So much for Brexit

[Thomas]

Good......so when there's some substance to it all yeah bring it up again and we might have some thing to talk about.

Pretty much cromwell. Dont really know what else i can say to conor , for some strange reason he seems to regard me , a scottish indy supporter who supports eu membership for scotland as the official spokesperson for englands brexit.



Im merely listening to what is being said and reiterating it back to him and it appears to upset him when i do.



As you say nothing to discuss at the moment , so lets wait and see.

[cromwell]

This is not old ground — certainly not on this forum.  I definitely don't recall any previous discussion about how leaving ECJ jurisdiction and opting for a Canada-style FTA would still leave the UK in a position where ECJ rulings remain applicable in relevant cases in UK courts.  I get that it's a niche technical point but, at the same time, it's a niche that cuts right to the heart of the ideology that drives Brexit.  



And no, these points about EU law and ECJ rulings being applicable aren't just simply speculation — there are some things we know for certain.  Chiefly among them is the fact that the UK has already agreed that Northern Ireland is to be treated differently and — spin aside — will for all intents and purposes remain within the EU regulatory sphere on at least some areas.  That means that when it comes to, for example, the law governing goods moving between NI and Great Britain, EU Law is going to remain relevant and applicable to British business and in UK courts / tribunals.  And that's not just going to affect Northern Irish businesses and courts, but any British business with dealings or commercial connections in NI.



Oliver Garner of the British Institute of International Comparative Law sums it up neatly when describing the effect of Boris' amendment to May's WA:



"The UK government has been keen to sell its Withdrawal Agreement as ending the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice within the United Kingdom. However, the changes to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland mean that continuing jurisdiction would become the default rather than a fall-back in the event that the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified"



Has Johnson advertised this to the British people ? Naturally — he has not. He successfully sold the slogans on his Withdrawal Agreement, knowing that the devil in the detail already leads to a much more nuanced outcome on what you yourself have described as one of the fundamental redlines of the Brexiteers — no ECJ jurisdiction. I get what you are saying about "wait and see" — of course the conversation can't fully develop until more details are known.  But there are themes people can discuss now to get their heads into the detail and form some personal opinions on these technical matters — because once the spin machine kicks into gear (on both sides of the argument too) people will tend to veer towards the articles that confirm what they want to hear.



But hey — can't force anyone to discuss these things so I give up at this point.

Good......so when there's some substance to it all yeah bring it up again and we might have some thing to talk about.

[Conchúr]

Again we have been hearing stuff like this since article 50 was triggered , if not before.









In your opinion.



Many things over recent years according to you and many others have seemed unlikely , from the brexit referendum leave result , to the numerous beatings the english remainers have taken in elections  , but they still happened.



So i wouldnt count your chickens just yet.







possibly , but if you are suggesting eu membership or BRINO will be brought back in along with FOM ECJ jusricdiction etc etc in years to come , then im not so sure.



As i said there is wiggle room , very little , but some wiggle room and it remains to be seen what happens. All we are doing is speculating until we see what is on offer.







From what i can see most brexiters arent saying that are they? They are saying here are our red lines , and if you try and ride roughshod over them , then we walk.



No alignment is a last resort not a first for most.



Depending on what is being offered.





Sure but you arent trying to convince me. Its whats palatable to the english , and what allows them to trade with the eu , preserve their red lines and what level of compromise saves them face.







You have been saying the same thing over and over ( again) for a long time now on two forums , essentially brexiters didnt know what they were voting for and  now you are simply putting meat on the bones of brexit.



What do you want me to say conor?



I once more put across to you its pointless discussing brexit until something further happens , because all we are doing is raking over old ground again and again.



We all know the arguments , the answers and the positions people have taken , so we have to wait and see where things go next.

This is not old ground — certainly not on this forum.  I definitely don't recall any previous discussion about how leaving ECJ jurisdiction and opting for a Canada-style FTA would still leave the UK in a position where ECJ rulings remain applicable in relevant cases in UK courts.  I get that it's a niche technical point but, at the same time, it's a niche that cuts right to the heart of the ideology that drives Brexit.  



And no, these points about EU law and ECJ rulings being applicable aren't just simply speculation — there are some things we know for certain.  Chiefly among them is the fact that the UK has already agreed that Northern Ireland is to be treated differently and — spin aside — will for all intents and purposes remain within the EU regulatory sphere on at least some areas.  That means that when it comes to, for example, the law governing goods moving between NI and Great Britain, EU Law is going to remain relevant and applicable to British business and in UK courts / tribunals.  And that's not just going to affect Northern Irish businesses and courts, but any British business with dealings or commercial connections in NI.



Oliver Garner of the British Institute of International Comparative Law sums it up neatly when describing the effect of Boris' amendment to May's WA:



"The UK government has been keen to sell its Withdrawal Agreement as ending the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice within the United Kingdom. However, the changes to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland mean that continuing jurisdiction would become the default rather than a fall-back in the event that the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified"



Has Johnson advertised this to the British people ? Naturally — he has not. He successfully sold the slogans on his Withdrawal Agreement, knowing that the devil in the detail already leads to a much more nuanced outcome on what you yourself have described as one of the fundamental redlines of the Brexiteers — no ECJ jurisdiction. I get what you are saying about "wait and see" — of course the conversation can't fully develop until more details are known.  But there are themes people can discuss now to get their heads into the detail and form some personal opinions on these technical matters — because once the spin machine kicks into gear (on both sides of the argument too) people will tend to veer towards the articles that confirm what they want to hear.



But hey — can't force anyone to discuss these things so I give up at this point.

[GerryT]

Again we know all this Gerry. Its been talked about incessantly for over four years now and is nothing new.



As i said , we will see who blinks first. Not really sure how much more we can discuss until we have something concrete on the table.

But isn't that the crux of the whole problem to date. There is no blinking but more removing the ear plugs. What I mean is the EU is a rules based organisation, the UK might see a "better" deal is achievable but that will come at a price. That price being some level of integration, which the hard core brexiteers say is totally out. The main exception to this was Switzerland where hundreds of bilateral deals were done, this has proven to be a difficult arrangement to maintain and constantly throws up anomalies. The EU has seen this as definitively not the way to go with future deals, they will be very reluctant to break out small chunks of the future relationship and agree it piece by piece. They may do it in 1 or 2 steps but its possible they will look to conclude the talks in a single agreement.

As you say time will tell.

[Thomas]

Yeah, but we are now at a stage where aspirations begin to collide with reality — and the ideology behind Brexit is going to need to be weighed up against practicality, not only this year but in the years to come.  

Again we have been hearing stuff like this since article 50 was triggered , if not before.

But at the same time, on a standpoint of practical reality, the idea that the UK is going to have a loose trading relationship with its nearest neighbours seems unlikely.

In your opinion.



Many things over recent years according to you and many others have seemed unlikely , from the brexit referendum leave result , to the numerous beatings the english remainers have taken in elections  , but they still happened.



So i wouldnt count your chickens just yet.

— and those ties will bring a certain level of alignment.

possibly , but if you are suggesting eu membership or BRINO will be brought back in along with FOM ECJ jusricdiction etc etc in years to come , then im not so sure.



As i said there is wiggle room , very little , but some wiggle room and it remains to be seen what happens. All we are doing is speculating until we see what is on offer.

It's perfectly fine for someone to say "no alignment whatsoever",

From what i can see most brexiters arent saying that are they? They are saying here are our red lines , and if you try and ride roughshod over them , then we walk.



No alignment is a last resort not a first for most.



Depending on what is being offered.

I think ending FOM and leaving the Customs Union will probably be achieved, but the ECJ question is much more complex and therefore (a) susceptible to compromises on the ideology of "pure Brexit"; but also (b) complex enough to be susceptible to being dressed up by spin doctors in order to deceive people.

Sure but you arent trying to convince me. Its whats palatable to the english , and what allows them to trade with the eu , preserve their red lines and what level of compromise saves them face.

You're trying to make it out that Brexiteers on here are crystal clear on these things and that I am just being obtuse in making them say the same things. They're crystal clear on the slogans, sure, but clear as mud on the detail. Above is another opportunity for them to consider the fundamental issue of ECJ jurisdiction and abiding by EU law. Will they engage? I hope so, because it would be an interesting discussion.

You have been saying the same thing over and over ( again) for a long time now on two forums , essentially brexiters didnt know what they were voting for and  now you are simply putting meat on the bones of brexit.



What do you want me to say conor?



I once more put across to you its pointless discussing brexit until something further happens , because all we are doing is raking over old ground again and again.



We all know the arguments , the answers and the positions people have taken , so we have to wait and see where things go next.

[Thomas]

This, and it's a point worth remembering. The EU works because it follows an agreed set of rules between 27 (28) countries. Also the EU has a dozens of agreed FTA's, over 60. If the UK looks at these agreements it can see the balance between the level of access to the EU markets and the corresponding level of alignment with EU rules, ECJ oversight, compliance with regulations and possibly FOM. This is not news to UK politicians/civil service, they would have been integral in negotiating these deals over the past 4 decades.





So saying that it should be no surprise to anyone that if the UK want as little FOM, ECJ oversight and FOM then that pushes the possible agreement to a very basic tariff type deal. But even at that any product moving into the EU will have to comply with EU rules & standards of manufacturing. Dispute resolution will also be an important topic with ECJ having some form of involvement. The "level paying field" which has more to do with the manufacturer complying with employee rights/payment etc.

So even a very basic tariff free trade deal will involve ECJ, EU rules/standards, workers rights etc.. no matter how you look at it, if the UK wants to trade into the EU it will need to accept the black and white statements in these areas to date will need to be dropped.



The hard part will be for UK manufacturers having to comply with a number of different manufacturing standards at the same time, if only there was a group of countries that came together and had a single manufacturing standard, it really would help reduce cost.

Again we know all this Gerry. Its been talked about incessantly for over four years now and is nothing new.



As i said , we will see who blinks first. Not really sure how much more we can discuss until we have something concrete on the table.

[GerryT]

This is interesting, the cost of brexit so far, Before the UK leaves this year will be more than the UK nett contributed to the EU over 47 years.



https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true">https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/arti ... ssion=true">https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-01-10/-170-billion-and-counting-the-cost-of-brexit-for-the-u-k?__twitter_impression=true

[Conchúr]

How many times on the old forum over recent years has cromwell and many other brexiters  , for example stevlin , clarified to you what they want from brexit?



I mean we had a brexit thread that was hundreds of pages long and ran for a number of years with reams of quotes and information. So im no sure if you suffer from memory loss or are incapable of reading.



You then run on to proclaim people are being quiet over brexit , when it doesnt appear to be sinking in they might just be bored of repeating themselves over and over to you time and again.



You arent slow in avoiding posts and answering points yourself when it suits are you conor?

Yeah, but we are now at a stage where aspirations begin to collide with reality — and the ideology behind Brexit is going to need to be weighed up against practicality, not only this year but in the years to come.  What you say is of course true at face value — the redlines of both sides would appear to suggest that a loose trading relationship is the only outcome.  But at the same time, on a standpoint of practical reality, the idea that the UK is going to have a loose trading relationship with its nearest neighbours seems unlikely. Even if an initial deal is loose, two sophisticated fully developed peaceful economies at eachothers doorstep will eventually develop deeper ties — and those ties will bring a certain level of alignment.  I have a suspicion that if Boris is genuinely serious about his ludicrously short timeline, it's because keeping a deal as general as possible allows him to say "I won Brexit" and then the establishment can quietly go about realignment as time goes on.  We shall see.  



But a question that certainly will be at play for Leavers over the coming months and indeed years is what level of alignment they will accept.  It's perfectly fine for someone to say "no alignment whatsoever",  but it's also as realistic as Gerry Adams doing a book signing at Sandy Row Rangers Supporters Club. There is going to be some form of eventual alignment — what is unclear is the extent and the timeframe. Now, before you freak out and say that this is obvious and that Leavers clearly don't want FOM/CU/ECJ — you obviously understand that stating these things and applying them in reality are very different exercises. I think ending FOM and leaving the Customs Union will probably be achieved, but the ECJ question is much more complex and therefore (a) susceptible to compromises on the ideology of "pure Brexit"; but also (b) complex enough to be susceptible to being dressed up by spin doctors in order to deceive people.



The question is complex because we know that it's not just ECJ jurisdiction that Brexiteers have an issue with — it's the idea of the UK abiding by laws and regulations made in Brussels, right ? It's the full shebang of the supremacy of EU law, having to abide by it, and European judges having jurisdiction in ruling on it.  The problem of course is that, while 'alignment' is obviously not the same as 'membership' and therefore the UK wouldn't have to assimilate EU law into its own legal system — this does not necessarily mean that the UK won't still be abiding by it to varying possible extents. Worse still from the Brexiteer perspective is that, while it's easy for a good legal drafter to say that direct ECJ jurisdiction will end, that drafter knows that there is a critical difference between the term "jurisdiction" and "applicability".



For example, many Brexiteers are calling for a Canada style FTA.  Now, everyone knows that the ECJ has no jurisdiction in Canada, but CETA still involves the applicability of relevant ECJ judgments in Canadian courts! In essence, a Canada style FTA would still involve ECJ rulings making their way into UK law and being applicable even if the case does not go before the ECJ.  Given the close connection of the UK and Europe over the decades — the instances of applicability would likely be more frequent and further reaching.  Naturally also, the more areas of alignment the more areas of potential applicability. So if you are a Brexit purist, who believes that BRINO can only be avoided by ensuring that the UK is entirely unfettered by EU law, regulation and rulings of the ECJ — you might still be getting BRINO served up as Hard Brexit if you simply adhere to slogans.  In the example I have given, you can get still get sold "No ECJ jurisdiction" as the fulfillment of a promise when in reality it doesn't eliminate the ideological issue which drove people towards the slogan.  So is a Canada style FTA still BRINO or are Brexiteers willing to accept the ongoing applicability of ECJ rulings in UK courts even if there is no ECJ jurisdiction ?



You're trying to make it out that Brexiteers on here are crystal clear on these things and that I am just being obtuse in making them say the same things.  They're crystal clear on the slogans, sure, but clear as mud on the detail.  Above is another opportunity for them to consider the fundamental issue of ECJ jurisdiction and abiding by EU law.  Will they engage? I hope so, because it would be an interesting discussion.

[GerryT]

With the eu its the four freedoms and the integrity of the single market , and the uk its ECJ , FOM and the CU.

This, and it's a point worth remembering. The EU works because it follows an agreed set of rules between 27 (28) countries. Also the EU has a dozens of agreed FTA's, over 60. If the UK looks at these agreements it can see the balance between the level of access to the EU markets and the corresponding level of alignment with EU rules, ECJ oversight, compliance with regulations and possibly FOM. This is not news to UK politicians/civil service, they would have been integral in negotiating these deals over the past 4 decades.

So i would say that leaves little room except for a very loose trading relationship. We know the eu has always said you can be as close to or as far from the single market as you want , but the closer you get the easier the access , but the more rules you take on board.



To get the latter , the uk government is going to have to sell BRINO , and they wont be able to do it.

So saying that it should be no surprise to anyone that if the UK want as little FOM, ECJ oversight and FOM then that pushes the possible agreement to a very basic tariff type deal. But even at that any product moving into the EU will have to comply with EU rules & standards of manufacturing. Dispute resolution will also be an important topic with ECJ having some form of involvement. The "level paying field" which has more to do with the manufacturer complying with employee rights/payment etc.

So even a very basic tariff free trade deal will involve ECJ, EU rules/standards, workers rights etc.. no matter how you look at it, if the UK wants to trade into the EU it will need to accept the black and white statements in these areas to date will need to be dropped.



The hard part will be for UK manufacturers having to comply with a number of different manufacturing standards at the same time, if only there was a group of countries that came together and had a single manufacturing standard, it really would help reduce cost.

[Thomas]

Exactly. Hence what I mean when I say that the EU won't be cowed into giving a cherrypick deal to the UK because, as you say,  business will be done.  

Im not sure lotsov is any sort of a yardstick to go to regarding debate on trade negotiations. This is a delusional individual who thinks ukip was popular in scotland once upon a time , denies autism exists , hates people of colour and thinks women should be chained to the kitchen sink .Thats among his more acceptable qualities.



As for cherrypicking , the idea the uk government wont be allowed to cherrypick the parts of the single market it wants has been mentioned over and over again since before the referendum in 2016. We all know that.



The only question that remains to be resolved is how far both sides are prepared to go to get what they want.As in any negotiation , there is wiggle room for manoeuvre , and red lines beyond which both sides wont go.



With the eu its the four freedoms and the integrity of the single market , and the uk its ECJ , FOM and the CU.



So i would say that leaves little room except for a very loose trading relationship. We know the eu has always said you can be as close to or as far from the single market as you want , but the closer you get the easier the access , but the more rules you take on board.



To get the latter , the uk government is going to have to sell BRINO , and they wont be able to do it.

[Thomas]

So when you say you don't want BRINO, can I at least get you to clarify that you mean that you don't want the UK to have any level of regulatory alignment whatsoever with the EU?

How many times on the old forum over recent years has cromwell and many other brexiters  , for example stevlin , clarified to you what they want from brexit?



I mean we had a brexit thread that was hundreds of pages long and ran for a number of years with reams of quotes and information. So im no sure if you suffer from memory loss or are incapable of reading.



You then run on to proclaim people are being quiet over brexit , when it doesnt appear to be sinking in they might just be bored of repeating themselves over and over to you time and again.



You arent slow in avoiding posts and answering points yourself when it suits are you conor?

[Baron von Lotsov]

Exactly. Hence what I mean when I say that the EU won't be cowed into giving a cherrypick deal to the UK because, as you say,  business will be done.  The EU will prefer a deal but if not then it means they are not bound by any agreement and can gradually tighten UK access at its own pace.  It's still damaging,  but it's better than sacrificing the entire integrity of the Single Market.



The question of pragmatism is going to fall heavily on the UK's side though.  For the EU,  notwithstanding the obvious significance of Brexit, the trade negotiations are just that — trade negotiations. Well, perhaps a better way of saying that is that the negotiations will be a seismic moment in the EU's history but their approach can still rest on a relatively simple commercial premise — the more the UK aligns with the EU, the greater access the UK will have. The question for the UK is a more difficult one because these negotiations involve not only a commercial issue, but an ideological one. The more alignment for the UK, the more of a compromise that will be on the ideology that drives Brexit.



So when it comes to being pragmatic, the EU has a much less complex yardstick — it's the level of access correlating positively to the level of alignment. The UK's sense of pragmatism will have the additional 'burden' of having to weigh up to what extent anything they agree to — or indeed propose — will be a compromise on the ideological principles that drive Brexit.

Yes and what the problem is, is the EU has its single market and believes in a level playing field within it. Lets say we have a product and we make it and so does the EU. In the EU's single market they abide by a set of EU safety standards. Safety standards will add cost to the manufacture of the product and yield a product that  is safer than without as much regulation. As a customer you see one type of product at one price with EU safety standards and another without, which is cheaper. In the EU you simply can't buy the latter as it is illegal. In this country you could say buy either, and in deciding which type, you make your own value judgment on the utility of the extra safety. Perhaps you need it and perhaps you don't, so you buy according to need.



So analysing this, we see that in this country, if given free choice we are more free market and because we can fit our products to our needs more exactly we profit form it, i.e. greater efficiency. However, if we tried to sell such a product in the EU market (say the EU said, yes you can) then a country like Germany who might also be in that market is disadvantaged against us, because we can sell what they are not allowed to. Anyhow from a legal perspective the single market is constitutional and not the sort of thing the EU would ever wish to change. So I suppose we will probably be treated the same way as the US and so on. We will have to abide by their regulations, not have any formal vote on them, but we can haggle. My view is the agreement will be more like a running specification, where like software, you have versions 1, 2, 3 and for each version you have a sub version and so on. It's got to be tested with reality. There is no knowing how it will end up.

[Conchúr]

They are not mutually exclusive. Business with the UK, due to the size of its economy, will without doubt improve the economic integrity of the EU significantly, meaning their income would be greater. So it is not really sensible to do a  big either/or decision. It must be pragmatic. Both sides gain from doing business, so business will be done.

Exactly. Hence what I mean when I say that the EU won't be cowed into giving a cherrypick deal to the UK because, as you say,  business will be done.  The EU will prefer a deal but if not then it means they are not bound by any agreement and can gradually tighten UK access at its own pace.  It's still damaging,  but it's better than sacrificing the entire integrity of the Single Market.



The question of pragmatism is going to fall heavily on the UK's side though.  For the EU,  notwithstanding the obvious significance of Brexit, the trade negotiations are just that — trade negotiations. Well, perhaps a better way of saying that is that the negotiations will be a seismic moment in the EU's history but their approach can still rest on a relatively simple commercial premise — the more the UK aligns with the EU, the greater access the UK will have. The question for the UK is a more difficult one because these negotiations involve not only a commercial issue, but an ideological one. The more alignment for the UK, the more of a compromise that will be on the ideology that drives Brexit.



So when it comes to being pragmatic, the EU has a much less complex yardstick — it's the level of access correlating positively to the level of alignment. The UK's sense of pragmatism will have the additional 'burden' of having to weigh up to what extent anything they agree to — or indeed propose — will be a compromise on the ideological principles that drive Brexit.

[cromwell]

Cromwell, I have literally only asked you to give an opinion on what you want. You're the one who is telling me that you're somehow waiting around to decide what your beliefs are.  I think so far all you have said is "No BRINO" and all I am doing here in my conversation with you is trying to understand what you actually mean by this, because (1) that can mean different things to different people and (2) previous things you have said on this thread have confused me as to what it means to you.



For example, you said a couple of days ago that you expect the Services industry to continue on as before, but for Services to continue on as before this would mean quite a high level of regulatory alignment with the EU.  The less alignment, the more change to the way the UK Services access and operate in Europe. For the purposes of this discussion (to avoid you bleating on about me trying to portray Brexit as a disaster), I'm deliberately not going to offer you any opinion on whether I see that as a good or bad thing — but I am simply telling you that this is a stone-cold fact much in the same way it is a fact that Dublin lies due west of the island of Angelesey.  No crystal ball gazing is necessary to opine that more divergence means more change — because what the hell would be the point in diverging if divergence meant no change ?



So when you say you don't want BRINO, can I at least get you to clarify that you mean that you don't want the UK to have any level of regulatory alignment whatsoever with the EU?

Only said I didn't want brino? so I have never said I hoped for a trade deal good for all or that I didn't want banking like the wild west and regulated I would hope to protect the British people from the last fiasco,should that  regulation be similar to that in the eu fine but to say alignment being dictated from brussels no....sod off there are all sorts of laws and regulation adopted across the world for usually good reason,if it is adopted for a good reason fine but not by diktat OK?



Like I said previously the negotiations proper are still in infancy,insults are still being exchanged so that there's a nuclear option that we may leave without a deal  is good in negotiation terms,is it desirable? not really but in history difficult decisions sometimes have to be taken.

[Nick]

Cromwell, I have literally only asked you to give an opinion on what you want. You're the one who is telling me that you're somehow waiting around to decide what your beliefs are.  I think so far all you have said is "No BRINO" and all I am doing here in my conversation with you is trying to understand what you actually mean by this, because (1) that can mean different things to different people and (2) previous things you have said on this thread have confused me as to what it means to you.



For example, you said a couple of days ago that you expect the Services industry to continue on as before, but for Services to continue on as before this would mean quite a high level of regulatory alignment with the EU.  The less alignment, the more change to the way the UK Services access and operate in Europe. For the purposes of this discussion (to avoid you bleating on about me trying to portray Brexit as a disaster), I'm deliberately not going to offer you any opinion on whether I see that as a good or bad thing — but I am simply telling you that this is a stone-cold fact much in the same way it is a fact that Dublin lies due west of the island of Angelesey.  No crystal ball gazing is necessary to opine that more divergence means more change — because what the hell would be the point in diverging if divergence meant no change ?



So when you say you don't want BRINO, can I at least get you to clarify that you mean that you don't want the UK to have any level of regulatory alignment whatsoever with the EU?

Regulatory alignment is not the same as being controlled. It just means products destined for the UK must comply with EU rules, what we ship elsewhere isn't controlled by the EU.