Brexit: Boris' Big Belgian Bangers - The Bear and Badger

Funkstain

How do you address this statement: "The EU can and should include all UK territories in the trade negotiations, and apply their output to all UK territories. They should not allow a member state to unilaterally veto the inclusion of a UK territory in that output, as it shows a lack of good faith in the negotiations. This will have the inevitable result of either scuppering the negotiations as a whole (if the UK holds firm and wants the trade deal to cover all its territories), or fucking over the inhabitants of the rock (if the UK abandons Gibraltar"

1. It is not accurate - please explain how so I can be educated

2. It is accurate - but the EU are still OK doing this (we'll disagree on a moral basis which is fine)

3. It is accurate - and the EU are shitty doing this (my position)

poprock

To me the crux of this is Spain forcing the EU to put Gibraltar on the negotiating table.

I don’t see that the EU have any choice. Spain have made a demand and the EU have to comply. On top of that, the EU can’t arbitrate between a member and a non-member, so they’re hands-off on the matter of a solution.

This all makes the EU look ineffectual. Surely there should be a mechanism for Spain’s demand to be voted on within the EU Parliament and hopefully vetoed. Don’t the other EU nations get a say? Can any member state just make any unreasonable demand at any time?

Funkstain

Really? The EU has no choice but to agree to mix up territorial disputes with a vital trade agreement? If that really is the case it's a) miraculous they have ever achieved anything and b) makes me every so slightly relieved we're out.

Of course I don't believe it for a minute, they could easily have told Spain to fuck off and continue dealing with this in a bilateral way, during which the EU will support them.

poprock

The EU shouldn’t have opinions or stances on anything. It’s purely a body to represent its members. One of its members has said “Please do this shitty thing” … and here we are.

The EU published guidelines for members on how to negotiate with the UK over Brexit. With reference to Gibraltar, the guidelines said: “After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.”

So it was established up front that Spain and the UK have to agree what happens to Gibraltar. Otherwise Gibraltar will be left out of any EU/UK trade deals.

And that’s what Spain have now demanded. This exemption they already agreed. And put into the EU negotiating guidelines up front. So I don’t see how the EU could have suddenly decided to say no.

I’m a bit more confused by what Spain said in 2018 though. Because in September 2018 Spain and the UK agreed a deal over exactly this. The Gibraltar Protocol states “Any dispute which Spain has or may have over the sovereignty of Gibraltar will also no longer affect a future trade agreement between Britain and the EU.”

But then in November 2018 Spain “… threatened to veto Brexit if Spanish concerns over Gibraltar were not addressed”. And Britain responded by agreeing that “No future trade deals around Brexit would pertain to Gibraltar’s market”.

So Britain has already conceded that our EU trade deals will exclude Gibraltar.

The upshot, as far as I can tell, was the setting up of a special committee to handle Gibraltar/EU relations (border control, etc) which is made up purely of Spanish and British representatives.

This was all promised to be addressed in the EU’s initial negotiating position, due to be published today. So hopefully tomorrow’s newspapers will cover what the fuck is actually in there.

Funkstain

I understand what the EU is supposed to be, but to argue that it shouldn't have opinions or stances on anything is odd to say the least. They have opinions and stances on absolutely tons of things, will often legislate on the basis of those opinions and stances, and can and will punish member states for not following that legislation.

Yes yes I understand the council can block legislation during several stages of the process, but then so can the parliament, and of course to suggest that none of the EU institutions (including other members of the council) have any influence on countries is, again, at least odd.

It is absolutely within the power of the EU institutions (again, including members of the council other than Spain) to determine their negotiation purview to exclude shit like Spain's concern over Gibraltar, and there are several ways they could have done this (for example invoking human rights). They just chose not to because fuck the UK, which is fine but is still shitty when you consider that peoples' lives are at stake. This is not difficult, I really don't understand why there are any arguments over the morality of this. Not the unexpectedness of it (it's not, terribly), not the method of hiding the lack of morality (we had no choice)

Whether Spain is more shitty, or UK gov is more shitty, is not relevant - the point is the EU is being shitty too and that's disappointing.

This is getting most silly now, so I'mma get back to despairing about our future when our prime minister says Australia-like is not in fact no deal (it really is), that the EU are being unfair demanding things they don't demand of Canada (it's nuanced, but also he conveniently omits that services aren't included in the Canada FTA so we're also asking for different things), and the contrast between the EU calmly and openly presenting negotiation backgrounds in a text, compared to Johnson's speechifying just about sums up the next year of terrifying country wrecking

poprock

So you think that instead of doing this:

The EU published guidelines for members on how to negotiate with the UK over Brexit. With reference to Gibraltar, the guidelines said: “After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.”

The EU should instead have said “Fuck off Spain, Gibraltar is a UK territory. Don’t be so grabby.”

I’m inclined to agree. But that’s just not how the EU are approaching things – they’re making a show of listening to their members right now. So Spain’s unreasonable demand is being catered for.

As I see it, the onus is on the other EU members to do something about it through whatever democratic processes are available – but they don’t seem to be stepping up. So fuck knows.

poprock

I mean … I think the EU have gone this way on the good faith that Spain and the UK can sort it out amicably. But given the behaviour of both sides, I wouldn’t have put so much faith in them.

GooberTheHat

Do Spain have veto rights?

Diluted Dante

All countries have to ratify a trade deal, including regional parliaments in some cases.

Canada hit on this stumbling block in the past.

poprock

GooberTheHat wrote:

Do Spain have veto rights?

Yeah, all member states have veto rights. Trade deals have to be agreed unanimously, just like accepting the UK’s departure did.

Spain have threatened to veto UK agreements before, without actually doing it.

Beaten to it by Dante.

kneecap

Also if it doesn't need to be said any nonsense that causes a border in NI, Ireland will veto.

Nothing has changed.

monkey

I think this whole conversation is nuts. The EU hasn't backed Spain's territorial claims over Gibraltar anymore than it backed Ireland's territorial claims over NI. It's just stopping a member country from getting a load of trouble and problems along it's border.

davyK

kneecap wrote:

Also if it doesn't need to be said any nonsense that causes a border in NI, Ireland will veto. Nothing has changed.

Yep. To those "job done" t-shirt wearing arses. Not by a long chalk.

acemuzzy

At least the government are being open about it all

Oh wait... https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/no10-walkout-journalists-lee-cain-trump_uk_5e384359c5b6f262332d9603?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL1E4V0VQbmpDM0k_YW1wPTE&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMcZu6m3chLAqkXLV586kJwqPWOw4VcPwQS3IYNcOAa_RJcfmkvjSSv0I4X7XqI5ebkemfE2hMPHNdWGSaAWvPoVzoLCm3n63xVDr0DYnBDn3Xp0vkdccfJBQ6QsU3IfLwkbtXY6dqpS7aH3cuLonA74cbVBL3WPrljdfMPLFcFl

b0r1s

I was just about to post this. This is why they don’t want to be part of EU. Too much scrutiny on a corrupt government that wants to control all the narrative. This is not democracy but the public just won’t realise or even care what they are losing.

Armitage_Shankburn

Minnesänger wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

So weird that the focus of Cinty's anger still seems to be lost here. That focus is on the EU, and the way they seem to have chosen to use Gibraltar as a bargaining chip in negotiations when they didn't have to, and when it seems wrong to have done so. They can and should include all UK territories in both negotiations AND joint outcome of those negotiations, and letting Spain say "yep we're fine with all that shit but not as regards this territory, fuck them". This will have the obvious result of either scuppering the negotiations as a whole, or fucking over the inhabitants of the rock. Is this not clear?

Everything else (whether Gibraltar should really be part of Spain or the UK; whether the inhabitants voted for leave or remain; etc) isn't related to why he's pissed off. Doesn't that make sense to anyone?

...thank you.

Gibraltarians would probably love to join the EU while being semi-british, but Spain won't let them - it's been a battle for them while the UK was in the EU.

The EU was always going to back Spain when the UK left. That's why 93% of Gibs voted to remain, they're not idiots.

I know a lot about Gib. Because of a mate. This thread has been a laugh - the it's attached to Spain bit, etc etc.

The key thing to realise is that the GDP per capita in Gib skyrocketed since the 80s. It went from a so-so society to a very rich one, depending on outside labour and outside goods. And essentially selling money laundering and tax evasion.

Gib is now going to bet heavily on 0% tariffs and using technology to get around the fact that it's services are outside the EU. I think they're going to struggle massively.

LivDiv

Interesting, I was looking through GDP per capita the other night while the Superbowl was dull, I couldn't find concrete numbers for Gibraltar and the game got interesting so I left it.

What I did find was what seemed to be a projected $90k for Gibraltar based on previous numbers.

Rough numbers for reference.
Luxembourg (Highest I could find listed): $110k
U.S.A; $60k
U.K: $40k
Spain: $30k

Armitage_Shankburn

Its very unequally spread, obviously - but they do have social housing and safety nets for Gib citizens.

On the Spanish claim on Gibraltar - it's based entirely on contiguity of territory. The UK's answer is: this territory was voluntarily ceded by treaty.

Spain also possesses Ceuta and mellila. Morocco claims these based on contiguity (they're wholly encased by Morocco). Spain's answer is: these territories are voluntarily ceded by Treaty....

The tiebreaker, and the UK's trump card, is self-determination. Gib cannot go to Spain without a referendum vote affirming it. When labour was contemplating giving up Gib / going for joint sovereignty under Blair/Straw, Gib managed to get a commitment to a referendum. Spain's only hope is to win that referendum - which it cannot at present. Naturally the citizens of mellila and Ceuta would rather be part of Spain.

Funkstain

I'm trying to figure out Johnson's end game now. It's not really Australia deal, is it? That would go against everything he's been taught in modern economics. What does he want?

Diluted Dante

Funkstain wrote:

I'm trying to figure out Johnson's end game now. It's not really Australia deal, is it? That would go against everything he's been taught in modern economics. What does he want?

To be Prime Minister.

poprock

It’s an easy gag, but yeah. Johnson’s primary driver right now is likely to be planning how to stay in power at the next election.

So he’ll be trying to second guess what outcome of Brexit will leave him in the best position to campaign for reelection in 2024. Then he’ll work towards a deal that achieves that.

Roujin

Funkstain wrote:

I'm trying to figure out Johnson's end game now. It's not really Australia deal, is it? That would go against everything he's been taught in modern economics. What does he want?

Hes going to fuck this all the way to the end of the year and then we no deal out onto WTO terms.

RamSteelwood

Roujin wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

I'm trying to figure out Johnson's end game now. It's not really Australia deal, is it? That would go against everything he's been taught in modern economics. What does he want?

Hes going to fuck this all the way to the end of the year and then we no deal out onto WTO terms.

and then blame the EU and double down on the racist implications for what's needed to fix things in time for the next election.

Funkstain

RamSteelwood wrote:

Roujin wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

I'm trying to figure out Johnson's end game now. It's not really Australia deal, is it? That would go against everything he's been taught in modern economics. What does he want?

Hes going to fuck this all the way to the end of the year and then we no deal out onto WTO terms.

and then blame the EU and double down on the racist implications for what's needed to fix things in time for the next election.

Two problems here: a no EU trade deal covering goods and services would leave our economy in tatters with no obvious route to recovery. This cannot be the plan (I never ever bought into the doom and gloom about no deal, it makes no sense and benefits almost no-one), surely?

The second problem is the blame game: it simply won't work, at least not over the timescale to the next election. Sure, blame the EU all you like during negotiations, but fail to get a deal and that's at least partly (mostly) and obviously on the govt, and truly people will see this. Fail to improve people's lives, bankrupt the country with a no deal transition end, then spend the next 3-4 years what, blaming non-existent immigration?

poprock

Polly Toynbee is quite excellent on exactly this question in today’s Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/03/boris-johnson-eu-cuts-brexit-damage

tl/dr: Johnson knows that he can’t possibly deliver the end of austerity and wants to be able to point at ‘foreigners’ to distract and blame further down the line. Arguing noisily with the EU all through 2020 is him building up anti-EU public sentiment so that he has them as a handy scapegoat.

davyK

Nothing has changed except that we are more likely looking looking at a hard Brexit.

The N.Ireland border makes anything else impossible - and then there will have to be border checks after we crash out.

That will not be good.

To avoid this Johnson will need permission from the EU to extend the transition period.

Funkstain

OK - but that only works for a while, and only plays to the base (ie not us and there are actually quite a few of us, it's not all blaring Brexit Boris blow jobbers). At some point he will be forced to reckon with the reality of Brexit and if he doesn't compromise with the EU that will be on him and be seen to be on him, I truly believe that.

I mean. there won't be any foreigners left; we'll be in complete control of borders (at least legally if not in fact, although why anyone would want to come to a fucked up economy like ours would be would be a mystery)

davyK

Funkstain wrote:

OK - but that only works for a while, and only plays to the base (ie not us and there are actually quite a few of us, it's not all blaring Brexit Boris blow jobbers). At some point he will be forced to reckon with the reality of Brexit and if he doesn't compromise with the EU that will be on him and be seen to be on him, I truly believe that. I mean. there won't be any foreigners left; we'll be in complete control of borders (at least legally if not in fact, although why anyone would want to come to a fucked up economy like ours would be would be a mystery)

I agree. And what Johnson would have to agree to with the EU would be worse than what we had - a self evident truth from the start to anyone with any sense.

RamSteelwood

Sorry, I disagree. Not on the technicalities that they won't be able to resolve, but in believing people will see through it and blame Boris - if that was true, I think they'd have seen through him in the last few years. Bojo and co are already controlling enough of the media and the message, and the blame will continue to go to EU.

and they'll even be able to create a scenario where technically that's true - if we no deal, the EU have to put borders up to conform to their own rules. the UK can say "we'll let all goods come and go as you please just like they used to" knowing full well the EU can't allow it, and thus the EU are blamed and poor Boris is our brave hero fighting for justice.

davyK

Oh I think Johnson can get away with anything - even a deal that was worse than membership. We do have a leader who can sway enough people to his will (it seems) and that is his talent.

But frankly caring who is to blame will be of little comfort when borders start appearing and prices start moving. Not sure how even he could get out of it by pointing at the EU.

I'm quite worried about what will happen at the NI/RoI border - in the context of terrorism that is. Whether a mainland campaign is feasible any more is debatable given security tech, but it could certainly gain legs here.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories