EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’... | Page 705 | Vital Football

EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’...

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
I’m sorry but that’s a pathetic argument. International trading law means that if you have different customs arrangements either side of an international boundary a border is required. It’s childish in the extreme to put forward an argument that says, the UK will create the conditions that necessitate a hard border in Ireland (by seeking to abandon the sea border between NI and the rest of the UK) but we’ll force the EU to install it. A hard border is likely to lead to a return of nationalist violence but in your mind that’s fine because we can blame the EU. As I said. Pathetic.
A border is required but not a hard border.

By your argument, we would be insisting on a hard land border between ROI and NI as well, if International Trading law demanded it, but Bojo made it clear that we would not create one and he has made no moves to do so.

He is not forcing the EU to do so either but I suspect they will in the end and therefore who else could possibly be to blame for any nationalist violence and who else could have provoked it? Now that is pathetic but par for the rigid rulebook no flexibility union.

The EU have already provoked the threat of unionist violence by not only insisting on the Irish sea border in the first place but then almost breaking their own agreement within a month.

Break rules but only when it suits them. Pathetic.
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
You are correct GBN
It’s a matter of choice.
The Eu were never compelled to fix a hard border.
It would have been a decision of choice.
Johnson bottled it.
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
Lack of deal over Finance looking worrying. People have fixated on the Trade deal but Finance deal is important. Understandably the EU is suspicious of us doing a 'Singapore'. I won't pretend to be an expert on such matters though, so I stand to be corrected/reassured. Reassurance won't come from some fellow posters on here who also lack expertise.
What I don't understand is why the EU seem to be so fixated on what we decide to do, any more than any other trading nation that they have a free trade deal with. Why should they think that there should be any special level playing field arrangements or clauses beyond those contained in the normal standard trade deal?

Surely every nation, in and outside of the EU, and indeed every company in the same business, competes with the others for customers and needs to be free to plan their own strategy without artificial restrictions.

I am not aware that we have insisted on having any control over the activities of Euronext, for instance. We did not object to the state aid provided by the German government to bail out Lufthansa.

So why do the EU expect a right to veto any level of deregulation, or extra regulation, that we decide upon in respect of the City of London?
 

Trashbat

Vital Squad Member
All right. You have bored me in to submission so I have bitten and looked up what a Part VII transfer is.

This tends to suggest that rather than policies and risks being transferred to separately owned EU insurance companies, Insurance companies based in the UK just set up their own 100% owned subsidiaries in the EU as an alternative to the old passport arrangement:
Part VII transfer - Wikipedia

Something else that will settle down after a brief reorganisation and administration.
Thanks for biting.

I’m genuinely not trying to wind you up or to reverse the ‘will of the people’ or being unpatriotic. I am just making one simple point that cannot be disputed.

EEA risks cannot be written in the UK and the response of virtually all insurers was to file Part VII transfers. These transfers are indisputably because of Brexit.

The estimated value of these policies is more that £60bn.

Now, IPT is somewhere between 12% and 20%.

By my rough calculations, the Exchequer has lost out to the tune of between £7.2bn and £12bn in IPT. That IPT is now being collected by Madrid, Amsterdam, Belgium, Paris, Frankfurt. It doesn’t find it’s way back to the UK.

Contrast that with the £9.4bn net contribution that the UK made to the EU to be a member of the single market.

My example is just a tiny piece of the City of London. There are lots of comparable examples.

Why did the government fail to include services as part of the Brexit negotiation? Why focus on fish so much?
 
A border is required but not a hard border.

By your argument, we would be insisting on a hard land border between ROI and NI as well, if International Trading law demanded it, but Bojo made it clear that we would not create one and he has made no moves to do so.

He is not forcing the EU to do so either but I suspect they will in the end and therefore who else could possibly be to blame for any nationalist violence and who else could have provoked it? Now that is pathetic but par for the rigid rulebook no flexibility union.

The EU have already provoked the threat of unionist violence by not only insisting on the Irish sea border in the first place but then almost breaking their own agreement within a month.

Break rules but only when it suits them. Pathetic.
The ERG said they would come up with a plan that would avoid a hard border. surprise, surprise they failed to do so. If the cheerleaders of Brexit can’t come up with a plan, who can ? There is currently no mechanism to avoid a border other than by having regulatory alignment across that border, something achieved by the Johnson deal that he was crowing about only a few short weeks ago. Did you notice that ? Who threatened to invoke Article 16 in the first place ? Oh, that was the UK with the Internal Markets Bill. We’re hardly in a position to take the moral high ground.

And please shut up with this “rigid rule book” nonsense. The EU is a rule based organisation. You can’t have a collaboration of 27 member states without an agreed rule book. You expect the 27 to chuck out the rule book to meet the requirements of the 1 that’s left. And as has been pointed out to you before, if you break the rules to satisfy the needs of one, it becomes impossible to invoke the same rule elsewhere. That’s the WTO for you.
 

LSB2

Vital 1st Team Regular
The NI peace Agreement and Brexit without membership of the single market are incompatible imo. Cannot satisfy both. This isn't an argument for or against Brexit.

I can't work out whether Johnson knew this and was blatantly lying a year ago or if he just didn't care what the reality was and just said what he thought he needed to say to become leader of the Tories/win the election.

Still feel sorry for May who was multiple stabbed in the back by Johnson and his ERG mates. Funnily enough he is now having to fight them off as they seem to have largely re-formed as the CRG and are pestering him to make another disastrous premature release from lockdown.

Lack of deal over Finance looking worrying. People have fixated on the Trade deal but Finance deal is important. Understandably the EU is suspicious of us doing a 'Singapore'. I won't pretend to be an expert on such matters though, so I stand to be corrected/reassured. Reassurance won't come from some fellow posters on here who also lack expertise.
It'll be fine ☺️
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
The ERG said they would come up with a plan that would avoid a hard border. surprise, surprise they failed to do so. If the cheerleaders of Brexit can’t come up with a plan, who can ? There is currently no mechanism to avoid a border other than by having regulatory alignment across that border, something achieved by the Johnson deal that he was crowing about only a few short weeks ago. Did you notice that ? Who threatened to invoke Article 16 in the first place ? Oh, that was the UK with the Internal Markets Bill. We’re hardly in a position to take the moral high ground.

And please shut up with this “rigid rule book” nonsense. The EU is a rule based organisation. You can’t have a collaboration of 27 member states without an agreed rule book. You expect the 27 to chuck out the rule book to meet the requirements of the 1 that’s left. And as has been pointed out to you before, if you break the rules to satisfy the needs of one, it becomes impossible to invoke the same rule elsewhere. That’s the WTO for you.
The U.K. is a third country and is now treated as a third country by the Eu and that’s correct.
So it’s begs the question, why on earth should this third country be treated differently to other third countries?
Ok , we have a land border with a Eu country but so do others who aren’t expected to have an internal border to placate the situation.
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
By my rough calculations, the Exchequer has lost out to the tune of between £7.2bn and £12bn in IPT. That IPT is now being collected by Madrid, Amsterdam, Belgium, Paris, Frankfurt. It doesn’t find it’s way back to the UK.
Contrast that with the £9.4bn net contribution that the UK made to the EU to be a member of the single market.
My example is just a tiny piece of the City of London. There are lots of comparable examples.
Why did the government fail to include services as part of the Brexit negotiation? Why focus on fish so much?
The intention is to have a separate services agreement in the future and that is in the interests of both sides.

With your extensive use of acronyms and use of worst case scenarios, I have only just discovered that IPT is actually just tax collected.

You seem to omit to mention huge insurance companies based in Europe like AXA who are also a well known name with extensive business over here? They had already taken the step of setting up AXA (UK) Ltd. What happens to their IPT going forward and how is that so different?

The truth is that all these huge companies are multinational with bases in various countries and their fortunes are interdependent. If where they pay tax is purely based on where they have offices, it will all even itself out.
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
The U.K. is a third country and is now treated as a third country by the Eu and that’s correct.
So it’s begs the question, why on earth should this third country be treated differently to other third countries?
Ok , we have a land border with a Eu country but so do others who aren’t expected to have an internal border to placate the situation.
Exactly. Norway Switzerland and Turkey are not treated in the same way.

Finland actually has a land border with Russia but can you imagine Von der Leyen ordering Putin to set up a hard border on his side and dictating how he is to run his country as well as setting down rules?

She would have a Novichok sandwich delivered by lunchtime.
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
You expect the 27 to chuck out the rule book to meet the requirements of the 1 that’s left. And as has been pointed out to you before, if you break the rules to satisfy the needs of one, it becomes impossible to invoke the same rule elsewhere. That’s the WTO for you.
Actually, it is not really for the one that has left. The UK really doesn't care as we are happy to have a "light touch" border system with only spot checks and using intelligence.

It is really only important to the EU as ROI remains a member and it is because their rules are so strict and inflexible (the recent story about 71 pieces of paperwork being a recent example) that in reality they will insist on a hard border.

BTW, I loved your phrase "And please shut up with this “rigid rule book” nonsense. The EU is a rule based organisation." Ain't it just? Great truism. No room for pragmatism. I think Von der Leyen got it right when she said it was like trying to manoeuvre a tanker.
 
Last edited:

jogills

Vital 1st Team Regular
I don't find fault with GBN's logic but Johnson told the DUP loudly and enthusiastically that he had squared this circle, we were having our cake and were going to eat it, the EU had caved in the face of no deal. He was either lying without restraint, or he didn't know what he had negotiated and rushed to sign up to beat a deadline, or he signed up with no intention of complying. You choose but the scales have fallen from the DUP's eyes. They know they have been sacrificed and they read tory commentary, which points to a grand insouciance about Northern Ireland and its place in the UK.

Meanwhile in another sphere the lack of an agreement covering services is slowly turning the tide and beaching some of our boats. I have no torch to bear for the EU, I just observe that they will serve their own interests. Our disaster was to have Johnson in charge and for so many to believe his falsehoods. I still think much can be salvaged but we will need to engage honestly and stop playing so much to the public gallery at home. It's easy to win the general principle that the UK matters more to its inhabitants than the EU and to win their support in a war of words but that was for the Brexit campaign. This is boring day to day reality and if we want more than we agreed to we will have to ask nicely and probably concede a bit too.
 
Last edited:

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
I agree with much of that but there is still the issue of the Eu playing a bit nasty about the whole thing.
An example is financial equivalence for the City.
The Eu have an equivalence agreement with many countries including the USA, Singapore, Canada, Australia and even Brazil.
However, it’s too much for them to accept an equivalence deal with the U.K. despite the point that we are already operating on identical systems.
That is pure vindictiveness for having the temerity to leave and has been recognised as such,
The City is confident that not only will it survive but will prosper outside of the Eu regulations but Brussels is causing unnecessary nastiness.
Similarly with certain exports.
Slightly wrong wording?
Wrong colour pen?
U.K. sticker instead of GB sticker?
It may all come back to bite them on the bum.

When covid had settled down and we return to some sort of normality, the European fish and shellfish wholesalers will be scrambling around for stock.
Living down here in a fishing community I can verify that the game has quickly changed.
The day boats are still fishing and landing but rather than selling via the dockside auctions to wholesalers, they have discovered that there is a massive demand for their products locally and are now predominantly selling locally. Many have expressed surprise as they were always told that there was no demand.
The truth is that there was no availability because the wholesalers were sweeping it all up for exports.
It’s a different story with the large trawlers that go out for days on end and return with tons of fish and crab. They are the ones most affected. These trawlers tend to be owned by companies with the crew employed as staff.
The point really is, when the market returns, will the day boats continue with the local market or go back to the lazy way of dropping it on the quay for the auction house to sell to the wholesalers who sell it on to European wholesalers who sell it on the European market.
I was reading about Jack Stein in Padstow who contacted a Welsh lobster company who put out that they couldn’t send to Europe because of hassle and he’s taking everything they have got, because he’s been importing lobster to keep up with demand.
Similarly with a Langoustine company who are now selling online and getting more than the wholesalers were offering.
It appears that the demand is here but nobody really knew.
One of our local boats in Appledore sells off the key, direct to the public and sells out before he’s landed due to social media.
He makes a nice little living, doesn’t wish to rule the world and is an integral part of the community.
Long may it last.
Better for the environment and kinder.
 
Last edited:

Trashbat

Vital Squad Member
To be fair, I can not see how there was any best solution.

1. If a hard border was created on the island of Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement would have been contravened, with the anticipated return of the troubles and sectarian violence
2. As you say, the alternative border in the Irish Sea has already upset the unionists and caused threatening graffiti as well as rumoured warnings from the militant wing.
3. ROI has the right to remain in the EU and the UK had the right to leave.
4. The EU insists on rigorous customs checks to protect their single market.

How do you reach a settlement that keeps everybody happy from that lot?
The intention is to have a separate services agreement in the future and that is in the interests of both sides.

With your extensive use of acronyms and use of worst case scenarios, I have only just discovered that IPT is actually just tax collected.

You seem to omit to mention huge insurance companies based in Europe like AXA who are also a well known name with extensive business over here? They had already taken the step of setting up AXA (UK) Ltd. What happens to their IPT going forward and how is that so different?

The truth is that all these huge companies are multinational with bases in various countries and their fortunes are interdependent. If where they pay tax is purely based on where they have offices, it will all even itself out.
You’re not getting it.

AXA will continue doing business in the UK. But their UK entity won’t be able to write EEA risks like they used to. The tax lost for that alone is huge.

The fact that AXA is a multinational is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they are now writing a large chunk of their business in EU countries that would otherwise have been written in the UK. The loss to the exchequer is at least £7bn - best case scenario.
 

jogills

Vital 1st Team Regular
In simplest terms: nothing to do with benefits or otherwise of EU membership that now irrelevant. What matters is that Johnson has sold us a pup with his agreement and we now need to agree to work round it.

Both sides stand off and claim other being unreasonable, unremarkable.
 
Exactly. Norway Switzerland and Turkey are not treated in the same way.

Finland actually has a land border with Russia but can you imagine Von der Leyen ordering Putin to set up a hard border on his side and dictating how he is to run his country as well as setting down rules?

She would have a Novichok sandwich delivered by lunchtime.
Sorry but this is really simple stuff. Norway is in a Customs Union with the EU and has access to the Single Market through belonging to an EEA. For this it pays an annual fee to the EU. Therefore it does align its standards to those of the EU. Norway is also a full member of the Schengen area and therefore has free movement. Switzerland has access to the single market through a series of bilateral agreements. As part of these it is a full member of the Schengen area and again, has free movement. Switzerland has recently held a referendum on whether they should continue to have free movement on the basis that this enables full access to the Single Market. The Swiss electorate decided that they should. Switzerland is not in the Customs Union and as a result there is a hard border but only for freight. Turkey is in a form of Customs Union with the EU. It doesn’t have full access to the Single Market and it doesn’t have free movement of people.

There is and there always has been a hard border between Finland and Russia. Finland’s place as a full EU member requires one. So far as setting rules for Russia. The EU would do so if Russia wanted unfettered access to the Single Market. What you don’t seem to get is if we didn’t want something from the EU they wouldn’t be demanding something in return. It really is a very simple concept.

There simply is no truth in your argument that the UK is somehow being treated differently. Turkey, Norway and Switzerland have all recognised the need to have formal economic agreements with the EU. None have got such a thin arrangement as we have chosen through Johnson’s deal. A sensible course would have been to follow one of these examples but of course we chose not to do so.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
Unless he is a very convincing bullshiitter it seems that Trashbat knows what he is talking about.

I have a couple of mates who specifically didn't want a deal and didn't care if we became worse off. They wanted the UK to be "free", whatever the economic cost. Fair enough and an honest stance from them. I haven't pointed out to them that they are "wrong" for wanting to Leave because their reason was not based on economics but purely sovereignty.

One of the reasons I loathe Johnson so much is that he persuaded enough other people to vote for Brexit on the basis that we could have our cake and eat it. Sovereignty and a big economic boost.

I still can't work out whether he is flagrantly lying or doesn"t care whether he is telling the truth along with being too lazy to find out. Or perhaps all of the above.

Anyone else wondering which and have any ideas?

Sadly, the last person we need to sort out the post Brexit problems is Johnson. The sooner the Tories dump him and get someone competent the better for the sake of the country. This is not an anti Brexit point but a pro UK wish.
 

Vambogills

Vital 1st Team Regular
Dunno, can't be bothered to think about it, ask Trashbat he's better at figures.
I'll have one more go..
100 = Core Sample of voters.
Split 49/49 between Leave and Remain.
The other 2 (2%) are undecided.
One of them (Karen) who's mum is ill in hospital passes a big red bus telling her that if she votes leave the NHS will get £350 million a week. She decides to vote leave.
The other (Tony) picks up the Daily Express in the dentists waiting room that says if he votes leave he will stop millions of Turkish immigrants coming to the UK. Tony decides to vote leave.

Hopefully this demonstrates that just 2% of voters decided the referendum outcome.
It may also show how a couple of well placed lies might also have an effect but I admit that part is not as scientific!
 

shotshy

Vital 1st Team Regular
I'll have one more go..
100 = Core Sample of voters.
Split 49/49 between Leave and Remain.
The other 2 (2%) are undecided.
One of them (Karen) who's mum is ill in hospital passes a big red bus telling her that if she votes leave the NHS will get £350 million a week. She decides to vote leave.
The other (Tony) picks up the Daily Express in the dentists waiting room that says if he votes leave he will stop millions of Turkish immigrants coming to the UK. Tony decides to vote leave.

Hopefully this demonstrates that just 2% of voters decided the referendum outcome.
It may also show how a couple of well placed lies might also have an effect but I admit that part is not as scientific!
The part missing is the bit about the Labour Party supporting remain
The Tory party supporting remains
The Libdem party supporting remain
The Green Party supporting remain
The Bank of England supporting England remains
The CBI supporting remain

In fact the only people supporting leave were actually ..... err .... the people