. Haven't seen that in a while.

Weirdly my trade deficit with Tescos hasn't allowed me much leverage to renegotiate their prices and policies.

[sheldrake]

Ah, the "trade deficit" argument. Haven't seen that in a while.

Weirdly my trade deficit with Tescos hasn't allowed me much leverage to renegotiate their prices and policies.

If you traded with several board members of tescos, and one of the most powerful ones was selling you about $30 billion more than you sold to them, it would be a different kind of negotiation.

[sheldrake]

Prediction noted.

It's already come true though, we've already seen some concessions on this.

[plodder]

Prediction noted.

It's already come true though, we've already seen some concessions on this.

Oh jolly well done. Well done.

[Cardinal Fang]

If NI is going to remain in the single market for goods, in order that the Good Friday Agreement is upheld and the NI protocol continues, then the rules governing it need to be enforced by someone. With the SM it's the ECJ. Who would you have instead?

I think UK courts should enforce agreements in UK territory.

It also covers trade between Northern Ireland and the RoI. The Republic of Ireland, not forgetting, being a soverign country and part of the EU. So are you suggesting that the RoI and EU be subject to UK law because part of the area is part of the UK?

Our government negotiated and signed the agreement, said it was wonderful, then a few months later started saying it was bad and overtly has tried to renege on promises they made in a legally binding international treaty, whilst simultaneously putting a second legally binding international treaty at risk, tried to insert clauses into legislation that would have actively broken international law...

You just keep ignoring those clauses where the EU signed up to make a sincere effort to protect the customs integrity of the UK, and then failed to.

And we're back to pointing out that the EU is the one trying to make things work and the Conservative government dropping hand grenades in to try and destroy the agreement. So I'm really not sure how you're getting to "it's the EU not making the effort". Or is this part of the Quitlings' puffery about how dare the EU actually expect rules and terms that were agreed by both parties to actually be implemented and enforced?

CF

[sheldrake]

So are you suggesting that the RoI and EU be subject to UK law because part of the area is part of the UK?

No, I'm suggesting that UK courts have jurisdiction over trade within the UK. NI is part of the UK.

You just keep ignoring those clauses where the EU signed up to make a sincere effort to protect the customs integrity of the UK, and then failed to.

And we're back to pointing out that the EU is the one trying to make things work

The problem is that they weren't.

[Cardinal Fang]

So are you suggesting that the RoI and EU be subject to UK law because part of the area is part of the UK?

No, I'm suggesting that UK courts have jurisdiction over trade within the UK. NI is part of the UK.

UK courts have jurisdiction within UK

ECJ has jurisdiction within the EU

The sticking point which you're avoiding is who has jurisdiction when there's a conflict between the two? Part of the issue is that the NI protocol also covers trade and movement of goods between NI and RoI (that's kinda the point of the NI protocol that keeps NI in the single market for goods - to keep things both sides of the border the same, so there's no need border infrastructure on the border that would breach the GFA). What if the Conservatives change UK regulations so that they don't meet EU standards any more (say they allow banned food additives in cake sprinkles so they can get a trade deal with the US)? Now there's a mismatch between the two sides of the border. It affects both sides and both jurisdictions. Who ultimately gets the final say in resolving the issue?

If NI is part of the single market for goods, then it makes sense that the ultimate arbiter is the same arbiter as everywhere else in the single market i.e. the ECJ. It doesn't make any sense to say "this half is in the UK therefore your half doesn't have any say even when it affects you". But by demanding that the ECJ has no say, that's what the Tories are doing. It's unworkable - and I think they know it and are trying to sabotage the agreement by making a demand that they know is impossible.

[sheldrake]

UK courts have jurisdiction within UK

ECJ has jurisdiction within the EU

The sticking point which you're avoiding is who has jurisdiction when there's a conflict between the two? Part of the issue is that the NI protocol also covers trade and movement of goods between NI and RoI (that's kinda the point of the NI protocol that keeps NI in the single market for goods - to keep things both sides of the border the same, so there's no need border infrastructure on the border that would breach the GFA). What if the Conservatives change UK regulations so that they don't meet EU standards any more (say they allow banned food additives in cake sprinkles so they can get a trade deal with the US)? Now there's a mismatch between the two sides of the border. It affects both sides and both jurisdictions. Who ultimately gets the final say in resolving the issue?

If NI is part of the single market for goods, then it makes sense that the ultimate arbiter is the same arbiter as everywhere else in the single market i.e. the ECJ. It doesn't make any sense to say "this half is in the UK therefore your half doesn't have any say even when it affects you". But by demanding that the ECJ has no say, that's what the Tories are doing. It's unworkable - and I think they know it and are trying to sabotage the agreement by making a demand that they know is impossible.

NI isn't part of the single market for goods really now. What the govt. is asking for is that UK courts rule on issues of trade between NI and the rest of the UK. There's a lot of fudge available to make the rest work, including away-from border inspections, trusted trader schemes etc..

eta: I don't really understand why you think the UK govt. wants an excuse to blow up the deal just to destroy it. What do you think their goal is?

[nekomatic]

I think their goal is to milk some form or another of conflict with the EU for as long as they possibly can, to keep the Brexiter vote going their way and stop any of the inconvenient other things they’re royally stuffing up from getting too far up the news agenda, to be quite honest.

[sheldrake]

I think their goal is to milk some form or another of conflict with the EU for as long as they possibly can, to keep the Brexiter vote going their way and stop any of the inconvenient other things they’re royally stuffing up from getting too far up the news agenda, to be quite honest.

I don't think problems in NI are a selling point. I voted for Brexit and I want to see things improve for NI, not get worse. I suspect most of the rest of the UK population that voted for brexit (outside of NI) probably aren't focussed on it much.

[Cardinal Fang]

Ian Paisley JR has said that Johnson promised to tear up NI protocol. This is the 2nd person to have made this allegation (the first was Dominic Cummings, but he's about as trustworthy as his former employer i.e. not at all).

If this report is true, then the whole Withdrawal Agreement was signed by the government in bad faith AND the PM lied to the House of Commons AND he lied to the country, because he never had any intent of implementing or even keeping the NI protocol

https://youtu.be/YLa0hVOU0Us - clip from BBC Newsnight

eta: I don't really understand why you think the UK govt. wants an excuse to blow up the deal just to destroy it. What do you think their goal is?

Dropping the ECJ grenade in at the last minute, when the EC were about to make an announcement of measures to try and get the NI protocol to work seems in keeping with this idea that the government never intended to implement or keep the NI protocol.

If the aim of the Tory Party was to just get over the line, so they could win an election based on "Getting Brexit Done", irrespective of cost to the country which was in the midst of a pandemic (and when they'd already been offered an extension), then agreeing to anything with the expectation of torpedoing it later would explain a lot of what they've done since.

The sad thing is that it shows how far the UK has fallen. It used to be that if an MP had misled Parliament, misled his own party, and had provably lied to the population in order to win an election he'd be forced to resign. But now - the liar is on holiday and everyone is shrugging their shoulders

CF