Brexit process

[Lord Beria3]

Talks abandoned... no breakthrough!

[Little John]

Good. Because Northern Ireland remaining in the customs union is unacceptable, as is the whole of the UK remaining in it.

Either the UK does a deal with neither of the above being true. Or it should walk away.

The truth is it should have walked away long ago.

[Little John]

On this, Boris Johnson is right.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... r-country/

There comes a point when you have to stand up to bullies. After more than two years of being ruthlessly pushed around by the EU, it is time for the UK to resist.

With painful politeness, we have agreed to the EU’s timetable for discussions. We have consented to hand over huge quantities of taxpayers’ money – £39bn of it. We have quite properly volunteered to protect the rights of EU nationals in the UK. So far we have nothing to show for our generosity and understanding. We are now entering the moment of crisis. Matters cannot go on as they are.

In presuming to change the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, the EU is treating us with naked contempt. Like some chess player triumphantly forking our king and our queen, the EU Commission is offering the UK government what appears to be a binary choice.

It is a choice between the break-up of this country, or the subjugation of this country, between separation or submission. It is between treating Northern Ireland as an economic colony of the EU, or treating the whole of the UK as such a colony. It is a choice between protecting the Union or saving Brexit. It is a choice between two exquisitely embarrassing varieties of humiliation. It is an entirely false choice. It must be rejected, and it must be rejected now.

No Prime Minister, no government, no MP and no democrat could conceivably accept the first option – that unless North-south trade can be carried on in Ireland without any need for extra controls, Northern Ireland should remain forever a part of the EU customs union and single market.

That would mean a border down the Irish sea. It would mean customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that sense it would mean violating the Act of Union of 1800, and the very basis on which this country is founded.

If we were to allow this economic annexation of Northern Ireland, by a foreign power, we would be treating Northern Irish MPs as somehow second class legislators, deprived now and forever of any say in many of the laws operational in their own constituencies. Even if the rest of the UK were able to do free trade deals, Northern Ireland would not be able to take part.

It was completely wrong of the government to agree this so-called Northern Irish “backstop�on December 8 last year, and those of us who had doubts at the time have been more than vindicated. We were told that it was just a form of words; we were told that it was merely temporary; we were told that these were redundant phrases that would never be invoked. As it is, that Irish backstop has been turned into the means of frustrating Brexit, because the alternative is even worse.

Under the proposals now being put forward by the UK government – the Chequers plan – the whole of the UK would effectively remain in the customs union and single market. This is a catastrophe for Brexit, and makes a mockery of the project.

It seems that in the last few days UK negotiators have agreed that we will remain in the “customs territory� of the EU, an even stronger commitment than remaining in the customs union. It means that for trading purposes the UK is simply conceived of as part of EU territory, as though it were a departement of France. We will be outside the EU but run by the EU, in the sense that from next year we will, of course, have no one in the Commission directorate of external trade, no influence over tariffs, and no ability to decide what trade and commercial policies will be pursued IN OUR OWN COUNTRY.

It is not just that we will be unable to do our own free trade deals. We will have them done for us, on terms that we may or may not like. The UK is a highly attractive trading partner, and a luscious potential market for goods and services. In the next ten years we can expect that there will be plenty of global negotiations about access to the UK’s market. It is one of the many disgraceful features of the Chequers proposals that if and when such deals are done, UK officials will not be involved.

Let us suppose that in the course of the next ten years – as seems likely – the EU enters into negotiations with China or America. It is our markets that will be treated as bargaining chips, by the EU, and one can easily imagine that – without any kind of political consent from this country – the EU might decide to open up, say, healthcare markets to American providers. Or they might agree any number of deals that damaged UK interests.

This is not the “pragmatic� solution; this is not minimising risk. Take this together with the “common rulebook� – exposing the entirety of UK business, including the vast majority that does not export to the EU – to the uncontrolled torrent of EU regulation, and you have a recipe for subordination that seriously threatens the economic health of this country.

Nor does this option even protect the Union, since it is clear that the Commission would still want extra controls down the Irish sea. And it is no use claiming that such membership of the EU customs union would be temporary. It is obvious that the proposed “Facilitated Customs Arrangement� is a non-starter; and once we have agreed to remain in for the time being, and paid up our £39bn, the EU will have no incentive to negotiate anything else.

We cannot accept either of these appalling options. It is time to scrap the backstop, and simply agree what is manifestly the case – that no one wants any new physical checks at the northern Irish border, and nor is there any need for them.

There is a better solution, and one that the Commission has long since expected. We still have ample time to make it work, not least since our partners would vastly prefer it to WTO terms. It is the Super Canada, zero tariff, zero quota, free trade deal at the heart of a deep and special partnership. It is right for both sides, and it is time to go for it.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yep.

[Lord Beria3]

Or as Greer wrote recently...

Forecastingintelligence, I think she’s got zero chance. Anything that the Tories will accept, the EU will reject, and vice versa. I thought for a little while after the Salzburg fiasco that she was going to grow some gonads, tell the EU to get lost, and go full tilt toward a no-deal Brexit; if she’d done so, she could well have salvaged her political future; but instead it’s back to trying to placate two irreconcilable blocs, neither of which has anything to gain by cooperating with her. Some Trump-style negotiating could probably bring the EU to heel, but she doesn’t have the skills involved. So it’s apparently going to be a last-minute, no-deal, nobody’s ready for it Brexit — despite which, everything should work out fine.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45859282

Brexit negotiations have hit a "real problem" over the issue of the Irish border, government sources have warned.

The EU is believed to be seeking further reassurances to prevent the return of a so-called hard border involving physical checks.

Hopes of a breakthrough were raised when the Brexit secretary made an unscheduled trip to Brussels on Sunday.

But talks faltered over the need for a back-up plan - known as the backstop - to avoid a hard border.

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has insisted any backstop arrangement should apply to the UK as a whole to avoid creating a new border in the Irish Sea.

But Sunday's talks had broken down after the EU had insisted on a second backstop arrangement - just involving Northern Ireland - if the UK's version wasn't ready in time, Downing Street sources indicated.

This is quite absurd. Now they are talking about a backstop to the backstop. Backstops all the way down, it seems, but it cannot solve their problem.

Wednesday is going to be interesting.

[Lord Beria3]

An unnamed EU member state is calling for the November summit to prepare for no deal... suspect it is the French. Optics could shift quickly on this as hopes of a deal fade in the coming weeks.

No deal could go from unlikely to inevitable.

[Little John]

I've been reading here and there, over the last few days, that a Canada style free trade deal has always been on offer from the EU, but that May has consistently rejected that and gone for her chequers plan instead.

Is that actually True?. Does anyone know? Because, if it is true, then she is a f***ing traitor to this country.

[Lord Beria3]

Black Brexit smoke

The events of the last 24 hours do not tell us whether or not there will be a Brexit deal. The sherpas, diplomats and technical staff were not able to pull it off. The disagreements are not technical but political. It will be up to the European Council to settle them on Wednesday. The chances that they will do so are wide-open. Anyone with experience in EU deal-making will recall countless occasions when a deal was preceded by gloomy no-deal warnings. Yet, the converse does not hold true either: happy endings can never be pre-ordained. What makes Brexit different from other negotiations is the unprecedented nature of the beast. This is a divorce agreement, not a treaty among EU leaders who have to look each other in the eye afterwards.

The big problem that came up over the weekend is that Downing Street underestimated the massive backlash against the idea of a customs union without a concrete time limit. Even Ruth Davidson, the moderate Scottish Tory leader, threatened to resign if Theresa May returned with any deal as part of which Northern Ireland would be treated differently from the rest of the UK. In this debate we are always returning to the same issue: an Irish backstop is inconsistent with an FTA. Chequers at least attempted to address that problem. The EU‘s rejection of Chequers was in our view a pivotal moment in the negotiations. It leaves a (semi)-permanent customs union/single market arrangement as the only alternative to no deal.

The FT reports Theresa May was calling the draft agreed by negotiators over the weekend a non-starter. Unless the negotiators find a way to insert a time limit, or something equivalent, we think it is going to be hard for May to agree at this stage. While we never underestimate the ability of EU negotiators to achieve a fudge, it would take some ingenuity to produce weasel words capable of hypnotising the hypercharged eurosceptics in the UK. 

Over the weekend, the Observer newspaper reported Arlene Foster as saying that her talks with Barnier last week went badly, and that she now considered a no-deal Brexit as the most probable course of events. In addition to the DUP's 10 votes in the Commons, we think there must be at least 30-40 Tory MPs whom we consider as unyielding in their opposition to a customs union. They would prefer a no-deal Brexit. Even the threat of a second referendum no longer holds much sway with this group. It is for that reason that the probability of a no-deal Brexit, while impossible to calculate, is much higher than most people think.

We noted a comment  in FAZ from Hendrik Kafsack, who made a point we have not read often in the German press but we may hear more frequently as people take the no-deal scenario more seriously. He said some of the EU‘s red lines were sensible, but the rejection of Chequers was irrational as a no-deal Brexit would also be massively damaging for the EU itself. 

The rejection of Chequers was in our view an event that keeps on haunting us because Chequers not only respected the two sides‘ most important red lines, but would also have opened up a very narrow pathway towards ratification in the UK parliament. We are now in the situation both sides had sought to avoid: a looming confrontation that will end in a take-it-or-leave-it choice. Judging from some of the comments from EU leaders last time, it appears that some are still hoping for a Brexit reversal while some EU officials seem gung-ho about a no-deal Brexit.

This raises the question: is it possible that May herself becomes the champion of a no-deal solution? We think it is. Her first-best option would clearly be a deal ratified by the Commons. But we cannot see the other three options as viable candidates for second best: elections, a second referendum, or prodding on after parliament refuses to ratify a deal. All three embed the threat of a leadership challenge. Not agreeing to a deal that stands no chances of passage is indeed May's second-best option.

One other factor to keep in mind are self-fulfilling prophecies. If there is no deal by Wednesday and the EU and the UK move full-steam ahead with no-deal preparations, many companies in the UK and the EU will at this point unleash their no-deal plans. Within a few months, a no-deal Brexit will have become an economic reality. Much of the damage will have been done. At that point a no-deal scenario becomes less frightening. It, too, will be de-dramatised - to quote Barnier out of context.

The biggest obstacle to a deal right now is the illusion of false alternatives on both sides. The Labour Party rejects the deal on the grounds that it could negotiate a better one. Others like Kenneth Clarke reject it because he bets on a second referendum. The EU rejects a compromise in the unrealistic assumption that the UK will simply falter or, if not, that the EU will not suffer a lot. A deal will be easiest to reach once all of these dangerous illusions are buried - i.e. very close to the Brexit day itself.

[PS_RalphW]

It has been clear for many months that May's attempt to secure a deal would hit these buffers - there is no compromise that will be accepted by the EU, the DUP, the Brexiteers and the remainers in her own party. At this point, the future (if any) of Brexit remains in the hands of Jeremy Corbin. Any attempt to force a deal or even pass a budget will require Labour mps to vote with the government, and I am sure Jeremy will be pulling strings in the background to limit any rebellion that did not include concessions from the Tories to meet his own agenda. Failing that, the government falls, and we are at the mercy of a general election which may return Corbin, or may leave the house totally divided as now, and the DUP out in the cold. At that point, only a government of national unity could save Brexit.

[Little John]

I tell you what will save Brexit. The f***ing political class doing the bidding of the people.

This is going to end with a major realignment of British politics. And that's if we are lucky. If we are not, it will end with bloodshed.

[UndercoverElephant]

I've been reading here and there, over the last few days, that a Canada style free trade deal has always been on offer from the EU, but that May has consistently rejected that and gone for her chequers plan instead.

Is that actually True?. Does anyone know? Because, if it is true, then she is a f***ing traitor to this country.

It's true, but misleading. The EU has always been offering Canada, but with a border in the Irish Sea. Canada with a border within Ireland has never been on offer.

[Mark]

More on the impact of 'No Deal' Brexit on the Chemical Industry.......

HSE to replace EU chemicals agency in a no-deal Brexit:
https://www.endsreport.com/article/6110 ... eal-brexit

The government would seek to maintain as much regulatory continuity for chemicals as possible in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to guidance issued on Friday afternoon. All six papers state that a no-deal scenario “remains unlikely given the mutual interests of the UK and the EU in securing a negotiated outcome.� The papers came just ahead of news that a 21-month post-Brexit ‘backstop’ is becoming a more likely prospect, to avoid the creation of a hard border in Northern Ireland. Under this, the UK would effectively remain within the EU, though without any influence on its rules. None of the papers are longer than a few pages and offer limited detail, such as the extra costs involved. While largely playing down the consequences of Brexit, they also hint at some profound impacts on business and potentially the environment. Should a no-deal come to pass, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) would step into roles currently occupied by the European Chemicals Agency, European Food Safety Authority and the European Commission, with little time to prepare. Nothing is said about the practicalities of recruiting sufficiently qualified staff and developing IT systems before April.

NGO CHEM Trust is “very concerned� about the focus on the HSE, given that “they don’t have adequate environmental expertise & commitment. They are also not involved in public health,� said executive director Michael Warhurst. The guidance for pesticides states: “In a no-deal scenario the UK would not be legally committed to medium or long-term regulatory alignment with the EU. Divergence from developing EU legislation would be possible in due course.� Given time, this could see the EU ban pesticides that will remain in place in the UK, or the HSE approving new pesticides and formulations that will not be permitted in the EU. At the same time, it adds: “The technical requirements of the regime would remain the same as they are in current EU legislation, maintaining existing standards of environmental and health protections.� Among such pesticides could be glyphosate. Although Brussels has given the world’s most commonly used weedkiller the thumps up after it was linked to cancer, some member states favoured a ban when its authorisation was discussed last year. In contrast, the agricultural and horticultural lobby opposed the move, with environment minister Thérèse Coffey describing glyphosate as “amazing� in August.

As things stand, the EU Plant Protection Regulation requires active substances to be approved at EU level. Products containing them are approved for sale and use by the HSE. This two-layer system would be stripped away under no-deal, the HSE regulating pesticides and their formulations directly. All approvals, authorisations and maximum residue levels in place on 29 March next year would continue to be recognised. From then on, all pesticides regulation would fall to the HSE, with businesses being warned that they should plan ahead for the change. Processes carried out by the European Food Safety Authority, such as public consultation would be retained “if they are relevant in a UK only context�, states the guidance. New arrangements for independent scientific assurance would also be put in place. A further change would make it easier to establish what maximum residue levels for food and active substances have been approved. A new statutory register, backed by a publicly accessible online database will be created, replacing separate volumes of tertiary EU legislation.

Regulation under the EU Biocidal Products Regulation works in a broadly similar way to pesticides. Under no-deal, the HSE would be responsible for authorising substances and approving products and will develop its own IT systems. Any applications under the EU regime would need to be re-submitted to the HSE. Classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) requirements would remain much the same, though manufacturers and importers to the UK would have to notify classification details to the HSE rather than ECHA. The CLP paper also states: “In future, the UK will be free to make its own decisions about chemical hazard classification, including whether or not to align with decisions made in the EU or other countries. The paper on prior informed consent, a process which implements the Rotterdam Convention on international trade in hazardous chemicals, would again pass the European Chemicals Agency’s role to the HSE. Unlike now, companies exporting chemicals within the single market would have to notify the regulator. The UK broadly expects to keep pace with the EU as it implements the decisions of the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic chemicals. Similarly, Brexit should have little impact on the UK’s management of mercury, which is governed by the international Minamata Convention and the EU Mercury Regulation, says the mercury paper. The regulation prohibits the export of mercury-bearing materials outside the EU, with certain derogations. Under no-deal, consignments to the EU would be permitted, while imports banned. As so little is imported, “this should have a limited impact on business� it says.

The Chemical Industries Association and its EU counterpart CEFIC published their own guidance note on Friday, on preparing for a future with the UK out of REACH. This will be the case from 30 March without a deal or perhaps 2021 if a transitional period is agreed.

The practical advice includes:
• Identifying chemicals affected by Brexit and companies’ roles in the supply chain
• If a substance is manufactured in the UK and EU by subsidiaries of the same company, the latter could act as the importer for the former. Doing so would mean that the EU firm’s registration dossier would need to be updated to accommodate the additional volume being placed on the market, which may cross a tonnage band and mean more testing requirements.
• To ease compliance, draw up a contract to appoint an only representative with a suspensive clause, to take effect when UK withdrawal is complete.

[Potemkin Villager]

Flanders and Swan Brexit latest.


"The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

And crossing the channel one cannot say much
For the French or the Spanish, the Danish or Dutch
The Germans are German, the Russians are red
And the Greeks and Italians eat garlic in bed

The English are noble, the English are nice
And worth any other at double the price

And all the world over each nation's the same
They've simply no notion of playing the game
They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won
And they practice before hand which spoils all the fun

The English the English the English are best
I wouldn't give tuppence for all of the rest

It's not that they're wicked or naturally bad
It's just that they're foreign that makes them so mad
The English are all that a nation should be
And the pride of the English are Chipper and me"

[Little John]

Yes... Yes... of course.

Anyone who believe in nation statehood must be a blithering, jingoistic fool at best or a knuckle dragging moron at worst...right?

you are pathetic