brexit.... Jan 2021

[JohnRoberts]

Any thoughts/observations from our UK members about status of trade negotiations with EU.

Who wins if no deal is reached by Jan..? Obviously many people lose.

JR

 

[rob_gould]

Quite a few wealthy people will.

One example : https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/28/boris-johnson-backers-benefit-from-no-deal-brexit-inquiry

The people who definitely won't benefit are the vast majority of poor, daft souls who voted for it.

 

[ruffrecords]

During the Covid crisis, Brexit has barely received a mention in the UK media. Many EU countries are looking at losing valuable fishing grounds around the UK and motor car manufacturers are worrying about their biggest EU customer charging duties on their products. My EU customers are already concerned about shipping costs/duty post Brexit.

But, as I said, this has barely been mentioned in the UK press. Covid is still the top story with the Meghan/Harry debacle a not very close second.

At least we don't have QAnon to worry about.

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

During the Covid crisis, Brexit has barely received a mention in the UK media. Many EU countries are looking at losing valuable fishing grounds around the UK and motor car manufacturers are worrying about their biggest EU customer charging duties on their products. My EU customers are already concerned about shipping costs/duty post Brexit.

But, as I said, this has barely been mentioned in the UK press. Covid is still the top story with the Meghan/Harry debacle a not very close second.

At least we don't have QAnon to worry about.

Cheers

Ian

  That explains why your news doesn't have time to inspect trade negotiations.  :

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

Looks like Brexit is staggering to its inevitable no deal conclusion.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Winston OBoogie]

"Brexit deal never made sense"  says the man (Boris) who negotiated it, signed it, prevented MPs from scrutinising it, campaigned for it,  and won a general election on the back of it.

 

[Winston OBoogie]

The head of the government’s legal department- Jonathan Jones - has just resigned over the illegality of the Johnson/Cummings threat to override the Withdrawal Agreement.

If the reports of Johnson's intentions  are correct, then our chances of having *any* credibility in future negotiations are nil.

And should there also be repercussions that affect the stability of 'The Good Friday Agreement', then we can also kiss the US goodbye on trade negotiations no matter who is in The White House come January 2021.

Shameful.  Idiotic.  Complete self sabotage. 

"Rule Britannia...    Britannia Waives the Rules"
 

 

[living sounds]

There's nothing inevitable about Brexit. There's good reason to believe the vote results very influenced of interference by shady players.

Johnson needs to go.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53862369

 

[ruffrecords]

There's nothing inevitable about Brexit.

Oh yes there is.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Winston OBoogie]

Brexit is indeed inevitable, we've already left.  The issues on the table were negotiating how badly the fall out would be.   
But as of now,  it seems all but decided that we will have no trading arrangements in place before the transition ends. 

In The Commons today, cabinet minister Brandon Lewis said:

"Yes, this [new legislation] does break international law in a very specific and limited way,"

If I go shoplifting, but only shoplift in Tesco's, that's also breaking the law in a specific and limited way. 
But somehow I doubt that'd be a valid defense.

 

[ruffrecords]

Brexit is indeed inevitable, we've already left.  The issues on the table were negotiating how badly the fall out would be.   
But as of now,  it seems all but decided that we will have no trading arrangements in place before the transition ends. 

In The Commons today, cabinet minister Brandon Lewis said:

"Yes, this [new legislation] does break international law in a very specific and limited way,"

If I go shoplifting, but only shoplift in Tesco's, that's also breaking the law in a specific and limited way. 
But somehow I doubt that'd be a valid defense.

In the same way that the Boston tea party broke the law in a specific and limited way but the end result was a free USA.

Thousands of over 75s have vowed to break the law in a limited and specific way by refusing to pay for their TV licence which up until now has been free for them.

Last week, climate lobbyists broke the law in a limited and specific way by preventing newspapers being delivered.

Sometimes breaking the law in a limited and specific way is the right thing to do.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Winston OBoogie]

Sometimes breaking the law in a limited and specific way is the right thing to do.

We're talking about a treaty that this government negotiated with the EU and signed just months ago.   
To turn around now and say it never made sense is ludicrous.    Did Boris not read what he was signing?

Breaking international law, or threatening to break international law, is not a good  way to go about trying to negotiate further treaties and pacts with other countries.

 

[ruffrecords]

We're talking about a treaty that this government negotiated with the EU and signed just months ago.   
To turn around now and say it never made sense is ludicrous.    Did Boris not read what he was signing?

Which specific part of this agreement do you think we are not going to honour??

Cheers

ian

 

[Script]

What once was fantastic now is contradictory... ?

OKAY, but where is the news? This just smolder. The domestic  problems continue -- the rest is consequences.

 

[Winston OBoogie]

Which specific part of this agreement do you think we are not going to honour??

There are two specific issues, they were brought up in The Commons and also 'leaked' to the press over the weekend.
If you've been following along then I'm sure you know what these are. 

More instructive here might be:  which specific part of the W.A. (a legal document)  that was negotiated by the current government and then signed by Johnson as P.M. do you think is OK to  *not* honour?

By the way, it's not yet clear to me that this new legislation to alter the agreement will pass through parliament, or that it is even intended to pass through parliament.   

Edit:  By way of example as to why  international legal agreements cannot be unilaterally rewritten -  We are currently very strongly critisising the Chinese government for, what we believe to be, breaching the agreement on the future of Hong Kong.   





 

 

[Winston OBoogie]

What once was fantastic now is contradictory... ?

Indeed.  That is what they would have us believe.   

OKAY, but where is the news? This just smolder. The domestic  problems continue -- the rest is consequences.

I'm not sure what the real news is tbh.  If this is a ploy, then it still does damage to our credibility.    And the resignations today from within the government's own legal team didn't happen out of nothing so, we shall see.

Of  course you are correct in that the domestic problems continue. 

 

[ruffrecords]

Breaking international law, or threatening to break international law, is not a good  way to go about trying to negotiate further treaties and pacts with other countries.

I guess that applies to all parties involved. For example, Brussels seems to think that something like 85% of the fish in British waters belongs to them whereas international law says it belongs to us. Typical Brussels, one rule for us, a completely different one for them.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Winston OBoogie]

I guess that applies to all parties involved. For example, Brussels seems to think that something like 85% of the fish in British waters belongs to them whereas international law says it belongs to us. Typical Brussels, one rule for us, a completely different one for them.

I realize this is an issue that is widely bandied about among Brexiters, and there is no doubt that the UK fishing industry is  in trouble.

But what's not generally mentioned is that a large portion of the UK's fishing quota rights are owned by 5 families* who are on the "Times Richest.." list.    And they  sold those rights, under  'quota hopping', to foreign owned businesses.

Using 2019's figures, over 50% of the value of this quota was in the hands of vessels owned by companies based in Iceland, Spain and the Netherlands.

So, far from this being something engineered by Brussels, it is down to the actions of 5 , already very wealthy,  families selling England by the pound.   


* Complete mismanagement by successive UK governments is what allowed UK fishing rights to be consolidated and owned by a small group of 'elite' companies, at the expense of the smaller 'one boat' operations.   

To compound the problem for the little guy with his one boat -  much of the catch from this type of vessel relies on selling to the EU - something like 80% of the hauls are sold there.  Without a trade deal in place by January 2021, he will be looking at tariffs on this which will price him out of competition from within the EU.







 

 

[Winston OBoogie]

Pre-emptively assuming you will ask me to cite evidence Ian, here is a fairly in depth overview of the mess we ourselves created:

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/07/fishing-brexit-uk-fleetwood/

A more recent, and succinct, BBC piece:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52420116

 

[ruffrecords]

I realize this is an issue that is widely bandied about among Brexiters, and there is no doubt that the UK fishing industry is  in trouble.

But what's not generally mentioned is that a large portion of the UK's fishing quota rights are owned by 5 families* who are on the "Times Richest.." list.    And they  sold those rights, under  'quota hopping', to foreign owned businesse

Which is clearly completely wrong. It is time these 'rights' were brought back under the umbrella of the government - nationalised if you wish - a licences granted directly to individual British based fishermen.

This still does not explain how Brussels thinks it 'owns' 85% or so of British fishing rights. Either they are in the hands of the EU and were doled out to the rich (elitism in practice yet again) or they sold them to them. I am surprised the EU allows quota hopping but since it promotes elitism maybe not so surprising.  None of this makes sense to me.

Cheers

Ian