Britain outside the EU

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

On the contrary - the negotiations, particularly around our involvement in Copernicus, became bogged down in the wider context of the treaty defining the UK’s future relationship with the EU. The EU believed our continuing access to the military-grade data generated by the system, a significant chunk of which was developed and paid for in the UK, was strategically so important to us that we would be desperate to retain it and that they could therefore use it to exact concessions. The UK negotiators therefore simply took it off the table and invested in OneWeb, in order to demonstrate the seriousness of its resolve.

Now the treaty is signed these issues can be addressed on their own terms, without those idiots in Brussels attempting to make European security contingent on fishing quotas.

Maybe we should have linked it to fishing quotas as that's not worked out well for us!

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I approve - as long as those nasties don't control us politically or diplomatically.

I'd also prefer them not to threaten us with vaccine shortage, not to deliberately make life difficult for NI through their inflexible
protocol interpretation plus a long list that I won't further bore you with.

Obviously the small print will be of interest before some decide if the EU is still our enemy here. I would be surprised if EU law doesn't apply here with membership

[Sephiroth]

This could get very tasty. I don't know what you lot think, but Boris is worth at least 3% for independence - which would at least bring it to 48/52!

Anyway, look at the long list of pitfalls on the way, seen from my point of view calculated to rile Sturgeon:

Who can vote?
- The diaspora of those born in Scotland and residing in the UK?
- Offspring not born in Scotland?
- Over-18s only?
- Will Scots living in England lose British citizenship if independence happens

Military arrangements
- Who must leave the British Army/Navy/Airforce?
- Scottish submarine bases to become British Sovereign bases?

Currency
- Can they keep the Pound?
- Will they survive interest rate hikes if they keep the Pound?

Financial Settlement )will be a huge bunfight)
- Proportion of pensions payable in Scotland to be paid by Britain?
- Who owns what? Particularly the banks?
- Just in time supplies from England?

Border (and EU)
- What will the day 1 border arrangements be?
- Will many, many, Scots come to live in England before independence?
- What would their nationality be post-independence?
- If they join the EU, when would the border go up?
- Tariffs?
- Would someone try a sort of "Scotland Protocol"?
- Which British political party would wear that?

Lots more to add, no doubt. Oil is now dead. Scotland sells several times more stuff within the UK than they did with the EU.

The SNP idiots cite Norway as a small country that has succeeded; yes when oil was the bug thing, they set up a sovereign fund and moved forward with non-oil investments. Scotland has none of that. They also cite Ireland as a success story. Well, Ireland's going to be hurt by the G20 tax agreement because the USA will pressurise the companies that now remit profits to Ireland unless Ireland falls in line.

Exciting times ahead!

We already have a thread discussing Scotland’s position vis a vis the UK. Unless there’s a specific reason for bringing it up here - in which case, provide a link - then please don’t.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

We already have a thread discussing Scotland’s position vis a vis the UK. Unless there’s a specific reason for bringing it up here - in which case, provide a link - then please don’t.

Where is that thread? I couldn't see it in Current Affairs.
Otherwise I'd have posted there.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Where is that thread? I couldn't see it in Current Affairs.
Otherwise I'd have posted there.

Last posted in by you around 2 months ago.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...8#post36079208

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Last posted in by you around 2 months ago.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...8#post36079208

That thread wasn't visible on the board. Is there something I don't know about getting to non-visible threads?

I've posted in there now.

Default thread list is from last month, if it had not been posted in after that time, you need to select the options for viewing it depending on time of last post at the bottom of the forum table.

[Sephiroth]

... on two fronts.

1. Gibraltar's post-Brexit status

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57908376
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres.../en/ip_21_3747

Quotes below are from the EC proposal to the EU. In essence, the EU's mandate, if approved, would propose giving all port entry/exit & visa control to Spain, with Spanish officers on the UK side of the border.

j) The envisaged agreement should provide that Spain would be exclusively competent for issuing, on the basis of Union law, short-stay visas in respect of Gibraltar.

k) Rules providing that Spain would be sole competent to issue or renew long-stay visas valid for Gibraltar. Such long-stay visas may only be issued or renewed where the relevant conditions under law applicable in the territory of Gibraltar are fulfilled, which is to be determined by the UK authorities in respect of Gibraltar; Spain may refuse to issue or renew a visa on the basis of an alert in the Schengen Information System; the agreement would provide that the issuing of a long-stay visa valid for Gibraltar should not oblige a Member State to withdraw an alert for the purposes of refusal of entry from the Schengen Information System.

26. Given the Union and Gibraltar’s geographic proximity and economic interdependence, the envisaged agreement should ensure open and fair competition, encompassing robust commitments to ensure a level playing field and contribute to sustainable development. These commitments should take into account the scope and depth of the envisaged agreement, the overall relationship and the economic connectedness. The envisaged agreement should uphold high standards over time, with Union standards and international standards applied within the EU as a reference point, in particular in the areas of State aid, labour and social standards, environment and climate, tax matters, anti-money laundering and terrorist financing and other regulatory measures and practices in those areas. The envisaged agreement should ensure that the port of Gibraltar competes fairly with other European ports, in particular the port of Algeciras, including, inter alia, with respect to bunkering services.

62. In relation to the provisions of Union law made applicable to Gibraltar, the institutions, in particular the Court of Justice of the European Union, and bodies, offices and agencies of the Union should, in relation to the UK (Gibraltar) and natural and legal persons residing or established in the territory of Gibraltar, have the powers as conferred upon them by Union law. In particular, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) should have
the jurisdiction provided for in the Treaties in that respect.

2. The NI Protocol

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57911148

The UK has unveiled a new set of demands to redraw the post-Brexit trading arrangements it agreed with the EU for Northern Ireland.

The government said border checks on goods from Great Britain it signed up to in the 2019 Brexit divorce deal had proved unsustainable.

Brexit Minister Lord Frost said they risked harming business, and were damaging the "fabric" of the UK.

The EU said it would not agree to renegotiate the terms of the 2019 deal.

Something rather larger than popcorn time!

The EU is acting as Spain’s proxy and attempting to overturn the Treaty of Utrecht, which, Spain always prefers to forget, gives a solid legal basis for British sovereignty over the Rock. That basis is vastly sounder than that which Spain relies on with respect to Melilla and Ceuta (“OK, Morocco, you can have your independence, but we’re hanging on to these two cities right here, just because it suits us”). Spain pretends its African colonies are integral to the Spanish State, while the UK has never sought to claim Gibraltar is anything more than it actually is: namely, territory ceded by a treaty ending a war. There are comparable territories all over Europe.

Meanwhile in Northern Ireland, I think it’s clear HMG never intended to make it work but signed it just to get the deal done. I think they’re planning to play chicken with the EU, and betting that now the new arrangements are established and working, they won’t risk collapsing the whole thing if the UK unilaterally abrogates its responsibilities in this area. Given the present, highly aligned state of the UK and EU markets, it would be very difficult for the EU to demonstrate anything more than a purely theoretical risk to its much-vaunted market rules. Are they puritanical enough to blow it all up? Interesting times ahead.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

The EU is acting as Spain’s proxy and attempting to overturn the Treaty of Utrecht, which, Spain always prefers to forget, gives a solid legal basis for British sovereignty over the Rock. That basis is vastly sounder than that which Spain relies on with respect to Melilla and Ceuta (“OK, Morocco, you can have your independence, but we’re hanging on to these two cities right here, just because it suits us”). Spain pretends its African colonies are integral to the Spanish State, while the UK has never sought to claim Gibraltar is anything more than it actually is: namely, territory ceded by a treaty ending a war. There are comparable territories all over Europe.

Meanwhile in Northern Ireland, I think it’s clear HMG never intended to make it work but signed it just to get the deal done. I think they’re planning to play chicken with the EU, and betting that now the new arrangements are established and working, they won’t risk collapsing the whole thing if the UK unilaterally abrogates its responsibilities in this area. Given the present, highly aligned state of the UK and EU markets, it would be very difficult for the EU to demonstrate anything more than a purely theoretical risk to its much-vaunted market rules. Are they puritanical enough to blow it all up? Interesting times ahead.

Their Gibraltar stance is evidence of their puritanical zeal.
Imo, they'll rely on the punishment rules in the Treaty and try to stick it to us via the ECJ, which has jurisdiction over the Protocol.

Then they'll punish us by suspension of parts of the Trade Agreement which will hurt them more than it hurts us. And, with a bit of perverse luck, will send Ireland into a pickle.

Originally Posted by Chris

The EU is acting as Spain’s proxy and attempting to overturn the Treaty of Utrecht, which, Spain always prefers to forget, gives a solid legal basis for British sovereignty over the Rock. That basis is vastly sounder than that which Spain relies on with respect to Melilla and Ceuta (“OK, Morocco, you can have your independence, but we’re hanging on to these two cities right here, just because it suits us”). Spain pretends its African colonies are integral to the Spanish State, while the UK has never sought to claim Gibraltar is anything more than it actually is: namely, territory ceded by a treaty ending a war. There are comparable territories all over Europe.

Meanwhile in Northern Ireland, I think it’s clear HMG never intended to make it work but signed it just to get the deal done. I think they’re planning to play chicken with the EU, and betting that now the new arrangements are established and working, they won’t risk collapsing the whole thing if the UK unilaterally abrogates its responsibilities in this area. Given the present, highly aligned state of the UK and EU markets, it would be very difficult for the EU to demonstrate anything more than a purely theoretical risk to its much-vaunted market rules. Are they puritanical enough to blow it all up? Interesting times ahead.

In general, if an entity shows it can't be trusted, why should it be trusted the next time one tries to deal with it?

People/countries aren't judged on what they say they'll do, but on what they actually do - why should anyone sign a treaty/deal with the UK if six months later we say "oh, we didn't think it would work, but just signed it to get the deal done"?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

In general, if an entity shows it can't be trusted, why should it be trusted the next time one tries to deal with it?

People/countries aren't judged on what they say they'll do, but on what they actually do - why should anyone sign a treaty/deal with the UK if six months later we say "oh, we didn't think it would work, but just signed it to get the deal done"?

Typical Remainer pap.

The EU could have been less puritanical in its implementation of the Protocol. But they are hell bent on punishing us and hide behind the sanctity of the Protocol.

The rest of the world (outside the EU) will be watching this with great interest. The Gibraltar thing may well break the camel's back in all this.

Or you could answer the question, rather than insulting the questioner…

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or you could answer the question, rather than insulting the questioner…

I did answer the question. It's the preface to my answer which offended you. But you ignore the reality of what's going on so Remainer pap it remains.