Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[JPRouve]

I used China's dumping of steel on the EU markets, because the demand in China itself diminished, creating an excess which they dumped, all over the world, it was nothing to do with having a FTA, they were able to access the single market without a FTA, and as I think Paul the Wolf pointed out, the tariffs were then change.

It was simply to illustrate (see rest of that post) the point that all countries (if they are able to) will try to protect certain industries they see as being vital.

Taking things out of context is of course nonsense!

Okay, I see. You basically don't understand what accessing the single market meant in the context that @nickm alluded to. We are talking about free access, free access means without barriers to entry basically no custom checks and or VAT.

 

[Pexbo]

I think she could carry 20 - 30 mps who would back her amendment and perhaps the same amount who would abstain as they eye the future and think it might look bad on their voting records

Show me one MP that gives a single solitary shit about their voting record.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Show me one MP that gives a single solitary shit about their voting record.

Corbyn?

 

[Pexbo]

Corbyn?

Oh don’t start him off ffs

 

[sun_tzu]

Show me one MP that gives a single solitary shit about their voting record.

ones who are not in line for a top job under a boris leadership but fancy a senior job if there is a new moderate leader

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Oh don’t start him off ffs

Ha ha! Sorry. It is true though.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Oven ready.

I wonder if he was actually talking about putting the whole country in the oven.

 

[Jippy]

Oven ready.

I wonder if he was actually talking about putting the whole country in the oven.

Shame it wasn't his head.

 

[Frosty]

ones who are not in line for a top job under a boris leadership but fancy a senior job if there is a new moderate leader

Not sure there are many of them left sadly.

 

[Frosty]

I also saw that EU lawyers have the opinion that the UK government have already breached International Law just by tabling the Bill.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...row-that-uk-is-preparing-to-quit-brexit-talks

Britain has already breached the withdrawal agreement by tabling the internal market bill, prompting Brussels to plan legal action that could lead to financial and trade sanctions, according to a leaked EU legal opinion.

The European commission believes Boris Johnson’s government breached the terms of the treaty just by taking the first steps to pass a new law that would negate key parts of the agreement signed last year.
“Already by tabling the draft bill and pursuing the policy expressed therein, the UK government is in violation of the good faith obligation under the withdrawal agreement (article 5) because this bill jeopardises the attainment of the objectives of the agreement”, the commission lawyers write.

The commission has advised the 27 EU capitals that there are therefore grounds for the bloc to take “legal remedies” through the European court of Justice before the end of the transition period, leading to significant fines or potential trade sanctions.

The legal opinion goes on to say that should the legislation actually be adopted it would be in “clear breach of substantive provisions of the protocol” in waiving any export procedures or formalities on the trade of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and in restricting the application of EU state-aid rules in the case of Northern Ireland.

“Once the bill is adopted (as proposed), the commission may initiate infringement proceedings against the UK for breach of the good faith obligations,” the EU lawyers write. “Even before the bill is adopted, it could be defendable to bring infringement proceedings on the same grounds.”

The lawyers add: “Given the length of the pre-litigation phase, it is unlikely that the case against the UK can be brought to the court before the end of the year.

“However, infringement procedures for facts occurred before the end of the transition period can be brought to the court during four years after the end of the transition.”

The paper says the EU court has the potential to “impose a lump sum or penalty payment” on the UK, or Brussels could use the dispute settlement mechanism under the withdrawal agreement, “which may ultimately also result in the imposition of financial sanctions by the arbitration panel”.

“In case of non-payment or persisting non-compliance, the complaining party is entitled to suspend its obligations arising from the withdrawal agreement (with the significant exception of the provisions relating to citizens) or from the future EU/UK agreement,” the lawyers write.

The development comes as one of the European commission’s top officials arrived in London for an emergency talks with the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove.

The two spoke on Wednesday night by phone but Maroš Šefčovič had asked for Thursday’s urgent meeting for a “face to face” explanation for the government’s proposal to breach international law and “disapply” some of the Northern Ireland Brexit arrangements in the event of no trade deal.

Brexit talks had resumed on Tuesday but nosedived after it emerged that the UK was planning to row back on some of the Northern Ireland protocol through a section inserted into the internal market bill published on Wednesday.

Gove and Šefčovič will meet privately before a full extraordinary meeting of the EU-UK joint committee, which they both chair, which was set up to implement the withdrawal agreement in all its parts including the Northern Ireland protocol.

Brussels has accused Boris Johnson of deliberately endangering the talks with unconfirmed reports circulating in Westminster that the UK is prepared to walk away sooner rather than later.
Šefčovič told reporters on Wednesday night the UK was aware that a lack of respect for the withdrawal agreement would have consequences and said that trust in the UK was a prerequisite for talks continuing.
“For us this is of course a matter of principle,” he said.

The Irish prime minister, Micheál Martin, said there were now “justifiable doubts” as to whether the UK wanted to conclude trade negotiations at all.

On Sunday Johnson said that if there was no deal by 15 October then both sides should “accept that and move on”.

It is understood that chief negotiator David Frost has told colleagues the best possible scenario is a low grade deal, suggesting that no deal is, by comparison, not such an unpalatable option.

He said that the UK would then trade with the EU like Australia, which does not have a deal with the bloc, describing that as “a good outcome for the UK”.

Brussels is now alive to the notion that the internal market bill, which the Northern Ireland secretary, Brandon Lewis, admitted would breach the law, was designed to collapse the talks.

“Our colleagues in Europe, in particular those conducting the negotiations, are now wondering whether the will is there or not to arrive at a conclusion and get an agreement – and that is a very serious issue,” Martin told the Financial Times in Dublin.

Adding to the tension, sources said the European commission had been entirely blindsided by the internal market bill with no notice provided of the changes the government was looking to make to the withdrawal agreement.

The British attitude to the issues of state aid notifications and export declarations had been a concern to EU representatives sitting on the joint committee, according to sources in Brussels. But there had been no indication of the scale of the changes the UK would seek to make.

One senior EU diplomat said: “In four years of negotiations this is the absolute low. They could at least have tried to fudge it.

“UK ministers are getting the powers to overrule not only international but also national law? By now we’re well used to seeing this in other parts of the world but Britain?

“We still strive to come to an agreement within the limited time that remains as the basis for future relations. The importance of a functioning governance clause has only increased after the last couple of days.”

 

[golden_blunder]

Oven ready.

I wonder if he was actually talking about putting the whole country in the oven.

Half the country probably wishes they could put the whole cabinet in the oven

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Pound down to €1.09 = £1. Johnson trying to make it worthless even before the end of the transition period.

 

[Buster15]

My newspaper suggested the UK is playing these games to try and get the EU and US to compete with each other to obtain a trade advantage with the UK. Looks like that might not work out quite as planned, then.

Playing games with either or both the USA and EU is guaranteed to end badly. You don't play games with trading partners, especially when they are significantly bigger than you. If it is a tactic, it is naive in the extreme.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Pound down to €1.09 = £1. Johnson trying to make it worthless even before the end of the transition period.

Oh deadly, have a few things I wanted to get from the UK.

Thanks Boris!

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Oh deadly, have a few things I wanted to get from the UK.

Thanks Boris!

And it's still falling at the moment

 

[Cheimoon]

That'd be a really, really dumb negotiating strategy. Which makes it very pausible.

It's all so obvious, isn't it. Or I'm just not getting this 99D chess thing, of course.

Wonder how Cummings and Johnson will spin economic sanctions.

How many MPs will actually knowingly vote for a BIll that contravenes International Law?

In the meantime the UK have decided to have a new National Anthem:

Spoiler: National Anthem

I think that's rather the EU perspective. Looks like the Tories are Dead Kennedys fans rather. (Who'd've known!)

Spoiler: Dead Kennedys Cover

 

[Cheimoon]

Playing games with either or both the USA and EU is guaranteed to end badly. You don't play games with trading partners, especially when they are significantly bigger than you. If it is a tactic, it is naive in the extreme.

It's hilarious though (in a cynical way): it seems the Tories are trying to feck over part of the UK (NI) to play the long game with the EU and US - and get slammed for it by the US the instant this becomes clear. Back to the drawing board!

(Or they assume Pelosi's opinion doesn't count for shit. I suppose they're right that Trump won't give a damn about NI - but then trade deals do need to be ratified by the House in the US.)

 

[Paul the Wolf]

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_20_1607

extract:

Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič called on the UK government to withdraw these measures from the draft Bill in the shortest time possible and in any case by the end of the month. He stated that by putting forward this Bill, the UK has seriously damaged trust between the EU and the UK. It is now up to the UK government to re-establish that trust.

He reminded the UK government that the Withdrawal Agreement contains a number of mechanisms and legal remedies to address violations of the legal obligations contained in the text – which the European Union will not be shy in using.

 

[Maticmaker]

Okay, I see. You basically don't understand what accessing the single market meant in the context that @nickm alluded to. We are talking about free access, free access means without barriers to entry basically no custom checks and or VAT.

I know exactly what is meant by free access, what I was saying was that with, or with out free access, China was able to dump its over supply of steel in the EU cheaply, even when paying additional tariffs, this movement still kept the Chinese Steel industry going until it could build up its internal demand once again and can be seen as a form of state aid in that it allowed the Chinese Steel industry to keep producing steel at the high volumes, irrespective of its own internal demand dropping off and then getting rid of the excess by dumping in Europe (and elsewhere) and paying a premium in additional tariffs.

With due respect, it is perhaps you that is not understanding, in particular what I meant about 'protectionism' policies.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Berbasbullet]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

All the lawyers on Twitter are going mad about this comparing it to a first years students paper.

 

[JPRouve]

I know exactly what is meant by free access, what I was saying was that with, or with out free access, China was able to dump its over supply of steel in the EU cheaply, even when paying additional tariffs, this movement still kept the Chinese Steel industry going until it could build up its internal demand once again and can be seen as a form of state aid in that it allowed the Chinese Steel industry to keep producing steel at the high volumes, irrespective of its own internal demand dropping off and then getting rid of the excess by dumping in Europe (and elsewhere) and paying a premium in additional tariffs.

With due respect, it is perhaps you that is not understanding, in particular what I meant about 'protectionism' policies.

Which is completely irrelevant to the posts you responded to and the question that you initially asked. This was the question that started the whole thing when nickm answered to that point you went on a tangent that made no sense:

Well that begs the question, when did we leave, or how can we say we left if we are still taking/following EU rules?

If you want to have free access to a market, you will have to follow the rules of said market. Otherwise you can be like China and will have barriers to entry.

 

[FireballXL5]

Braverman is an idiot.

 

[Frosty]

The state of that defence by Braverman...

 

[Paul the Wolf]

All the lawyers on Twitter are going mad about this comparing it to a first years students paper.

Quite clear that you have to be completely incompetent to get a senior post in Johnson's government.

 

[Frosty]

All the lawyers on Twitter are going mad about this comparing it to a first years students paper.

It really is. She has no grasp of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which is concerning.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Joke.

Obviously a country can decide to breach an international treaty, that's why there are dispute and non-compliance procedures written into the treaty text. The question is what the consequences will be for the UK if it goes ahead with a flagrant breach of its treaty obligations and international law. I'm no expert, but I doubt they'll be good.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So why are we leaving the EU to "take back control" if we always had it?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Joke.

Obviously a country can decide to breach an international treaty, that's why there are dispute and non-copmpliance procedures written into the treaty text. The question is what the consequences will be for the UK if it goes ahead with a flagrant breach of its treaty obligations and international law. I'm no expert, but I doubt they'll be good.

Financial and trade sanctions.
Remember when people were joking about the UK turning into North Korea.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Financial and trade sanctions.
Remember when people were joking about the UK turning into North Korea.

Oh good.

I can still move to the EU before the end of December right? I'm actually flying to Austria tomorrow morning - I might just stay there.

 

[Frosty]

Oh good.

I can still move to the EU before the end of December right? I'm actually flying to Austria tomorrow morning - I might just stay there.

FYI: https://help.unhcr.org/austria/asylum-in-austria/the-asylum-procedure/

 

[Maticmaker]

Which is completely irrelevant to the posts you responded to and the question that you initially asked.

No it is the question you asked ... see below

I need to ask, do you think that the UK are still a member?

This was a question from you, to which I was responding.

 

[Berbasbullet]

Quite clear that you have to be completely incompetent to get a senior post in Johnson's government.

Did she replace Dominic Grieve?

 

[JPRouve]

No it is the question you asked ... see below



This was a question from you, to which I was responding.

And you responded with the question that I quoted.

 

[Maticmaker]

And you responded with the question that I quoted.

Good I'm glad we got that sorted!

 

[Cheimoon]

Quite clear that you have to be completely incompetent to get a senior post in Johnson's government.

It really is. She has no grasp of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which is concerning.

She wouldn't have written this herself though, would she? Isn't this what she'd have expert staff for at her department?

 

[Frosty]

Did she replace Dominic Grieve?

Geoffrey Cox was the previous AG, and he replaced Jeremy Wright, who replaced Grieve.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

Did she replace Dominic Grieve?

Geoffrey Cox

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Did she replace Dominic Grieve?

No, they've had two since then, Geoffrey Cox was her predecessor

 

[Kentonio]

I can't shake the feeling that the motivators for this obvious desire to no deal are more related to certain individuals financial prospects and the economic future of the country is little more than an irrelevance to them. I simply cannot see any way that what they're doing makes any sense at all, except for that you can profit greatly from economic failure if you know its coming in advance and can prepare for it.