Britain outside the EU

[jonbxx]

You have to wonder what is the UK Governments end game here... By breaking or threatening to break agreements made by the Government itself less than 4 months ago is not a good look internationally. Dominic Raab is currently criticising China for not honouring their treaties regarding Hong Kong while at home, there seems to be a will to break our treaty with the EU.

I can see three possible reasons for the approach being taken;

• Theatrics for political reasons - the EU don't like the taste of British steel and we quietly roll back later
• The treaty does not get signed off by the EU Parliament making the EU to blame for 'no deal'
• The EU makes good on its' threat to launch a legal dispute making the EU bullies

As ever, there is a strange situation where we are Great Brtian and don't you forget it, while simultaneously being bullied by the EU

My biggest concern is that it seems that actions taken which look good in the pages of The Telegraph, Mail and Express may not look so good internationally. Or, to put it on a closer to home example, you know that a plumber ripped off your neighbour, would you hire him?

[Sephiroth]

A brilliant post (mostly), Jon.

Homing in on many a Leaver's dream:

The treaty does not get signed off by the EU Parliament making the EU to blame for 'no deal'

I had hoped that the current deal, which at least gives the UK tariff-free trade, could be refined through the mechanisms as practicalities became visible. The next best thing that could happen, is the 'no deal' option; it should have happened back in May's day before the EU were allowed to dictate the negotiations.

Had we left without a deal, we could not be accused of breaking a treaty. We would have paid what we owed; the Pandemic would still have happened and an equilibrium would have been found.

On your final remark, I would take issue:

My biggest concern is that it seems that actions taken which look good in the pages of The Telegraph, Mail and Express may not look so good internationally. Or, to put it on a closer to home example, you know that a plumber ripped off your neighbour, would you hire him?

The first sentence, as a postulation, is beyond criticism, imo. Your second sentence is not a reasonable analogy. International politics and related behaviour don't come near the rip-off plumber; the dynamics are totally different.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The first sentence, as a postulation, is beyond criticism, imo. Your second sentence is not a reasonable analogy. International politics and related behaviour don't come near the rip-off plumber; the dynamics are totally different.

[/COLOR]

Thanks for the compliments!

On your last comment, I would ask 'how so'? I agree that there will be differences of course but principle stands. I see in the COVID thread that you discuss risk assessment. With an international treaty, you would look at the risks and threats of the other party not complying with the treaty and embed corresponding mechanisms to account for this.

The robustness of those provisions would reflect the risk of one or both parties breaking the treaty and the consequences of that break and could vary from 'let's have a little chat' to ending the treaty immediately.

There's little trust between nation states which is why treaties exist in the first place. If treaties can be freely broken without consequence, this has a major impact on that trust

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Thanks for the compliments!

On your last comment, I would ask 'how so'? I agree that there will be differences of course but principle stands. I see in the COVID thread that you discuss risk assessment. With an international treaty, you would look at the risks and threats of the other party not complying with the treaty and embed corresponding mechanisms to account for this.

The robustness of those provisions would reflect the risk of one or both parties breaking the treaty and the consequences of that break and could vary from 'let's have a little chat' to ending the treaty immediately.

There's little trust between nation states which is why treaties exist in the first place. If treaties can be freely broken without consequence, this has a major impact on that trust

The problem with confining risk analysis to the treaty alone is that it omits other risk factors such as getting supplies to NI; potential social unrest in NI which would be perverse in terms of protecting the GFA.

The Guvmin has explicitly stated that it does not want to break the treaty, just to extend the grace period so that compliant systems can be built/completed. The Guvmin wanted 2 years (I think) the EU offered 6 months (don't ask for a link but that's generally known).

Then you make the point about "trust". First, the EU is not a "nation state"; it is an association with degrees of power conferred by the constituent nation states. The EU is fronted by the EC aka Brussels. They hate us for Brexit and will use every bit of legal exertion to make their point. The UK cannot win in the potentially upcoming ECJ case because the letter of the treaty gives the judges no leeway.

It's very complex and not at all akin to the rip-off plumber; Ireland is digging its picador sticks into the UK via the EC and, if Boris sticks to his guns, will end badly for the Republic. Part of that complexity is the gouging away of NI from the UK. If we can adequately automate the NI customs processes (which needs the time the Guvmin has requested), then the feeling of gouging will diminish. In the meantime, the Guvmin cannot wait for the EC to put us through the rack so they can drag out the torture.

Some Remainers might say that we should have thought about that before signing the deal. Yes - that's right; we should have walked away 2 years after Article 50.

[Carth]

"we should have walked away 2 years after Article 50"

Too right, we wouldn't be any worse off

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

You have to wonder what is the UK Governments end game here... By breaking or threatening to break agreements made by the Government itself less than 4 months ago is not a good look internationally. Dominic Raab is currently criticising China for not honouring their treaties regarding Hong Kong while at home, there seems to be a will to break our treaty with the EU.

I can see three possible reasons for the approach being taken;

• Theatrics for political reasons - the EU don't like the taste of British steel and we quietly roll back later
• The treaty does not get signed off by the EU Parliament making the EU to blame for 'no deal'
• The EU makes good on its' threat to launch a legal dispute making the EU bullies

As ever, there is a strange situation where we are Great Britain and don't you forget it, while simultaneously being bullied by the EU

My biggest concern is that it seems that actions taken which look good in the pages of The Telegraph, Mail and Express may not look so good internationally. Or, to put it on a closer to home example, you know that a plumber ripped off your neighbour, would you hire him?

Spot on post.


---------- Post added at 12:23 ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 ----------

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Thanks for the compliments!

On your last comment, I would ask 'how so'? I agree that there will be differences of course but principle stands. I see in the COVID thread that you discuss risk assessment. With an international treaty, you would look at the risks and threats of the other party not complying with the treaty and embed corresponding mechanisms to account for this.

The robustness of those provisions would reflect the risk of one or both parties breaking the treaty and the consequences of that break and could vary from 'let's have a little chat' to ending the treaty immediately.

There's little trust between nation states which is why treaties exist in the first place. If treaties can be freely broken without consequence, this has a major impact on that trust

I would also add that breaking treaties has global ramifications. How can the UK complain about China breaking treaties in Hong Kong if we are breaking treaties ourselves. We don't have much of a leg to stand on.

I've said all along that the UK should have taken advantage of the EU's generous offer to extend the Withdrawal Agreement by another year. Instead, BoJo preferred to leave knowing that the systems were not in place but that the negative effects of Brexit would be neatly hidden by the pandemic.

[papa smurf]

It's like listening to a DJ with only one record

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

<SNIP>
I would also add that breaking treaties has global ramifications. How can the UK complain about China breaking treaties in Hong Kong if we are breaking treaties ourselves. We don't have much of a leg to stand on.

I've said all along that the UK should have taken advantage of the EU's generous offer to extend the Withdrawal Agreement by another year. Instead, BoJo preferred to leave knowing that the systems were not in place but that the negative effects of Brexit would be neatly hidden by the pandemic.

There is a vast difference between what China is doing in HK against what the UK is doing with the NI goods problem. The hypocrisy line you've taken isn't reasonable.

Btw, extending the WA for a year would have cost us billions and would only push the EU's enmity (and various consequences) one year down the road.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The problem with confining risk analysis to the treaty alone is that it omits other risk factors such as getting supplies to NI; potential social unrest in NI which would be perverse in terms of protecting the GFA.

The Guvmin has explicitly stated that it does not want to break the treaty, just to extend the grace period so that compliant systems can be built/completed. The Guvmin wanted 2 years (I think) the EU offered 6 months (don't ask for a link but that's generally known).

Then you make the point about "trust". First, the EU is not a "nation state"; it is an association with degrees of power conferred by the constituent nation states. The EU is fronted by the EC aka Brussels. They hate us for Brexit and will use every bit of legal exertion to make their point. The UK cannot win in the potentially upcoming ECJ case because the letter of the treaty gives the judges no leeway.

It's very complex and not at all akin to the rip-off plumber; Ireland is digging its picador sticks into the UK via the EC and, if Boris sticks to his guns, will end badly for the Republic. Part of that complexity is the gouging away of NI from the UK. If we can adequately automate the NI customs processes (which needs the time the Guvmin has requested), then the feeling of gouging will diminish. In the meantime, the Guvmin cannot wait for the EC to put us through the rack so they can drag out the torture.

Some Remainers might say that we should have thought about that before signing the deal. Yes - that's right; we should have walked away 2 years after Article 50.

So when the Government signed off on the 6 months grace period, do you feel it was done with the full intention of doing the work in 6 months or did the Government have no intention of fulfilling that promise and was going to take 2 years anyway?

If it was the first and there have been issues with getting everything in place, surely the sensible option would be to go through the Joint Committee set up to oversee and monitor the application of the treaty rather than just doing it. Let's remember that the Government has not requested an extension, it has told the EU it is taking one. It seems unnecessarily belligerent.

If it was the second and the UK had no intention of fulfilling its' obligations, then infringement procedures are probably justified.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

So when the Government signed off on the 6 months grace period, do you feel it was done with the full intention of doing the work in 6 months or did the Government have no intention of fulfilling that promise and was going to take 2 years anyway?

If it was the first and there have been issues with getting everything in place, surely the sensible option would be to go through the Joint Committee set up to oversee and monitor the application of the treaty rather than just doing it. Let's remember that the Government has not requested an extension, it has told the EU it is taking one. It seems unnecessarily belligerent.

If it was the second and the UK had no intention of fulfilling its' obligations, then infringement procedures are probably justified.

I can't answer your question as to the Guvmin's intentions, Jon. They shouldn't have signed the 6 months grace period and should have walked away instead.

A unilateral action by the UK triggers infringement proceedings; that's how the EU works. Seen from the UK side in the context of its NI problems, I don't see how the Guvmin could have done anything other than what it's doing. The UK should have walked away.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I can't answer your question as to the Guvmin's intentions, Jon. They shouldn't have signed the 6 months grace period and should have walked away instead.

A unilateral action by the UK triggers infringement proceedings; that's how the EU works. Seen from the UK side in the context of its NI problems, I don't see how the Guvmin could have done anything other than what it's doing. The UK should have walked away.

A unilateral action by either side would trigger infringement proceedings.

The Government should have used the Joint Committee to secure an extension. That's what the mechanism is there for and is what the UK agreed to. Why have an agreement and not use it?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

It's like listening to a DJ with only one record

Probably 'Circles' by Manfred Mann's Earth Band

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

A unilateral action by either side would trigger infringement proceedings.

The Government should have used the Joint Committee to secure an extension. That's what the mechanism is there for and is what the UK agreed to. Why have an agreement and not use it?

I'm pretty sure that the Guvmin felt it needed to take urgent action on NI rather than fart around with a long winded JC process.

Of course, that should be a matter in hand now.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm pretty sure that the Guvmin felt it needed to take urgent action on NI rather than fart around with a long winded JC process.

Of course, that should be a matter in hand now.

From a quote in my previous post

It is understood that a new specialised committee, mandated under the Brexit deal, will be quickly set up and will convene in the next two weeks to thrash out a solution. A signoff is expected at a meeting of the UK-EU joint committee, which Gove and Šefčovič pencilled in for mid-March.

The U.K. Government took unilateral action four weeks after talks commenced, only two weeks before sign-off of a deal was expected, with four weeks left on the existing grace period - why not wait two more weeks, and if no amicable solution was forthcoming, then take the unilateral action?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

From a quote in my previous post The U.K. Government took unilateral action four weeks after talks commenced, only two weeks before sign-off of a deal was expected, with four weeks left on the existing grace period - why not wait two more weeks, and if no amicable solution was forthcoming, then take the unilateral action?

Do we know that? My reading of what you said is that the UK was within 2 weeks of getting sign off on the requested extension.