BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

It’s the tactic the nazis used most often when trying to get into power and how they brushed over their erosion of the democratic powers of the Weimar Republic.

Whenever they’d break a democratic norm or rule, they’d point to the socialists and the bourgeoise liberals and say “look it’s winding them up it must be right”.

Honestly, I do worry where this ends up.

If you see how far Brexit has shifted from what it was supposed to be, from the people like Hannan, you can see what other attitudes will shift.

We’ve already had Coopster call me vermin because I am a foreigner “interfering” in politics. I seem to remember that getting ‘likes’ too.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Regardless of how we came into this situation, the issue still remains that there will be on-going EU influence over UK affairs and It needs to 've solved.

The WA was passed in parallel with a promise from the EU to conclude a swift and comprehensive free trade accord: “It is the clear intent of both parties to develop in good faith agreements giving effect to this relationship… such that they can come into force by the end of 2020”. The EU is refusing to reconsider, even though they themselves are clearly acting in bad faith after offering a Canada style deal and then withdrawing it on the basis the we are somehow now 'too close'.

The WA also contains the following clause: “If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.” The EU threat to carve up the UK down the Irish Sea clearly fits that bill in my view, so we have every right to take action.

Too late. It's not a threat by someone else to carve up the UK. It's something we have already willingly committed to doing.

The clause I referred to in the WA allows us to take action now that the implications have become apparent.

Sorting out a FTA would avoid this, but the EU withdrawal of the Canada option shows that they are negotiating in bad faith, as mentioned above.

The implications haven't 'now become apparent' they were negotiated, understood and agreed to. If you read that Tony Conelly article, you'll see it was there from the start. Nothing has changed.

An FTA at the moment is a laughable idea.

The state aid for NI was in there from the start, and was an EU commission red line. The disagreements in the Joint Committe are new.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

It’s the tactic the nazis used most often when trying to get into power and how they brushed over their erosion of the democratic powers of the Weimar Republic.

Whenever they’d break a democratic norm or rule, they’d point to the socialists and the bourgeoise liberals and say “look it’s winding them up it must be right”.

Honestly, I do worry where this ends up.

If you see how far Brexit has shifted from what it was supposed to be, from the people like Hannan, you can see what other attitudes will shift.

We’ve already had Coopster call me vermin because I am a foreigner “interfering” in politics. I seem to remember that getting ‘likes’ too.

Didn't you suggest he should drink bleach? Hard to take the moral high ground if so.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1305084116296228866?s=21

This is where we’re at and it’s the same on this thread.

If you are choosing to believe the lie because they’re “on your side” you are the mug here and you are the one helping enable poor governance.

You can be both pro Brexit and/or pro the Tory party and still be against being lied to and bad governance by the Party in the name of Brexit

He was just being a typical politician and didn't fancy answering the question much to Marr's annoyance.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

It’s the tactic the nazis used most often when trying to get into power and how they brushed over their erosion of the democratic powers of the Weimar Republic.

Whenever they’d break a democratic norm or rule, they’d point to the socialists and the bourgeoise liberals and say “look it’s winding them up it must be right”.

Honestly, I do worry where this ends up.

If you see how far Brexit has shifted from what it was supposed to be, from the people like Hannan, you can see what other attitudes will shift.

We’ve already had Coopster call me vermin because I am a foreigner “interfering” in politics. I seem to remember that getting ‘likes’ too.

Didn't you suggest he should drink bleach? Hard to take the moral high ground if so.

I was referencing Trump’s suggesting to inject bleach to cure coronavirus, as at the time Coopster was very pro Trump.

Context, BB, context.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1305084116296228866?s=21

This is where we’re at and it’s the same on this thread.

If you are choosing to believe the lie because they’re “on your side” you are the mug here and you are the one helping enable poor governance.

You can be both pro Brexit and/or pro the Tory party and still be against being lied to and bad governance by the Party in the name of Brexit

He was just being a typical politician and didn't fancy answering the question much to Marr's annoyance.

That’s not what that is about BB.

Johnson is point blank lying about why he signed the WA.

tailwindhome

Tory voters, having been persuaded by Boris to back his deal, are now persuaded by Boris that his deal is a bad one, so bad indeed that the UK has no other choice but to renege on it.

Extraordinary stuff really.

Hard to admit you've been duped I suppose.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1305084116296228866?s=21

This is where we’re at and it’s the same on this thread.

If you are choosing to believe the lie because they’re “on your side” you are the mug here and you are the one helping enable poor governance.

You can be both pro Brexit and/or pro the Tory party and still be against being lied to and bad governance by the Party in the name of Brexit

He was just being a typical politician and didn't fancy answering the question much to Marr's annoyance.

That’s not what that is about BB.

Johnson is point blank lying about why he signed the WA.

You've posted about Coveney on Marr. I've responded about that.

kingstongraham

Thanks Stevo for keeping on posting, it gives an insight into the rationalisation that must be going on.

morstar

briantrumpet said:

I guess that the Justine Minister is saying that there are acceptable ways to break the law. How did we get here?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/13/minister-threatens-to-resign-over-brexit-bill-if-law-is-broken-in-way-i-find-unacceptable

Just love this. Don’t hear anybody who moaned about BLM protests breaking the law being so uptight about this particular law breaking.

I used to referee ice hockey and once in a while a player would try and debate which rules applied.
I always suggested we would use the ones that are written in the rule book so everybody knew where they stood.

surrey_commuter

spatt77 said:

surrey_commuter said:

I am amazed at the level of amazement at the position we now find ourselves.

There is only one driving force for Brexit and that is a dislike of foreigners whether that be them coming here or ruling us. The purer the Brexit the less foreigners come here and the less say they have over us.

Now with the above in mind ask yourself how much they care about breaking an intl. treaty? It is a treaty with foreigners and the only downside is being judged by foreigners.

I really am sick and tired of the portrayal of Brexiteers as racist/xenophobic, I've spent a good proportion of my life living in Europe, some of my best friends are not British. Your perception of leavers is your perception alone, it would be the equivalent for me to say all Remainers ( and some of my best friends are) are unpatriotic, lily livered and money orientated, which would be equally silly and not true. I think we really need to get away from this personal characterization of "if you didnt vote the same way as me then you are this"

Why introduce racism, and I said “the driving force”

It was not even meant to be argumentative, it was an attempt to set the scene so that you can understand and anticipate where we are heading.

It was debating with the likes of yourself that I came to realise that economics really does not matter and that it is all about sovereignty. So whilst Rick is incandescent about the Govt’s behaviour this week I am far more philosophical as I do not believe we are willing to trade any sovereignty for economic gain and that we will walk away, probably tearing up the WA as we go. I also believe we will leave the ECHR and various other intl. organisations.

Bizarrely our hopes rest with Trump/Republicans taking a thrashing which will shorten the timeframe that it will take for the Tories to eject the cuckoo from their nest.

TheBigBean

Tony Blair taking a strong line on international law is probably one for the irony thread.

sungod

spatt77 said:

rick_chasey said:

spatt77 said:

surrey_commuter said:

I am amazed at the level of amazement at the position we now find ourselves.

There is only one driving force for Brexit and that is a dislike of foreigners whether that be them coming here or ruling us. The purer the Brexit the less foreigners come here and the less say they have over us.

Now with the above in mind ask yourself how much they care about breaking an intl. treaty? It is a treaty with foreigners and the only downside is being judged by foreigners.

I really am sick and tired of the portrayal of Brexiteers as racist/xenophobic, I've spent a good proportion of my life living in Europe, some of my best friends are not British. Your perception of leavers is your perception alone, it would be the equivalent for me to say all Remainers ( and some of my best friends are) are unpatriotic, lily livered and money orientated, which would be equally silly and not true. I think we really need to get away from this personal characterization of "if you didnt vote the same way as me then you are this"

If it’s not about foreigners either coming to the U.K. to live or having some say over U.K. governance then what is it about?

Amazing

This is not a merry go round i wish to get on for the umpteenth time! But the sooner you accept you lost and stop whinging about it the better it will be all round. Lets just see how it all pans out and then we can start with the "I told you so" !

ah, "lost", with that you show your true colours

fact: most uk citizens did not vote leave, yet they'll get their rights stripped all the same

fact: most people who voted at the last general election voted for parties advocating ref2/remain, yet the party with fewer votes got a huge majority in parliament and now acts against the 'will of the people'

leave/remain isn't the issue, neither outcome will solve the uk's problems

the uk's divisions and inequalities were born in and are perpetuated by the decades-long disenfranchisement of the majority that is built into an electoral system designed and operated to perpetuate the position of the richest and most powerful

that's not unique to the uk, over time it leads to more extreme positions, it will never solve the problems

tailwindhome

I wonder what Geoffrey Cox makes of this?

kingstongraham

Did the MPs not understand what they were voting for, so need another vote?

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

Did the MPs not understand what they were voting for, so need another vote?

Well, it was rushed through. Who rushed it?
What could possibly go wrong?

shortfall

sungod said:

spatt77 said:

rick_chasey said:

spatt77 said:

surrey_commuter said:

I am amazed at the level of amazement at the position we now find ourselves.

There is only one driving force for Brexit and that is a dislike of foreigners whether that be them coming here or ruling us. The purer the Brexit the less foreigners come here and the less say they have over us.

Now with the above in mind ask yourself how much they care about breaking an intl. treaty? It is a treaty with foreigners and the only downside is being judged by foreigners.

I really am sick and tired of the portrayal of Brexiteers as racist/xenophobic, I've spent a good proportion of my life living in Europe, some of my best friends are not British. Your perception of leavers is your perception alone, it would be the equivalent for me to say all Remainers ( and some of my best friends are) are unpatriotic, lily livered and money orientated, which would be equally silly and not true. I think we really need to get away from this personal characterization of "if you didnt vote the same way as me then you are this"

If it’s not about foreigners either coming to the U.K. to live or having some say over U.K. governance then what is it about?

Amazing

This is not a merry go round i wish to get on for the umpteenth time! But the sooner you accept you lost and stop whinging about it the better it will be all round. Lets just see how it all pans out and then we can start with the "I told you so" !

ah, "lost", with that you show your true colours

fact: most uk citizens did not vote leave, yet they'll get their rights stripped all the same

fact: most people who voted at the last general election voted for parties advocating ref2/remain, yet the party with fewer votes got a huge majority in parliament and now acts against the 'will of the people'

leave/remain isn't the issue, neither outcome will solve the uk's problems

the uk's divisions and inequalities were born in and are perpetuated by the decades-long disenfranchisement of the majority that is built into an electoral system designed and operated to perpetuate the position of the richest and most powerful

that's not unique to the uk, over time it leads to more extreme positions, it will never solve the problems

If you're going down that road you better tell us how many citizens voted for the Heath government that first took us into the common market and then how many voted to remain in it when the Wilson government held the referendum on the EEC or whatever it was called back in the 70s.

spatt77

surrey_commuter said:

spatt77 said:

surrey_commuter said:

I am amazed at the level of amazement at the position we now find ourselves.

There is only one driving force for Brexit and that is a dislike of foreigners whether that be them coming here or ruling us. The purer the Brexit the less foreigners come here and the less say they have over us.

Now with the above in mind ask yourself how much they care about breaking an intl. treaty? It is a treaty with foreigners and the only downside is being judged by foreigners.

I really am sick and tired of the portrayal of Brexiteers as racist/xenophobic, I've spent a good proportion of my life living in Europe, some of my best friends are not British. Your perception of leavers is your perception alone, it would be the equivalent for me to say all Remainers ( and some of my best friends are) are unpatriotic, lily livered and money orientated, which would be equally silly and not true. I think we really need to get away from this personal characterization of "if you didnt vote the same way as me then you are this"

Why introduce racism, and I said “the driving force”

It was not even meant to be argumentative, it was an attempt to set the scene so that you can understand and anticipate where we are heading.

It was debating with the likes of yourself that I came to realise that economics really does not matter and that it is all about sovereignty. So whilst Rick is incandescent about the Govt’s behaviour this week I am far more philosophical as I do not believe we are willing to trade any sovereignty for economic gain and that we will walk away, probably tearing up the WA as we go. I also believe we will leave the ECHR and various other intl. organisations.

Bizarrely our hopes rest with Trump/Republicans taking a thrashing which will shorten the timeframe that it will take for the Tories to eject the cuckoo from their nest.

Finally, we agree on something! i think the WA may be ripped up apart from the part on EU citizens right in this country, which i have no problem with, and if the government were wise they`d put security/money back on the table.

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

It seems the realisation that this is far from being a 'black and white' issue and not simply the UK being wrong and/or the nasty Torwies being well, nasty has triggered quite a response

Idiot.

Sorry if the realisation isn't something to your taste, but there you go.

A bit of friendly advice for you - if insults are all you can manage, step away from the keyboard for a bit.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

Tony Blair taking a strong line on international law is probably one for the irony thread.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Regardless of how we came into this situation, the issue still remains that there will be on-going EU influence over UK affairs and It needs to 've solved.

The WA was passed in parallel with a promise from the EU to conclude a swift and comprehensive free trade accord: “It is the clear intent of both parties to develop in good faith agreements giving effect to this relationship… such that they can come into force by the end of 2020”. The EU is refusing to reconsider, even though they themselves are clearly acting in bad faith after offering a Canada style deal and then withdrawing it on the basis the we are somehow now 'too close'.

The WA also contains the following clause: “If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.” The EU threat to carve up the UK down the Irish Sea clearly fits that bill in my view, so we have every right to take action.

Too late. It's not a threat by someone else to carve up the UK. It's something we have already willingly committed to doing.

The clause I referred to in the WA allows us to take action now that the implications have become apparent.

Sorting out a FTA would avoid this, but the EU withdrawal of the Canada option shows that they are negotiating in bad faith, as mentioned above.

The implications haven't 'now become apparent' they were negotiated, understood and agreed to. If you read that Tony Conelly article, you'll see it was there from the start. Nothing has changed.

An FTA at the moment is a laughable idea.

Notwithstanding that, the clause allowing us to take action is valid.

If the EU want a FTA not to be a laughable idea, they should put a Canada type deal back on the table, as we are no further away from them than when it was on the table. We might also then be able to think that the EU negotiating in good faith is not laughable.

I think they're over it. Who would offer any kind of deal to someone who advertises that they won't stick to it. Your idea only works if there were new measures brought in by the EU and there are none. This is all as per the agreement.

As I've said before, the EU are no angels when it comes to selectively ignoring international law. From an article today to give some examples:

"The EU has systematically refused to comply with the judgments of the World Trade Organisation, flouting rulings on GMO crops, hormone beef, and Airbus subsidies, as if the matter were optional. It has repudiated the doctrine of legal supremacy and “direct effect”, the very doctrine that the EU now asserts in the Withdrawal Agreement.

It has eroded direct effect in a series of cases, culminating in Portugal v Council where the European Court ruled that the EU has no obligation to follow WTO law if it narrows the European Commission’s scope for manoeuvre. How delicious.

The ECJ ruled in the Kadi-Barakaat case that the EU should disregard the UN Charter, the highest text of international law, if the Charter is at odds with the EU’s internal constitutional order.

This is not to say that the EU is the most egregious scoff-law of the Western world but rather that it picks and chooses when it will be bound by international law like everybody else. It will not sacrifice core interests, and it is surely the UK’s core interests that are at stake right now as the Internal Market Bill heads for a its second reading. "

So we're not going to take any lectures from EU hypocrites. Or pro-EU hypocrites for that matter.

Let's also consider the point of the EU changing the goalposts: again from an article today as this sums it up quite well:

"The Northern Ireland Protocol was agreed on the assumption that Brussels would agree to an off-the-shelf ‘Canada-Japan-Korea’ trade deal with no bells and whistles – as Mr Barnier himself had offered – and therefore that there would be no more than a light-touch trade border between Britain and Ulster. On that basis the Unionists said they could live with it.

The EU has since moved the goalposts. The prospect of a no-deal rupture and intra-UK trade tariffs has constitutional implications for Northern Ireland, creating a much harder trade border in Irish Sea than the Unionists supposed. It therefore intrudes ineluctably on the Good Friday peace accord.

It is too glib by half to say that Boris Johnson signed up to the Agreement and therefore that it is his own fault.

It is equally glib to dismiss the invocation of the Good Friday accord as a canard. It takes some chutzpah to claim that a hard (electronic) tariff border on the island of Ireland is a grave threat to peace, but that a near identical tariff border down the Irish Sea is of no significance even though it severs constituent parts of the UK and covers ten times as much trade.

The Good Friday accord is also an international treaty. The Withdrawal Agreement cannot override it and impose a new constitutional regime on the Unionists without their consent. The UK internal market bill is therefore a necessary safeguard. It is to be activated only in the case of emergency, should the EU act on the Barnier threats and further weaponise the Protocol."

Maybe when TWH has calmed down enough to stop posting insults, then he can comment on that one?

Stevo_666

coopster_the_1st said:

Stevo_666 said:

It seems the realisation that this is far from being a 'black and white' issue and not simply the UK being wrong and/or the nasty Torwies being well, nasty has triggered quite a response

You can tell this is a positive and beneficial approach for the UK in the negotiations because those who are pro-EU are stamping their feet and wailing. That Major and Blair are against it shows this is a good think for Brexit.

The only way to improve this is if it comes out that this is Dominic Cummings idea. That will really send them over the edge

That would make me smile, although it didn't even need that for some people to start chucking abuse. It's clearly hit a raw nerve in here.

kingstongraham

So was it a mistake to sign it knowing what the EU are like? This feels like gaslighting to pretend it was all unforeseeable.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

It seems the realisation that this is far from being a 'black and white' issue and not simply the UK being wrong and/or the nasty Torwies being well, nasty has triggered quite a response

Curious then that the government admitted it would break the law. I'm not sure how that admission can be taken as anything other than black and white.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as I have pointed out above with the past form of the EU for ignoring international law when it suits them.

Also as pointed out above, what the EU are now trying to impose seems to be breaking other areas of national law. So hard to see how that is valid? (And another example of EU hypocrisy).

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

Let's also consider the point of the EU changing the goalposts: again from an article today as this sums it up quite well:

"The Northern Ireland Protocol was agreed on the assumption that Brussels would agree to an off-the-shelf ‘Canada-Japan-Korea’ trade deal with no bells and whistles – as Mr Barnier himself had offered – and therefore that there would be no more than a light-touch trade border between Britain and Ulster. On that basis the Unionists said they could live with it.

The EU has since moved the goalposts. The prospect of a no-deal rupture and intra-UK trade tariffs has constitutional implications for Northern Ireland, creating a much harder trade border in Irish Sea than the Unionists supposed. It therefore intrudes ineluctably on the Good Friday peace accord.

It is too glib by half to say that Boris Johnson signed up to the Agreement and therefore that it is his own fault.

It is equally glib to dismiss the invocation of the Good Friday accord as a canard. It takes some chutzpah to claim that a hard (electronic) tariff border on the island of Ireland is a grave threat to peace, but that a near identical tariff border down the Irish Sea is of no significance even though it severs constituent parts of the UK and covers ten times as much trade.

The Good Friday accord is also an international treaty. The Withdrawal Agreement cannot override it and impose a new constitutional regime on the Unionists without their consent. The UK internal market bill is therefore a necessary safeguard. It is to be activated only in the case of emergency, should the EU act on the Barnier threats and further weaponise the Protocol."

Maybe when TWH has calmed down enough to stop posting insults, then he can comment on that one?

It's bollocks

Stevo_666

bompington said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Stevo_666 said:

It seems the realisation that this is far from being a 'black and white' issue and not simply the UK being wrong and/or the nasty Torwies being well, nasty has triggered quite a response

You can tell this is a positive and beneficial approach for the UK in the negotiations because those who are pro-EU are stamping their feet and wailing. That Major and Blair are against it shows this is a good think for Brexit.

The only way to improve this is if it comes out that this is Dominic Cummings idea. That will really send them over the edge

Proof, as if any were needed, that it's nothing to do with what's good for the country, and all about owning the libs

What's the point, they are already owned?

kingstongraham

"The Northern Ireland Protocol was agreed on the assumption that Brussels would agree to an off-the-shelf ‘Canada-Japan-Korea’ trade deal with no bells and whistles – as Mr Barnier himself had offered –" is that true?

"The EU has since moved the goalposts. The prospect of a no-deal rupture and intra-UK trade tariffs has constitutional implications for Northern Ireland, creating a much harder trade border in Irish Sea than the Unionists supposed. " This is not right - it was always there, Johnson just assured everyone it wouldn't happen

"It takes some chutzpah to claim that a hard (electronic) tariff border on the island of Ireland is a grave threat to peace, but that a near identical tariff border down the Irish Sea is of no significance even though it severs constituent parts of the UK and covers ten times as much trade." Noone is saying this, are they?

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

Let's also consider the point of the EU changing the goalposts: again from an article today as this sums it up quite well:

"The Northern Ireland Protocol was agreed on the assumption that Brussels would agree to an off-the-shelf ‘Canada-Japan-Korea’ trade deal with no bells and whistles – as Mr Barnier himself had offered – and therefore that there would be no more than a light-touch trade border between Britain and Ulster. On that basis the Unionists said they could live with it.

The EU has since moved the goalposts. The prospect of a no-deal rupture and intra-UK trade tariffs has constitutional implications for Northern Ireland, creating a much harder trade border in Irish Sea than the Unionists supposed. It therefore intrudes ineluctably on the Good Friday peace accord.

It is too glib by half to say that Boris Johnson signed up to the Agreement and therefore that it is his own fault.

It is equally glib to dismiss the invocation of the Good Friday accord as a canard. It takes some chutzpah to claim that a hard (electronic) tariff border on the island of Ireland is a grave threat to peace, but that a near identical tariff border down the Irish Sea is of no significance even though it severs constituent parts of the UK and covers ten times as much trade.

The Good Friday accord is also an international treaty. The Withdrawal Agreement cannot override it and impose a new constitutional regime on the Unionists without their consent. The UK internal market bill is therefore a necessary safeguard. It is to be activated only in the case of emergency, should the EU act on the Barnier threats and further weaponise the Protocol."

Maybe when TWH has calmed down enough to stop posting insults, then he can comment on that one?

It's bollocks

Thanks for your well reasoned argument, that's really made me reconsider my position

Are you having a bad day?

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

Let's also consider the point of the EU changing the goalposts: again from an article today as this sums it up quite well:

"The Northern Ireland Protocol was agreed on the assumption that Brussels would agree to an off-the-shelf ‘Canada-Japan-Korea’ trade deal with no bells and whistles – as Mr Barnier himself had offered – and therefore that there would be no more than a light-touch trade border between Britain and Ulster. On that basis the Unionists said they could live with it.

The EU has since moved the goalposts. The prospect of a no-deal rupture and intra-UK trade tariffs has constitutional implications for Northern Ireland, creating a much harder trade border in Irish Sea than the Unionists supposed. It therefore intrudes ineluctably on the Good Friday peace accord.

It is too glib by half to say that Boris Johnson signed up to the Agreement and therefore that it is his own fault.

It is equally glib to dismiss the invocation of the Good Friday accord as a canard. It takes some chutzpah to claim that a hard (electronic) tariff border on the island of Ireland is a grave threat to peace, but that a near identical tariff border down the Irish Sea is of no significance even though it severs constituent parts of the UK and covers ten times as much trade.

The Good Friday accord is also an international treaty. The Withdrawal Agreement cannot override it and impose a new constitutional regime on the Unionists without their consent. The UK internal market bill is therefore a necessary safeguard. It is to be activated only in the case of emergency, should the EU act on the Barnier threats and further weaponise the Protocol."

Maybe when TWH has calmed down enough to stop posting insults, then he can comment on that one?

It's bollocks

Thanks for your well reasoned argument, that's really made me reconsider my position

Are you having a bad day?

You don't have a position, you've a team.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

"The Northern Ireland Protocol was agreed on the assumption that Brussels would agree to an off-the-shelf ‘Canada-Japan-Korea’ trade deal with no bells and whistles – as Mr Barnier himself had offered –" is that true?

"The EU has since moved the goalposts. The prospect of a no-deal rupture and intra-UK trade tariffs has constitutional implications for Northern Ireland, creating a much harder trade border in Irish Sea than the Unionists supposed. " This is not right - it was always there, Johnson just assured everyone it wouldn't happen

"It takes some chutzpah to claim that a hard (electronic) tariff border on the island of Ireland is a grave threat to peace, but that a near identical tariff border down the Irish Sea is of no significance even though it severs constituent parts of the UK and covers ten times as much trade." Noone is saying this, are they?

Depends who you believe.

Although I'm not sure who this Noone bloke is?