Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[Andy_Ross]

Don't forget the majority of British fishermen sold their quotas to Spanish and French boats.

 

[Lothian]

That sounded too stupid to be true.

Turns out I was right. The headline badly mischaracterizes her complaint, which is not that they don't have EU representation, but that the EU still has control over UK waters.

Her complaint is that we are out of the EU but still subject to the rules of the EU with no say in setting those rules.

That is because the Tories promised we would leave the EU at the end of Jan and would then enter a transition period until 31 Dec 2020. During that transition period we get all the benefits and obligations of membership with no say.

The Brexit party could have stood on a platform of 'leave now' with no transition period. Instead they backed the Tories and didn't stand against any Tory candidates who advocated the transition deal. To now complain that we have transition is bonkers.

 

[lomiller]

That sounded too stupid to be true.

Turns out I was right. The headline badly mischaracterizes her complaint, which is not that they don't have EU representation, but that the EU still has control over UK waters.

There is no real difference in how stupid these things are. It’s still something Brexiters demanded and are complaining about after it comes to pass.


It makes more sense for the UK remain in the EU until there is an actual Brexit deal in place, but the pro Brexit government wants to “get Brexit done” so they are doing it under an interim agreement where the UK leaves the EU but is still subject to EU rules, regulations, trade agreements, etc.

In terms of the fisheries themselves, I’m doubtful the current government even knows what’s involved with managing it themselves and I doubt whether it will be able to put the bureaucracy in place to do so. Therefor the UK will probably have no choice but to depend on the EU to do this for them indefinitely.

 

[lomiller]

The Brexit party could have stood on a platform of 'leave now' with no transition period. Instead they backed the Tories and didn't stand against any Tory candidates who advocated the transition deal.

Deep down they must realize that as things currently sit the UK is not capable of managing it’s own affairs. They hope that the transition period will give them time to build the capacity to do so but in most cases they don’t even seem to understand what’s involved with running things themselves.

Does the UK even have a fisheries department staffed with marine biologists experienced in monitoring populations and setting quota’s accordingly? Given that, the EU has been performing this function on their behalf I highly doubt that it does.

To now complain that we have transition is bonkers.

Yup.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

And they can **** right off.
Own it...

If the rest of us have to put up with this **** show, then the bloody places that voted for it can as well.

Aye

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Don't forget the majority of British fishermen fishing company owners sold their quotas to Spanish and French boats.

A small but significant distinction.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no real difference in how stupid these things are. It’s still something Brexiters demanded and are complaining about after it comes to pass.

No. They didn't demand a transition period in which the EU would maintain control even after separation. And the fact that this deal may be preferable to them than remaining doesn't mean that they can't have any complaints about this deal. It's fair to say, "Oh well" or "tough luck", or even "suck it" to those complaints, but the complaints themselves aren't contradictory.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Was there anything on the agenda of those committee meetings that he personally should have been covering? Also, what makes you think she didn't see this coming? I don't see this in her Tweet. It's hardly a situation that is implicit in Brexit, just the deal that the Brexit party moaned was a bad deal.

Personally, I'd see it as the beginning of the push to maintain pressure to leave for good at the end of the year.

If I was going to attack the Tweet, this quote from Farage about why he didn't attend would be the line I'd take: "There was no legal role, no legislative role in that committee whatsoever, you couldn't do a thing. It was pointless."

It is pointless to be informed about the state of things and discuss those things with colleagues? Perhaps that is the basis of how several like-minded MEPs might propose some kind of legal or legislative action in whatever body is appropriate for doing so.

No, the problem is Nigel Farage is a twatwaffle. Like many other politicians they have one goal: get in power. If successful they switch to: stay in power. That's it. It's a goal unto itself. Aimless megalomania or a little graft, both would certainly see sitting through some droll meeting where you might *cringe* learn something or *gag* build relationships with peers from other countries as "pointless."

 

[The Don]

Once again, it's clear that the government are making up Brexit policy on the fly. A few days ago the Chancellor was clear that the UK would be diverging from EU standards immediately. This gave UK business the screaming abdabs.

Now, after being buttonholed at Davos by worried business leaders, he has "clarified" the position.

Business leaders have welcomed what they call a clarification of the government's view that there would be "no alignment" with EU rules in a post-Brexit trade deal with the EU.

Chancellor Sajid Javid said the UK would use the power to diverge from Europe only when it was in the interests of business.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51228818

It seems like he's engaging in some doublespeak:

Answering questions from UK chief executives at a Davos lunch, Mr Javid said that although the UK could not be a rule taker, for democratic reasons, "it doesn't mean we will diverge for the sake of it".

The UK won't be a rule taker, we'll simply won't diverge from them

 

[Andy_Ross]

Tory MP for Dover wants a fireworks display visible from France and ‘We love the UK’ banner on White Cliffs of Dover for Brexit day.

A Conservative MP has called for Brexit to be marked next week with a firework display that can be seen from France and a huge banner hanging from the White Cliffs of Dover.

Natalie Elphicke, the MP for Dover, has urged the UK to celebrate its exit from the European Union by hanging a banner displaying the words “We love the UK” on 31 January... Ms Elphicke has said her proposal is an opportunity to use the Brexit date “to share our positive message about Britain and the future we can make”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...love-uk-banner-natalie-elphicke-a9298801.html

 

[Darat]

Once again, it's clear that the government are making up Brexit policy on the fly. A few days ago the Chancellor was clear that the UK would be diverging from EU standards immediately. This gave UK business the screaming abdabs.

Now, after being buttonholed at Davos by worried business leaders, he has "clarified" the position.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51228818

It seems like he's engaging in some doublespeak:



The UK won't be a rule taker, we'll simply won't diverge from them

This week. Next week? Who knows which way the wind blows...

 

[McHrozni]

Does the UK even have a fisheries department staffed with marine biologists experienced in monitoring populations and setting quota’s accordingly?

I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

Does the UK even know what a fisheries department does?

I think most would agree they do something in connected with fishing but are fuzzy on details. By fuzzy I mean oblivious, of course.

McHrozni

 

[lomiller]

No. They didn't demand a transition period in which the EU would maintain control even after separation.

I disagree. Brexiters would not have voted for it if the UK lost the benefits of being in the EU immediately. If it’s a compromise, it’s a compromise they made amongst themselves because it was the only arrangement they could get enough Brexiters to vote for. No one other than Brexiters thinks it’s a good idea.

And the fact that this deal may be preferable to them than remaining doesn't mean that they can't have any complaints about this deal.

It’s not actually a deal, it’s just a window in which Brexiters hope to negotiate a deal. They negotiated a deal with the EU then voted against it because it wasn’t what they wanted. Now they have decided to go ahead without a deal and hope to get one done before they lose the befits of being in the EU. If they didn’t retain the benefits of being in the EU they probably would not have supported this arrangement either.

It's fair to say, "Oh well" or "tough luck", or even "suck it" to those complaints, but the complaints themselves aren't contradictory.

How is it anyone else’s fault that this was the only option they could get their own supporters to vote for in sufficient numbers to do anything at all?

 

[lomiller]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse.

Does the UK even know what a fisheries department does?

I think most would agree they do something in connected with fishing but are fuzzy on details. By fuzzy I mean oblivious, of course.

McHrozni

I take it as a given that the current UK government doesn’t know what it does or why it would need one. This doesn’t preclude the possibility one already exists though.

 

[Lothian]

I take it as a given that the current UK government doesn’t know what it does or why it would need one. This doesn’t preclude the possibility one already exists though.

Used to be MAFF but it went into DEFRA. There will be someone/ a team with responsibility but it will only be a tiny part of their job given the EU role. We will probably start off mirroring EU policy then will recruit folk to give it proper considerstoon. Brexit will be fantastic for wannabe bureaucrats funded by the hard working taxpayers. Nothing that a few percentage points on income tax can't cover.

Sovereignty- paying 28 times more for the same product but with a British rather than EU label.

 

[ceptimus]

The implementation period is only necessary because the EU's self-imposed stupid rules say that the EU will not negotiate a trade agreement until after a member country has already left the EU.

Without the stupid rules, we could have negotiated the trade deal and other future arrangements alongside the withdrawal agreement and got the whole thing done at the same time.

 

[Lothian]

The implementation period is only necessary because the EU's self-imposed stupid rules say that the EU will not negotiate a trade agreement until after a member country has already left the EU.

Without the stupid rules, we could have negotiated the trade deal and other future arrangements alongside the withdrawal agreement and got the whole thing done at the same time.

There certainly is a lot of stupidity about.

The UK has so far "agreed" 20 trade deals. There is nothing to stop the UK or the EU agreeing a new trade deal before brexit. Signing deals to take effect before leaving the EU obviously can't happen as it would lead to arguements about which deal took priority.

The transition period was at the request of the UK recognising that trade deals take time.

The EU may prefer not to agree deals prior to a member state leaving but that is their choice. Arguably it would be stupid for the EU to facilitate countries leaving by negotiating future deals with members, it would also be a waste on money as members could negotiate then decide whether to leave.

As it is however the EU have been perfectly willing to discuss future trade with the UK. Indeed the transition period itself is an agreement the EU reached on future trade prior to the UK leaving the EU detailing the arrangements for after the UK leaves the EU.

 

[lomiller]

There certainly is a lot of stupidity about.

The UK has so far "agreed" 20 trade deals. There is nothing to stop the UK or the EU agreeing a new trade deal before brexit. Signing deals to take effect before leaving the EU obviously can't happen as it would lead to arguements about which deal took priority.

The transition period was at the request of the UK recognising that trade deals take time.

The EU may prefer not to agree deals prior to a member state leaving but that is their choice. Arguably it would be stupid for the EU to facilitate countries leaving by negotiating future deals with members, it would also be a waste on money as members could negotiate then decide whether to leave.

As it is however the EU have been perfectly willing to discuss future trade with the UK. Indeed the transition period itself is an agreement the EU reached on future trade prior to the UK leaving the EU detailing the arrangements for after the UK leaves the EU.

It’s also important to remember that you can’t negotiate a trade deal without first knowing what the post Brexit for borders, customs, regulations, product standards, etc.

 

[jimbob]

It’s also important to remember that you can’t negotiate a trade deal without first knowing what the post Brexit for borders, customs, regulations, product standards, etc.

Those are minor details that are beneath the interest of our PM or his Cabinet.

 

[Lothian]

It’s also important to remember that you can’t negotiate a trade deal without first knowing what the post Brexit for borders, customs, regulations, product standards, etc.

I beg to differ. As interviews make clear Boris has negotiated a post brexit deal with no clue as to what the borders, customs, regulations, product standards he has negotiated are