Area for all other political discussion
:sunglasses: 35.2 % ❤ 5 % :thumbsup: 16.7 % 😯 1.7 % :grinning: 24.9 % 🧥 2 % 🙏 3 % 😟 6 % :cry: 3.7 % :shit: 1.7 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
#625818
This is fine.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/indu ... eal-brexit
Last month, bodies that represent the car industry both in the UK and Europe called on both sides to urgently agree a free trade agreement. It warned that if this isn’t done, it could cost the sector €110 billion (just under £200bn) In lost trade over a five-year period.

The World Trade Organisation tariffs, which would be imposed in the event of a no-deal Brexit, would add 10% to the cost of a car and up to 22% for larger trucks and vans.
I think that should read £100bn myself, but. Apparently the Consumers' Association is saying that if you wish to buy a new car, now is the time to do it.
#625820
State subsiding of export tariffs is product dumping and not permitted under WTO rules. Perhaps these firms know different or more likely at the end of their tether with no cards left to play
Toyota and Nissan demand UK cover tariffs if no EU deal reached

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates that increased tariffs will cost automakers an additional 4.5 billion pounds ($5.82 billion) a year. It will be impossible for the manufacturers to cover the increased tariffs if the government refuses to do so, which could cause foreign carmakers to flee the U.K.

In addition to Nissan and Toyota, BMW and Jaguar Land Rover Automotive are making cars in the U.K. Nissan and Toyota executives acknowledge that they are demanding that the U.K. cover an increase in tariffs. European carmakers are also calling on the U.K. government to do the same, according to sources. A BMW spokesperson, however, said the German automaker will not comment on speculation. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automo ... 1JOEEuTjo4
#625824
youngian wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:49 pm
... end of their tether with no cards left to play

My reading of this is that it is check-mate. You can have an automotive industry and a deal which is acceptable to us or you can have neither. There ain't no third way.
Taking back control.
#625837
youngian wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:49 pm
State subsiding of export tariffs is product dumping and not permitted under WTO rules. Perhaps these firms know different or more likely at the end of their tether with no cards left to play
Toyota and Nissan demand UK cover tariffs if no EU deal reached

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates that increased tariffs will cost automakers an additional 4.5 billion pounds ($5.82 billion) a year. It will be impossible for the manufacturers to cover the increased tariffs if the government refuses to do so, which could cause foreign carmakers to flee the U.K.

In addition to Nissan and Toyota, BMW and Jaguar Land Rover Automotive are making cars in the U.K. Nissan and Toyota executives acknowledge that they are demanding that the U.K. cover an increase in tariffs. European carmakers are also calling on the U.K. government to do the same, according to sources. A BMW spokesperson, however, said the German automaker will not comment on speculation. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automo ... 1JOEEuTjo4
Seems so long ago Nissan was warmly committing to Sunderland, having been assured by the Business Secretary that the government would make sure it's OK.

The Business Secretary (Greg Clark) is now chairing a Select Committee.
#625945
Found this on Quora. Not really sure about it. What does the team think ?
Can somebody explain exactly what Boris Johnson is up to?

From Barnaby Lane

Updated September 17
Economist. Pro-Europe, Pro-Brexit

Hard to say but this is what I think.

The current Internal Market Bill is the hors d’oeuvres.

The UK intends to tell the EU that unless it drops its demands to tie a Free Trade Agreement to measures that contradict the UK’s internal sovereignty, it will repudiate the entire Withdrawal Agreement.

Johnson will argue, with some justification, that the UK has a full legal right to withdraw from the WA. The EU is in material breach of it already, thus rendering it void.

Some of the legal arguments for this are presented in the footnote reference below. Please see page 68 onwards.[1] The legal arguments are provided by Martin Howe QC and Barnabas Reynolds:

the WA is a temporary agreement and its binding nature is conditional upon agreement on a future permanent arrangement with the EU that enshrines UK sovereignty and secures an FTA. This is evident by the WA’s legal base: Article 50(2) explicitly distinguishes withdrawal arrangement and future relationship arrangements.

Crucially, the legal basis of the WA only extends to withdrawal, not to the future relationship.
The UK was still an EU member when it negotiated the WA, and thus was not in a fully sovereign position to give or withhold consent to an agreement with a permanent legal effect. The UK at the time could only consent to a temporary framework. The UK never consented to the permanent operation of the NI Protocol
the UK can only be taken to have consented to the WA on the basis of an essential condition: the commitment by the parties to achieve a future permanent arrangement with the EU that enshrines UK sovereignty and secures an FTA by the end of 2020.

Article 184 of the WA provides that the EU is to use “best endeavours” and “good faith” to achieve a future relationship agreement on the terms set out in the PD. The negotiations on the future relationship are therefore part and parcel of the WA itself.

By tying a potential FTA to measures that explicitly remove the UK’s sovereignty, the EU has acted in bad faith.

The WA obliges the EU to exercise best endeavours to conclude a future relationship with a sovereign UK. Trade is the element of the future relationship that the parties are negotiating to define. The WA does not invite negotiations that retrench or claw back elements of the EU’s power. That is to say, the negotiations are not for the purpose of defining a new sub-sovereign relationship for the UK to the EU; they are for the purpose of defining a new sovereign relationship.

The EU has refused so far to negotiate a normal arm’s-length trade agreement with the UK without also trying to insist on a) some level of control over the UK’s fishing waters; control over UK fiscal decision making through EU State aid law.

ERGO: The EU has been acting in breach of a material term of the WA, meaning that the treaty was entered into under a false premise. Consequently the UK has an unlimited legal right to repudiate the WA, in full.
The EU has threatened the UK that if it fails to withdraw the Internal Market Bill, the EU will commence legal action against the UK.

The UK will double down and file a counterclaim against the EU, for breach of the Withdrawal Agreement.

The UK will tell the EU that unless it withdraws its claim, and ceases to act in breach of the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK will repudiate the entire agreement. Or at least, select parts of it, including the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Financial Settlement, while keeping citizens’ rights intact.

The EU will of course, not back down, there will be no deal, no financial settlement and no Northern Ireland Protocol. The UK will of course, abide in all respects with by far the most important adjacent treaty of the lot, which is the Good Friday Agreement. The EU’s side of the UK/EU land border, will overnight become the EU’s problem, and theirs alone.

If the EU then attempts to sue the UK in an international court, the UK will immediately counter-sue the EU. If the EU imposes unilateral trade sanctions against the UK, the UK will reciprocate and take it on the chin.

The above is purely an educated guess. The question asks if someone can explain what Johnson is up to. I don’t know because he hasn’t told me. But I suspect he’s up to something like this.

The most concise and plausible sounding explanation came from someone The Times described as a “senior European source”:[2]

Last night a senior European source said they believed Mr Johnson had a no-deal strategy. “They’re laughing at us. The constant references to the WTO is a signal ‘You can go to hell’. My gut feeling is that the British government has opted for no-deal,” the source said.

Footnotes

[1] https://centreforbrexitpolicy.org.uk/wp ... uly-20.pdf
[2] Wrecker Boris Johnson on way to no-deal, Brussels warns

https://www.quora.com/Can-somebody-expl ... n-is-up-to
#625956
What’s it to be No Deal catastrofuck or surrender British fish to Johnny Foreigner?
EU states take a hard line over Brexit fisheries talks

EU fishing member states are taking an increasingly hard line over any concessions to the UK in the current phase of the Brexit negotiations, RTÉ News understands.

Fisheries officials from eight coastal member states yesterday agreed unanimously that the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier should take a tougher line in the talks, which are entering a critical phase.

Under the terms of the future relationship negotiations, there can be no overall free trade agreement unless there has been a deal on fisheries. https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1006/11698 ... ts-brexit/
#626230
No deal better than a bad deal says France and Holland.
France will not sell out its fishermen for a post-Brexit trade deal, a minister said Thursday, after the EU's chief negotiator urged European states to come up with a compromise on the issue.

European Affairs minister Clement Beaune set out Paris's hardline stance during talks in the Netherlands, one of the other countries worried about fishing rights as trade negotiations with Britain reach their most delicate stage.

"Our fishermen will not be a bargaining chip for Brexit, they will not have to pay the price for Britain's choices," Beaune told reporters alongside Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok.

Beaune said a deal "remains possible" but "certainly not by sacrificing the interests of our fishermen."

"A bad deal would be the worst outcome. And so we are ready for a no-deal scenario, and we will not accept a bad compromise." https://news.yahoo.com/france-wont-sacr ... 32865.html
#626320
How will they not sell out their fishermen by having No deal? I doubt its really about fish but stuffing Brexit and its far right allies in Holland and France by association with it. I would, the whole lot are a menace to liberal democracy and Western security.
#626344
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 8:14 pm
3D chess beyond me here. If I were them, I'd say "We hadn't estimated quite how hard Britain would fight for its fishermen. Give us the City and it's a deal!"
The majority of Gammon would call that a fair swap. Bankers aren't really British, not like honest fishermen.
  • 1
  • 774
  • 775
  • 776
  • 777
  • 778
  • 780
Twat of the Day

Apple woman was a bit too obvious, so here's toda[…]

Poppy Day bingo

Complete with wrong colours on the Spit. :roll: […]

Nicola Sturgeon sounding like Michael Gove on Brex[…]

On the Radio

R4’s Across the Red line asks whether impart[…]