Getting brexit done!

[Guest Fktf]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The UK Govt legislated to prevent any possibility of an extension to the transition period. For an extension to even be a legal possibility, it would presumably have to introduce new legislation to reverse that.

That would cause massive controversy in the Tory ranks, as it was part of Johnson's "oven-ready deal" to "get Brexit done" - namely that there'd just be an 11-month transition period and then we'd be fully out, deal or no deal.

 

Earlier in the year, the EU seemed quite keen on an extension. Whether that would still be true  now, I don't know - but I suspect that it would.

I can't see it happening, though, due to Tory party internal politics - and potential loss of votes, as lots of people voted them into office because they were going to "get Brexit done" and end the interminable Brexit squabbling that had lasted 3-4 years.

I wish such pragmatism could be applied, but can't see it happening.

Indeed, I agree.

 

But it is nice to see some brexiteers realise all that happened before the world went to crap, and now the brexit they had in mind may not be a wise move, or at least not such a wise move given current circumstances. 

 

Sadly, like you say here, I suspect they're a minority in the Tory camp (both voters and politicians)

[Alf Bentley]

9 hours ago, Fktf said:

Indeed, I agree.

 

But it is nice to see some brexiteers realise all that happened before the world went to crap, and now the brexit they had in mind may not be a wise move, or at least not such a wise move given current circumstances. 

 

Sadly, like you say here, I suspect they're a minority in the Tory camp (both voters and politicians)

 

I agree that it is refreshing to see pragmatism. Sorry, my reply was ungenerous in not explicitly backing your point on that. I've had a lot of debates with @Strokes over recent years, so take for granted that, although we disagree on plenty, he's a pretty open-minded chap, as much as any of us are. I'm also well aware that there are plenty of closed minds on every side of the argument.

 

If I'm carping at anything, it's your implication that both sides are equally responsible for not agreeing a last-minute extension. Under Article 132 of the Withdrawal Agreement, any extension had to be agreed by 30th June. So, not only would Johnson's British anti-extension legislation need repealing, the EU27 and UK would also now need to agree to amend the Withdrawal Agreement.

 

Here's what happened in June as the extension deadline approached - and several months after the start of the Covid crisis: https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-formally-rejects-brexit-transition-period-extension/  

 

"The U.K. Friday formally confirmed it will not seek an extension of the Brexit transition period beyond December 31, British Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove said. Gove spoke with European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič and EU negotiator Michel Barnier at the second meeting of the EU-U.K. Joint Committee on implementing the Withdrawal Agreement earlier Friday, where he reiterated Downing Street's refusal. The Joint Committee had to decide by the end of the month on whether to extend the status quo transition. However, there are no more meetings of the commitee planned until September, meaning the EU takes the U.K.'s decision "as a definite conclusion of this discussion," Šefčovič told journalists after the meeting. "I have taken note of the position of the U.K. on this issue and have stated, as President Ursula von der Leyen did earlier, that the EU remains open to such an extension," Šefčovič said. However, he added: "We take this decision as a definitive one."

[Guest Fktf]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I agree that it is refreshing to see pragmatism. Sorry, my reply was ungenerous in not explicitly backing your point on that. I've had a lot of debates with @Strokes over recent years, so take for granted that, although we disagree on plenty, he's a pretty open-minded chap, as much as any of us are. I'm also well aware that there are plenty of closed minds on every side of the argument.

 

If I'm carping at anything, it's your implication that both sides are equally responsible for not agreeing a last-minute extension. Under Article 132 of the Withdrawal Agreement, any extension had to be agreed by 30th June. So, not only would Johnson's British anti-extension legislation need repealing, the EU27 and UK would also now need to agree to amend the Withdrawal Agreement.

 

Here's what happened in June as the extension deadline approached - and several months after the start of the Covid crisis: https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-formally-rejects-brexit-transition-period-extension/  

 

"The U.K. Friday formally confirmed it will not seek an extension of the Brexit transition period beyond December 31, British Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove said. Gove spoke with European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič and EU negotiator Michel Barnier at the second meeting of the EU-U.K. Joint Committee on implementing the Withdrawal Agreement earlier Friday, where he reiterated Downing Street's refusal. The Joint Committee had to decide by the end of the month on whether to extend the status quo transition. However, there are no more meetings of the commitee planned until September, meaning the EU takes the U.K.'s decision "as a definite conclusion of this discussion," Šefčovič told journalists after the meeting. "I have taken note of the position of the U.K. on this issue and have stated, as President Ursula von der Leyen did earlier, that the EU remains open to such an extension," Šefčovič said. However, he added: "We take this decision as a definitive one."

Of course, back then there was lots of political posturing over deadlines, especially with slogans like getting brexit done. If both sides truly wanted an extension, say, in October this year, one would imagine they would have found a way to make it happen through some sort of emergency legislation. I'm not well versed in these processes, though. It just seems in politics there's always an avenue to achieving something that has enough support.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Of course, back then there was lots of political posturing over deadlines, especially with slogans like getting brexit done. If both sides truly wanted an extension, say, in October this year, one would imagine they would have found a way to make it happen through some sort of emergency legislation. I'm not well versed in these processes, though. It just seems in politics there's always an avenue to achieving something that has enough support.

 

I imagine that you're right.

 

Johnson has a majority so could presumably have reversed UK legislation - albeit possibly causing divisions in Tory ranks and relying on Labour/SNP votes.

 

I also assume that the EU27 could have found a way to agree to amend the WA. Though that would have required unanimous support of all 27 plus the European Parliament.

So you can see why the EU prefers to stay close to the officially agreed "process" - intricate negotiations are required among the member states just to reach any joint position.

 

I do think that the onus was more on the UK, though, as the country that had rejected any idea of an extension (when the EU expressed openness to it) and that had even legislated to prevent itself agreeing any extension.... 

[Alf Bentley]

An afterthought, @Fktf..... Maybe the EU didn't revisit the idea of an extension in October because they had too much respect for UK sovereignty? 

[Spudulike]

EU could be heading for a double no deal with the issues surrounding Poland and Hungary. Thursdays summit could be a bit twitchy. 

[bovril]

I'm sure an extension could be agreed very quickly. It actually wouldn't even surprise me if that happens. 

[Jon the Hat]

 

4 minutes ago, bovril said:

I'm sure an extension could be agreed very quickly. It actually wouldn't even surprise me if that happens. 

I would be very surprised if that happens.  The EU would happily extend forever, but this is not a good outcome for us.

[bovril]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

 

I would be very surprised if that happens.  The EU would happily extend forever, but this is not a good outcome for us.

It would be a better outcome for British businesses than any kind of Brexit on 31/12, considering many firms think we are unprepared deal or no deal. 

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

It would be a better outcome for British businesses than any kind of Brexit on 31/12, considering many firms think we are unprepared deal or no deal. 

British business would also probably prefer no corporation tax, barrier free trade with the whole world and free shipping, but that isn't gonna happen either.

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

British business would also probably prefer no corporation tax, barrier free trade with the whole world and free shipping, but that isn't gonna happen either.

Quite, however many British business have had to go through quite some turmoil in 2020, if we could give them a bit of a break and ourselves, I don’t think it would necessarily be a bad thing.

Yes it’s kicking the can down the road but let’s be realistic, we could do without the bomb going off this year at the very least.

[Nalis]

There will 100% be a deal as both sides have too much to lose, whether its now or delayed into the new year.

 

Feel free to quote me on this in a few days.

[davieG]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55229681

 

Brexit: UK and EU reach deal on Northern Ireland border checks

The UK and EU have reached agreement on how rules in the withdrawal agreement will be implemented, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland.

The government says an agreement in principle has been found for issues including border control posts and the supply of medicines.

The government says it will now withdraw controversial clauses in the Internal Market Bill.

However negotiations to reach a post-Brexit trade deal are still ongoing.

The details of the agreement have not been published but are expected to be rubber stamped in the coming days.

They will apply regardless of whether the two sides can agree a trade deal.

Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said he was "delighted" and thanked the European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič for his teams "constructive and pragmatic approach".

 

[LVFox]

Promising, will be interesting to see what the specifics of those checks will be.

 

[Jon the Hat]

11 minutes ago, davieG said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55229681

 

Brexit: UK and EU reach deal on Northern Ireland border checks

The UK and EU have reached agreement on how rules in the withdrawal agreement will be implemented, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland.

The government says an agreement in principle has been found for issues including border control posts and the supply of medicines.

The government says it will now withdraw controversial clauses in the Internal Market Bill.

However negotiations to reach a post-Brexit trade deal are still ongoing.

The details of the agreement have not been published but are expected to be rubber stamped in the coming days.

They will apply regardless of whether the two sides can agree a trade deal.

Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said he was "delighted" and thanked the European Commission Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič for his teams "constructive and pragmatic approach".

 

Good, that worked then.  Can we stop chanting about the Tories breaking international law now?

[Ginger_Filbert]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

Good, that worked then.  Can we stop chanting about the Tories breaking international law now?

The amount of people that didn’t realise the Tories did this as a bargaining tool is astonishing. 

[rachhere]

Am I missing something here, or is Gove basically congratulating himself on reaching an agreement while in actually fact all he's done is back down? 

[Jon the Hat]

23 minutes ago, rachhere said:

Am I missing something here, or is Gove basically congratulating himself on reaching an agreement while in actually fact all he's done is back down? 

I guess we won't know until they publish the details, but if the UK and EU and Ireland are happy with the arrangements that seems like significant progress.

[Voll Blau]

36 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Good, that worked then.  Can we stop chanting about the Tories breaking international law now?

 

35 minutes ago, Ginger_Filbert said:

The amount of people that didn’t realise the Tories did this as a bargaining tool is astonishing. 

 

It still remains an absolutely fvcking mental thing for any government which claims to recognise the rule of law to threaten to do. I'm just glad the reputational damage done to this country and the values we stand for is now less than it would have been had they actually gone through with it.

[bovril]

55 minutes ago, Ginger_Filbert said:

The amount of people that didn’t realise the Tories did this as a bargaining tool is astonishing. 

Most people realise this by now.

 

It's slightly embarrassing that our government feels the need to do this and doesn't really bode well for our 'Global Britain' prospects. 

 

Astonishing the amount of people that don't realise the reputational damage that ideological Brexiters are inflicting on the UK. 

Edited 8 December 2020 by bovril

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, Ginger_Filbert said:

The amount of people that didn’t realise the Tories did this as a bargaining tool is astonishing. 

 

53 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

 

 

It still remains an absolutely fvcking mental thing for any government which claims to recognise the rule of law to threaten to do. I'm just glad the reputational damage done to this country and the values we stand for is now less than it would have been had they actually gone through with it.

Of course the EU would never do such a thing 

 

So did it have the desired effect? Is Cummings a loony or a genius? 

[Voll Blau]

16 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

 

Of course the EU would never do such a thing 

 

So did it have the desired effect? Is Cummings a loony or a genius? 

As I say, it  remains an absolutely fvcking mental thing for any government which claims to recognise the rule of law to threaten to do. 

 

As for the bloke who thinks a 60-mile round trip is the best way to test his eyes, I think we all know the answer to that one...

[Leicester_Loyal]

It's mental to think it's been nearly 4 and a half years since we all voted in regards to this, at least it finally feels like we're coming towards the end.

[Jon the Hat]

26 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

It's mental to think it's been nearly 4 and a half years since we all voted in regards to this, at least it finally feels like we're coming towards the end.

I know.  It is the direct result of the amount of time wasted dicking about with remainers who wouldn;t accept the result, and an EU who directly engaged with them to frustrate the result of the referendum.  I am delighted we are finally getting there for that reason alone.  A country should be free to join and leave unions as it sees fit, and the Eurocrats must learn to accept that.  As I have said many times before the EU is doomed anyway, but at this speed it might take another decade for the real collapse to start.

Edited 8 December 2020 by Jon the Hat

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

It's mental to think it's been nearly 4 and a half years since we all voted in regards to this, at least it finally feels like we're coming towards the end.

The beginning of the end more like.