Scrutable

So the US congress and a number of senators have come out and said that anything that buggers up the Good Friday Agreement will scupper any US-UK trade deal talk.

Which means the Tories, having said how useful and important brinkmanship is, are now up the stakes even more - and for themselves only as the EU don't give a sh.t about any wrecking a potential US-UK trade deal.

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:32 pm

So the US congress and a number of senators have come out and said that anything that buggers up the Good Friday Agreement will scupper any US-UK trade deal talk.

Which means the Tories, having said how useful and important brinkmanship is, are now up the stakes even more - and for themselves only as the EU don't give a sh.t about any wrecking a potential US-UK trade deal.

Is this the point Brexiteers start arguing that the US needs us more than we need them, that American chlorinated chicken companies will force the US to give us a good deal, that the US should give us a deal because we have aircraft carriers, that the US owe us because we beat Hitler, that if Congress refuses to give us a deal we’ll just negotiate over their heads directly with the President and that actually reverting to WTO tariffs with the US is in fact even better than a deal.

They now lost the advocate general for Scotland: Lord Keen resigns

And I heard Buckland on R4's Today programme this morning - brilliant bit of weaselling: it's ok to put those dodgy clauses into the Bill - if the EU doesn't act in good faith then it won't be illegal. It's only illegal if the EU is acting in good faith...

Of course seeing as the Brexiteers are already arguing that the EU isn't acting in good faith, then by definition, the government can't be acting illegally...

Brilliant bit of circular logic.

Relax everyone it is all a big misunderstanding on Nancy Pelosi's part.

Somehow in all the confusion over the last week and more regarding the UK government's stated wish to break international law by unilaterally reneging on the WA and ripping up the GFA, the central message has been lost and it has taken over a week of intense debate, criticism and commentary for this to become apparent to a dead newt under a rock in the Amazon Rainforest the UK government.

The central message is that in fact by categorically ignoring the wishes of the Irish, the Nationalists, the Unionists and the US the British government are reality protecting the NI Peace Process and this has always been the priority of the Brexiteers as highlighted by the fact they didn't realise it was even an issue until about 18 months ago.

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:32 pm

So the US congress and a number of senators have come out and said that anything that buggers up the Good Friday Agreement will scupper any US-UK trade deal talk.

Also a former senator, Joe Biden, who tweeted yesterday that "Any trade deal between the U.S. and U.K. must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the return of a hard border. period."

bolo wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:52 pm

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:32 pm

So the US congress and a number of senators have come out and said that anything that buggers up the Good Friday Agreement will scupper any US-UK trade deal talk.

Also a former senator, Joe Biden, who tweeted yesterday that "Any trade deal between the U.S. and U.K. must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the return of a hard border. period."

I like that there was some Tory interviewed who claimed that, "well, he's in a campaign and a lot can be said when campaigning that changes when in the position"

Except... that's been a pretty consistent line from the Democrats for a long time now - I seem to remember (might have been Nancy Pelosi) bringing it up months ago, maybe even around the time Johnson was fumbling for negotiating the deal (that he never intended to keep).

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:01 pm

bolo wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:52 pm

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:32 pm

So the US congress and a number of senators have come out and said that anything that buggers up the Good Friday Agreement will scupper any US-UK trade deal talk.

Also a former senator, Joe Biden, who tweeted yesterday that "Any trade deal between the U.S. and U.K. must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the return of a hard border. period."

I like that there was some Tory interviewed who claimed that, "well, he's in a campaign and a lot can be said when campaigning that changes when in the position"

Except... that's been a pretty consistent line from the Democrats for a long time now - I seem to remember (might have been Nancy Pelosi) bringing it up months ago, maybe even around the time Johnson was fumbling for negotiating the deal (that he never intended to keep).

How about April last year? (I didn't search for articles older than that, and Pelosi was a keyword)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... d-47979214

Pretty sure some Republicans have said similar before now too, but not the ones in the White House.

It is not irrelevant that the Irish-American population is 7 times the population of Ireland.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... n-ireland/

The UK won’t build a hard border and neither will the EU.

For real- this is what the solution looks like. It’s going to be a fudge. The language being used just needs to catch up with reality.

How that fudge works in practice is anyone’s guess. The UK will probably commit to some sort of international anti smuggling / people trafficking endeavour (that generates the necessary red tape) with the EU to smooth it over.

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:14 am

The UK won’t build a hard border and neither will the EU.

For real- this is what the solution looks like. It’s going to be a fudge. The language being used just needs to catch up with reality.

Initially, I agree.

They'll have to if the lack of border checks attracts significant criminal activity.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:18 am

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:14 am

The UK won’t build a hard border and neither will the EU.

For real- this is what the solution looks like. It’s going to be a fudge. The language being used just needs to catch up with reality.

Initially, I agree.

They'll have to if the lack of border checks attracts significant criminal activity.

You still have to square the circle of officially leaving the SM and CU and (re)creating a raft of new trade agreements with the ROW,while de facto remaining within the SM and CU, without falling foul of the WTO's Most-Favoured-Nation principle.

How we do that remains unanswered. Does anyone remember when everyone suddenly became an expert on GATT24 for about 5 minutes in the Before Times, halycon days, we don't hear much about that now for some reason? Reality sucks!

Even Minford's Unilateral Free Trade idea just multiplies the problem, an EU concerned that the NI border becomes an open backdoor for shoddy US products is going to be even more worried if the UK simply lets the dreck of the World's Markets flood in from everywhere. You can also wave goodbye to UK manufacturing and agriculture on the Leap of Faith that when the dust settles we will have successfully leveraged our comparative advantage in innovative jams into turning us into the economic juggernaut of the world and that once we lead the way the ROW will see the light and reciprocate UFT for us when we've already given them what they wanted.

IANAInternationalTradeExpert but I also assume even the free-est of UFTs still wouldn't completely replicate the regulatory convergence and equivalence of the SM and CU so even then you would still need some sort of border check.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:18 am

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:14 am

The UK won’t build a hard border and neither will the EU.

For real- this is what the solution looks like. It’s going to be a fudge. The language being used just needs to catch up with reality.

Initially, I agree.

They'll have to if the lack of border checks attracts significant criminal activity.

Yes, that's where my second paragraph comes in. There will be some sort of anti smuggling task force set up, probably under the disguise of increased Border Force funding to Stop Teh Dingys

Little waster wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:11 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:18 am

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:14 am

The UK won’t build a hard border and neither will the EU.

For real- this is what the solution looks like. It’s going to be a fudge. The language being used just needs to catch up with reality.

Initially, I agree.

They'll have to if the lack of border checks attracts significant criminal activity.

You still have to square the circle of officially leaving the SM and CU and (re)creating a raft of new trade agreements with the ROW,while de facto remaining within the SM and CU, without falling foul of the WTO's Most-Favoured-Nation principle.

How we do that remains unanswered. Does anyone remember when everyone suddenly became an expert on GATT24 for about 5 minutes in the Before Times, halycon days, we don't hear much about that now for some reason? Reality sucks!

Even Minford's Unilateral Free Trade idea just multiplies the problem, an EU concerned that the NI border becomes an open backdoor for shoddy US products is going to be even more worried if the UK simply lets the dreck of the World's Markets flood in from everywhere. You can also wave goodbye to UK manufacturing and agriculture on the Leap of Faith that when the dust settles we will have successfully leveraged our comparative advantage in innovative jams into turning us into the economic juggernaut of the world and that once we lead the way the ROW will see the light and reciprocate UFT for us when we've already given them what they wanted.

IANAInternationalTradeExpert but I also assume even the free-est of UFTs still wouldn't completely replicate the regulatory convergence and equivalence of the SM and CU so even then you would still need some sort of border check.

Yup - the single market needs borders. It doesn't work otherwise, and Johnson agreed to that 9 months ago.

Little waster wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:11 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:18 am

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:14 am

The UK won’t build a hard border and neither will the EU.

For real- this is what the solution looks like. It’s going to be a fudge. The language being used just needs to catch up with reality.

Initially, I agree.

They'll have to if the lack of border checks attracts significant criminal activity.

You still have to square the circle of officially leaving the SM and CU and (re)creating a raft of new trade agreements with the ROW,while de facto remaining within the SM and CU, without falling foul of the WTO's Most-Favoured-Nation principle.

Yes, but regarding the WTO it'll still take time. The WTO isn't the trade police. Its more a binding arbitration service. A state would have to take a case to the WTO, and the WTO would then have to issue a ruling. All of which usually takes years and massive sums spent on lawyers.

The UK will need to be in compliance with WTO rules, but it won't be forced to for a while.

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:39 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:18 am

plodder wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:14 am

The UK won’t build a hard border and neither will the EU.

For real- this is what the solution looks like. It’s going to be a fudge. The language being used just needs to catch up with reality.

Initially, I agree.

They'll have to if the lack of border checks attracts significant criminal activity.

Yes, that's where my second paragraph comes in. There will be some sort of anti smuggling task force set up, probably under the disguise of increased Border Force funding to Stop Teh Dingys

To a certain extent, this already happens, and has been happening since well before anyone considered Brexit as a serious possibility. Even with both parts of the island of Ireland inside the SM and CU, it is still possible to make money by smuggling goods across the border - particularly fuel and tobacco. The lost revenue associated with such smuggling probably runs into billions, and the PSNI and Gardai have for a long time devoted significant resources to combatting it.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:31 pm

Little waster wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:11 am

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:18 am

Initially, I agree.

They'll have to if the lack of border checks attracts significant criminal activity.

You still have to square the circle of officially leaving the SM and CU and (re)creating a raft of new trade agreements with the ROW,while de facto remaining within the SM and CU, without falling foul of the WTO's Most-Favoured-Nation principle.

Yes, but regarding the WTO it'll still take time. The WTO isn't the trade police. Its more a binding arbitration service. A state would have to take a case to the WTO, and the WTO would then have to issue a ruling. All of which usually takes years and massive sums spent on lawyers.

The UK will need to be in compliance with WTO rules, but it won't be forced to for a while.

Oh I've no doubt it is exactly the sort of "whizzo wheeze" that the Owl of the Remove may have in mind; cynical, short-termist* and as self-defeating as any other Bunter scam. The problem is here that it still requires the EU to play ball and reciprocate when they have every reason and excuse not to; legally, economically, politically and diplomatically.

The EU would be able to point to the Brit's shameful reneging on the WA and resulting collapsing of the talks as the moment the GFA was breached by the UK and use that as the excuse to slap up a hard border on anything coming in to the EU from NI.

They have full buy-in there from the US and the UK has been repeatedly warned that is exactly how the EU and US will interpret such a move by the UK, nobody that hasn't already drank deeply from the Brexit Kool-Aid will give any counter-narrative a moment's regard and even the DUP now hold the UKgov in complete contempt, them f.ckers don't forgive easily.

For the EU an open NI border poses an existential threat to the integrity of the SM and CU (a fact the stupider fringe of the Brexiteers can't help crowing about) and the threat of an WTO dispute outweighs whatever marginal political and economic issues a hard NI border poses the EU as a whole. On the contrary, forcing a UK U-turn and rolling over the transition period for the forseeable is one of the better outcomes the EU could wish for, meanwhile if the EU can still export freely to the UK via NI without having to do the reverse then that is all to the good too, with the UK solely in breach of WTO terms and the EU fully in the clear.

Ireland is the only one with a real dog in the fight and as one of the most-clubbable members of the EU it shouldn't be hard for the rest of the EU to persuade them to sit tight and wait for the US and WTO to steam-roller the UK and force the return of the Irish Sea border, all the while holding onto the moral high ground.

Johnson says whatever lie gets him through to the next newscycle, that route ran out of track several months ago to the point even a craven Conservative backbench and the right-wing press are calling him out on his BS now so it might happen but not for long as the economic, political and diplomatic fall-out can not be simply lied away.



*the WTO suggest 1y3m as a usual length of dispute which includes an appeal. I can also see how a breach of the WTO there closely following the UK welching on the WA would jeopardise all other FTA discussions with the ROW as well as the stated issue with the US>

Anyone else notice Liam Fox is now in the last 5 to head up the WTO?

Coincidence...?

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:37 am

Anyone else notice disgraced Liam Fox is now in the last 5 to head up the WTO?

Coincidence...?

fify - get it right !!

I'd wanted to do something like that and forgot!

Thousands of Britons living in EU told their UK bank accounts will be closed.

The presumed loss of passporting (if there is no FTA with the EU) means that it will be uneconomical for UK banks to provide services into EU countries. For the moment this only affects customers of some UK banks in a few countries, because the rules for third countries operating in any given EU country are not harmonised (i.e., those EU countries have sovrintee over this). But if it gets to the stage where 200,000 UK retirees in France and Spain can't get their pensions paid, things might get a bit tasty.

Current discussion in expat forums boils down to "Just give the bank a UK address", but I suspect this will run up against demands to justify one's residence for tax purposes. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who can testify to the amount of paperwork involved in proving your address to a bank in another country, in order to prevent money laundering (which, as we learned over the weekend, works so spectacularly well).

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:43 pm

Thousands of Britons living in EU told their UK bank accounts will be closed.

The presumed loss of passporting (if there is no FTA with the EU) means that it will be uneconomical for UK banks to provide services into EU countries. For the moment this only affects customers of some UK banks in a few countries, because the rules for third countries operating in any given EU country are not harmonised (i.e., those EU countries have sovrintee over this). But if it gets to the stage where 200,000 UK retirees in France and Spain can't get their pensions paid, things might get a bit tasty.

Current discussion in expat forums boils down to "Just give the bank a UK address", but I suspect this will run up against demands to justify one's residence for tax purposes. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who can testify to the amount of paperwork involved in proving your address to a bank in another country, in order to prevent money laundering (which, as we learned over the weekend, works so spectacularly well).

Bugger. MiL retired to France and has most of her money in U.K. banks and has her pension paid into them. One more thing for MrsBJN to sort out for her.

Seems like the kind of thing some online startup would sort out and cash in.

In fact, I expect a TransferWise current account might be just the ticket, as their whole raison d'être is functioning frictionlessly across border. Possibly Revolut, and others, as well.

I've just been speaking to someone who regularly imports bikes and cars into Dublin (he's just bought mine) and he's a bit concerned about what happens after January getting vehicles from the UK. The rules for importing stuff into the EU with regard to sanitary checks are pretty stringent, right down to steam cleaning wheels and mudguards, asbestos certification for brakes and even crate materials and this will apply to the UK next year. As opposed to putting them in a van and driving them to the ferry as now.

I never knew.

We made sure our electric bikes went over to France this year, as they would attract duty if we waited until next year.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:06 am

Seems like the kind of thing some online startup would sort out and cash in.

In fact, I expect a TransferWise current account might be just the ticket, as their whole raison d'être is functioning frictionlessly across border. Possibly Revolut, and others, as well.

I'm not sure if that helps, since presumably the ability of those companies to operate GBP-EUR transfers across borders is also based on UK-EU agreements. I read yesterday (disclaimer: on Facebook) that Revolut is moving its payment operations to Lithuania precisely for this reason. TransferWise is still headquartered in London AFAIK.

Also, many people will be using their UK banks for more than just the odd £1,000 transfer for pensions or council tax. Some will have an entire lifetime of savings and investment plans there, while living elsewhere.

(I don't think I would move any substantial amount of long-term money to Lithuania. It's a bit close to several hundred Russian tanks for my liking.)