Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[scaramanga]

It's all just laughable. Was it worth it? Well obviously financially no. Not now and almost certainly not in our lifetimes. But again brexit wasn't about that, people were happy to tinkle on their own chips to "take back control".

But I mean, we just lost access to a security database we used 603 MILLION times last year. Imagine every day using Microsoft Excel and then being told you won't have access, and then to have the gall to stand there and go "yeah it's fine we're actually better off without it" with no actual replacement.

Still, that's where we are and people will celebrate that. Big sarcastic thumbs up from me.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

We didn't lose access though did we? We just lost the right to access without permission.

Seeing as most of the data in there of any value came from the UK in the first place, it essentially means no change.

 

[StephenH]

That’s not true. The EU can impose tariffs if they disagree with a decision. The very thing that no deal was going to do and the reason Boris was so keen to get a deal.

It’s all been an act of political masturbation in large factions of the Conservatives. It is all a waste of money and time.

 

[SpurMeUp]

One key thing is financial services. They must contribute billions in taxes to the uk exchequer each year and more to the wider economy, especially in London. As I understand it the UK does not have ‘equivalence’ so no wholesale market access and the terms of access have not been defined.

Short term I’m sure it won’t have much impact, longer term it probably will.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Diamond Lights]

We didn't lose access though did we? We just lost the right to access without permission.

Seeing as most of the data in there of any value came from the UK in the first place, it essentially means no change.

Bit of a straw clutch that. We've lost access. We currently have no mechanism approved to access. Maybe we'll have to pay for it. No idea, but if you use something 603 million times in 2020 theres a small chance we'll need it in 2021.

I get you're fully onboard the brexit bus but you can't happy clap every perspective. There's several areas we've lost out on, this being one. You don't work for the Tories that I know of so don't need to spin it out as a positive when it's not. Maybe we'll make it up by signing the bestest free trade deals in the world now.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[scaramanga]

Bit of a straw clutch that. We've lost access. We currently have no mechanism approved to access. Maybe we'll have to pay for it. No idea, but if you use something 603 million times in 2020 theres a small chance we'll need it in 2021.

I get you're fully onboard the brexit bus but you can't happy clap every perspective. There's several areas we've lost out on, this being one. You don't work for the Tories that I know of so don't need to spin it out as a positive when it's not. Maybe we'll make it up by signing the bestest free trade deals in the world now.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

The EU's security data are virtually worthless without the UK's.

In fact, one of the EU's main concerns early on was that we might withold our support in that manner, until we tinkled it away in the early stages of negotiation.

Bureaucratic and vindictive they may be, but they're not stupid enough to lose the UK's security knowledge.

 

[Robspur12]

No they can't. An independent third party can choose if tariffs are required to rebalance, but the EU can't.

Under May's deal, the arbiter of that decision was the EU.

But you said

The huge difference is that we can change whichever rules we like whenever we like and that the EU doesn't get to decide whethrr they like it or not.

That is not true. They have a huge influence in this area still.

It's not an "independent" third party. It is a body made up of EU and British officials that will arbitrate. It's decisions are also binding. Quote from the BBC

This clause is much stricter than measures found in other recent EU trade deals, and was a key demand on the European side. It is a mechanism we may hear a lot more about in the coming years.

Clearly not the clean break you envisaged. Plus I have to say with Boris's track record on detail I am sure we will find ourselves tied in in areas the EU want us to be.

 

[scaramanga]

But you said

The huge difference is that we can change whichever rules we like whenever we like and that the EU doesn't get to decide whethrr they like it or not.

That is not true. They have a huge influence in this area still.

It's not an "independent" third party. It is a body made up of EU and British officials that will arbitrate. It's decisions are also binding. Quote from the BBC

This clause is much stricter than measures found in other recent EU trade deals, and was a key demand on the European side. It is a mechanism we may hear a lot more about in the coming years.

Clearly not the clean break you envisaged. Plus I have to say with Boris's track record on detail I am sure we will find ourselves tied in in areas the EU want us to be.

I think you've misunderstood the BBC article or they've been intentionally misleading.

The panel is made up by representatives from the UK and the EU, but the deciding vote will be independent. That's a huge difference from May's "deal" whereby the EU made the decisions in that regard.

But the choice is still ours. As with any other trade agreement now, we have the choice to conform to their standards or face barriers.

Most importantly, we won't have to apply those standards to the 86% of our economy that isn't related to the EU.

 

[Robspur12]

The EU's security data are virtually worthless without the UK's.

In fact, one of the EU's main concerns early on was that we might withold our support in that manner, until we tinkled it away in the early stages of negotiation.

Bureaucratic and vindictive they may be, but they're not stupid enough to lose the UK's security knowledge.

But here are views from those actually involved in Policing.

Earlier this month Steve Rodhouse, director general of operations for the National Crime Agency, warned that losing access to the database would mean alerts relating to around 400,000 investigations in European countries would disappear from the UK's national computer on 31 December.

"Investigations could take longer, and it could mean that serious criminals are not held to account as quickly," he said.

As expected, the UK will have to unplug its connection to an enormous real-time database that shares alerts on wanted or missing people," he said.

In November, National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) lead for Brexit, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richard Martin told peers that while contingency plans were being made the loss of access to SIS was "still a capability gap and it will have a massive impact on us".

He said his team had checked the system 603 million times last year.

Following the announcement of the deal, the NPCC said while it welcomed a deal between the UK and EU it was working with the government to "fully understand the detail of the security agreement and how it will be implemented, and ensure we are prepared for any changes to the way we currently operate".

 

[Robspur12]

I think you've misunderstood the BBC article or they've been intentionally misleading.

The panel is made up by representatives from the UK and the EU, but the deciding vote will be independent. That's a huge difference from May's "deal" whereby the EU made the decisions in that regard.

But the choice is still ours. As with any other trade agreement now, we have the choice to conform to their standards or face barriers.

Most importantly, we won't have to apply those standards to the 86% of our economy that isn't related to the EU.

The EU didn't make the decisions a court did, the ECJ. Like any court except those in America they were independent.

Who is the independent deciding vote btw? Someone from outside the UK or EU? A Turk or Russian perhaps?

 

[SpurMeUp]

The EU didn't make the decisions a court did, the ECJ. Like any court except those in America they were independent.

Who is the independent deciding vote btw? Someone from outside the UK or EU? A Turk or Russian perhaps?

The whole thing is a charade so some (previously peripheral) eccentrics and loons can say: ha see we are independent! The Jacob Reese Mogs were previously back bench toffs with no real idea of reality. Pat them on the head, while they live their fantasy. Now they are driving us hence having to put in place this arbitration process which is little different to an independent court. The whole point of a court is they apply black and white laws without bias.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[AuroRaman]

 

[scaramanga]

The EU didn't make the decisions a court did, the ECJ. Like any court except those in America they were independent.

Who is the independent deciding vote btw? Someone from outside the UK or EU? A Turk or Russian perhaps?

They'll be jointly appointed by both sides. But definitely from outside the UK or EU.

The ECJ is far more like the USSC than you think. Its justices are chosen by EU member states. It may be neutral for those in the EU but would be disastrous as an arbiter for us outside.

 

[Robspur12]

They'll be jointly appointed by both sides. But definitely from outside the UK or EU.

So could be a Russian or a Turk. Or more likely a judge from the EU or GB who will be interpreting the law. So no different from what the ECJ do now.

The ECJ is far more like the USSC than you think. Its justices are chosen by EU member states. It may be neutral for those in the EU but would be disastrous as an arbiter for us outside.

UK judges are appointed by the state too. Doesn't mean they are not independent of political influence.

 

[scaramanga]

So could be a Russian or a Turk. Or more likely a judge from the EU or GB who will be interpreting the law. So no different from what the ECJ do now.

It's specifically neither from the UK nor the EU, a third party. Most likely it will be a judge from the WTO as they have a large pool of independent arbitrators who are already skilled at this kind of work.

UK judges are appointed by the state too. Doesn't mean they are not independent of political influence.

You're right, it doesn't. But it does mean that they will focus on what is to the benefit of the UK first and foremost.

 

[Grays_1890]

But here are views from those actually involved in Policing.

Earlier this month Steve Rodhouse, director general of operations for the National Crime Agency, warned that losing access to the database would mean alerts relating to around 400,000 investigations in European countries would disappear from the UK's national computer on 31 December.

"Investigations could take longer, and it could mean that serious criminals are not held to account as quickly," he said.

As expected, the UK will have to unplug its connection to an enormous real-time database that shares alerts on wanted or missing people," he said.

In November, National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) lead for Brexit, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richard Martin told peers that while contingency plans were being made the loss of access to SIS was "still a capability gap and it will have a massive impact on us".

He said his team had checked the system 603 million times last year.

Following the announcement of the deal, the NPCC said while it welcomed a deal between the UK and EU it was working with the government to "fully understand the detail of the security agreement and how it will be implemented, and ensure we are prepared for any changes to the way we currently operate".

No expert but with being an island and travel being somewhat locked down we might be lucky and get away with it. Also with the new security at our borders being heightened we will be able to be more vigilant on what comes in and not worry about what we send back to Europe.

The UKS secret service is one of if not the best intelligence agencies in the world so I think we will be a loss to Europe as much as anyone HOWEVER I dont think world security is one of the things that should have been used as a bargaining chip anyway and would like to think regardless of the EU we would all collaborate

 

[Robspur12]

You're right, it doesn't. But it does mean that they will focus on what is to the benefit of the UK first and foremost.

Not if they are independent.

 

[scaramanga]

Not if they are independent.

You stated UK judges.

I'm perfectly happy with an independent third party coming to an equitable decision. I just didn't want that arbiter to be the ECJ as it's not independent.

 

[Robspur12]

No expert but with being an island and travel being somewhat locked down we might be lucky and get away with it. Also with the new security at our borders being heightened we will be able to be more vigilant on what comes in and not worry about what we send back to Europe.

The UKS secret service is one of if not the best intelligence agencies in the world so I think we will be a loss to Europe as much as anyone HOWEVER I dont think world security is one of the things that should have been used as a bargaining chip anyway and would like to think regardless of the EU we would all collaborate

You and Scara are thinking about it from a counter terrorism point of view. But what about all the other non terror related investigations which is what I am assuming is the concern of the police.

I don't disagree about the bargaining chip but when Brexiteers were advocating using terror intelligence as a bargaining chip then I guess nothing was off the table. That is not just on the EU.

 

[Robspur12]

You stated UK judges.

I'm perfectly happy with an independent third party coming to an equitable decision. I just didn't want that arbiter to be the ECJ as it's not independent.

We will have to agree to disagree on the independence of the ECJ. You have no evidence whatsoever that they are not independent. Simply attacking the independence of a judicial system with no evidence to support the claim is usually reserved for the most right wing Brexiteers or trumpists.

 

[scaramanga]

We will have to agree to disagree on the independence of the ECJ. You have no evidence whatsoever that they are not independent.

The judges are appointed by the member states. It would be remarkably stupid of them not to appoint those who are likely to rule in their favour.