Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:49 pm

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Klaus wrote:
Soo... you're trying to claim that a no-deal Brexit will make no difference whatsoever, even though there will be massive new trade impediments erected by it?

And all that while trying to keep a straight face? :hypnotized:


I haven’t claimed anything of the sort, look at what I wrote.

Of all the car manufacturing in the UK 20% is for the domestic market the other 80% are for exports.

The EU as a collective take about 52% the rest going to third nations.out of that 52% are brands that will most likely have no effect wether an additional tariff is applied or not as they are out of the realms of the ordinary car buying public stuff like the Bentley Mclarens Aston Martin Lotus &Carterham.


Yes but what's the relative volume of one group vs the other?

There will always be some place for niche players of some sort that make ultra-luxury or ultra-sporty cars (not particularly profitable, but the niche is there), but the meat is in the mass market and just regular luxury segment.

Aston Martin as a whole has a turnover of about 1b, Sunderland produces 10 times that value in Nissans.

Bentley belongs to VW, Mini belongs to BMW, Aston Martin uses MB engines. Not that long ago no one thought that MGs would be anything other than British and there they are making cars as part of a Chinese conglomerate in China.


More importantly, the UK still enjoys lots of other trade agreements with 3rd countries. I absolutely don't know how many cars are among the things regulated, for example with the particial trade agreements between the EU and America it is. The UK will fall out of all those agreements with a hard Brexit. So in that respect the 3rd country argument is highly misleading. Sure, high end brands might not suffer that much, but even those trading on WTO must harm them too. If McLaren cost 1,5times as much as a Ferarri, the McLaren might be a little bit more special ;-).
 
Klaus
Posts: 21638
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:39 am

Guardian: Brexit: Johnson to override EU withdrawal agreement

Boris Johnson is drawing up legislation that will override the Brexit withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland, a move that threatens the collapse of crunch talks which the prime minister has said must be completed within five weeks.

Johnson will put an ultimatum to negotiators this week, saying the UK and Europe must agree a post-Brexit trade deal by 15 October or Britain will walk away for good.

[...]

Labour said the prime minister was “threatening to renege on the UK’s legal obligations” and called it “an act of immense bad faith: one that would be viewed dimly by future trading partners and allies around the world”.

In other words, the Johnson government is ready to deliberately and explicitly violate a registered international treaty they had just closed a few months ago and on top of that also the Good Friday Agreement to which both the EU and the USA are guarantors.

What a fantastic basis to all those grand deals with other countries all around the world they've been promising to their voters!

It's time for Michel Barnier to clarify yet again that this won't work with the EU, and that it will only make matters worse for the UK due to the massive loss of faith which would be the automatic consequence.

Well, it's what you get when you elect a bunch of incompetent chancers like Johnson and his clown posse who attempt to go all in on a bluff that's already been called.

I guess one of these days UK businesses and the general population ought to wake up to what's being done to them, in their own name.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 6020
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:40 am

Klaus wrote:
Guardian: Brexit: Johnson to override EU withdrawal agreement

Boris Johnson is drawing up legislation that will override the Brexit withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland, a move that threatens the collapse of crunch talks which the prime minister has said must be completed within five weeks.

Johnson will put an ultimatum to negotiators this week, saying the UK and Europe must agree a post-Brexit trade deal by 15 October or Britain will walk away for good.

[...]

Labour said the prime minister was “threatening to renege on the UK’s legal obligations” and called it “an act of immense bad faith: one that would be viewed dimly by future trading partners and allies around the world”.

In other words, the Johnson government is ready to deliberately and explicitly violate a registered international treaty they had just closed a few months ago and on top of that also the Good Friday Agreement to which both the EU and the USA are guarantors.

What a fantastic basis to all those grand deals with other countries all around the world they've been promising to their voters!

It's time for Michel Barnier to clarify yet again that this won't work with the EU, and that it will only make matters worse for the UK due to the massive loss of faith which would be the automatic consequence.

Well, it's what you get when you elect a bunch of incompetent chancers like Johnson and his clown posse who attempt to go all in on a bluff that's already been called.

I guess one of these days UK businesses and the general population ought to wake up to what's being done to them, in their own name.


Johnson, like much of the Brexiters, never had any strategy for the actual negotiation or implementation of Brexit. It's like dealing with a whimsical 10 year old in denial of reality... or one who's walked himself into a corner he can't get out of.
 
LJ
Posts: 5470
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:24 am

More interesting is the part where Boris is expected to set a deadline of October 15th. It's as if he wants to have the final word and doesn't want to be told what to do thus I set a deadline myself before yours (just to prove a point). Very childish.
 
LJ
Posts: 5470
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:28 am

Francoflier wrote:
Johnson, like much of the Brexiters, never had any strategy for the actual negotiation or implementation of Brexit. It's like dealing with a whimsical 10 year old in denial of reality... or one who's walked himself into a corner he can't get out of.


I sincerely wonder if this is correct. They do have a plan from start, but the one pursued in public is different from the one they really have. With people like Cummings and other think tanks behind the Tory party, I cannot believe there is no plan (it may not have worked entirely as planned, but that is a different story).
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:31 am

Klaus wrote:
In other words, the Johnson government is ready to deliberately and explicitly violate a registered international treaty they had just closed a few months ago and on top of that also the Good Friday Agreement to which both the EU and the USA are guarantors.


Do you know what the legislation is yet?

If not how do you know if it violates either the WA or the GFA?



Klaus wrote:
Well, it's what you get when you elect a bunch of incompetent chancers like Johnson and his clown posse who attempt to go all in on a bluff that's already been called.



Who says he is bluffing?
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:33 am

[photoid][/photoid]
LJ wrote:
More interesting is the part where Boris is expected to set a deadline of October 15th. It's as if he wants to have the final word and doesn't want to be told what to do thus I set a deadline myself before yours (just to prove a point). Very childish.


Yes MEPs said that original October was final but the first week of November could work....

Now we have 5 weeks to go.
 
94717
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:40 am

A101 wrote:
Klaus wrote:
In other words, the Johnson government is ready to deliberately and explicitly violate a registered international treaty they had just closed a few months ago and on top of that also the Good Friday Agreement to which both the EU and the USA are guarantors.


Do you know what the legislation is yet?

If not how do you know if it violates either the WA or the GFA?



Klaus wrote:
Well, it's what you get when you elect a bunch of incompetent chancers like Johnson and his clown posse who attempt to go all in on a bluff that's already been called.



Who says he is bluffing?


Was it not Boris that compared NI situation with solving traffic jams in London?

It is different to sit and plan over a glas of Whiskey or Beer that Mr Johnsson and his Empire dreaming Tories seems to like a lot it is different story to understand the balancing act politics in such divided federation like UK is special with NI situation.

I strongly do believe considering that all front page Brexiteers looked themselves in a number of days after the election. The plan was to gain political careers on playing the brexiteer card against Farage not to win the election.

Farage he wants a Singapore on the Thames. That is a plan but Tories does not want to show this for UK outside London.
 
User avatar
Kiwirob
Posts: 13775
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:55 am

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Klaus wrote:
Soo... you're trying to claim that a no-deal Brexit will make no difference whatsoever, even though there will be massive new trade impediments erected by it?

And all that while trying to keep a straight face? :hypnotized:


I haven’t claimed anything of the sort, look at what I wrote.

Of all the car manufacturing in the UK 20% is for the domestic market the other 80% are for exports.

The EU as a collective take about 52% the rest going to third nations.out of that 52% are brands that will most likely have no effect wether an additional tariff is applied or not as they are out of the realms of the ordinary car buying public stuff like the Bentley Mclarens Aston Martin Lotus &Carterham.


Yes but what's the relative volume of one group vs the other?

There will always be some place for niche players of some sort that make ultra-luxury or ultra-sporty cars (not particularly profitable, but the niche is there), but the meat is in the mass market and just regular luxury segment.

Aston Martin as a whole has a turnover of about 1b, Sunderland produces 10 times that value in Nissans.

Bentley belongs to VW, Mini belongs to BMW, Aston Martin uses MB engines. Not that long ago no one thought that MGs would be anything other than British and there they are making cars as part of a Chinese conglomerate in China.


Aston Martin currently used MB engines, within a couple of years they will replace them with a new in house designed TTV6.
 
LJ
Posts: 5470
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:55 am

A101 wrote:
Klaus wrote:
In other words, the Johnson government is ready to deliberately and explicitly violate a registered international treaty they had just closed a few months ago and on top of that also the Good Friday Agreement to which both the EU and the USA are guarantors.


Do you know what the legislation is yet?

If not how do you know if it violates either the WA or the GFA?


I hope you do agree that this kind of news isn't leaked without a purpose (especially given the fact that it's just before the 8th round)? Regardless of what's in the text, either the news was directed to ensure that the Brexiteers keep quiet (which means the news is for internal consumption only) or it's intended to blow up the negotiations and hope the EU will pull the plug and thus giving the UK a reason to blame the EU. What's in the text is irrelevant as the leaking of this news has a purpose (and no, I don't believe that the FT got an exclusive because one of their contacts leaked it without permission to them).
 
art
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:19 am

Klaus wrote:
In other words, the Johnson government is ready to deliberately and explicitly violate a registered international treaty they had just closed a few months ago and on top of that also the Good Friday Agreement to which both the EU and the USA are guarantors.


If true, agreed that this is an extremely bad idea.

How I wish that years ago, before the UK voted tl leave the EU, there had been a Northern Ireland Nationalist Party and Northern Ireland had voted to leave the UK. Northern Ireland could have stayed in the EU, avoiding the problems presented by having a border with an EU country.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:36 am

LJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Klaus wrote:
In other words, the Johnson government is ready to deliberately and explicitly violate a registered international treaty they had just closed a few months ago and on top of that also the Good Friday Agreement to which both the EU and the USA are guarantors.


Do you know what the legislation is yet?

If not how do you know if it violates either the WA or the GFA?


I hope you do agree that this kind of news isn't leaked without a purpose (especially given the fact that it's just before the 8th round)? Regardless of what's in the text, either the news was directed to ensure that the Brexiteers keep quiet (which means the news is for internal consumption only) or it's intended to blow up the negotiations and hope the EU will pull the plug and thus giving the UK a reason to blame the EU. What's in the text is irrelevant as the leaking of this news has a purpose (and no, I don't believe that the FT got an exclusive because one of their contacts leaked it without permission to them).


To be honest i think its a bit of both, I have only seen vague reference to parts with Internal Market Bill and areas with ambiguity, so not sure what sections are being legislated over, interesting have to wait for more infomation
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:52 am

Klaus wrote:
Guardian: Brexit: Johnson to override EU withdrawal agreement

Boris Johnson is drawing up legislation that will override the Brexit withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland, a move that threatens the collapse of crunch talks which the prime minister has said must be completed within five weeks.

Johnson will put an ultimatum to negotiators this week, saying the UK and Europe must agree a post-Brexit trade deal by 15 October or Britain will walk away for good.

[...]

Labour said the prime minister was “threatening to renege on the UK’s legal obligations” and called it “an act of immense bad faith: one that would be viewed dimly by future trading partners and allies around the world”.

In other words, the Johnson government is ready to deliberately and explicitly violate a registered international treaty they had just closed a few months ago and on top of that also the Good Friday Agreement to which both the EU and the USA are guarantors.

What a fantastic basis to all those grand deals with other countries all around the world they've been promising to their voters!

It's time for Michel Barnier to clarify yet again that this won't work with the EU, and that it will only make matters worse for the UK due to the massive loss of faith which would be the automatic consequence.

Well, it's what you get when you elect a bunch of incompetent chancers like Johnson and his clown posse who attempt to go all in on a bluff that's already been called.

I guess one of these days UK businesses and the general population ought to wake up to what's being done to them, in their own name.


So Britain wants to show to the world that they are completely unreliable and could change their mind at a whim. Moreover, Westminster doesn't care about Northern Ireland and the peace process there. One must wonder who exactly a hard Brexit is benefitting. Someone will make a shit load of money out of this. The general public will see no benefit and will be losing out of course.
The Johnson government is truly incompetent, I do not believe this is a strategy, agreed to a withdrawal agreement and then throw it away after a few months.

Anyhow, the correct response from the EU side would be. Ok, we took notice of that and just go on as usual. The EU should not respond to these kinds of desperate moves, it is to absurt to seriously describe it.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:01 am

art wrote:
Klaus wrote:
In other words, the Johnson government is ready to deliberately and explicitly violate a registered international treaty they had just closed a few months ago and on top of that also the Good Friday Agreement to which both the EU and the USA are guarantors.


If true, agreed that this is an extremely bad idea.

How I wish that years ago, before the UK voted tl leave the EU, there had been a Northern Ireland Nationalist Party and Northern Ireland had voted to leave the UK. Northern Ireland could have stayed in the EU, avoiding the problems presented by having a border with an EU country.


They did have 17 years before the Referenda to push for a border poll, its not like there was no movement on the subject before Cameron announced in 2013 that we will have a Referenda on the EU. The Lib Dem pushed for one way back in 2008, so its hardly surprising we eventually had one
 
Reinhardt
Posts: 480
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:05 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:24 am

A101 wrote:
art wrote:
Klaus wrote:
In other words, the Johnson government is ready to deliberately and explicitly violate a registered international treaty they had just closed a few months ago and on top of that also the Good Friday Agreement to which both the EU and the USA are guarantors.


If true, agreed that this is an extremely bad idea.

How I wish that years ago, before the UK voted tl leave the EU, there had been a Northern Ireland Nationalist Party and Northern Ireland had voted to leave the UK. Northern Ireland could have stayed in the EU, avoiding the problems presented by having a border with an EU country.


They did have 17 years before the Referenda to push for a border poll, its not like there was no movement on the subject before Cameron announced in 2013 that we will have a Referenda on the EU. The Lib Dem pushed for one way back in 2008, so its hardly surprising we eventually had one



REFERENDUM!!! Singular.

Screwing around with the Good Friday agreement, and borders in N Ireland / Ireland is an incredibly stupid and dangerous (literally) thing to do. If it's a bluff then it's going to backfire. If it's not, then it's sheer incompetence and shows you just how far they will go to deliver Brexit at any costs.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:53 am

Reinhardt wrote:
Screwing around with the Good Friday agreement, and borders in N Ireland / Ireland is an incredibly stupid and dangerous (literally) thing to do. If it's a bluff then it's going to backfire. If it's not, then it's sheer incompetence and shows you just how far they will go to deliver Brexit at any costs.


Brexitremist truly doesn't care about Northern Ireland, never have and this is just one more signal that this is so. Sad but true. Perhaps the best that Northern Ireland just secretes from the union and have it done with.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21638
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:45 am

Dutchy wrote:
Brexitremist truly doesn't care about Northern Ireland, never have and this is just one more signal that this is so. Sad but true. Perhaps the best that Northern Ireland just secretes from the union and have it done with.

Johnson hs been quite consistent with his dismissive neglect for Northern Ireland, so it's not really a surprise, but as usual not actually being on top of his brief will bite him on this as well, being apparently unaware that the EU won't be blackmailed and that even the US (both parties) will take a very dim view on trampling all over the GFA.

In a way this approach is consistent internally, though, since Johnson had only received the support of his brexiter backbenchers for the Withdrawal Agreement by openly promising to simply disregard it at the nearest opportunity.

It seems that opportunity has now come as far as he is concerned.

Ruining your own country's reputation and future prospects For Dummies! (first edition)
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 1:15 pm

So Johnson said he. would withdraw from the withdrawal agreement if the EU and UK didn't come to a deal before October 15th, Ursela von der Leyen did respond.

If the UK wants to have a deal, it needs to observe the withdrawal agreement. We live in a crazy world that this needed to be pointed out.

Link in Dutch
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3719
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 1:39 pm

Pathetic cry for attention by the UK government as the EU sticks to its legalistic line and simply moves on; much to the initial Brexiteer's disbelief, frustration and ultimately desperation even; after all the EU was supposed to be long running after the UK by now, begging for any sort of a deal that was of our choosing...

Ursula von der Leyen was pefectly clear today: violate the withdrawal agreement (an international treaty) and a trade deal is no longer possilble.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:24 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So Johnson said he. would withdraw from the withdrawal agreement if the EU and UK didn't come to a deal before October 15th, Ursela von der Leyen did respond.

If the UK wants to have a deal, it needs to observe the withdrawal agreement. We live in a crazy world that this needed to be pointed out.

Link in Dutch



No he hasn’t said that at all.


All he is doing from what I can see is putting a timeline on negotiations and if that is not forthcoming he intends to legislate where he has legal advice on certain sections of the WA. It then will go into dispute mechanism procedures to sort out initiate by the EU
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:42 pm

A101 wrote:
All he is doing from what I can see is putting a timeline on negotiations and if that is not forthcoming he intends to legislate where he has legal advice on certain sections of the WA. It then will go into dispute mechanism procedures to sort out initiate by the EU


I guess that Ursula von der Leyen is overreacting: Von der Leyen warns UK against breaking international law over Brexit deal and The Guardian is also wrong: Brexit: Boris Johnson to override EU withdrawal agreement.

Anyhow, luckily you put us straight, abeit with no links to prove your point.
 
LJ
Posts: 5470
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:13 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
All he is doing from what I can see is putting a timeline on negotiations and if that is not forthcoming he intends to legislate where he has legal advice on certain sections of the WA. It then will go into dispute mechanism procedures to sort out initiate by the EU


I guess that Ursula von der Leyen is overreacting: Von der Leyen warns UK against breaking international law over Brexit deal and The Guardian is also wrong: Brexit: Boris Johnson to override EU withdrawal agreement.

Anyhow, luckily you put us straight, abeit with no links to prove your point.


Dutchy, A101 is correct on this one. Boris says that there is no point at negotiating if there isn't a deal on October 15th. The Guardian article is also mentions that.

Johnson will put an ultimatum to negotiators this week, saying the UK and Europe must agree a post-Brexit trade deal by 15 October or Britain will walk away for good.


He cannot walk away from the WA as it's already concluded, he walks away from the negotiations of a trade deal. The article is a mess, it goes from WA to trade negotiations and then via WA back to trade negotiations again (not a well written article). Not the uaual Guardian standard.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:29 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
All he is doing from what I can see is putting a timeline on negotiations and if that is not forthcoming he intends to legislate where he has legal advice on certain sections of the WA. It then will go into dispute mechanism procedures to sort out initiate by the EU


I guess that Ursula von der Leyen is overreacting: Von der Leyen warns UK against breaking international law over Brexit deal and The Guardian is also wrong: Brexit: Boris Johnson to override EU withdrawal agreement.

Anyhow, luckily you put us straight, abeit with no links to prove your point.



Are you for real?


Let’s look at the facts, Johnson has alluded to new legislation in regards to the WA which has not been published as yet, so no one knows if it actually breeched the WA.

Now if the EU think it does there is a disputes mechanism within the WA, why would I need a link to something that hasn’t been published yet :rotfl:
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:43 pm

LJ wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
All he is doing from what I can see is putting a timeline on negotiations and if that is not forthcoming he intends to legislate where he has legal advice on certain sections of the WA. It then will go into dispute mechanism procedures to sort out initiate by the EU


I guess that Ursula von der Leyen is overreacting: Von der Leyen warns UK against breaking international law over Brexit deal and The Guardian is also wrong: Brexit: Boris Johnson to override EU withdrawal agreement.

Anyhow, luckily you put us straight, abeit with no links to prove your point.


Dutchy, A101 is correct on this one. Boris says that there is no point at negotiating if there isn't a deal on October 15th. The Guardian article is also mentions that.

Johnson will put an ultimatum to negotiators this week, saying the UK and Europe must agree a post-Brexit trade deal by 15 October or Britain will walk away for good.


He cannot walk away from the WA as it's already concluded, he walks away from the negotiations of a trade deal. The article is a mess, it goes from WA to trade negotiations and then via WA back to trade negotiations again (not a well written article). Not the uaual Guardian standard.


No he’s not Johnson hasn’t said anything about quashing the WA in its entirety, only legislating to what he believes he can change and that would also have got legal advice. We all have to wait untill it’s published then we will have a better understanding on what he intends to do.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 5221
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:54 pm

So long as the UK maintains the GFA I suspect that both the EU and the US (esp. Democrats) will cut the UK some slack in the event of a hard Brexit. Otherwise, implacable.
 
art
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:04 pm

I recall that after the UK referendum the UK government 'imported' all EU law so that it became British law, too. I t hink tthat he idea was to ensure that when EU law ceased to apply in the UK, the UK would still have laws covering the same things. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what happened after the UK left the EU this year? Does EU law still apply during the transition period? For example - just imagine - if EU law said you could not own a cat below the age of 18, would that law still apply in the UK at the moment or could the UK government scrap the law during the transition period?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 6:40 pm

art wrote:
I recall that after the UK referendum the UK government 'imported' all EU law so that it became British law, too. I t hink tthat he idea was to ensure that when EU law ceased to apply in the UK, the UK would still have laws covering the same things. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what happened after the UK left the EU this year? Does EU law still apply during the transition period? For example - just imagine - if EU law said you could not own a cat below the age of 18, would that law still apply in the UK at the moment or could the UK government scrap the law during the transition period?


No, if the UK leaves without a deal, then no, the UK has nothing to do with the EU, except for Northern Ireland.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:20 pm

LJ wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
All he is doing from what I can see is putting a timeline on negotiations and if that is not forthcoming he intends to legislate where he has legal advice on certain sections of the WA. It then will go into dispute mechanism procedures to sort out initiate by the EU


I guess that Ursula von der Leyen is overreacting: Von der Leyen warns UK against breaking international law over Brexit deal and The Guardian is also wrong: Brexit: Boris Johnson to override EU withdrawal agreement.

Anyhow, luckily you put us straight, abeit with no links to prove your point.


Dutchy, A101 is correct on this one. Boris says that there is no point at negotiating if there isn't a deal on October 15th. The Guardian article is also mentions that.


If the UK doesn't want to negotiate a deal after October 15th, that is fine. It is in their provocative to end negotiations.

Johnson will put an ultimatum to negotiators this week, saying the UK and Europe must agree on a post-Brexit trade deal by 15 October or Britain will walk away for good.


He cannot walk away from the WA as it's already concluded, he walks away from the negotiations of a trade deal. The article is a mess, it goes from WA to trade negotiations and then via WA back to trade negotiations again (not a well-written article). Not the uaual Guardian standard.[/quote]

Original article in the FT: "UK plan to undermine withdrawal treaty puts Brexit talks at risk". So the UK government links the WA to getting a trade deal. To what extent the UK government wants to undermine it, is not known yet. This move in itself is just to strange for words in international deplomacy. Threatening like this is worth to talk about.
 
Ertro
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:28 pm

art wrote:
I recall that after the UK referendum the UK government 'imported' all EU law so that it became British law, too. I t hink tthat he idea was to ensure that when EU law ceased to apply in the UK, the UK would still have laws covering the same things. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what happened after the UK left the EU this year? Does EU law still apply during the transition period? For example - just imagine - if EU law said you could not own a cat below the age of 18, would that law still apply in the UK at the moment or could the UK government scrap the law during the transition period?


There is no EU law nowhere that citizens could violate. Citizens everywhere need to worry only about their national laws. There are EU directives which member states implement in their own legislation and so UK has over the decades as a member state continuously adjusted its national laws if necessary to be compatible with EU directives without any big importing moment.

After UK has left EU without a deal UK can start adjusting its laws in however ways it wants as EU does not care what UK does. During transition period I don't think UK can do that just yet.
 
Ertro
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:37 pm

LJ wrote:
Boris says that there is no point at negotiating if there isn't a deal on October 15th. The Guardian article is also mentions that.

Johnson will put an ultimatum to negotiators this week, saying the UK and Europe must agree a post-Brexit trade deal by 15 October or Britain will walk away for good.


He cannot walk away from the WA as it's already concluded, he walks away from the negotiations of a trade deal. The article is a mess, it goes from WA to trade negotiations and then via WA back to trade negotiations again (not a well written article). Not the uaual Guardian standard.


That "walk away for good" might be much more bigger event than Boris or A101 realizes. It could be that EU, US and rest of the world including Japan think that there is no point negotiating with UK ever again on any subject if Boris does what he threatens scrapping very important parts of very important deal on a whim after he himself signed the deal promising to uphold those parts as part of the signed deal. What point is there negotiating about anything ever if the terms of the deal are not going to be respected?

Or if there are going to be negotiations every other country wants that much sweeter deal against UK to hedge against the risk that UK is not going to respect the deal. So UK is going to pay for its unreliability as a business partner.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:10 pm

art wrote:
I recall that after the UK referendum the UK government 'imported' all EU law so that it became British law, too. I t hink tthat he idea was to ensure that when EU law ceased to apply in the UK, the UK would still have laws covering the same things. Out of curiosity, does anyone know what happened after the UK left the EU this year? Does EU law still apply during the transition period? For example - just imagine - if EU law said you could not own a cat below the age of 18, would that law still apply in the UK at the moment or could the UK government scrap the law during the transition period?


Correct all current EU law carries over under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 until such a time Parliament amends repeals or make new laws the EU law will continue to be in force, but without ECJ jurisdiction
 
Klaus
Posts: 21638
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:34 pm

Guardian: Leaked EU cables reveal growing mistrust of UK in Brexit talks

Besides the further plummeting trust in this UK government (and it's already been at basement level), this is the most interesting part to me:

UK officials on Monday morning repeatedly stressed how minor the changes will be in the three key areas. The internal market bill will give ministers the power to decide whether or not potential state subsidies need to be reported to the EU, what counts as “at risk” goods that will need to be checked when crossing the Irish Sea, and whether export summary declarations need to be filled in.

If no mutual agreement can be reached by the joint committee with the EU, then ministers are likely to define those terms very narrowly, in the UK’s interests.

The withdrawal agreement currently stipulates, in contrast, that all goods should be deemed at risk of tariffs in the event of a lack of agreement within the committee.

“These are not changes made in good faith,” one EU official said. “But we will see what they actually do.”

So what these clowns are doing is proposing to legislate to unilaterally impose their own decisions and rules on the EU's internal market. That is what all three stipulations actually mean.

That, of course, would be an obviously unacceptable intrusion into the EU's own sovereignty and that of its 27 member states. This is clearly intended as a provocation to blow up the negotiations – or at the very least as a chunk of raw meat to throw to their rabid backbenchers before ultimately still caving to the EU's requests just like BoJo did on the Withdrawal Agreement.

This is exactly as hamfisted, puerile and outright incompetent as could have been expected, and having to deal with such low-grade nonsense (most probably) without losing his temper earns Michel Barnier not just every single Euro of his salary but also my respect and gratitude.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:59 am

Klaus wrote:
Guardian: Leaked EU cables reveal growing mistrust of UK in Brexit talks

Besides the further plummeting trust in this UK government (and it's already been at basement level), this is the most interesting part to me:

UK officials on Monday morning repeatedly stressed how minor the changes will be in the three key areas. The internal market bill will give ministers the power to decide whether or not potential state subsidies need to be reported to the EU, what counts as “at risk” goods that will need to be checked when crossing the Irish Sea, and whether export summary declarations need to be filled in.

If no mutual agreement can be reached by the joint committee with the EU, then ministers are likely to define those terms very narrowly, in the UK’s interests.

The withdrawal agreement currently stipulates, in contrast, that all goods should be deemed at risk of tariffs in the event of a lack of agreement within the committee.

“These are not changes made in good faith,” one EU official said. “But we will see what they actually do.”

So what these clowns are doing is proposing to legislate to unilaterally impose their own decisions and rules on the EU's internal market. That is what all three stipulations actually mean.

That, of course, would be an obviously unacceptable intrusion into the EU's own sovereignty and that of its 27 member states. This is clearly intended as a provocation to blow up the negotiations – or at the very least as a chunk of raw meat to throw to their rabid backbenchers before ultimately still caving to the EU's requests just like BoJo did on the Withdrawal Agreement.

This is exactly as hamfisted, puerile and outright incompetent as could have been expected, and having to deal with such low-grade nonsense (most probably) without losing his temper earns Michel Barnier not just every single Euro of his salary but also my respect and gratitude.



Mmmm interesting........ that’s a far cry from some on here suggesting that we are withdrawing from the WA and violates the Belfast Agreement.

Looks like the EU will put the dispute mechanism into play if BJ goes ahead.
 
Ertro
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:03 am

The internal market bill will give ministers the power to decide whether or not potential state subsidies need to be reported to the EU, what counts as “at risk” goods that will need to be checked when crossing the Irish Sea, and whether export summary declarations need to be filled in.

A101 wrote:
Looks like the EU will put the dispute mechanism into play if BJ goes ahead.


Yeah, UK seems to let individual ministers loose to decide on a whim without any formal process or even outside visible information how UK behaves potentially changing the behaviour 5 times per day and UK expects EU to respond with a rigid process that involves 100 lawyers and lasts about a year for each infraction when during that process UK has already potentially changed their behaviour 1500 times triggering 1500 similar processes. Gish Gallop on international level. Yeah. That is what is going to happen. UK is so clever.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:49 am

Ertro wrote:
The internal market bill will give ministers the power to decide whether or not potential state subsidies need to be reported to the EU, what counts as “at risk” goods that will need to be checked when crossing the Irish Sea, and whether export summary declarations need to be filled in.

A101 wrote:
Looks like the EU will put the dispute mechanism into play if BJ goes ahead.


Yeah, UK seems to let individual ministers loose to decide on a whim without any formal process or even outside visible information how UK behaves potentially changing the behaviour 5 times per day and UK expects EU to respond with a rigid process that involves 100 lawyers and lasts about a year for each infraction when during that process UK has already potentially changed their behaviour 1500 times triggering 1500 similar processes. Gish Gallop on international level. Yeah. That is what is going to happen. UK is so clever.



On a whim LOL


I really like watch the pro EU mob within this forum jump over hurdles and say this or that is going to happen when you haven’t even seen the legislation yet.

But in hindsight I think it might just be easier to invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and we can be done with the WA in 12 months time. As I suspect that the WA is in violation of the Article 6 of The Act of the Union (1800)

It’s a wonder someone hasnt contested with deep enough pockets. But I suppose it’s because it has nearly the same outcome of leaving the EU, I guess Gina Miller wouldn’t be interested not her cup of tea





The subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall be on the same footing in respect of trade and navigation, and in all treaties with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subject.

That it be the Sixth Article of Union, that his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall from and after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and one be entitled to the same privileges and be on the same footing, as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles, being the growth, produce or manufacture of either country respectively, and generally in respect of trade and navigation in all ports and places in the United Kingdom and its dependencies; and that in all treaties made by his Majesty his heirs and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.







Under international law, a nation may withdraw from any binding international agreement either in conformity with the provisions of the agreement—if the agreement permits withdrawal—or with the consent of all parties.31 Most modern international agreements contain provisions allowing and specifying the conditions of withdrawal, and many require a period of advance notice before withdrawal becomes effective.32 Even when an agreement does not contain an express withdrawal clause, international law still permits withdrawal if the parties intended to allow a right of withdrawal or if there is an implied right to do so in the text of the agreement.33 In those cases, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention),34 the withdrawing party must give 12 months’ notice of its intent to depart from the agreement.35 In addition, certain superseding events, such as a material breach by one party or a fundamental change in circumstances, may give rise to a right to withdraw.36

Last edited by A101 on Tue Sep 08, 2020 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
LJ
Posts: 5470
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:06 am

Day after the leak from the UK side, The Guardian has (conveniently) read leaked cables from the EU about its lack of trust in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/07/leaked-eu-cables-reveal-mistrust-of-uk-motives-in-brexit-talks

It has taken a while (longer than I expected), but the leaking seems to have started (usually this means that parties are positioning themselves for the blame game).
 
art
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:59 am

A101 wrote:
But in hindsight I think it might just be easier to invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and we can be done with the WA in 12 months time. As I suspect that the WA is in violation of the Article 6 of The Act of the Union (1800)

The subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall be on the same footing in respect of trade and navigation, and in all treaties with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subject.

That it be the Sixth Article of Union, that his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall from and after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and one be entitled to the same privileges and be on the same footing, as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles, being the growth, produce or manufacture of either country respectively, and generally in respect of trade and navigation in all ports and places in the United Kingdom and its dependencies; and that in all treaties made by his Majesty his heirs and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.



Invalid. The Irish are no longer subjects of the Englisn monarch.

Under international law, a nation may withdraw from any binding international agreement either in conformity with the provisions of the agreement—if the agreement permits withdrawal—or with the consent of all parties.


Does the WA contain a provision for the parties to withdraw unilaterally from the agreement? I doubt it.
Do all parties now wish to withdraw from the agreement? I don't think so.

31 Most modern international agreements contain provisions allowing and specifying the conditions of withdrawal, and many require a period of advance notice before withdrawal becomes effective..


I don't think that is the case here.

32 Even when an agreement does not contain an express withdrawal clause, international law still permits withdrawal if the parties intended to allow a right of withdrawal or if there is an implied right to do so in the text of the agreement.


I don't think that is the case here.

33 In those cases, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention),34 the withdrawing party must give 12 months’ notice of its intent to depart from the agreement.


I don't think that applies here.

35 In addition, certain superseding events, such as a material breach by one party or a fundamental change in circumstances, may give rise to a right to withdraw.


I don't think the EU seeks to breach the agreement whereas the UK may. In which case the EU (not the UK) could withdraw.
What fundamental change of circumstances - the UK not wanting to honour the agreement?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:21 am

LJ wrote:
Day after the leak from the UK side, The Guardian has (conveniently) read leaked cables from the EU about its lack of trust in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/07/leaked-eu-cables-reveal-mistrust-of-uk-motives-in-brexit-talks

It has taken a while (longer than I expected), but the leaking seems to have started (usually this means that parties are positioning themselves for the blame game).


From the linked article: “These are not changes made in good faith,” one EU official said. “But we will see what they actually do.”

We will see what The internal market bill actually looks like. "UK officials on Monday morning repeatedly stressed how minor the changes will be in the three key areas.", the keyword changes, so they admit there will be one-sided changes made to the Northern Ireland protocol:
"The internal market bill will give ministers the power to decide whether or not potential state subsidies need to be reported to the EU, what counts as “at-risk” goods that will need to be checked when crossing the Irish Sea, and whether export summary declarations need to be filled in."

Currently, it states: "The withdrawal agreement currently stipulates, in contrast, that all goods should be deemed at risk of tariffs in the event of a lack of agreement within the committee." So this means that the UK has decided it has been given the power to decide one-sided what will be declared and what subsidies need to be reported. In turn, the UK askes the EU to trust the judgement of the UK alone on these matters, no transparency. And if the UK decided to cheat and give unfair subsidies to undercut EU producers and not declare them, the internal market is compromised by a non member. In order to prevent that, a hard border needs to be erected between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
Not that difficult to understand what consequences are of undermining an agreement. Perhaps this is the most shocking in the article: "We have never seen it in those terms,” one senior government source said. “That idea has not come from anyone even close to this place.” So these senior government source is basically saying, he cannot judge correctly what the consequences are from the actions of the government. That is shockingly incompetent in such a delicate dossier.

We will see what it brings tomorrow.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:24 am

art wrote:
A101 wrote:
Under international law, a nation may withdraw from any binding international agreement either in conformity with the provisions of the agreement—if the agreement permits withdrawal—or with the consent of all parties.


Does the WA contain a provision for the parties to withdraw unilaterally from the agreement? I doubt it.
Do all parties now wish to withdraw from the agreement? I don't think so.


If they can or not is not the real question, the question is do they want to with all the consequences attached to it. Blowing up the Good Friday Agreement by forcing a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:56 am

art wrote:
A101 wrote:
But in hindsight I think it might just be easier to invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and we can be done with the WA in 12 months time. As I suspect that the WA is in violation of the Article 6 of The Act of the Union (1800)

The subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall be on the same footing in respect of trade and navigation, and in all treaties with foreign powers the subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges as British subject.

That it be the Sixth Article of Union, that his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall from and after the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and one be entitled to the same privileges and be on the same footing, as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles, being the growth, produce or manufacture of either country respectively, and generally in respect of trade and navigation in all ports and places in the United Kingdom and its dependencies; and that in all treaties made by his Majesty his heirs and successors, with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.



Invalid. The Irish are no longer subjects of the Englisn monarch.


No, Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom. Hence if the Acts of the Union 1800 did not apply then Northern Ireland is no longer part of the United Kingdom. Hence the Act was modified to take into account of the "Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act 1922"

From Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 UKGov
Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C6
Great Seal of Northern Ireland now used for all matters in Northern Ireland for which Great Seal of Ireland was formerly used: Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act 1922 (13 Geo. 5 Sess. 2 c. 2), Sch. 1 para. 2(4)

C7
Functions of Privy Council of Ireland transferred to Privy Council of Northern Ireland: Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act 1922 (13 Geo. 5 Sess. 2 c. 2), Sch. 1 para. 2(1)–(3)






Law of the United Kingdom
.

The United Kingdom does not have a single legal system since it was created by the political union of previously independent countries. Article 19 of the Treaty of Union, put into effect by the Acts of Union in 1707, created the Kingdom of Great Britain but guaranteed the continued existence of Scotland’s separate legal system. The Acts of Union of 1800, which combined Great Britain and Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contained no equivalent provisions but preserved the principle of separate courts to be held in Ireland, of which the part called Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom.





art wrote:
A101 wrote:

Under international law, a nation may withdraw from any binding international agreement either in conformity with the provisions of the agreement—if the agreement permits withdrawal—or with the consent of all parties.


Does the WA contain a provision for the parties to withdraw unilaterally from the agreement? I doubt it.
Do all parties now wish to withdraw from the agreement? I don't think so.

31 Most modern international agreements contain provisions allowing and specifying the conditions of withdrawal, and many require a period of advance notice before withdrawal becomes effective..


I don't think that is the case here.

32 Even when an agreement does not contain an express withdrawal clause, international law still permits withdrawal if the parties intended to allow a right of withdrawal or if there is an implied right to do so in the text of the agreement.


I don't think that is the case here.

33 In those cases, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention),34 the withdrawing party must give 12 months’ notice of its intent to depart from the agreement.


I don't think that applies here.

35 In addition, certain superseding events, such as a material breach by one party or a fundamental change in circumstances, may give rise to a right to withdraw.


I don't think the EU seeks to breach the agreement whereas the UK may. In which case the EU (not the UK) could withdraw.
What fundamental change of circumstances - the UK not wanting to honour the agreement?


What you are forgetting is that a fundamental change is happening irrespective if the UK/EU reach a trade agreement or not more so if no deal is reached. That in itself is a fundamental change in circumstances in which the UK could apply, hence why there was a big brouhaha about the NI backstop which would have breached both the Acts of the union 1800 and the Belfast agreement
Last edited by A101 on Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:59 am

Dutchy wrote:
art wrote:
A101 wrote:
Under international law, a nation may withdraw from any binding international agreement either in conformity with the provisions of the agreement—if the agreement permits withdrawal—or with the consent of all parties.


Does the WA contain a provision for the parties to withdraw unilaterally from the agreement? I doubt it.
Do all parties now wish to withdraw from the agreement? I don't think so.


If they can or not is not the real question, the question is do they want to with all the consequences attached to it. Blowing up the Good Friday Agreement by forcing a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.


Brexit does not blow up the Belfast agreement
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
art wrote:

Does the WA contain a provision for the parties to withdraw unilaterally from the agreement? I doubt it.
Do all parties now wish to withdraw from the agreement? I don't think so.


If they can or not is not the real question, the question is do they want to with all the consequences attached to it. Blowing up the Good Friday Agreement by forcing a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.


Brexit does not blow up the Belfast agreement


Good to know :roll:
 
Ertro
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:13 am

A101 wrote:
What you are forgetting is that a fundamental change is happening irrespective if the UK/EU reach a trade agreement or not more so if no deal is reached. That in itself is a fundamental change in circumstances in which the UK could apply, hence why there was a big brouhaha about the NI backstop which would have breached both the Acts of the union 1800 and the Belfast agreement


The WA was written specifically to address what is the arrangement if UK does not stay in the single market and there is a customs border somewhere.
Where is the placement of the customs border if that is needed somewhere.

The only exception to the assumptions that were in everybodys mind during the WA negotiations would be if UK would stay in single market and so that would be the only possible fundamental change.

Whether there is a deal or not is not any fundamental change because the difference between deal and no deal is just the level of tariffs that need to be payed when goods pass the border. Whether the tariffs are a little higher of lower that is not a fundamental change.

Now Bojo wants to break the customs border letting UK ministers unilaterally decide some goods can pass from britain into EU single market without EU having any say in what goods are passing the border into EU single market direction.

We can call "no deal" an "Australia-style-deal" as BoJo calls it to further emphasize that there is zero fundamental change whether the future deal between UK and EU is "Australia-style" or "Canada-style".
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:28 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

If they can or not is not the real question, the question is do they want to with all the consequences attached to it. Blowing up the Good Friday Agreement by forcing a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.


Brexit does not blow up the Belfast agreement


Good to know :roll:



You have known for sometime :D :D
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12842
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:38 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Brexit does not blow up the Belfast agreement


Good to know :roll:



You have known for sometime :D :D


This:

Ertro wrote:
Now Bojo wants to break the customs border letting UK ministers unilaterally decide some goods can pass from britain into EU single market without EU having any say in what goods are passing the border into EU single market direction.


So you are betting the EU will accept the judgement of UK ministers on what goods can be let in the EU single market without tarrifs? Or are you betting that Ireland will leave the single market just to aplease the UK with their Brexit? It has to be either one, if you subscribe to the view of this proposed bill, as far as we can see from the leaked information.

But let's see what the bill actually says, but it doesn't look good........
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:42 am

Ertro wrote:

Whether there is a deal or not is not any fundamental change because the difference between deal and no deal is just the level of tariffs that need to be payed when goods pass the border. Whether the tariffs are a little higher of lower that is not a fundamental change.

.


Well placing Tariffs on goods entering NI is a huge fundamental change under the UK constitution


Act of Union (Ireland) 1800
That all articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country, (not herein-after enumerated as subject to specific duties) shall from thenceforth be imported into each country from the other free from duty,


& as previously quoted
be entitled to the same privileges, and be on the same footing as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles,
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:17 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Good to know :roll:



You have known for sometime :D :D


This:

Ertro wrote:
Now Bojo wants to break the customs border letting UK ministers unilaterally decide some goods can pass from britain into EU single market without EU having any say in what goods are passing the border into EU single market direction.


So you are betting the EU will accept the judgement of UK ministers on what goods can be let in the EU single market without tarrifs? Or are you betting that Ireland will leave the single market just to aplease the UK with their Brexit? It has to be either one, if you subscribe to the view of this proposed bill, as far as we can see from the leaked information.

But let's see what the bill actually says, but it doesn't look good........



If you had read my posts upthread you will have noticed that i expect the EU to use the dispute settlement mechanism within the WA, I could not have made myself any more clearer

But from what has been posted so far, it seems to be what the UK deems to be an at risk product, if said product is not crossing the NI/ROI border it is not an at risk product under the WA
 
art
Posts: 4404
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:40 am

Iis time not running out for any new issues to be discussed? I imagine that any changes to current proposals will require a meeting of the EU countries. If an agreement has to be reached and approved by 31/12/2002, there is little time left in practical terms. Not much more than 100 days to go until the year ends.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3719
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 9:44 am

A101 wrote:
If you had read my posts upthread you will have noticed that i expect the EU to use the dispute settlement mechanism within the WA, I could not have made myself any more clearer


That disupte settlement mechanism ultimately leads to the ECJ: would you agree to the UK going before the European Union's Court of Justice and accept its ruling? Or are you going to be back here in say 14 months, arguing that Brexit was about no longer being bound by the ECJ and thus the UK not having to accept the rulings of it, is now perfectly logical? Just asking so we can already let you dig the hole for your constantly moving goalposts to be put in...

A101 wrote:
from what has been posted so far, it seems to be what the UK deems to be an at risk product, if said product is not crossing the NI/ROI border it is not an at risk product under the WA


The WA is perfectly clear on the fact that all goods going into NI from the rest of the UK are initially to be dealt with as 'at risk' products, unless they are declared not to be so by the joint committee (i.e. the UK and the EU), not by the UK government and certainly not its own unilateral intitiative.
 
A101
Posts: 2712
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part IX: Final rush to No Deal

Tue Sep 08, 2020 10:00 am

art wrote:
Iis time not running out for any new issues to be discussed? I imagine that any changes to current proposals will require a meeting of the EU countries. If an agreement has to be reached and approved by 31/12/2002, there is little time left in practical terms. Not much more than 100 days to go until the year ends.




Ummm what ????

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, Fco1967, Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], TheF15Ace and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos