Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: Pah International Law. Who needs it?

978 replies

RedToothBrush · 12/09/2020 18:09

I mean its not as if trade deals and human rights are relevant is it?

(sorry eating my dinner so must be brief)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
69
BigChocFrenzy · 15/09/2020 22:18

The UK has still not supplied the standard information required for 3rd countries to be put on the database to export animal products to the EU.

I don't know whether this is because
BJ/Cum haven't a clue what UK food standards will be - US FTA etc -
or
out of stubbornness - the UK govt has continually been affronted that it should have to provide evidence on standards & regs, instead of being taken at its word Hmm

Whatever the reason:
automatically from 1 January 2021, the EU could - if it does not choose to grant the UK an exception for some reason - refuse all British exports of live animals and animal products
e.g. beef, lamb, chicken, eggs, cheese

  • probably processed food too which contains any of these ingredients
BigChocFrenzy · 15/09/2020 22:22

What happens across the pond in November won't change the gouging nature of any US FTA, but would stop the egging on of any mad Brexiter idea

Germany too is desperately awaiting the November result:
It is feared that Trump getting in again, with his hate for the EU and Merkel in particular - which started when she recvd the 2015 Time Person of the Year Award - will fracture the Western Alliance.
Added to what Brexit is doing
Putin must be laughing himself silly about what the USA & UK are doing

BigChocFrenzy · 15/09/2020 22:24

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history.
This year we are compelled to do so.
We do not do this lightly.

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people

  • because he rejects evidence and science.

The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September.

He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges.
That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environmen

Jason118 · 15/09/2020 22:32

The UK argument regarding the database for animal checks is that we are currently aligned which is true, so we shouldn't need to supply any guarantees. Other 3rd countries have to submit their existing position, and then notify the EU if it changes. I think the EU may be asking for more than this from us. Happy to be wrong on his.

OchonAgusOchonO · 15/09/2020 22:40

@Jason118 - the UK is currently aligned, yes. However, I assume it is up to each 3rd country to provide the data for the database rather than the EU assuming it will remain the same and entering it on their behalf. After all, unless the UK confirm it in writing, how is the EU to know it will still be aligned from January 1st?

Jason118 · 15/09/2020 22:51

@OchonAgusOchonO I agree, but you could see how the Brexit snowflakes would get riled over it - don't the EU know who we are?

Jason118 · 15/09/2020 22:53

The recent Japan trade deal obviously didn't include power stations

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54158091?fbclid=IwAR0qN7CrLmGY7RtaGWZu2NXUWQDahHzpoZp5YdYTYi-gDYHRDOOHadqiZ-w

BigChocFrenzy · 15/09/2020 23:03

@Jason118

The UK argument regarding the database for animal checks is that we are currently aligned which is true, so we shouldn't need to supply any guarantees. Other 3rd countries have to submit their existing position, and then notify the EU if it changes. I think the EU may be asking for more than this from us. Happy to be wrong on his.
... You are wrong in law:

EU law requires all 3rd countries to be in that database if they want to export to the EU

Legally, the EU has to treat all 3rd countries the same - WTO rules

So if they allow the UK to do this - for anything more than a kindly grace period - they have to allow all the other countries to do the same
which would destroy food standards throughout the EU

OchonAgusOchonO · 15/09/2020 23:03

@Jason118 - don't the EU know who we are?

The EU know exactly who the British government are. Which is why they want everything in writing and, based on recent events, if they've any sense, still won't believe it.

BigChocFrenzy · 15/09/2020 23:06

If the UK reneges on the WA, I wouldn't count on any grace period, even if allowed temporarily under WTO rules,
except for things that are in the EU interest to allow to continue

  • they are pragmatic about this, unlike Brexiters
BigChocFrenzy · 15/09/2020 23:08

The WA is written ....

Future trade deals - with anyone - may contain automatic penalties written in for reneging
Just to make it clearer to HMG

Sostenueto · 16/09/2020 07:07

Dominic Raab is meeting USA head of Congress today to discuss Implications of internal market bill in USA today to lie about the effect on the GFA.

SabrinaThwaite · 16/09/2020 07:18

Thread from Nick Gutteridge @nick_gutteridge on the UK being added to EU foods database:

1/ Behind the scenes the third country listing or 'food blockade' row isn't quite so dramatic. The EU wants the UK to provide details of its post-Brexit animal and plant health (SPS) rules by the end of next month. The UK says it will, and they'll basically be the same as now.

2/ The EU wants this information so it knows the conditions under which its farmers will be able to export goods to the UK from January 1. This is a requirement for opening up its market to agricultural produce from Britain, and is demanded of every third country on the list.

3/ EU official says the UK has pledged to transpose the Official Control Regulation, which gives the Commission oversight powers along the agrifood supply chain, as well as EU rules on animal and plant health 'with modifications'. They're now waiting for the domestic legislation.

4/ They won't have long to wait. UK spokes says legislation to make the OCR operable in UK law will be put before Parliament next month. Adds: 'The UK is committed to maintaining the highest animal welfare and biosecurity standards. Our future rules will reflect this commitment.'

5/ The EU will reserve judgement until it has seen the small print, in particular those modifications to its SPS rules. But if all is well the listing can be done in a matter of days. This is now settling down into a technocratic exercise, which is what it was always meant to be.

6/ One possible fly in the ointment is the extent to which the EU will press the UK on possible future changes to its SPS regime. Some here are nervous about the influence of talks with the US. The UK will resist doing so, saying it'll notify the EU in good time of any new rules.

Peregrina · 16/09/2020 07:49

But even a commitment in writing is now not worth the paper it's written on.

Darker · 16/09/2020 07:57

Exactly so, Peregrina.

PMQs today.

HoneysuckIejasmine · 16/09/2020 08:28

Which Kier Starmer will miss as he's still isolating. Rather highlighting the testing debacle tbh.

prettybird · 16/09/2020 08:31

Adam Payne @adampayne26 (senior political reporter for Business Insider)

Logistics UK says it learned today that the Smart Freight System being developed by the government for handling cross-border trade won’t be ready for Jan

Policy director Elizabeth de Jong says it’s a “crushing disappointment and “a massive blow to UK businesses and the economy”

22:15 15/09/20

but no surprise Hmm

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1305978647061434370?s=211*

Westminstenders: Pah International Law. Who needs it?
Westminstenders: Pah International Law. Who needs it?
Alondra · 16/09/2020 08:32

The Spanish press is not giving much attention to Brexit anymore except times like now when the Tories are trying to break an international agreement.

I read today an article on "El Confidential" a conservative Spanish newspaper which explains the feeling about Britain and Brexit these days. Indifference.

I've done a goggle translate, it's not great but right on target on the message.

From wrong beliefs to miscalculations: Brexit enters the impasse
The UK has misjudged its cards and has embarked on a move that could end in a no-deal Brexit. Far from getting attention, indifference has deepened

What surprised the most about Brexit in its first years of negotiation was the lack of preparation of the British team . No one had understood the Union better than the United Kingdom. They had the best diplomats, the best technical experts, and therefore the best cards within the community bloc. London would be was going to be the loser in negotiating with the Twenty-Seven, but it could make things difficult: they were still the best negotiators in Europe .

The amateurism and lack of preparation surprised many. At each step taken, London measured poorly, made mistakes, had unrealistic perspectives or simply did not understand the consequences of what was being negotiated. It is true that Brexit is the result of a revolt that precisely sought to oust experts , true diplomats or politicians who were not manifestly committed to the Eurosceptic crusade.

When we thought that Brexit had already given its all, the new season returns more powerful than ever. Olly Robbins, a henchman who was put at the forefront of negotiations by former Prime Minister Theresa May as the UK walked off the cliff, managed to earn the respect of the Union, but at home he had to deal with the 'Brexiter' coven in that he was one of the greatest traitors to the country. This is how the United Kingdom lost what would have been one of the key players in a negotiation that is probably much better managed: Sir Ivan Rogers, the ambassador to the European Union between 2013 and 2017 and one of the people who best understood the negotiations. Accused by conservative party radicals to be an EU sympathizer above his commitment to the government, Rogers resigned .

That is why, and in the midst of the crusade of Boris Johnson's new Tory party center of power, led by his eccentric adviser Dominic Cummings, against Whitehall's line of good technical experts and diplomats, it should not be completely surprising what has happened in recent years. days.

Towards irrelevance

After months of negotiations to launch an Economic Recovery Fund in the face of the crisis generated by Covid-19, and with all the leaders also focused on the situation in their countries, the United Kingdom knew that it had lost the attention of the 27. Much more urgent problems occupied them.

That is why many in Brussels believed that it was a matter of time before the British Government did something to regain some attention. Some maneuver to attract spotlight. The negotiating team, led by David Frost, has few technical solutions and many electoral red lines. With a coup, Johnson could bring some politics back to the talks and win some serious European concessions . A threat serious enough for the 27 to give in to the risk of a no-deal, without actually breaking the negotiations.

Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister, had two reasons for doing so: on the one hand it allowed him to once again show himself to his electorate as a strong leader ready to stand up to Brussels, and on the other he managed to regain the attention of a European Union distracted by others matters, perhaps achieving some assignment. Or at least that was his intention.

"There has to be an agreement with our European friends before the European Council on October 15 if it is going to come into force before the end of the year," says the head of the British Government.
But the British prime minister's team misjudged . Last Sunday it was leaked that the Government intended to launch a bill, the UK Internal Market, which would annul parts of the Withdrawal Agreement signed with the European Union. Specifically, it would blow up parts of the Protocol of Ireland, the most delicate section of the legal text, the one that cost the most to negotiate and the nuclear one for the interests of the 27: it prevents the return of a border between the Republic of Ireland (EU) and Northern Ireland (UK province).

Those rumors were serious. If confirmed, it would mean that London was in flagrant violation of international law. In the first hours it was hoped that it was only a media movement with the intention of increasing the pressure on the European side. On Tuesday a government minister confirmed the information in the House of Commons, using the formula that has already gone down in the history of negotiations: yes, the United Kingdom was going to violate international law, but in a “specific” way and "Limited", as if that would lessen the gravity of the events.

It shouldn't be entirely a surprise: the crusade against the experts has shocking consequences . It has been noticed during these months of negotiation, and it has been noticed in the last hours. The resignation of Jonathan Jones, one of the Government's top lawyers, must be understood in that context.

Like so many other times, the strategy has no basis. Those who star in Brexit have a characteristic of their own that does not disappear no matter how long time passes: they never learn from their mistakes, their beliefs remain intact. They said that Angela Merkel would come to the rescue of the United Kingdom and force an agreement, which did not happen, although London kept repeating it will happen. It was assured that the leaders of the 27 would remove negotiator Michel Barnier to speak face to face with the prime minister, something that never happened, although the British media continue to insist on it today. It was assured that the 27 would sell out to Ireland if it forced the situation by asking for a special status for Northern Ireland, and of course it didn't happen.

This time, perhaps because of all those wrong and accumulated beliefs, the movement has gone too far. So much so that it has managed to generate just the opposite of what expected. Instead of attention, what the British Government has obtained is a certain disinterest: if it is a bluff, it will back down; If it is not, then there is nothing to do , the negotiations will fail and there will be a no-deal exit.

The pulse is of no benefit to the UK , and that is one of the reasons why the European Union maintains a steady hand and a cool head. The operation is strange because it does not get anything in return. On the one hand, London has gone too far, broken the principle of negotiating in good faith and done irreversible damage to the talks, so it cannot expect the EU to give in on anything. Furthermore, it has made the mistake of pressing the key that has ensured the unity of the 27 throughout the process, which has been the peace process in Ireland.

Belfast has been a broken toy used for internal UK political gambling. Brexit has been one more chapter, but now a new path is opening for Northern Ireland. On the other hand, the British Government, which should be fully aware of the nature of the Union, seeks that the 27 allow, or even negotiate, with a party that uses extortion as one more method. The EU is a club that seeks, among other objectives, to exercise power. And it does it, always, by the rules. If the 27 tolerate breaking the rules as a way of doing business, then they sacrifice one of their main instruments.

It is true that this is a world in which the rules are ceasing to matter. London only replicates what is already seen on the other side of the Atlantic. The movement is a copy of Washington's attempt to blow up the foundations of multilateralism. The EU has been keeping up with Trump for years, and it is not going to roll the red carpet for Johnson now .

Furthermore, the movement is not only clumsy due to its obvious ineffectiveness in the framework of negotiations with the European Union. It's strange from the UK's perspective of the future, or, as the Brexiters call that strategy, “Global Britain”. The Eurosceptic creed indicates that London wants to get rid of the European chains to be able to negotiate with the whole world. But the message that the British Government is sending these days to the rest of the globe is that no one will be able to close a deal with them with the peace of mind that the agreement will not blow up later. Blowing up your international reputation does not seem, a priori, a very wise move.

But it is not just the UK that is in a difficult position. The European Union does not have it easy now. It has asked the government to withdraw the controversial paragraphs of the Internal Market Law before the end of the month. And if they don't do it? Then the ball will be on the roof of the European Commission . Various sources suggest that, in that case, the British side would be considered to have risen from the negotiating table.

In any case, Brussels does not want to be the one to verbalize the end of the negotiations, because nobody wants to give London ammunition to blame the European Union for having broken the talks and, therefore, bear the responsibility of the consequences derived from it.

www.elconfidencial.com/mundo/europa/2020-09-15/de-las-creencias-erroneas-a-los-fallos-de-calculo-el-brexit-entra-en-el-callejon-sin-salida_2749404/

SabrinaThwaite · 16/09/2020 08:37

@prettybird

No need to worry about the Government’s Smart Freight system - it’ll be available in beta format in time 1st January.

But the government now says "beta" is a standard labelling practice for a digital service that is fully operational, and that it has reassured industry that Smart Freight will be operational by December.

Hmm
RedToothBrush · 16/09/2020 08:40

'Beta service'

falls over laughing

So it will be like this then, but with food:

Jane Merrick @janemerrick23
Last month Boris Johnson said schools would be the last thing to close, but with class and year bubbles staying off due to symptoms/lack of tests/rationing, schools are going to end up closing by default anyway. PM can say he’s trying to protect care homes/hospitals, but he’s going to need better answers at PMQs today on why the testing system is failing so early in the second wave

Cant wait.

OP posts:
OchonAgusOchonO · 16/09/2020 08:49

@SabrinaThwaite - But the government now says "beta" is a standard labelling practice for a digital service that is fully operational, and that it has reassured industry that Smart Freight will be operational by December.

Obviously beta has changed in meaning since my days in software development.

prettybird · 16/09/2020 08:52

Things I have learnt under this Government: Beta means fully functioning and working. Hmm

Who knew? Confused

How much money could have been saved by businesses by implementing beta trials fully across their businesses? Hmm

OchonAgusOchonO · 16/09/2020 08:53

It's really so reminiscent of 1984.

prettybird · 16/09/2020 09:00

As dh just said to me (he was who had seen the original tweet) when I told him why Hmm it was supposedly going to be ok: the (WM) Government is now gaslighting us about everything Angry

RedToothBrush · 16/09/2020 09:01

I wonder what would happen if DH firm put out a beta product as if it were fully functional.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say i dont think it would go down too well with clients if data started getting stolen and there were security breaches because the product hadnt been fully tested.

Likewise if a logistics app doesn't work properly and it ends up in delays in food transportation, I'm not sure those businesses will be terribly happy and i think the general public even less so.

But if the government are happy to risk food riot, i guess thats now their perogative, given how they are no longer accountable in any other way.

OP posts: