Brexit mega thread part 13: All eyes on Ireland

[SerendipityJane]

With the Windsor framework up & running, and the DUP having a "you could set your calendar by it" hissy fit, but Irish unification refusing to keep it's head down, what next in the long running sage of UK vs. the real world ?

A consignment can be a single pencil, or a thousand tonnes of something. You still have to do the paperwork. And pay the taxes.

And, are you really so stupid as to think it's the exporters that are going to pay for it?

If you're referring to the BBC piece, the article refers to imports considered low, medium, and high risk. The new fees will pay for biosecurity/ phytosanitary customs facilities at Dover and Folkestone.

Charges will be up to £145 for mixed consignments within these categories, and up to £29 for individual products.

And yes, British companies will pay to import the goods, beginning 30 April.

The Cold Chain Federation spokesman predicts this new cost of doing business will be passed on to the consumer.

The real point is that the charges used to be £0 both ways. And the Brexiteers gave us these charges.

One thing that was so noticeable after our original accession to the EEC was the gradual improvement in the quality and variety of food in the shops. This was partly because of the related improvement in our economy but also due to the lack of tariffs. As a result, we became more discerning as well as better fed - not least because the range of domestic, local, traditional and artisanal produce became better too, on the back of a thriving European export market.

I fully expect to see a corresponding decline over the coming years, however much our politicians of whatever stripe try to mitigate the problems.

The real point is that the charges used to be £0 both ways. And the Brexiteers gave us these charges.

I seem to recall Rees-Mogg promising us cheaper food. Rees-Mogg is supposedly at risk of losing his seat at the next election. If so, I am pretty sure that he will pick up cushy Directorships for few days work a year, and will still be able to buy top quality food. It will be the rest of us who have to buy more rubbishy food at a higher price.

So, what, immigration good now?

Of course not. This is just another example where large organisations (and getting larger) simply pay the price for not being joined up.

So you have one faction spunking millions on trying to entice people from overseas in the same balance sheet as another faction spending even more to keep them away.

And as long as you're getting a cut of both slices, why would you complain ?

But don't bring your family

@Peregrina What was to stop Brexiters in June 2016, (long before Covid came along), sitting down and drawing up a spec. of what Trade Deals they would like?er.

Negotiations on Trade Deals could not commence until the UK had left the EU.

The primary duty of MPs is to preserve democracy. This point was made in the 2019 eposide of Question Time in Nottingham.

If MP's can ignore how people, why bother with elections or referendums?

Planning and setting out a spec is not the same as starting negotiations.

Fail to plan, plan to fail.

I wish I could be surprised that you don't understand this.

@pointythings Planning and setting out a spec is not the same as starting negotiations.

I suggest you watch the 4 April 2019 episode of Question Time in Dulwich. The presenter, Fiona Bruce, asked the Irish MEP, Mairead McGuiness, was the EU not guilty of forcing the UK to trigger Article 50 before discussions on the withdrawal agreement had commenced. Mairead replied that as per Article 50, the two years negotiation period could only commence once the UK had triggered Article 50.

There is nothing in Article 50 that said members would not be allowed to leave the EU unless a deal had been made. So, setting out a plan and spec would not have achieved anything as there was no obligation on the EU and the UK to make a deal.

The primary duty of MPs is to preserve democracy.

Where's that written down then ? And how does it contradict my definition that the primary duty of an MP is to themselves ? Which I deduced from watching them, rather than (as some do) listening to them.

@GlobeTrotter2000 if the first duty of an MP is to preserve democracy Johnson was seriously lacking.

It’s interesting to note the following quote ‘

The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what they think in their faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. The second duty is to their constituents, of whom they are the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that their duty to party organisation or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy’

— Winston Churchill, Duties of a Member of Parliament

The current government seems to be in dereliction of their duties.

There is nothing in Article 50 that said members would not be allowed to leave the EU unless a deal had been made. So, setting out a plan and spec would not have achieved anything as there was no obligation on the EU and the UK to make a deal.

But without the “deal” that was our membership of the EU, the outline of the principles as to how trade would be handled after leaving would be essential (other than in the minds of those living in the fantasy land of WTO terms alone). Anyone with half a brain knew that. We did on here. The idea that one wouldn’t at least do some planning for it is bonkers. And suggesting that the UK’s capability for forward planning was dependent on the contents of Article 50 is even more silly.

"So, setting out a plan and spec would not have achieved anything as there was no obligation on the EU and the UK to make a deal."

But we were promised a deal by the Brexshiteers! We were even told it would be better than our membership!

So as they were all insistent that we were going to have a deal, wouldn't it have been behoven to them to actually have tried to work out what kind of a deal might be either desireable or maybe even practical? That would have been very easy to do with no reference at all to Article 50.

I know you're positing these arguments in bad faith because you're trying to obscure the truth, but this is basic stuff, and you must assume that your target audience (not the posters on here, but maybe other people following) are incredibly stupid!

As far as the EU was (and is) concerned, the two purposes of Brexit was to ensure the best deal for the EU and ensure no other member state felt "-exit" was in any way a good idea.

On both front it's mission accomplished. Rather ostentatiously, if you ask me.

There is brexit benefit thread in AIBU

Pre 1988, groupage flowers coming in to Covent Garden market
whole truck load
but each batch of each type from each supplier was a "consignment"

• 35 dahlias
• 120 daffodils
• 350 roses

so a 150 consignment groupage was NORMAL

Update to today, a deli brings in

• 5 saucisson
• 3 proscuttio
• 5 brie
• 4 paremsan
• 8 speck

that is 5 "consignments" - which would fit in a small car boot but cost 5 X £145 to clear

we were banned from there years ago

There already are posters complaining about it being in aibu..........

So, setting out a plan and spec would not have achieved anything as there was no obligation on the EU and the UK to make a deal
Legally, no. Pragmatically, absolutely yes. And it would have been really helpful if the UK had started planning what Leave would look like before the referendum, so that voters could be informed rather than go into the referendum with only their own vague image of what they were voting for. Failing that, they should have started the moment the result came in, looking at what would be best for the UK in terms of trade, finance and the environment. But they didn't.

Absolute failure and wilful incompetence.

"And it would have been really helpful if the UK had started planning what Leave would look like before the referendum, so that voters could be informed rather than go into the referendum with only their own vague image of what they were voting for."

Unfortunately, that was absolutely deliberate, as Cummings himself said. They wanted idiots people to have their own ideas of what it would be, so they could embrace every side.

Although I think that people like Gove and Co really did think that we held all the cards; that we could really keep all the benefits but just not need to be members.

Of course they did. No one had ever said "No" to them before.