Brexit Consequences

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
plodder
After Pie
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by plodder » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:09 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:00 pm
plodder wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:57 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:01 pm
Positive noises https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-58871221

Let's see
Nothing on the ECJ so it's just flannel. A trusted trader scheme administered and overseen by the EU is hardly much of a concession.
Maybe that's good enough to make it work for people in Ireland though?
Johnson's lot won't accept the ECJ - so it doesn't matter what's good enough for people in Ireland.

Independently of that, the hired help have their say:

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/10/a-h ... ord-frost/

sheldrake
Dorkwood
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:14 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:09 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:00 pm
plodder wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:57 pm


Nothing on the ECJ so it's just flannel. A trusted trader scheme administered and overseen by the EU is hardly much of a concession.
Maybe that's good enough to make it work for people in Ireland though?
Johnson's lot won't accept the ECJ - so it doesn't matter what's good enough for people in Ireland.

Independently of that, the hired help have their say:

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/10/a-h ... ord-frost/
Burke was Irish-born but served as a Westminster MP for a home counties constituency, lived in England much of his life, was a practicing member of the anglican church and often described himself as an Englishman. The author of this blog post is attempting intellectual condescension in a really ham-fisted way that shows their own ignorance.

As for the rest; well Frost is a negotiator. What matters is whether what he proposes will be better for Ireland than today, and whether he gets it.

temptar
Stargoon
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun May 10, 2020 6:19 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by temptar » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:23 pm

Britain and by extension Frost are not interested in obtaining something better for Ireland. Nor for Northern Ireland. They are interested in distracting you poor fools from the lack of sunlit uplands in Great Britain.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Fuzzable
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by Cardinal Fang » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:25 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:51 pm
Sciolus wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:43 pm
Having the UK as part of the EU worked extremely well for the people of Northern Ireland. It made the GFA possible, for one thing among many. Probably why NI voted to remain.
The UK voted to leave. That horse has bolted and bolted and bolted and is sunning itself on a beach in the Caribbean. Justice Colton in Belfast also already ruled that the GFA was not contingent on NI remaining in the Customs Union.

The deal was signed with an understanding that it would be subject to democractic scrutiny in NI after 5 years, and that the EU would continue to work to protect the customs and political integrity of the UK, in particular respecting NIs wish to remain a part of the UK. The implementation of the protocol hasn't been supporting that. It seems like the EU is willing to make concessions in order to make this work better for the people of NI, so lets see.
Two out of the 4 countries of the UK voted to stay. Their wishes were entirely disregarded.

The GFA was not contingent on NI remaining in the Customs Union BUT it specifically says that there can't be a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. When both the UK and RoI were EU members this was entirely doable.

WTO rules (you know the ones die hard Quitlings wanted the UK to move to) say that if there are areas with different customs or tax arrangements, there must be a border between them. In terms of Brexit that means there are only a limited number of arrangements one can have in order to keep both WTO rules and the GFA:
- keep both the UK and NI in the single market and customs union. No need for a border as customs and tax regulations are the same. Rejected by the Conservatives, even though it was suggested in the official Vote Leave manifesto (which is what people were voting based on) that this is what would happen - the UK would leave the EU but stay in the SM.
- keep NI in the single market. Have a border in the Irish Sea (current arrangement). Will cause problems because of differences in regulations. Needs some mechanism to ensure that anything with lower tax or lower standards than the EU allows isn't smuggled into the block via NI and then across the Irish border.
- The RoI leaves the EU and abides by UK standards and tax. Just not going to happen - the RoI has prospered in the EU and has no wish to leave, and the UK has no power to impose it's wishes on a different sovereign country.

There are 2 other alternatives worth mentioning as well

- Rip up the GFA, put a border between NI and the RoI, risk a return of the paramilitaries and violence
- NI holds a referendum, as it is entitled to under the GFA, whether to rejoin Ireland. NI votes to unify with the rest of Ireland, and when it does so automatically returns to being a member of the EU. Border with the UK in the Irish Sea, as they are now separate countries. Seeing the wishes of the majority of NI residents have been ignored by the Conservative government this is far from an impossibility.

The Conservatives and die hard Quitlings seem to think that mutually contradictory things will happen magically - that there will be free movement of goods between GB and NI; that there will be free movement of goods between NI and RoI (as per the GFA), and there will be free movement of goods between RoI and the rest of the EU (as the RoI is an EU member and this is one of the "4 freedoms"), but that there will be no free movement of goods between the EU and the UK (part of "taking back control of our borders" that we never actually lost)

CF
Image

plodder
After Pie
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by plodder » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:32 pm

temptar wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:23 pm
Britain and by extension Frost are not interested in obtaining something better for Ireland. Nor for Northern Ireland. They are interested in distracting you poor fools from the lack of sunlit uplands in Great Britain.
No, that's far too much and bordering on conspiracy. It's just a f.ck up that we're trying to make manageable. The ECJ stuff is all hot air and the UK will gradually concede ground so the "purity" Brexit is lost as we move towards some sort of practical fudge. The posturing from Frost is precisely what all posturing is - an attempt to not lose face. The EU recognise that he needs to be able to concede gracefully, so they've tossed him some sausage concessions without conceding anything important. This will continue for as long as is necessary until Frost runs out of steam.

sheldrake
Dorkwood
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:33 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:25 pm
Two out of the 4 countries of the UK voted to stay. Their wishes were entirely disregarded.
There were whole boroughs of London that also wanted to stay. Probably whole counties with a majority to stay.

This is a UK decision. Not a warwickshire vs argyll decision. Not England vs Scotland.
The GFA was not contingent on NI remaining in the Customs Union BUT it specifically says that there can't be a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. When both the UK and RoI were EU members this was entirely doable.
It's also doable now. The EU just needs to make a special circumstance, as will we.
WTO rules (you know the ones die hard Quitlings wanted the UK to move to) say that if there are areas with different customs or tax arrangements, there must be a border between them.
They don't say it has to be a hard physical border. They don't say that different tax arrangements trigger this (it would be impossible for EU countries with different VAT rates to have open land borders if this were true).
- keep NI in the single market. Have a border in the Irish Sea (current arrangement). Will cause problems because of differences in regulations. Needs some mechanism to ensure that anything with lower tax or lower standards than the EU allows isn't smuggled into the block via NI and then across the Irish border.
NI isn't currently in the Single Market or the Customs Union. I honestly don't think you've done your homework on this post.

sheldrake
Dorkwood
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:34 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:32 pm
No, that's far too much and bordering on conspiracy. It's just a f.ck up that we're trying to make manageable. The ECJ stuff is all hot air and the UK will gradually concede ground so the "purity" Brexit is lost as we move towards some sort of practical fudge. The posturing from Frost is precisely what all posturing is - an attempt to not lose face. The EU recognise that he needs to be able to concede gracefully, so they've tossed him some sausage concessions without conceding anything important. This will continue for as long as is necessary until Frost runs out of steam.
When that results in improved conditions for trade in NI with the UK without any problems with the NI/Republic border, that is a successful negotiation outcome.

plodder
After Pie
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by plodder » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:45 pm

You can claim whatever you like as a victory, I really don't mind. I've said for years that the NI border will end in a fudge, it's completely obvious because both sides know the other won't build any border infrastructure. It's not so much a negotiation as a period of b.llsh.t that will only end when both parties agree there has been an acceptable amount of b.llsh.t spoken.

sheldrake
Dorkwood
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:49 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:45 pm
You can claim whatever you like as a victory, I really don't mind. I've said for years that the NI border will end in a fudge, it's completely obvious because both sides know the other won't build any border infrastructure. It's not so much a negotiation as a period of b.llsh.t that will only end when both parties agree there has been an acceptable amount of b.llsh.t spoken.
I wont think of it as victory, just mitigation of one of the costs of brexit. The only things I think of as victories are things we get that we didnt have before, new trade deals etc..

plodder
After Pie
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by plodder » Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:31 pm

funny definition of “success” but up to you.

plodder
After Pie
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by plodder » Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:24 am

Paisley supports Cummings’ recent comments.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCNewsnight ... 8477912065

PeteB
Clardic Fug
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:02 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by PeteB » Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:33 pm

Saw this from the bank of england on the effect of Brexit and Covid on the UK business investment

plodder
After Pie
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by plodder » Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:08 pm

PeteB wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:33 pm
Saw this from the bank of england on the effect of Brexit and Covid on the UK business investment
Interesting.
The impact of both the UK leaving the EU and of Covid is evident in the aggregate business investment data.

Following the EU referendum in June 2016, there was little growth in investment, on average, over the following four years, compared with an average growth rate of around 6% over the previous five years (Chart 1). And in 2020, investment fell by more than 20% as the Covid pandemic hit. But to properly understand this weakness in investment, we need to know which types of businesses have invested less.

And to be more confident in asserting the link to the UK’s decision to leave the EU and Covid, we need to show that the businesses that invested less were indeed those most affected by those events. In the first part of this article, we use firm-level data from the DMP to demonstrate this and to estimate the relative contributions of these two shocks

sheldrake
Dorkwood
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by sheldrake » Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:25 pm

Same type of bad analysis as before that claims or insinuates a causal relationship without making comparisons with other countries.

Allo V Psycho
Snowbonk
Posts: 490
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by Allo V Psycho » Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:29 pm

PeteB wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:33 pm
Saw this from the bank of england on the effect of Brexit and Covid on the UK business investment
Thanks PeteB, that is interesting and rather worse than I expected.
The UK’s decision to leave the EU created substantial uncertainty for businesses. On average since the 2016 referendum, around 45% of businesses in the DMP have reported that Brexit was in the top three sources of uncertainty for their business, peaking at just under 60% (Chart 2). This uncertainty has persisted for almost five years, which has been an unusually long period for uncertainty to last. The majority of uncertainty shocks in recent experience have generated a surge in uncertainty that subsides reasonably quickly as initial concerns are allayed by further information becoming available.
Our estimates imply that the UK’s decision to leave the EU has lowered the level of investment by almost 25% in 2020-21 (Chart 4). This effect has built gradually over the past five years, and at least up until the start of the Covid pandemic it can largely explain why there was no growth in investment since the EU referendum. We estimate that more than 90% of this investment impact is associated with higher uncertainty, with only a small effect coming from lower expected future demand, although the caveat about the strong correlation between the two channels remains.
The fall in Brexit-related uncertainty in 2021 should help to support investment. A new question added to the DMP in May 2021 asked panel members how they thought the UK’s decision to leave the EU had affected their investment in 2020, and how they expected those effects to evolve in 2021 and 2022. Businesses reported that in 2020 investment was 5.5% lower than it would have otherwise been, with this effect expected to ease to -3.2% and -2.3% in 2021 and 2022 respectively. The effects of Brexit on own business investment are lower than our regression based estimates (Chart 4)

FlammableFlower
Dorkwood
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by FlammableFlower » Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:56 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:29 pm

[Snip}
The fall in Brexit-related uncertainty in 2021 should help to support investment. A new question added to the DMP in May 2021 asked panel members how they thought the UK’s decision to leave the EU had affected their investment in 2020, and how they expected those effects to evolve in 2021 and 2022. Businesses reported that in 2020 investment was 5.5% lower than it would have otherwise been, with this effect expected to ease to -3.2% and -2.3% in 2021 and 2022 respectively. The effects of Brexit on own business investment are lower than our regression based estimates (Chart 4)
Relating to the bolded bit - I think they're being very rose-tinted-spectacled... There's still uncertainty as far as business is concerned - especially with attempts to renegotiate parts. Although I'm sure that there are already some investors who are putting bets on probable points of expansion in the future, for a lot of businesses (and they are the ones that were hit the hardest with Brexit uncertainties and COVID) the dust has yet to settle sufficiently to know how things are going to be in the future.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Fuzzable
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by Cardinal Fang » Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:26 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:33 pm
- keep NI in the single market. Have a border in the Irish Sea (current arrangement). Will cause problems because of differences in regulations. Needs some mechanism to ensure that anything with lower tax or lower standards than the EU allows isn't smuggled into the block via NI and then across the Irish border.
NI isn't currently in the Single Market or the Customs Union. I honestly don't think you've done your homework on this post.
Awww aren't you adorable.

Here - what the UK Government says: https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/eu ... d-protocol
As a result of the protocol, NI has in effect remained in the EU's single market for goods (England, Scotland and Wales have left the EU's single market for goods).
That's also why Frosty is currently having a pissing fit about the ECJ. Because the ECJ is the top arbiter when it comes to EU law, when it comes to judgements about EU standards and law in NI the ECJ is the top body there as well.

You were saying about not doing homework...?
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:33 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote:The GFA was not contingent on NI remaining in the Customs Union BUT it specifically says that there can't be a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. When both the UK and RoI were EU members this was entirely doable.
It's also doable now. The EU just needs to make a special circumstance, as will we.
The "special circumstance" was the NI Protocol. Which the Conservative government signed, told us how amazing it was, fought and election on - and are now telling us how bad and unworkable it is (and which, if you believe Dominic Cummings, is something they never intended to keep in the first place)

CF
Image

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Fuzzable
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by Cardinal Fang » Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:27 pm

Image
Image

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 4319
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by dyqik » Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:29 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:27 pm
Image
That's not visible here. I think your server is set up to not allow embedding of images, because I can access it directly. Could possibly also be because it's not an https link.

sheldrake
Dorkwood
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by sheldrake » Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:33 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:26 pm
As a result of the protocol, NI has in effect remained in the EU's single market for goods (England, Scotland and Wales have left the EU's single market for goods).
You see those innocuous words 'in effect' ?

NI isn't in the customs union or single market.
That's also why Frosty is currently having a pissing fit about the ECJ. Because the ECJ is the top arbiter when it comes to EU law, when it comes to judgements about EU standards and law in NI the ECJ is the top body there as well.

You were saying about not doing homework...?
Yes, where you claimed that NI was in the single market, it isn't. I appreciate you went away afterwards and skimread a few quotes, but you're ignoring multiple differences between the current NI protocol and single market or customs union membership. NI is in the customs territory of the UK. Read the protocol.
Cardinal Fang wrote:
The "special circumstance" was the NI Protocol. Which the Conservative government signed, told us how amazing it was, fought and election on - and are now telling us how bad and unworkable it is (and which, if you believe Dominic Cummings, is something they never intended to keep in the first place)
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

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Fuzzable
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by Cardinal Fang » Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:07 pm

dyqik wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:29 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:27 pm
Snippy not working image
That's not visible here. I think your server is set up to not allow embedding of images, because I can access it directly. Could possibly also be because it's not an https link.
This work?

Image
Image

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Fuzzable
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by Cardinal Fang » Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:08 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:33 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:26 pm
As a result of the protocol, NI has in effect remained in the EU's single market for goods (England, Scotland and Wales have left the EU's single market for goods).
You see those innocuous words 'in effect' ?

NI isn't in the customs union or single market.
Lets see...

NI still follows SM rules and regulations, and is subject to the oversight of the the ECJ pertaining to SM rules. Which is why goods can move freely from RoI to NI (and from RoI to the rest of the EU), whilst goods between GB and NI (which are outside) are subject to customs and phytosanitary regulations like any other 3rd party country if there's a risk they may then be moved into the EU (i.e across the border into RoI). But apparently following the rules of the single market and abiding by it's legal oversight somehow means it's 100% different from the single market in all respects.

Okay. Got you
sheldrake wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:33 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote:
The "special circumstance" was the NI Protocol. Which the Conservative government signed, told us how amazing it was, fought and election on - and are now telling us how bad and unworkable it is (and which, if you believe Dominic Cummings, is something they never intended to keep in the first place)
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.
The EU has issued proposals to make the NI Protocol work by offering a high degree of flexibility in customs enforcement and regulatory checks, effectively applying a lot more benefit of the doubt so that many more goods can cross from Britain to Northern Ireland unimpeded. They've offered things basically unprecedented. So how Quitlings can still suggest it's the ebil EU's fault for not doing all it can to "ensure the customs integrity of the UK", when they've bent over backwards and then in a full circle to try and make things work. Even when, on the day the EC was to publish it's proposals, the UK's chief negotiator dropped in a grenade (i.e. the ECJ demand) that, if agreed to, would destroy the very foundations of the deal. And even though some EU27 members are uncomfortable with the plan. Let's note again that it was the Conservative government that dropped the grenade. Not the EU. So who's really the ones not making "best efforts"?

The EU proposals though are dependent on a couple of things: 1. The UK government accepting them (unlikely as it looks like they want to continue their nationalistic posturings instead of conducting rational and reasoned negotiations like adults); and 2. The UK government abiding by not only promises they've made previously but not implemented, but also the updated agreement. The UK has consistently failed to adhere to it's pledges about data sharing, or about implementing previously agreed rules (instead unilaterally moving "grace periods" arbitrarily and seemingly without end, for example). The new proposals require not only proper data sharing, which the UK has failed to do to date, but also extra safeguards to prevent products from GB crossing into the Republic of Ireland without proper checks (e.g. clear labelling of items intended for the NI market only on packaging). If the UK government won't implement existing agreements, can it be trusted to implement further things?

Part of the problem is that what the UK government is demanding is basically that the EU just trusts them to ensure that UK businesses selling into Ireland will keep to the rules, without actually specifying how they'll do it (just vague references to intelligence-led enforcement mechanism based on full transparency of supply chains without ever explaining how it would work in practice). But why would the EU do that when so far the UK has repeatedly failed to demonstrate it can be a trustworthy partner. Aside from the UK Internal Market Bill, which contained clauses that would have broken international law in "specific and limited" ways, the UK has not fulfilled obligations it has already signed up to. The problems with the NI Protocol should not be a surprise to the UK government, whose impact assessment accompanying the implementing legislation anticipated much of what is now playing out on the ground. By asking (nay demanding) the EU to renegotiate the treaty because of problems they anticipated and knew about before they signed, the UK government is either saying it completely misunderstood the deal, or is admitting that it only agreed to the terms to get a deal over the line – and was never willing to implement the protocol in full. That's bad enough, but to then say that it's all the EU's fault that there are problems and therefore it needs to be binned and started again - that's probably a textbook definition of bad faith.

The Conservatives have also suggested an equivalence regime on sanitary and phytosanitary standards is established where the parties could mutually recognise each others' standards on a product-by-product basis, even though without a common legal and institutional framework (like the Single Market) it would be almost impossible to maintain equivalence permanently, especially when the Conservatives have already said they plan to loosen certain regulations to allow trade deals with other countries who's standards don't meet EU ones. But they pinkie-swear that NI won't be used as a back door to smuggle things in to the EU that don't meet their regulations, even though there wouldn't be a border between GB and NI, or NI and RoI under their plans, and obviously any checks would be bad.

Article 16 won't save the government. Here - LSE's explanation should interest you as to why it's not the Hail Mary the Quitlings think it would be: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2021 ... quick-fix/. You'll notice, for example, that the "exceptional circumstances" that permit triggering of A16 cannot be long-predicted and preventable. And the Conservatives were warned about these problems before they signed the deal, limited the ability of our sovereign elected Parliament to scrutinise it, and then sold it to us as "Oven Ready" and a fantastic deal. If they try to implement A16 in bad faith - and let's face it the entire approach by the Tories has been in bad faith, then the EU can retaliate with tariffs and so on. And as we're a tiny island with supply chain issues, an energy crisis, and very few trade deals to our name, going up against a trading bloc of 27 countries is not a trade war we're likely to win.

CF
Image

sheldrake
Dorkwood
Posts: 1377
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by sheldrake » Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:22 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:08 pm


Lets see...

NI still follows SM rules and regulations
It doesn't follow all SM market rules and regulations. Those would include rules to do with free movement and a host of other employment and other regs which NI no longer has to follow.
, and is subject to the oversight of the the ECJ pertaining to SM rules. Which is why goods can move freely from RoI to NI (and from RoI to the rest of the EU), whilst goods between GB and NI (which are outside) are subject to customs and phytosanitary regulations like any other 3rd party country if there's a risk they may then be moved into the EU (i.e across the border into RoI). But apparently following the rules of the single market and abiding by it's legal oversight somehow means it's 100% different from the single market in all respects.
I think you have the Single Market and the Customs Union confused. The NI isn't in the customs union either, but it is allowed to behave as if it were w.r.t to the Republic as long as certain checks on goods coming in from the mainland UK are performed eta(the UK performs those checks).
The EU has issued proposals to make the NI Protocol work by offering a high degree of flexibility in customs enforcement and regulatory checks, effectively applying a lot more benefit of the doubt so that many more goods can cross from Britain to Northern Ireland unimpeded. They've offered things basically unprecedented. So how Quitlings can still suggest it's the ebil EU's fault for not doing all it can to "ensure the customs integrity of the UK", when they've bent over backwards and then in a full circle to try and make things work.
That only happened since we said we'd invoke article 16 unless they started showing enthusiasm.
Part of the problem is that what the UK government is demanding is basically that the EU just trusts them to ensure that UK businesses selling into Ireland will keep to the rules, without actually specifying how they'll do it (just vague references to intelligence-led enforcement mechanism based on full transparency of supply chains without ever explaining how it would work in practice).
Seems reasonable give how close our standards are to theirs (and in some areas stricter). It's not like we're a developing world nation with a serious risk of shipping unsafe goods. The only reason not to do that, really, is to try and be seen to punish the UK for leaving in case other EU members get ideas.
But why would the EU do that when so far the UK has repeatedly failed to demonstrate it can be a trustworthy partner.
Because we're negotiating with some leverage and agreeing to our suggestions will actually be better for both economies, if not for the pride of some EU officials.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Fuzzable
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by Cardinal Fang » Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:39 pm

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.

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.

But that's only if the Tories are serious about making the deal work.

If the Tories are more concerned with conflict and pandering to the minority of hard nationalists, they'll reject the suggestion, make NI a pawn in their dumb*ss game of political brinkmanship and risk an expensive and needless trade war the UK can ill afford. The EU are offering a diplomatic solution to a problem of the Conservative Party's own making. The cost to them of agreeing to it is small. If the Tories decide that posturing is better than diplomacy, then the potential cost to the UK is huge.

CF
Image

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 4319
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Brexit Consequences

Post by dyqik » Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:52 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:07 pm
dyqik wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:29 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote:
Fri Oct 15, 2021 7:27 pm
Snippy not working image
That's not visible here. I think your server is set up to not allow embedding of images, because I can access it directly. Could possibly also be because it's not an https link.
This work?

Image
Nope.

Post Reply