Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Macy0161 · 13-03-2019 10:55am

Keyzer wrote: »

What an utter shambles - the sheer arrogance from the UK politicians is astounding. Corbyn is a disgrace, he's like a petulant child at this stage. I'd love to see him come up with a plan that would work.

Labour have had a plan for months, and been consistent on that (if not the referendum). There's been no engagement by May, as it includes a Customs Union, which is one of her self imposed red lines.

The EU would reopen negotiations with the UK with a change of red lines, which Labour would by default change. I believe that's what Labour were effectively told by the EU.

Basically, theres much wrong with labour as an opposition, but they have offered an alternative - the spin they haven't offered anything, is just tory spin.

Roger_007 · 13-03-2019 10:55am

I've never heard any of the hard brexiteers explain why it is preferable to be a relatively small player in WTO than being a big player in the EU. Do they think that operating under WTO rules is the equivalent of doing whatever they like? Do they not realise that there are much more powerful players than them, (US, China, EU etc), at the WTO table.
They are like stroppy teenagers who can't get on with their parents and storm out of the home only to discover that their newfound freedom is not as free as they expected.

Peregrinus · 13-03-2019 10:58am

Macy0161 wrote: »

Labour have had a plan for months, and been consistent on that (if not the referendum). There's been no engagement by May, as it includes a Customs Union, which is one of her self imposed red lines.

The EU would reopen negotiations with the UK with a change of red lines, which Labour would by default change. I believe that's what Labour were effectively told by the EU.

Basically, theres much wrong with labour as an opposition, but they have offered an alternative - the spin they haven't offered anything, is just tory spin.

There plan as announced so far seems just as cakeist as the Tory's - they want a customs union, but the freedom to strike their own trade deals. That's not a serious proposal.

They get cut some slack because they're in opposition, and an opposition doesn't have quite the same obligation to realism that a government does. But if they wanted to contrast themselves with the Tories, and present as a party with a credible, deliverable plan, they wouldn't be touting the plan they're currently touting.

josip · 13-03-2019 10:59am

lawred2 wrote: »

The M1 could get very busy then. This could be a boom time for Irish logistics, importers and haulage firms.

If Ireland will become a transit route then we really have to look at moving it by rail from Dublin port directly to Newry/Larne since most of it presumably will be leaving NI.
Congesting the M1 with additional trucks isn't the kind of low margin business we should be targeting.

First Up · 13-03-2019 10:59am

Peregrinus wrote:

None of this would be necessary. The Chinese goods will be lawfully imported into the UK across the Irish border. Because they have been imported across the Irish border, no tariffs apply, so there is no need for concealment, evasion, relabeling, etc; this will be entirely legit. The question of turning a "blind eye" to it won't arise; there is nothing improper going on.

Creating a channel to bypass international trade agreements is very improper indeed.

13-03-2019 11:00am

Deleted User wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mattfrei/status/1105763717587914753

EU not favourable for an extension so British politicians can merely continue to squabble about all this.

Guy Verhofstadt again. Even clearer than before. Hopefully its focusing some minds in London.

https://twitter.com/jamesmatesitv/status/1105768400180137985

Hurrache · 13-03-2019 11:00am

Jesus, there's still someone on BBC Radio 5 Live (I think it was that moron Kawczynski) saying they still need to face off the EU and not blink.

Boris Johnson also still saying the EU will concede at the last minute.

Enzokk · 13-03-2019 11:01am

Where are we today? The UK could vote for no-deal. Or they could rule out no-deal and ask for an extension. But the EU will not grant an extension if there isn't a new plan in place to break the deadlock or a new team negotiating a new deal.

So we could either have the UK going for no-deal voluntarily or be forced into one if May doesn't resign and it is obvious she doesn't have any other plans to resolve the crises. I think there will be no-deal due to the EU being tired of going through the motions with May and she will not be removed.

First Up · 13-03-2019 11:06am

Peregrinus wrote:

Are we going around in circles here? I've already pointed out, and you have already accepted, that goods can be transported through the EU without paying EU tariffs or meeting EU market requirements.

I have accepted no such thing. Anything in transit in sealed consignments using carnets must specify the final destination. Do you seriously think that the Irish, EU, WTO and UK oversight systems will ignore industrial scale abuse?

josip · 13-03-2019 11:06am

Based on the UK's fingers in the ears approach to date, they will vote for an extension but without any consensus/idea of what they want it for.
The EU will say go away.
They will crash out on the 29th.

Hurrache · 13-03-2019 11:09am

Enzokk wrote: »

Or they could rule out no-deal

Barnier this morning told them that this is not possible, if they don't sign up to any agreement No Deal is then the default based on how article 50 works. Unless of course they decide to revoke it.

robinph · 13-03-2019 11:11am

Enzokk wrote: »

Where are we today? The UK could vote for no-deal. Or they could rule out no-deal and ask for an extension. But the EU will not grant an extension if there isn't a new plan in place to break the deadlock or a new team negotiating a new deal.

So we could either have the UK going for no-deal voluntarily or be forced into one if May doesn't resign and it is obvious she doesn't have any other plans to resolve the crises. I think there will be no-deal due to the EU being tired of going through the motions with May and she will not be removed.

I think todays vote is just against no deal, not for no deal. If the no deal option isn't taken off the table by todays vote then that doesn't automatically mean no deal happens ... just that they carry on arguing with themselves with too many options on the table for a bit longer.

It's just another pretty meaningless vote with no meaning though as voting to take no deal off the table doesn't actually take it off the table at all, it just pushes it to the side a bit temporarily.

Mitch Connor · 13-03-2019 11:12am

josip wrote: »

Based on the UK's fingers in the ears approach to date, they will vote for an extension but without any consensus/idea of what they want it for.
The EU will say go away.
They will crash out on the 29th.

Can't see the EU not granting an extention. I know they shouldn't based on their rules (has to be a genuine good faith reason for it), but if the UK ask for it the UE will grant it - even from an optics point of view they won't want to be seen to force the UK on a No-Deal when the UK have asked for some more time (rightly or wrongly)

13-03-2019 11:17am

josip wrote: »

If Ireland will become a transit route then we really have to look at moving it by rail from Dublin port directly to Newry/Larne since most of it presumably will be leaving NI.
Congesting the M1 with additional trucks isn't the kind of low margin business we should be targeting.

But building a pointless 80 mile freight railway line is sensible?

Any idea what time to vote is meant to be at today?

Seth Brundle · 13-03-2019 11:18am

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Can't see the EU not granting an extention. I know they shouldn't based on their rules (has to be a genuine good faith reason for it), but if the UK ask for it the UE will grant it - even from an optics point of view they won't want to be seen to force the UK on a No-Deal when the UK have asked for some more time (rightly or wrongly)

Some more time for what though?
They've pissed away two years playing the hard man against the EU and have turned their backs on an agreement that May and the negotiators worked out with the EU.
What exactly do they want dditional time for?

josip · 13-03-2019 11:18am

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Can't see the EU not granting an extention. I know they shouldn't based on their rules (has to be a genuine good faith reason for it), but if the UK ask for it the UE will grant it - even from an optics point of view they won't want to be seen to force the UK on a No-Deal when the UK have asked for some more time (rightly or wrongly)

Have you seen the tweets posted above.
The EU are already saying they'll want a reason.
The UK at the moment don't know why they want an extension.

prawnsambo · 13-03-2019 11:21am

First Up wrote: »

I have accepted no such thing. Anything in transit in sealed consignments using carnets must specify the final destination. Do you seriously think that the Irish, EU, WTO and UK oversight systems will ignore industrial scale abuse?

But it still means that goods originating in the EU and arriving in Ireland can be shipped tariff free to NI. And presumably onwards to the UK mainland. The whole idea of a zero tariff border between two separate jurisdictions is a complete flaunting of WTO rules. Which I presume is why they are proposing it for twelve months only. End it before the WTO start getting antsy about it and cause them problems.

Infini · 13-03-2019 11:26am

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Can't see the EU not granting an extention. I know they shouldn't based on their rules (has to be a genuine good faith reason for it), but if the UK ask for it the UE will grant it - even from an optics point of view they won't want to be seen to force the UK on a No-Deal when the UK have asked for some more time (rightly or wrongly)

At this stage of the game an extension is not likely to be granted for one simple reason: After 2 years of saying they're leaving they've refused to agree HOW to leave bar crashing out. Quite simply an extension for the sake of it is a pointless endeavor as other things like the EU parliament elections and national elections take priority of a soon-to-be former member's inability to govern itself with any responsibility.

They're only looking for one to evade the responsibility of their own actions and the consequences of that decision. Honestly removing that extension might be better as it forces them to actually confront the problem and decide one and for all: Do you wish to remain a member (cancel A50 and no more Brexit) or do you wish to leave (as in now without any agreement and take the consequences of that decision). Basically make your choice and live with it and do your damn jobs that u were elected to do not evade the responsibilitys.

Enzokk · 13-03-2019 11:28am

robinph wrote: »

I think todays vote is just against no deal, not for no deal. If the no deal option isn't taken off the table by todays vote then that doesn't automatically mean no deal happens ... just that they carry on arguing with themselves with too many options on the table for a bit longer.

It's just another pretty meaningless vote with no meaning though as voting to take no deal off the table doesn't actually take it off the table at all, it just pushes it to the side a bit temporarily.

Yeah, I got my signals crossed. But surely if the vote against no-deal doesn't pass it means they want no-deal? I don't think that will happen though so it is a moot point. I actually have no idea why they are wasting another day debating the obvious, that the majority of MPs don't want to leave without a deal.

The day would have been better spent trying to figure out, with cross party support, what would pass in the HoC. But we will go down to the wire and I suspect that if May doesn't resign in that meantime, she will propose her deal once again at the last minute instead of leaving without a deal once the EU has rebuffed an extension.

badtoro · 13-03-2019 11:29am

Heard Nicholson in the EU parliment saying something like they didn't need to give the EU a reason for an extension, they just needed it for a good deal for themselves.

If that isn't enough for the EU to send a PFO message I don't know what is.

Enzokk · 13-03-2019 11:30am

Infini wrote: »

At this stage of the game an extension is not likely to be granted for one simple reason: After 2 years of saying they're leaving they've refused to agree HOW to leave bar crashing out. Quite simply an extension for the sake of it is a pointless endeavor as other things like the EU parliament elections and national elections take priority of a soon-to-be former member's inability to govern itself with any responsibility.

They're only looking for one to evade the responsibility of their own actions and the consequences of that decision. Honestly removing that extension might be better as it forces them to actually confront the problem and decide one and for all: Do you wish to remain a member (cancel A50 and no more Brexit) or do you wish to leave (as in now without any agreement and take the consequences of that decision). Basically make your choice and live with it and do your damn jobs that u were elected to do not evade the responsibilitys.

Agreed, the time to take control has passed and MPs voted against the amendments of both Grieve and Cooper that would have given them the power to influence where they go with this. Instead they voted against both of those attempts and May has to take her share of the blame for this as she whipped against it. Spineless and she deserves zero sympathy for putting us in this situation right now.

First Up · 13-03-2019 11:31am

prawnsambo wrote:

Which I presume is why they are proposing it for twelve months only. End it before the WTO start getting antsy about it and cause them problems.

I think that's the thinking alright. The same strategy might be used to avoid shortages in Britain from port congestion - just wave stuff from Calais through and hope it is all sorted before Australia and the rest get the WTO to act.

joe40 · 13-03-2019 11:34am

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/mps-attempt-rule-out-no-deal-revoke-article-50-brexit

Nice wee summary of the possible amendments. Hard to see any one commanding a majority and why would the EU agree to the Malthouse one.

A wee thought experiment. Imagine you an MP supporting either remain or like corbyn leave but stay in custom union. It is the 28th March. The EU have refused an extension.
May has refused to revoke A50, or call an election or a second referendum.
(I don't think a mechanism exists to force her hand in either of these, could be wrong there, one of the amendments seems to be looking at that)

She decides to put the current WA to the House one last time.

All other options have been exhausted what do you do. Support the WA or crash out the next day?

(I would imagine extension would be granted to get WA organised if passed)

Maye this is not a possible scenario, I don't know.

Inquitus · 13-03-2019 11:36am

murphaph wrote: »

But he would first have to land his goods in the EU and pay the tariffs. I'm sure this unfairly favours the EU over all the other WTO members. VW can ship cars via NI to avoid tariffs, while a US car manufacturer must pay the tariffs either of the UK directly or the EU indirectly. Surely this falls foul of mfn rules?

Yes I would think you are correct, as you note the EU effectively has tariff free access to the UK, the rest of the world does not. This must cause MFN issues for the UK.

Laois_Man · 13-03-2019 11:37am

Bertie Ahern just been on with Sean O'Rourke moaning about the UK Attorney General ruining the vote yesterday.

He seems to think Cox should have done something less than give a full legal opinion

That's Bertie for ya! Anyone wondering how our financial system collapsed? There it is!!

Christy42 · 13-03-2019 11:38am

murphaph wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Formally, no. All goods imported into NI across the Irish border are tariff-free, so a Chinese exporter, for example, could benefit from this treatment by sending his goods not to Liverpool but to Dublin, and then trucking them north.

But he would first have to land his goods in the EU and pay the tariffs. I'm sure this unfairly favours the EU over all the other WTO members. VW can ship cars via NI to avoid tariffs, while a US car manufacturer must pay the tariffs either of the UK directly or the EU indirectly. Surely this falls foul of mfn rules?

Near as I can tell, as long as goods have NI as the final destination listed on them they are fine to go through tariff free.

Then they need to figure out how much work is required to get an NI sticker on them and over to the UK tariff free as well.

Transport costs are obviously cheaper for the EU though but that is not a WTO issue.

nice_guy80 · 13-03-2019 11:38am

Laois_Man wrote: »

Bertie Ahern just been on with Sean O'Rourke moaning about the UK Attorney General ruining the vote yesterday.

He seems to think Cox should have done something less than give a full legal opinion

That's Bertie for ya! Anyone wondering how our financial system collapsed? There it is!!

its called politics
Bertie knows the game

Inquitus · 13-03-2019 11:39am

The Malthouse Unicorn compromise rears its head again, why vote on something the EU will never accept.

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1105774548786515968

Seth Brundle · 13-03-2019 11:39am

So at least one senior Tory gets it. Pity he's retired

https://twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/1105774562199793664

First Up · 13-03-2019 11:42am

Christy42 wrote:

Near as I can tell, as long as goods have NI as the final destination listed on them they are fine to go through tariff free.

NI is not a separate jurisdiction. It is part of the UK and will be treated as such by WTO. Unless there are procedures between NI and Britain of course, which remains the most practical solution outside of the whole UK being in a CU

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments