Non-motoring > Brexit Discussion - Volume 89
Thread Author: VxFan Replies: 80

 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - VxFan

IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ

Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.

We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.

It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.

Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.

603057
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 11 Mar 20 at 09:09
 Google and data - Crankcase
When I was still working, so a couple of years ago now, we were all very exercised about GDPR, the US "safe harbor" equivalent, and personal data storage and security.

As I'm sure you've all had, I got an email from Google today saying that they are moving the data, effectively, from Ireland to the US, because the UK is now not in the EU.

What do we think this means in the real world? Data sold against my will? Data theft with no realistic comeback from the UK? Nothing different whatsover?

If I were to elect to get rid of all that is Google, I'd be a bit hamstrung in terms of phones, internets and all of the online world in general I think.



Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 21 Feb 20 at 12:50
 Google and data - Zero

>> What do we think this means in the real world? Data sold against my will?
yup
>> Data theft with no realistic comeback from the UK?
Is a risk under any jurisdiction
 Brexit Discussion - Ambo
DT’s Peter Foster, in today’s online Brexit Bulletin, highlights three main areas in which a Canada-style deal goes against expert pleas.

The NHS wants government to maintain links with the EU’s pandemic early warning system.

The aviation industry wants to remain part of the EU air safety agency, EASA.

The haulage industry wants to keep to the EU’s “safety and security” declaration system, because of the massive red tape burden that would otherwise ensue. It estimates that 220 million declarations will be involved, at £15 each. (That seems to be in addition to the same number of customs declarations.)

So far, the answer has been “No”. There is little or no explanation of what replacements are proposed and how they will work.

 Brexit Discussion - Bromptonaut
>> DT’s Peter Foster, in today’s online Brexit Bulletin, highlights three main areas in which a
>> Canada-style deal goes against expert pleas.

HAs the DT finally seen the light of day?
 Brexit Discussion - Ambo
>>HAs the DT finally seen the light of day?

Actually, Foster is often sharply critical of our Brussels negotiations.
 Brexit Discussion - No FM2R
Do they not understand that we are taking back control and insist on our right to spend our money and risk our lives?
 Brexit Discussion - No FM2R
>>The aviation industry wants to remain part of the EU air safety agency, EASA.

You do not need to be a member of the EU to be a member of EASA.

But no doubt we all remember Teresa May's desperate attempt to be seen as worthwhile when she retrospectively included ECJ jurisdiction into the EU Referendum.

Since the average plank has no idea what that means, they just include it in their bleating.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 10 Mar 20 at 13:53
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - sooty123
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cptpp-trade-united-kingdom-nafta-1.5614470?cmp=rss

I can't say I've heard much about this trading partnership, nevertheless I found it quite interesting. Seems to not have been covered in the UK press.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Duncan
Ah! Brexit!

By Jove, I have missed all this.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - CGNorwich
If you're missing the full Brexit experience i you can relive it all via the BBC Brexitcast podcast. All 267 episodes are available on line :-)


It still going strong although it has now morphed into the Coronavirus Broadcast
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Terry
It was always clear that getting out of the EU was the easy bit; the hard bit would be getting the agreements in place to make it work.

EU through Barnier still seem determined to push for their preferred solution and do not really understand that for the UK, leave means leave and independence from EU control.

Irrespective of personal views on the wisdom of Brexit, we will never disentangle the wisdom of leaving from the impacts of CV-19.

Brexiteers will insist that all economic problems stem from CV-19, Remainers will assert the situation was made far worse through having left and been intransigent about extending the negotiation process.

Boris now has a lot of cast iron excuses if (more likely when) negotiations fail.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - CGNorwich
Well the negotiations are going swimmingly well aren’t they? Any chance of a deal with the EU now seems distinctly unlikely seeing their reaction to the UK reneging on the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and now Pelosi is making it clear that there will be no trade deal with the US if we endanger the Peace Agreement.

Weren’t we told this was all going to be a piece of cake?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/09/10/politics/nancy-pelosi-brexit-congress-uk-gbr-intl/index.html


 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - zippy
It's shameful. You do not sign an agreement then break it. Who will trust you in the future?

You can re-negotiate and that should be done in good faith. What is being done at the moment is as far from good faith as you can get.

These oafish leaders of ours are insisting we abide by our own laws yet happily going around breaking others. Absolute two faced piles of excrement.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - bathtub tom
>> These oafish leaders of ours are insisting we abide by our own laws yet happily
>> going around breaking others. Absolute two faced piles of excrement.

Since when have the French followed the rules? They've always seemed to do whatever suits them best, however, I feel the hand of Cummings behind this. I reckon Boris has had his day and it's time for a change. Thank the gods he was there at the start, the alternative didn't bear thinking about.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - zippy
>> Since when have the French followed the rules? They've always seemed to do whatever suits
>> them best

They may bend the rules or ignore them to suit. They have not, to my knowledge broken a treaty in recent times.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - No FM2R
>>They may bend the rules or ignore them to suit. They have not, to my knowledge broken a treaty in recent times.

"bend", "ignore" but not "broken".

Excellent use of pedantry as a statement. And exactly the sort of sentiment which caused us to lose control of our EU membership in the first place.

 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - zippy
Like we haven't bent the rules to our advantage either.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 11 Sep 20 at 03:01
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - No FM2R
>>Like we haven't bent the rules to our advantage either.

That was not your point. Or mine indeed.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - No FM2R
I'm not sat in the negotiation meetings, unlike the the staff of the Daily Mail it seems.

However, things get said and threatened in negotiation meetings. That's why they're called negotiation meetings.

If by threatening to do this, a better result is achieved, that works for me. And one should never blink first. Nor let the spinless and sensationalist media blink for you. Nor their readers. None of whom are actually in the conversations but talk as if they were.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - CGNorwich
It’s not really about what is said and threatened in a meeting though is it?

It’s seems to me to be about whether it’s OK to renege on an agreement that has been signed and sealed because you know that it now stands in the way of what you want to achieve. Whether the tactic will work is debateable and it seems to set dangerous precedent. Other countries will surely be less trusting of the U.K. in future treaty negotiations. ,
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 11 Sep 20 at 09:11
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Bromptonaut
>> It’s not really about what is said and threatened in a meeting though is it?

Exactly that. We're beyond the stage of what's said within the protocols of negotiation. The UK has publicly signalled intent to renege on a treaty it entered into less than a year ago. Further, it has backed up that statement by laying a Bill before Parliament to give it explicit power to do so. The legislation is phrased in a way that looks like an attempt to oust legal challenges.

The agreement Johnson and the Teasoch made to solve the 'Irish Backstop' conundrum was obviously going to create problems between NI and GB/rest of UK. It was also evident those problems would attract the ire of Unionists. Either he wasn't on the detail at the time or he always intended to play fast/loose. I suspect the former but cannot rule out the latter.

It's also evident from the statements of people like Steve Baker and Bernard Jenkin suggesting we resile from the whole of the Withdrawal Agreement that the Conservative party has not ended its civil war over Europe.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 11 Sep 20 at 10:38
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Manatee

>> It's also evident from the statements of people like Steve Baker and Bernard Jenkin suggesting
>> we resile from the whole of the Withdrawal Agreement that the Conservative party has not
>> ended its civil war over Europe.


Resiling is something you can do when you have a right to do it. They would have to repudiate it. Renege is another word.

The usually shifty Brandon Lewis brazenly said in an obviously prepared statement that the Government was proposing to breach international law. How then can the Attorney General and the Solicitor General let this go. They should stop it or resign, and the people who thought this up and went ahead with it along with them.

I don't care if it is a negotiating tactic - if it is, it's a bad one that will undermine credibility for years to come.

In a way of course it was inevitable as they had painted themselves into a corner but if the agreement already made needs to be changed then it should be done legally.

What s***s they are.

 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - sooty123
In a way of course it was inevitable as they had painted themselves into a
>> corner but if the agreement already made needs to be changed then it should be
>> done legally.

From bits I've read that's what the government believes it's doing, the treaty has no standing until there's an act of Parliament. Mention of the Miller case against the government was brought up by them as way of example of the primacy of Parliament and as case law. Which is a little ironic.

How accurate their argument is, I don't know.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Bromptonaut
>> Resiling is something you can do when you have a right to do it. They
>> would have to repudiate it. Renege is another word.

You're quite right. Repudiate was the word I was looking for and I think used by either or both of Baker and Jenkin but it wouldn't come to me at the time.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
>> The usually shifty Brandon Lewis brazenly said in an obviously prepared statement that the Government
>> was proposing to breach international law. How then can the Attorney General and the Solicitor
>> General let this go. They should stop it or resign, and the people who thought
>> this up and went ahead with it along with them.

"International Law" Thats a very strong sounding phrase being thrown around. In fact it really means rugger all. It was an agreement between Europe and the UK, it has no legal standing in the rest of the world only in the EU court, that court being one of the things we are refusing to be part of going forwards, one that will have no legal standing or primacy over parliament in the UK if we bounce out with no agreement, makes it inevitable that the agreement, and its "legal breech" is of no consequence. The EU can huff and puff, but they cant impose trading sanctions without severely impinging on their own finances, crippled by covid support finances to boot.

japan does not seem care, we have just signed an agreement with them. In short its a big stick being wielded. An assault charge wont mean much if its used.

I think the best thing to do is if we seeded NI to Europe, and let them deal with it. Its of no use to us, in fact its a PITA.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 11 Sep 20 at 12:11
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - CGNorwich

I think the best thing to do is if we seeded NI...

Cheaper than turfing it I suppose.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Manatee

>> "International Law" Thats a very strong sounding phrase being thrown around. In fact it really
>> means rugger all. It was an agreement between Europe and the UK, it has no
>> legal standing in the rest of the world only in the EU court, that court
>> being one of the things we are refusing to be part of going forwards, one
>> that will have no legal standing or primacy over parliament in the UK if we
>> bounce out with no agreement, makes it inevitable that the agreement, and its "legal breech"

Quote

"Yes this does break international law..."
Brandon Lewis, Justice Minister.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
Maybe, but it does nothing to cover the points that "international law" in this example merely means "an agreement"
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 13 Sep 20 at 20:48
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Manatee
I was just making the point that it wasn't just "thrown around" by critics. It was used in a parliamentary answer by a minister speaking on behalf of the government.

Splitting hairs doesn't make it OK with me.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Bromptonaut
>> Maybe, but it does nothing to cover the points that "international law" in this example
>> merely means "an agreement"

There are protocols about how states are expected to behave after entering into agreements that are supposed to be solemn and binding.

Here's some lawyers chat on the pont:

www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/undergraduate-tosh-government-outlines-legal-position-on-brexit-bill/5105607.article?
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
But there is no "international law" in the global sense, its an agreement between nations, that any nation can tear up. Many nations do, there is no enforcement or legal comeback other than a refusal to deal with that nation again.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 13 Sep 20 at 20:48
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
or you can go to war of course.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Manatee

>> But there is no "international law" in the global sense, its an agreement between nations,
>> that any nation can tear up. Many nations do, there is no enforcement or legal
>> comeback other than a refusal to deal with that nation again.

Maybe somebody should tell the Justice Secretary.

I don't have the credentials to argue it. There's the ICJ I suppose, and other contextual treaty arrangements such as WTO. Perhaps it is obfuscation like this that the government thinks it can rely on but it still seems to me like saying you had your fingers crossed when you signed it so it doesn't count.

It seems to be dividing the Conservatives somewhat. Looks as if Johnson might have to eject a few more rebels.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
The irony is of course, if we hadnt signed the withdrawal agreement - we would have fallen out of the EU anyway. Now Gov is threatening to fall out of the EU, we cant "legally"

Fantastic planning.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Bromptonaut
>> But there is no "international law" in the global sense, its an agreement between nations,
>> that any nation can tear up. Many nations do, there is no enforcement or legal
>> comeback other than a refusal to deal with that nation again.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/11/brexit-override-plan-would-breach-vienna-convention-qc-says
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Manatee
>> www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/11/brexit-override-plan-would-breach-vienna-convention-qc-says

Reading that, it seems the government knew where to shop for their advice.


I'm familiar with the Viennetta Convention (he who divides the Viennetta into the appropriate number of pieces gets the last pick).
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
>> >> But there is no "international law" in the global sense, its an agreement between
>> nations,
>> >> that any nation can tear up. Many nations do, there is no enforcement or
>> legal
>> >> comeback other than a refusal to deal with that nation again.
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/11/brexit-override-plan-would-breach-vienna-convention-qc-says

he also referenced the Vienna convention, saying article 60 states that a “material breach of a bilateral treaty entitles the other party to invoke that breach as a ground for terminating or suspending the operation of the treaty ‘in whole or in part’”.

Like wow, does that mean the withdrawal agreement that expires at the end of the year would be terminated?

The UK is not going to accept the european court having any jurisdiction in anything pertaining to the UK going forward. This "law break" is not worth the newsprint its printed on.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Manatee
If the UK does materially breach the Agreement then they may well be able legitimately to rescind it, so in theory UK would be left without cover. Doesn't matter whether the UK accepts it or not, the EU's obligations under it will cease anyway.

Dunning Kruger in action.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - sooty123
>> If the UK does materially breach the Agreement then they may well be able legitimately
>> to rescind it, so in theory UK would be left without cover. Doesn't matter whether
>> the UK accepts it or not, the EU's obligations under it will cease anyway.
>>
>> Dunning Kruger in action.
>>

And throw Ireland under the bus? That'd be a rather interesting choice of action.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Manatee
>>And throw Ireland under the bus? That'd be a rather interesting choice of action.

Who knows? It would be out of UK control wouldn't it. Do you actually think the government is either trustworthy or competent?
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - sooty123
It would be yes, be rather a turnaround to leave Ireland in the lurch after all the shoulder to shoulder talk. I'd say it's extremely unlikely, main reason being the effect it would have on an EU member.


Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 13 Sep 20 at 20:49
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
Northern Ireland has been open sore and a millstone round our neck for near on 60 years. As far as Eire goes we have no responsibility towards them, they are european law breakers and leeches - - they can go whistle.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 11 Sep 20 at 20:00
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
>> If the UK does materially breach the Agreement then they may well be able legitimately
>> to rescind it, so in theory UK would be left without cover. Doesn't matter whether
>> the UK accepts it or not, the EU's obligations under it will cease anyway.

Cover for what? if we dont agree a new deal for year end we leave the EU with nothing anyway.

 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - tyrednemotional

>> Like wow, does that mean the withdrawal agreement that expires at the end of the
>> year would be terminated?


I'm not sure where that interpretation came from.

The transition period (as currently agreed in line with the withdrawal agreement) certainly expires at the end of the year, but the provisions of the withdrawal agreement live on (unless varied by mutual agreement) in perpetuity (and as I understand it, largely overseen by the European Courts).

There are dates/responsibilities embedded in the withdrawal agreement long beyond the end of the transition period.

And, if you think the agreement expires at the end of the transition period, why would the UK Government choose to take this approach now, when it could simply state that they could do what they plan, quite legally, by simply running the clock down?
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
Yes but the only source of redress, reparation or punishment for breaching the agreement is via any trade negotiated during the transition period. The European court or the Eu has no mechanism to do that via WTO rules.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 13 Sep 20 at 20:49
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Manatee
"He [Johnson] said “in the last few weeks” he learned his negotiators had discovered there “may be a serious misunderstanding about the terms” of the withdrawal agreement he signed in October."

Seriously? Now a self-confessed idiot.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/11/brussels-could-carve-up-uk-if-tories-reject-brexit-bill-says-johnson?CMP=share_btn_fb
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - CGNorwich
It’s pretty obviously he signed the agreement in bad faith simply to get the job done and knowing he would latter renege on the agreement.

Who would trust him in future agreements?
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
>> It’s pretty obviously he signed the agreement in bad faith simply to get the job
>> done and knowing he would latter renege on the agreement.
>>
>> Who would trust him in future agreements?
>>
Japan?
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - tyrednemotional
The practicalities of gaining redress is a rather different matter to whether or not the Withdrawal Agreement expires or not at the end of the year (currently, without bilateral agreement, it doesn't).

WTO is a non sequitur (until and unless the EU decides that non-compliance with the Withdrawal Agreement constitutes a valid trade dispute - there are arguments, given that Customs arrangements for future trading are one of the now contentious items, that this is the case.) If we have fallen back to WTO arrangements, it could then decide to unilaterally (or in combination with other WTO members it can persuade) to apply specific UK-targeted WTO-based remedies, including specific sanctions/tariffs, etc.

The more immediate point is that the Withdrawal Bill does not expire at the end of the year; it has certain remedies, provisions and processes that may be used in the event of non-compliance. These remedies will still legally be in force.

As the agreement is seen as a treaty under the Vienna Convention (which appears to be rather forthright about unilateral repudiation being illegal under International law), ultimate potential oversight would be via that route, which includes the intervention of the ICJ.

But, I doubt it will ever get there; whatever the legal position, the more worrying fact is the lack of integrity and good faith being demonstrated by the UK Government. You couldn't have much worse international "optics" than a legislature negotiating an agreement, hailing it as a major breakthrough, and then, before the ink is dry announcing it has no intention whatsoever of keeping to it as it had its fingers crossed when it was signed (and the people it was intended to mollify confirming that they'd been told at the time it would be changed).

It's sub-Banana Republic behaviour. It has nothing to do with negotiation (if it had, it would initially at least have been played out in "darkened rooms"), it is simply playing to the gallery.
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sat 12 Sep 20 at 09:23
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - sooty123
I believe she's the leader of Congress, however I think it's the senate that ratify trade deals.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 13 Sep 20 at 20:49
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Duncan
I can't tell you how pleased I am that the Brexit discussions have started again.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Ambo
It seems extraordinarily crass to start this at such a tense moment in the Brexit negotiations and to hand the EU a rod for our back. I am surprised Macron has not trotted out the routine "Perfide Albion" charge (not that Marianne herself has not frequently proved perfidious).
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Terry
This was inevitable - Boris would have signed the back of a bog roll to ensure he "got Brexit done".

The opposition to Brexit are equally complicit in that had they cooperated effectively they may have stopped Brexit - but politics got in the way.

It has all the hallmarks of a Cummings initiative - he is a happy mould breaker and no doubt regards this as nothing more than lobbing a grenade into the negotiating process to see what happens.

Personally I expect a climb down in the next couple of weeks, or some more ambiguous words, on the basis that "we have now won significant concessions and have an agreement with the EU" so it is no longer an issue.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - martin aston
Having spent most of my working life in negotiations I take both sides statement with a pinch of salt. There is a lot of public grandstanding going on that may or may not reflect the real position of both sides.

The earlier May negotiations were poor but were also bedevilled by too much analysis by onlookers. If we have played a dummy with this proposed treaty change and it lets both sides negotiate on the real issues then so much the better. I think it’s significant that the EU has given us three weeks to think again but hasn’t withdrawn from the talks. Maybe it will drift away, maybe we will trade it for a concession. Who knows... but it gives the press something to gnaw on meantime.

I have to trust that we now have better negotiators in place than the hapless politicians who pretend to be in charge. And I don’t mean Cummings. Time will tell.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - devonite
Cheeky of the USA to stick their spout in! - berating us for breaking a treaty, saying we couldn't be trusted, - who the heck signed the Kyoto agreement then kicked it into touch when it suited them?

Hypocrites!
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Bromptonaut
>> Cheeky of the USA to stick their spout in! - berating us for breaking a
>> treaty, saying we couldn't be trusted, - who the heck signed the Kyoto agreement then
>> kicked it into touch when it suited them?

The driving force with Kyoto being ditched was Trump.

SFAIK it's Democrats or possibly the odd anti Trump Republican who are carping at us.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - CGNorwich
“The driving force with Kyoto being ditched was Trump. “

I think you will find it was George W Bush who reversed the USA ‘s stance on Kyoto
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - No FM2R
Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement, which was effectively the replacement for the Kyoto Protocol.

The US simple did not continue with the Kyoto Protocol, there was no withdrawal required. But it was, in any case, long before Trump's day in the sun.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 12 Sep 20 at 03:27
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - CGNorwich
Although perhaps regrettable its not comparable. The USA signed the Kyoto Protocol but it was never ratified by them and without ratification it was not legally binding.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Lygonos
In the medium-to-long term will the City of London remain the dominant financial centre in Europe if we "do a WTO"?
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
The City of London thinks it will. The City of Frankfurt thinks it wont.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - No FM2R
A quote from the BBC about transport...

"Industry sources have raised the possibility that the UK would have to sign up to EU rules limiting driver hours, in order to get access to EU roads."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. That's showing them how to take back to control.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Duncan
>> A quote from the BBC about transport...
>>
>> "Industry sources have raised the possibility that the UK would have to sign up to
>> EU rules limiting driver hours, in order to get access to EU roads."
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha. That's showing them how to take back to control.
>>


And if, in turn, the UK insists that the EU would have to sign up to
UK rules limiting whatever we choose, in order to get access to UK roads?
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
At least there will be less Irish trucks shipping dead asylum seekers around our roads.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Bromptonaut
>> At least there will be less Irish trucks shipping dead asylum seekers around our roads.


I thought they were bound for the 'black economy'. Promised good jobs but will end up in nail bars, tending cannabis farms or, if they're nice looking, with a Pimp to look after them.

Still, at least they'll be in British lorries next time....
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero

>> Still, at least they'll be in British lorries next time....

With the French doing customs checks on UK lorries? Highly unlikely
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - zippy
>>At least there will be less Irish trucks shipping dead asylum seekers around our roads.


No?

The Immigration and Border Force will set up our own drivers to do it under new legislation that actually allows them to: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 24 Sep 20 at 16:39
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
>> >>At least there will be less Irish trucks shipping dead asylum seekers around our roads.
>>
>>
>> No?
>>
>> The Immigration and Border Force will set up our own drivers to do it under
>> new legislation that actually allows them to: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54274605
>
I think they would stop short of killing them
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - PeterS
>> At least there will be less Irish trucks shipping dead asylum seekers around our roads.
>>
>>

I’ll miss being tailgated by them in the 50 limits. Fasted trucks on the road :p
And I don’t think it’s me...I set the cruise to 57 in them
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - CGNorwich
Would you feel safer on the roads if the working hours of lorry drivers were to be extended in order to increase the profitability of haulage companies?
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - No FM2R
>>And if, in turn, the UK insists that the EU would have to sign up to
UK rules limiting whatever we choose, in order to get access to UK roads?

Well now, why would that happen?

Because I thought we were upset that EU rules were restrictive and we wanted less restriction in the UK? So why would a foreign driver here have to sign up to lesser rules?

What are you thinking, that drivers from the mainland will have to sign an agreement promising not to follow strict EU rules?

Or are you thinking that our problem with the EU was that we wanted *more* restrictions and they wouldn't let us have them?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 24 Sep 20 at 17:38
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Bromptonaut
>> What are you thinking, that drivers from the mainland will have to sign an agreement
>> promising not to follow strict EU rules?

I think the suggestion was more along the lines of some other 'quid pro quo' rather than playing about over driver regulation. The issue then is UK's bargaining power. As we've already found that's pretty lightweight, the idea that they need us more than we need them (eg our strength as a market for BMW) is a word that rhymes with where the oars are clipped.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - No FM2R

>>The issue then is UK's bargaining power. As we've already found that's pretty lightweight,

I think you're being generous with "lightweight".
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - sooty123
>> >> What are you thinking, that drivers from the mainland will have to sign an
>> agreement
>> >> promising not to follow strict EU rules?
>>
>> I think the suggestion was more along the lines of some other 'quid pro quo'
>> rather than playing about over driver regulation. The issue then is UK's bargaining power. As
>> we've already found that's pretty lightweight, the idea that they need us more than we
>> need them (eg our strength as a market for BMW) is a word that rhymes
>> with where the oars are clipped.

I think zero's point of fewer Irish trucks, is more to the point about accesss. How important is the UK as a bridge to Ireland and by extension to the EU? They've tied themselves to each other political throughout the process, not that there's anything wrong with that. But it does make you wonder, what price access, which is the lesser evil?

Ireland is about to become a much larger financial contributor to the EU, I wonder what, if any, extra clout this gives them? Would /could they be thrown under the proverbial bus?
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - No FM2R
We should ignore the rabid racists and the xenophobic idiots and agree everything which makes commercial sense. Freedom of movement, common market, common standards, etc. etc. and just keep away from anything without a commercial benefit.

Fisheries we can sort out simply by stopping UK fishing enterprises from selling their quotas to foreign companies.

Because it will happen one way or another. At least if the Government does it the country retains some control. If individual businesses and industries come up with the solutions, then the country has no involvement or control.

The problem is that I haven't heard a single sensible argument against any of those things and so it's difficult to combat. The objections are all based on some apocryphal idea of what a British Empire could be, and it can't/won't ever be.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - sooty123
>> We should ignore the rabid racists and the xenophobic idiots and agree everything which makes
>> commercial sense. Freedom of movement, common market, common standards, etc. etc. and just keep away
>> from anything without a commercial benefit.
>>

From reading up on the negotiations, especially when there's no big news story, around 80% has been agreed. So there's more than bare bones of an agreement.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - No FM2R
I hope so. Just so we don't expect it to receive the support of the tabloids with their target market awareness.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Zero
I seem to recall that EU laws on driver hours was a UK driven initiative.
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - Bromptonaut
>> I seem to recall that EU laws on driver hours was a UK driven initiative.

So was free movement IIRC?

Wasn't it one of Maggie T's objectives?
 Brexit Discussion - Volume 89 - No FM2R
And there was me thinking that adopting WTO terms would easily replace the EU with no stress or problem.

www.bbc.com/news/business-54287283

Goodness knows what made me think that.

As some form of self-comfort I think I shall enjoy dancing on the grave of the Brexit movement over the next few months as one thing after another goes wrong.

Though, to be clear, I 100% believe that Brexit should go ahead as voted for as quickly as possible. Nothing should be put in it's way. It's just a stupid thing to do.

But sneering at that stupidity comforts me.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 25 Sep 20 at 01:46
Latest Forum Posts