My remark about Boris' political demise was a case of British understatement. The EU leaders would, of course, be glad to see him go, as long as the replacement wasn't worse. As Theresa's former speechwriter remarked in a radio interview this morning, they decided eventually that she was someone whom they could trust tokeep her word. That is not the case with Boris, certainly since the publication of the Internal Market Bill.
Neither side wants to be seen as the first to throw in the towel. The UK government are looking at a domestic audience needing to show that they tried very hard to secure the "easiest deal in history". The EU have bent over backwards to accommodate the UK (the very fact that we're still in a transition period that's now lasted since March 2017, a good deal longer than the 2 years that they needed to provide a transition period for, demonstrates how much the EU has tried), but know that any sign of giving up will be interpreted by the UK media and government as meaning they're to blame for the mess - even though it's all the fault of the UK government.
So, they keep talking, for the optics of stopping are not acceptable.
I think it's not unlikely that the UK is for a series of 'temporary deals' with everything up for negotiation every time a general election comes along.
That's certainly one route out of the mess. There are hints of that already, with the EU extending several key agreements so that UK airlines can continue to fly into the EU and giving time for a proper deal governing air safety to be agreed. For some sectors we will almost certainly see that sort of extension lasting a couple of years.
But, anything which is a large part of the trade between the UK and EU I can't see how there can be such temporary sector deals without acknowledgement from the UK government that that trade would need to be conducted under a system consistent with the EU single market - compliance with all relevant EU regulations (including those on state assistance to business) etc. The EU is never going to sign a deal that provides for the possibility of goods and services from the UK undercutting suppliers in the EU. That seems blindingly obvious, and the UK government's denial of that fact is incomprehensible. There seem to only be two options (other than rejoin the EU): to negotiate a Norway-like deal such that UK regulations remain compatible with the EU, or negotiate a deal that includes all the paperwork and verifications to ensure that those goods and services supplied to the EU conform with EU standards where the UK standards diverge from the EU.
I would guess that all kinds of temporary deals will be pretty toxic to industry which requires long-term planning on investments. For example, Toyota might continue to turn the handle on existing plant for a while as negotiations continue and deadlines come and go, but eventually market trends and obsolescence force peoples' hands and uncertainty will close things, permanently. Then again, that's slightly better than closing them in a month.
I think it's not unlikely that the UK is for a series of 'temporary deals' with everything up for negotiation every time a general election comes along.
That's certainly one route out of the mess. There are hints of that already, with the EU extending several key agreements so that UK airlines can continue to fly into the EU and giving time for a proper deal governing air safety to be agreed. For some sectors we will almost certainly see that sort of extension lasting a couple of years.
I might have not been clear; there is a significant portion of the political class and the press that will declare any deal to be a gross capitulation and a betrayal of Brexit (the better to blame any impact on impurity of the real and not imagine Brexit). In such a situation I can see the UK government selling the deal to the public as 'merely preliminary' -- which excuses any shortcomings, continues to give culture war red meat to the tabloids, and can be milked for the next election ("Only the Conservatives can safeguard the true Brexit").
If the EU can force Boris to compromise, that will be the end of him politically, and he knows that. So do the EU, and it doesn't bother them in the least. And the consequences of no-deal are likely to cause the end of him politically too.
In view of that, what would you recommend him to do.?
Johnson's damned either way, so, as far as that goes, it doesn't matter (as long as he is consigned to the cesspit of history) - but what about the country? No-Deal, in a way, might at least cut the Gordian knot, but some sort of compromise might be less harmful.
I don't know, but Johnson has only himself to blame for the dilemma in which he now is...and not a Unicorn in sight to save him...
The Royal Navy has 78 commissioned ships, 23 of which are major surface combatants and a further 23 of which are patrol vessels more than capable of seeing off a fishing boat. The rest are submarines, minesweepers, survey vessels and the like.
The Royal Navy has 78 commissioned ships, 23 of which are major surface combatants and a further 23 of which are patrol vessels more than capable of seeing off a fishing boat. The rest are submarines, minesweepers, survey vessels and the like.
The use of torpedoes without warning would be rather harsh
BTW, having checked up on the *cod wars*, I see that England was vanquished by Iceland at virtually every turn. Not much hope of expanding our post-Brexshit area of influence (ha!) in that direction, I fear...
If the Royal Navy fishery protection vessels start arresting French trawlers for fishing in UK waters, the French fishermens's union will organise an immediate blockade of Calais port. The French police will do nothing effective. Chaos at Dover. Will the Navy blast the blockading vessels out of the water, as theBrexiteers will no doubt expect? I doubt it.
I am not a legal expert, but I do happen to know that Calais has been part of France since Bloody Mary's reign, over 450 years ago. I think it is highly unlikely that the Royal Navy will obey orders to fire on French vessels in their own territorial waters, even if such orders were given. Also (this will come as a shock to many people) the French police have the job of upholding French law. They are actually quite effective at that, but they don't have the same power to break up union protests that British police do.
If the Royal Navy fishery protection vessels start arresting French trawlers for fishing in UK waters, the French fishermens's union will organise an immediate blockade of Calais port. The French police will do nothing effective. Chaos at Dover. Will the Navy blast the blockading vessels out of the water, as theBrexiteers will no doubt expect? I doubt it.
I am not a legal expert, but I do happen to know that Calais has been part of France since Bloody Mary's reign, over 450 years ago. I think it is highly unlikely that the Royal Navy will obey orders to fire on French vessels in their own territorial waters, even if such orders were given. Also (this will come as a shock to many people) the French police have the job of upholding French law. They are actually quite effective at that, but they don't have the same power to break up union protests that British police do.
If the Royal Navy fishery protection vessels start arresting French trawlers for fishing in UK waters, the French fishermens's union will organise an immediate blockade of Calais port. The French police will do nothing effective. Chaos at Dover. Will the Navy blast the blockading vessels out of the water, as theBrexiteers will no doubt expect? I doubt it.
I am not a legal expert, but I do happen to know that Calais has been part of France since Bloody Mary's reign, over 450 years ago. I think it is highly unlikely that the Royal Navy will obey orders to fire on French vessels in their own territorial waters, even if such orders were given. Also (this will come as a shock to many people) the French police have the job of upholding French law. They are actually quite effective at that, but they don't have the same power to break up union protests that British police do.
How did they get on with the 'gilets jaunes'
People are allowed to protest. It is only when it becomes violent or somehow illegal that there is a problem
If the Royal Navy fishery protection vessels start arresting French trawlers for fishing in UK waters, the French fishermens's union will organise an immediate blockade of Calais port. The French police will do nothing effective. Chaos at Dover. Will the Navy blast the blockading vessels out of the water, as theBrexiteers will no doubt expect? I doubt it.
I am not a legal expert, but I do happen to know that Calais has been part of France since Bloody Mary's reign, over 450 years ago. I think it is highly unlikely that the Royal Navy will obey orders to fire on French vessels in their own territorial waters, even if such orders were given. Also (this will come as a shock to many people) the French police have the job of upholding French law. They are actually quite effective at that, but they don't have the same power to break up union protests that British police do.
How did they get on with the 'gilets jaunes'
People are allowed to protest. It is only when it becomes violent or somehow illegal that there is a problem
The problem was that there was violence and the Police let them get on with it.
If the Royal Navy fishery protection vessels start arresting French trawlers for fishing in UK waters, the French fishermens's union will organise an immediate blockade of Calais port. The French police will do nothing effective. Chaos at Dover. Will the Navy blast the blockading vessels out of the water, as theBrexiteers will no doubt expect? I doubt it.
I am not a legal expert, but I do happen to know that Calais has been part of France since Bloody Mary's reign, over 450 years ago. I think it is highly unlikely that the Royal Navy will obey orders to fire on French vessels in their own territorial waters, even if such orders were given. Also (this will come as a shock to many people) the French police have the job of upholding French law. They are actually quite effective at that, but they don't have the same power to break up union protests that British police do.
How did they get on with the 'gilets jaunes'
People are allowed to protest. It is only when it becomes violent or somehow illegal that there is a problem
The problem was that there was violence and the Police let them get on with it.
Actually what the French police did was shoot people with flash bangs, permanently blinding some of them. They certainly didn't err on the side of gentleness. Police brutality is a hot topic on this side of the Channel.
It's long been noted that the French would never have let their government get away with a shitshow like the way Her Majesty's Government has handled Brexit.
You may think that, but the fact remains that the protesters were treated violently. Maybe some were acting violently themselves, of course, but that hardly justifies further police brutality...YMMV, of course.
You may think that, but the fact remains that the protesters were treated violently. Maybe some were acting violently themselves, of course, but that hardly justifies further police brutality...YMMV, of course.
If there is anything worse than being gas lit, it’s being gas lit by someone who does not know what gas lighting is.
If you can recall an earlier reply to me about pigeons defecating, I would like to extend the avian analogy. What happens to canaries deprived of oxygen? I suggest don’t reply and he falls off his perch.
I have enjoyed some comments by our brother above on other threads. He made a cracking joke in Heaven this afternoon.
But I decided early on, that although happy to partake in open , frank and reasoned discussions, I refuse to play Brexshit Bingo. No one can ever call House.
On the other hand, perhaps you enjoy it 😉
There seems to have been silence in relation to actual Brexit news in the last 24 hours - how does everyone interpret that? The markets look relatively positive (pound heading upwards), if their intuition counts for anything.
It is tempting to think that if there has already been movement on the level playing field, the rest seems much less significant. I am guessing that a gilded turd of a deal will emerge at the end of this week, just before UK parliamentary recess is due - so there is no time for debate (despite the likely tory diehard stooshie).
Any deal which allows tarrif free access to the EU and also the ability to strike our own deals would be fine.
That will mean aligning some of our legislation with the EU's. I'd sooner be doing that with a say over that legislation, but the country voted to lose that.
That's the problem, the UK government doesn't want alignment to EU standards and regulations, even for those parts of the economy trading with the EU. A classic cake argument, which has been the main feature of the UK stance since the beginning. If the government wants tariff free access to the EU markets then either the whole UK economy aligns with the EU regulations or there's a mechanism of paperwork and verification that any business trading with the EU complies with EU regulation. The first seems an anathema to the head-bangers because it gives up control over regulations (though, it was acceptable to a stronger economy like Japan which re-aligned it's regulations of car manufacturing to align with the EU regulations to gain tariff-free trade in cars and motor components). The second needs to be done in sufficient time to allow the paperwork to be drawn up, the organisations conducting inspections established and everyone to become familiar with the paperwork .... ie: not something for a deal just as everyone goes home for Christmas (though as we can't meet family maybe it wouldn't be so bad for millions of employees and business leaders to work through from the 22nd to 31st Dec, right up to midnight, to be ready for the new system at the start of January).
Any deal which allows tarrif free access to the EU and also the ability to strike our own deals would be fine.
That will mean aligning some of our legislation with the EU's. I'd sooner be doing that with a say over that legislation, but the country voted to lose that.
I trust the EU to make good legislation. Don't you ?
Any deal which allows tarrif free access to the EU and also the ability to strike our own deals would be fine.
That will mean aligning some of our legislation with the EU's. I'd sooner be doing that with a say over that legislation, but the country voted to lose that.
I trust the EU to make good legislation. Don't you ?
I trust the EU to legislate in the collective interests of its member states, of which the UK is not one. Most of the time that won't matter, sometimes it will.
Any deal which allows tarrif free access to the EU and also the ability to strike our own deals would be fine.
That will mean aligning some of our legislation with the EU's. I'd sooner be doing that with a say over that legislation, but the country voted to lose that.
I trust the EU to make good legislation. Don't you ?
I trust the EU to legislate in the collective interests of its member states, of which the UK is not one. Most of the time that won't matter, sometimes it will.
As I see it, if it's good enough for 26 other countries it would be OK for us.
That's the problem, the UK government doesn't want alignment to EU standards and regulations, even for those parts of the economy trading with the EU. A classic cake argument, which has been the main feature of the UK stance since the beginning. If the government wants tariff free access to the EU markets then either the whole UK economy aligns with the EU regulations or there's a mechanism of paperwork and verification that any business trading with the EU complies with EU regulation. The first seems an anathema to the head-bangers because it gives up control over regulations (though, it was acceptable to a stronger economy like Japan which re-aligned it's regulations of car manufacturing to align with the EU regulations to gain tariff-free trade in cars and motor components). The second needs to be done in sufficient time to allow the paperwork to be drawn up, the organisations conducting inspections established and everyone to become familiar with the paperwork .... ie: not something for a deal just as everyone goes home for Christmas (though as we can't meet family maybe it wouldn't be so bad for millions of employees and business leaders to work through from the 22nd to 31st Dec, right up to midnight, to be ready for the new system at the start of January).
Along with that:
(i) The alignment problem isn’t even really ‘live’ yet - we are currently aligned, so the hangup is about whether we can drift out of alignment in the future - without necessarily having any plans or need to do so. The no deal option would damage the economy in order to be free to do something that we might not even wish to do;
(ii) And even if we signed up to a deal that accepted unilateral action in response to a shift out of alignment, that would come with a period of arbitration should action be triggered - and even then, the punishment could hardly be worse than WTO terms we’d get by default anyway - but they would at least be delayed, and maybe not apply to all sectors.
You would think that BJ could see that signing up to a deal on those terms, even in deliberate bad faith (he has previous form, after all) would have no immediate consequences, other than some internal friction in his party.
As it is, I agree that importing and exporting business employees are going to have sleepless nights either way.
I trust the EU to legislate sensibly. I think that legislation would be better if the UK has an input to the discussions, because the more views are considered the better most decisions are. I would also be quite happy for the UK to remain aligned to EU regulations, even as they change without UK input. I'd very much prefer it if the UK was at the table, and we rejoin the EU before too much more damage is done.
But, that's not where we are. We're in the position of being out side the EU, with a government determined that the UK will not follow EU regulations and still have unrestricted access to the EU market for our goods and services. Which is clearly nonsense.
I trust the EU to legislate sensibly. I think that legislation would be better if the UK has an input to the discussions, because the more views are considered the better most decisions are. I would also be quite happy for the UK to remain aligned to EU regulations, even as they change without UK input. I'd very much prefer it if the UK was at the table, and we rejoin the EU before too much more damage is done.
But, that's not where we are. We're in the position of being out side the EU, with a government determined that the UK will not follow EU regulations and still have unrestricted access to the EU market for our goods and services. Which is clearly nonsense.
It is clear to me that if want to have tarrif free trade with the EU, we have to abide by the EU regulations. We are the guests.
Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.
Comments
So, they keep talking, for the optics of stopping are not acceptable.
That's certainly one route out of the mess. There are hints of that already, with the EU extending several key agreements so that UK airlines can continue to fly into the EU and giving time for a proper deal governing air safety to be agreed. For some sectors we will almost certainly see that sort of extension lasting a couple of years.
But, anything which is a large part of the trade between the UK and EU I can't see how there can be such temporary sector deals without acknowledgement from the UK government that that trade would need to be conducted under a system consistent with the EU single market - compliance with all relevant EU regulations (including those on state assistance to business) etc. The EU is never going to sign a deal that provides for the possibility of goods and services from the UK undercutting suppliers in the EU. That seems blindingly obvious, and the UK government's denial of that fact is incomprehensible. There seem to only be two options (other than rejoin the EU): to negotiate a Norway-like deal such that UK regulations remain compatible with the EU, or negotiate a deal that includes all the paperwork and verifications to ensure that those goods and services supplied to the EU conform with EU standards where the UK standards diverge from the EU.
O wait...it was designed by a Foreigner, wasn't it?
https://theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/13/hopes-for-avoiding-no-deal-brexit-hang-on-boris-johnson-call-to-von-der-leyen
Would you buy a second-hand country from this swivel-eyed loon?
I might have not been clear; there is a significant portion of the political class and the press that will declare any deal to be a gross capitulation and a betrayal of Brexit (the better to blame any impact on impurity of the real and not imagine Brexit). In such a situation I can see the UK government selling the deal to the public as 'merely preliminary' -- which excuses any shortcomings, continues to give culture war red meat to the tabloids, and can be milked for the next election ("Only the Conservatives can safeguard the true Brexit").
In view of that, what would you recommend him to do.?
Johnson's damned either way, so, as far as that goes, it doesn't matter (as long as he is consigned to the cesspit of history) - but what about the country? No-Deal, in a way, might at least cut the Gordian knot, but some sort of compromise might be less harmful.
I don't know, but Johnson has only himself to blame for the dilemma in which he now is...and not a Unicorn in sight to save him...
The Royal Navy has 78 commissioned ships, 23 of which are major surface combatants and a further 23 of which are patrol vessels more than capable of seeing off a fishing boat. The rest are submarines, minesweepers, survey vessels and the like.
The use of torpedoes without warning would be rather harsh
Of course Icelanders are Vikings. Mess with them at your peril.....-D
I'm already getting used to the idea of mackerel or cuttlefish with my chips, if cod is likely to be unavailable...
Pollock is pretty good, I find, and continues to be cheap and plentiful.
O...Pollock...oops...
BTW, having checked up on the *cod wars*, I see that England was vanquished by Iceland at virtually every turn. Not much hope of expanding our post-Brexshit area of influence (ha!) in that direction, I fear...
I am not a legal expert, but I do happen to know that Calais has been part of France since Bloody Mary's reign, over 450 years ago. I think it is highly unlikely that the Royal Navy will obey orders to fire on French vessels in their own territorial waters, even if such orders were given. Also (this will come as a shock to many people) the French police have the job of upholding French law. They are actually quite effective at that, but they don't have the same power to break up union protests that British police do.
How did they get on with the 'gilets jaunes'
People are allowed to protest. It is only when it becomes violent or somehow illegal that there is a problem
The problem was that there was violence and the Police let them get on with it.
Actually what the French police did was shoot people with flash bangs, permanently blinding some of them. They certainly didn't err on the side of gentleness. Police brutality is a hot topic on this side of the Channel.
It's long been noted that the French would never have let their government get away with a shitshow like the way Her Majesty's Government has handled Brexit.
It's probably not a good idea to pontificate too strongly about affairs in other countries without checking the facts first.
I was on about the effectiveness of the Police and because it went on for ages, they were certainly not effective.
You said there was violence and the Police let them get on with it, which assertion has been refuted - by someone who lives in France.
When you allow something to continue for weeks on end, that letting them get on with it.
What, pray, has this to do with Brexshit V?
No idea. Perhaps you could tell us.
If there is anything worse than being gas lit, it’s being gas lit by someone who does not know what gas lighting is.
If you can recall an earlier reply to me about pigeons defecating, I would like to extend the avian analogy. What happens to canaries deprived of oxygen? I suggest don’t reply and he falls off his perch.
I have enjoyed some comments by our brother above on other threads. He made a cracking joke in Heaven this afternoon.
But I decided early on, that although happy to partake in open , frank and reasoned discussions, I refuse to play Brexshit Bingo. No one can ever call House.
On the other hand, perhaps you enjoy it 😉
It is tempting to think that if there has already been movement on the level playing field, the rest seems much less significant. I am guessing that a gilded turd of a deal will emerge at the end of this week, just before UK parliamentary recess is due - so there is no time for debate (despite the likely tory diehard stooshie).
Just in time for Johnson to go into hiding for Winterfest...
That will mean aligning some of our legislation with the EU's. I'd sooner be doing that with a say over that legislation, but the country voted to lose that.
I trust the EU to make good legislation. Don't you ?
I trust the EU to legislate in the collective interests of its member states, of which the UK is not one. Most of the time that won't matter, sometimes it will.
As I see it, if it's good enough for 26 other countries it would be OK for us.
Along with that:
(i) The alignment problem isn’t even really ‘live’ yet - we are currently aligned, so the hangup is about whether we can drift out of alignment in the future - without necessarily having any plans or need to do so. The no deal option would damage the economy in order to be free to do something that we might not even wish to do;
(ii) And even if we signed up to a deal that accepted unilateral action in response to a shift out of alignment, that would come with a period of arbitration should action be triggered - and even then, the punishment could hardly be worse than WTO terms we’d get by default anyway - but they would at least be delayed, and maybe not apply to all sectors.
You would think that BJ could see that signing up to a deal on those terms, even in deliberate bad faith (he has previous form, after all) would have no immediate consequences, other than some internal friction in his party.
As it is, I agree that importing and exporting business employees are going to have sleepless nights either way.
But, that's not where we are. We're in the position of being out side the EU, with a government determined that the UK will not follow EU regulations and still have unrestricted access to the EU market for our goods and services. Which is clearly nonsense.
It is clear to me that if want to have tarrif free trade with the EU, we have to abide by the EU regulations. We are the guests.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.