Another new Brexit thread

[Vic]

By signed away, you mean voluntary ceded administrative control of various sovereign competences, which on 31st December 2020 it will take back, unless any signed agreement with the EU dictates otherwise.

The key words are ‘signed away’. If you sign a contract then, not unreasonably, you abide by the terms of that contract.

I'd have said the key word was "deceitfully". Who deceived whom?

 

[BobKowalski]

I'd have said the key word was "deceitfully". Who deceived whom?

No one, that’s just Brexiteer speak for ‘treasonous betrayal’ or some such nonsense.

 

[Saddleworth2]

But there in the last sentence is why it's not simple. Trying not to twist words but doesn't that mean a distinction between being a sovereign nation (which we never ceased to be) and being able to act in ways which we couldn't while we were under an international treaty that as a sovereign nation we chose to sign (one of many thousands)? Does any treaty of cooperation diminish sovereignty?

(Don't forget Churchill's wartime plan for an indissoluble union of Britain and France. It would be quite a good essay topic - discuss that in terms of sovereignty.)

I agree with your sentiment. Every time a trade deal is struck, something is given away in return. That doesn’t diminish sovereignty. As a senior member of the EU we didn’t ever lose our sovereignty. Anyone that says otherwise is confused.

on your reference to Churchill. He suggested a United States of Europe but I think he meant that the U.K. would remain a world power outside that, a balance between the Soviet Union and USA.

 

[west didsblue]

I’m perhaps misunderstanding the debate but I’ve seen loads of examples of what I consider ‘regaining sovereignty’ (for example the news link I posted yesterday where we can now refuse criminals at the border in line with our own rules, rather than giving preference to EU criminals or the removal of the tampon tax etc)

is this not regaining sovereignty? To me these are the few benefits of Brexit but your post says we always had it.

Nope, that’s regaining the ability to set our own rules for certain things. Exercising the sovereignty we have always had to leave the EU gave us that ability.

Some politicians are disingenuously calling the ability to set certain rules as regaining sovereignty. There are no shortage of other international rules we adhere to that we could set for ourselves if we used our sovereignty to opt to leave the organisations that set them.

Edit: just realised that @BobKowalski has already explained. Apologies for the repetition. Having read a few of the responses to his posts it seems clear that a few of the more vocal Brexiteers on here either don’t understand what sovereignty is or are playing the same deceitful game as Truss.

 

[Vic]

A woman after his own heart?

Farm leaders have expressed disbelief after the chair of the company behind the Red Tractor Assurance scheme voted against measures aimed at protecting British farmers from cheap food imports post Brexit.

Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe was appointed as chair of Assured Food Standards (ASF), the company which owns Red Tractor Assurance, in November 2017.

She joined the House of Lords as a Conservative peer in October 2013.

In the House of Lords on Tuesday (20 October), peers voted on important amendments to insert powers in the Agriculture Bill, which aim to protect British farmers from future trade deals that risk flooding the UK market with cheap food imports.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe voted against the Lord Curry amendment 18B requiring the new Trade and Agriculture Commission to submit reports on international trade agreements and their effect on farming for parliamentary scrutiny.

She also voted against the second amendment by Labour peer Lord Grantchester, which seeks to strengthen food standards for imported food, to ensure they meet relevant UK food standards after the Brexit transition ends.


She said:

“The UK is currently negotiating trade arrangements with the EU and many other countries reflecting the end of the transitional period on the 31 December 2020. These are very difficult negotiations which are likely to have a serious effect on our prosperity for many years.

“I have experience of international negotiation – for example on the EU sheepmeat regime when I was an official in the Agriculture ministry. I know that it is highly desirable to allow UK negotiators maximum flexibility so that they can obtain the best overall deal for the country as a whole.

“In parliament there are many attempts to limit our negotiators in one way or another by trying to make this or that concept either essential or unacceptable. The risk is that if UK negotiators are limited in this way the eventual outcome will be worse, overall, for the UK than it would otherwise have been.

“In short, I am wary of all attempts to shackle our negotiators. We have to let them do their best.

“None of this implies that interests, including agricultural interests, should not exert pressure on the government to seek the outcomes they want. Of course they do and sometimes the government accept them.

“But trying to impose limitations by statute on the government is in my view not the best way to do it. Those outside the negotiations, including me, simply do not have enough knowledge of the detail to judge what will work.

“My votes in parliament were based on this appreciation of the realities.”

In other words, we go into negotiations NOT ruling out accepting lower standards on imports on the basis that this will help negotiate a deal that protects our standards. Now I could understand that if we were willing to reduce standards then we could go with a red line that we wouldn't do that but then bargain that away for something else (e.g. selling Stilton to Texans) but this really needs an expert negotiator to explain. I suspect it will just be "obvious".

 

[RabidCity]

Nope, that’s regaining the ability to set our own rules for certain things. Exercising the sovereignty we have always had to leave the EU gave us that ability.

Some politicians are disingenuously calling the ability to set certain rules as regaining sovereignty. There are no shortage of other international rules we adhere to that we could set for ourselves if we used our sovereignty to opt to leave the organisations that set them.

Edit: just realised that @BobKowalski has already explained. Apologies for the repetition. Having read a few of the responses to his posts it seems clear that a few of the more vocal Brexiteers on here either don’t understand what sovereignty is or are playing the same deceitful game as Truss.

Thanks for explaining also. But the incorrect use / understanding of the word sovereignty doesn’t mean it’s not a issue, it’s just a different word. So it doesn’t take those feelings / arguments away.

 

[Vic]

I agree with your sentiment. Every time a trade deal is struck, something is given away in return. That doesn’t diminish sovereignty. As a senior member of the EU we didn’t ever lose our sovereignty. Anyone that says otherwise is confused.

on your reference to Churchill. He suggested a United States of Europe but I think he meant that the U.K. would remain a world power outside that, a balance between the Soviet Union and USA.

There's certainly some argument about whether Churchill thought we should be part of a United States of Europe (and whether that meant like the USA), but it was clearly a factor in the founding of the Iron & Steel community (to end the rivalry for resources that led to war).

But I meant 1940 when Churchill was offering a union of Britain and France to deter the Germans from occupying all of France. He was in a train at Waterloo ready to sail from Southampton to do the deal when he was told "France has fallen". (So far as I can see, there was no debate in Parliament, but he did tell the Commons. I'll see if I can find the Hansard record.)

 

[Vic]

Thanks for explaining also. But the incorrect use / understanding of the word sovereignty doesn’t mean it’s not a issue, it’s just a different word. So it doesn’t take those feelings / arguments away.

Please don't ask what "taking back control" means! Someone is bound to mention passports for dogs, and/or entering Kent.

 

[west didsblue]

Thanks for explaining also. But the incorrect use / understanding of the word sovereignty doesn’t mean it’s not a issue, it’s just a different word. So it doesn’t take those feelings / arguments away.

Using the sovereignty word is emotive and is used deliberately to imply we don’t have ultimate control. For example in aviation we follow rules and standards set by IATA and ICAO as well as ones set by the CAA, EASA and Eurocontrol. We are well within our rights to just follow the rules we set ourselves but the consequences would be that we would be unable to fly outside UK airspace. There are consequences in “taking back control” in any aspect of how this country is run, and leaving the EU is no exception. The proponents of Brexit deliberately framed it around sovereignty and promised only upside to having the ability to set our own rules in the areas that the EU covers but that was never remotely possible.

 

[bluethrunthru]

(e.g. selling Stilton to Texans)

come on mate get real - we won't be doing that - ALL our cheese exports are off to Japan aren't they?

 

[Saddleworth2]

I will go much further than that.

I would much prefer the management of leaving the EU to have been led by almost any PM other than the utterly spineless May and the utter buffoon Johnson

You will find this strange to hear perhaps - but if Corbyn had been free from the London elite clique (aka EU sycophants) that dominated Labour, then I would have preferred him to lead the exit from the EU.

Because he at least would have understood the value of being free of EU regulations to implement genuinely socialist policies. The important thing is to get the UK clear of the EU.

It really fucks me off that a lot of people on here simply do not understand some fundamentals of being free of EU membership and able to chart the course of a genuinely independent nation - be it to the left, right or centre. they can see no further than the current government.

If Corbyn had led the UK for 5 years following Brexit - clearly committed to Brexit and the socialist policies it could enable and he was then re-elected - great, they must have been seen to have been successful. I would just like him to have ensured that there had been 5 years genuinely committed to making Brexit a success - and that could not happen given his front bench.

Same with the blonde buffoon - I strongly doubt he will be re-elected - so I am left just hoping that he will put enough distance between the UK and the EU that re-joining is not a viable option in 2024.

It fucks me off that there are so many Tory haters on here (not aimed at you) that cannot see past their instinctive neeeed to see Brexit as a Tory thing. If it had been a socialist (genuine not the faux bollocks we see so much of) then they would be four-square behind it. That is the inconsistency of so many on here which for me invalidates a lot of stuff posted.

It is not just a Tory thing - is way beyond either party - it is a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect the future health of the UK - it will not (be allowed to) come again.

It is the Leave supporters that have been so badly let down by the Tory government for 3 years after the vote - we have more reason to be livid with them than Remainers.

An interesting response but didn’t really answer my question. Corbyn sat on his hands and suffered consequently. Neither side was honest, that is what is so frustrating/sad.
This still has the potential to rip the U.K. apart and it could have been handled so differently including finding compromise for Scotland. We are run by idiots and all of us will be the poorer for it and I mean socially, economically and culturally.

 

[Saddleworth2]

There's certainly some argument about whether Churchill thought we should be part of a United States of Europe (and whether that meant like the USA), but it was clearly a factor in the founding of the Iron & Steel community (to end the rivalry for resources that led to war).

But I meant 1940 when Churchill was offering a union of Britain and France to deter the Germans from occupying all of France. He was in a train at Waterloo ready to sail from Southampton to do the deal when he was told "France has fallen". (So far as I can see, there was no debate in Parliament, but he did tell the Commons. I'll see if I can find the Hansard record.)

Every day is a learning day. Thanks for that.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

But there in the last sentence is why it's not simple. Trying not to twist words but doesn't that mean a distinction between being a sovereign nation (which we never ceased to be) and being able to act in ways which we couldn't while we were under an international treaty that as a sovereign nation we chose to sign (one of many thousands)? Does any treaty of cooperation diminish sovereignty?

(Don't forget Churchill's wartime plan for an indissoluble union of Britain and France. It would be quite a good essay topic - discuss that in terms of sovereignty.)

Ah sure what’s an international treaty between friends.

 

[Vic]

Every day is a learning day. Thanks for that.

It's an intriguing period - it gives the lie to the "surrender monkey" racism, as Churchill spoke of "the heroic resistance made by the French Army against heavy odds", but criticised Weygand for not retreating sooner from Belgium (and I've not checked why the BEF didn't get there in time to help the French). Not much was actually said in Parliament about the "indissoluble union" offer other than mutual citizenship but it seems the details of the offer were known. A week after the fall of France, Churchill told the Commons, "The same evening, the 16th (June 1940), when I was preparing, at M. Reynaud's invitation, to go to see him, and I was in fact in the train, I received news that he had been overthrown and that a new Government under Marshal Pétain had been formed, which Government had been formed for the prime purpose of seeking an Armistice with Germany. In these circumstances, we naturally did everything in our power to secure proper arrangements for the disposition of the French Fleet". The Armistice would have put the French fleet into German hands so we attacked and sank the French fleet (killing a lot of French sailors).

 

[mcfc1632]

A woman after his own heart?

Farm leaders have expressed disbelief after the chair of the company behind the Red Tractor Assurance scheme voted against measures aimed at protecting British farmers from cheap food imports post Brexit.

Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe was appointed as chair of Assured Food Standards (ASF), the company which owns Red Tractor Assurance, in November 2017.

She joined the House of Lords as a Conservative peer in October 2013.

In the House of Lords on Tuesday (20 October), peers voted on important amendments to insert powers in the Agriculture Bill, which aim to protect British farmers from future trade deals that risk flooding the UK market with cheap food imports.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe voted against the Lord Curry amendment 18B requiring the new Trade and Agriculture Commission to submit reports on international trade agreements and their effect on farming for parliamentary scrutiny.

She also voted against the second amendment by Labour peer Lord Grantchester, which seeks to strengthen food standards for imported food, to ensure they meet relevant UK food standards after the Brexit transition ends.


She said:

“The UK is currently negotiating trade arrangements with the EU and many other countries reflecting the end of the transitional period on the 31 December 2020. These are very difficult negotiations which are likely to have a serious effect on our prosperity for many years.

“I have experience of international negotiation – for example on the EU sheepmeat regime when I was an official in the Agriculture ministry. I know that it is highly desirable to allow UK negotiators maximum flexibility so that they can obtain the best overall deal for the country as a whole.

“In parliament there are many attempts to limit our negotiators in one way or another by trying to make this or that concept either essential or unacceptable. The risk is that if UK negotiators are limited in this way the eventual outcome will be worse, overall, for the UK than it would otherwise have been.

“In short, I am wary of all attempts to shackle our negotiators. We have to let them do their best.

“None of this implies that interests, including agricultural interests, should not exert pressure on the government to seek the outcomes they want. Of course they do and sometimes the government accept them.

“But trying to impose limitations by statute on the government is in my view not the best way to do it. Those outside the negotiations, including me, simply do not have enough knowledge of the detail to judge what will work.

“My votes in parliament were based on this appreciation of the realities.”

In other words, we go into negotiations NOT ruling out accepting lower standards on imports on the basis that this will help negotiate a deal that protects our standards. Now I could understand that if we were willing to reduce standards then we could go with a red line that we wouldn't do that but then bargain that away for something else (e.g. selling Stilton to Texans) but this really needs an expert negotiator to explain. I suspect it will just be "obvious".

The part that I have bolded does indeed demonstrate an excellent understanding of negotiations and the importance of not shackling those that are leading the negotiations on your behalf

In a similar vein, in 2019, there was the attempt to legislate to prevent a No-Deal - very damaging to the UK's negotiating position - we have seen the benefit in negotiations of that option being available

 

[mcfc1632]

Thanks for explaining also. But the incorrect use / understanding of the word sovereignty doesn’t mean it’s not a issue, it’s just a different word. So it doesn’t take those feelings / arguments away.

Some posters are simply hiding behind pedantry

The important thing is what it means to the vast majority

 

[mcfc1632]

An interesting response but didn’t really answer my question. Corbyn sat on his hands and suffered consequently. Neither side was honest, that is what is so frustrating/sad.
This still has the potential to rip the U.K. apart and it could have been handled so differently including finding compromise for Scotland. We are run by idiots and all of us will be the poorer for it and I mean socially, economically and culturally.

Sorry - I accept that my response did not directly answer your question

Let me be clear - no I have never had the feelings you mention 'in the wee small hours' - not on any occasion have I had any regret that a decision to leave the UK was achieved.

If I was to ever have such a regret it would need something to be unearthed of far greater concern than Gove saying what scope of market we would have access to if there was an ideal outcome to the negotiations of a TA

What I have worried about in the wee hours since June 2016 has been the seemingly likely potential for success of the EUs sycophants at Westminster in their attempts to have Brexit reversed

What really affected my sleep patterns was the scope of the WA negotiated by the EU's doormat Robbins and in particular the damage that would have been done by the unfettered backstop

BTW - we should pick up more detail on the fishing issue and why a 3 year transition would be the better outcome for the UK

 

[Vic]

The part that I have bolded does indeed demonstrate an excellent understanding of negotiations and the importance of not shackling those that are leading the negotiations on your behalf

In a similar vein, in 2019, there was the attempt to legislate to prevent a No-Deal - very damaging to the UK's negotiating position - we have seen the benefit in negotiations of that option being available

Well, well done on your bolding skills, but it doesn't make any more sense in bold.

I understand why keeping the self-harming threat of No Deal made some sort of sense (as in proving we are mad enough to do it) but how does it help negotiations by indicating that accepting lower standards is on the table? "We have high standards and we're starting by saying our negotiators have the freedom to negotiate about that."

Do us a favour for once. Either admit that it's not a good idea, or at least explain it.

 

[blueinsa]

or at least explain it.

It has been, a thousand times and a thousand times you dont read or listen or comprehend and you ask the same question over and over and over..........

 

[Vic]

It has been, a thousand times and a thousand times you dont read or listen or comprehend and you ask the same question over and over and over..........

Stop creeping.

This has only just happened. But he never explains. He obfuscates. You try, if you think it has been explained, why is it a good idea to allow negotiators not to be restricted by an existing law? (It's part of the government line that these standards are already enshrined in law.)

In any case, it's news as she's chair (for the moment) of a body for high standards in farming, part funded by farmers who feel betrayed. She's biting the hard that feeds her. In case you need a bit of emphasis to assist in why it's an issue:

Farmers betrayed

Liz Webster, chair of campaign group Save British Farming (SBF), said she was shocked by Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s voting decisions.

“It’s more obfuscation and more proof that farmers are being betrayed,” said Ms Webster. “It’s clear that we [farmers] are being frogmarched into retirement.

“In my view, this seriously undermines faith in the Red Tractor assurance scheme.”

She added: “The British public has been misled time and time again by this government, particularly on Brexit and food standards.

“Why did the Conservatives promise in their 2019 election manifesto to uphold farmers’ standards if they have no intention to do so?”

A farming industry leader, who did not want to be named, said: “This is quite worrying. There are quite a few farmers struggling with confidence in Red Tractor at the moment. This appears to confirm some fears.”