BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

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?

Herman's Hermits.

Might as well be.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

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?

Herman's Hermits.

Might as well be.

It has been reported that the EU have been making threats to try and get their way. I know you don't want to believe that, but care to demonstrate that they haven't?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

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?

Herman's Hermits.

Might as well be.

It has been reported that the EU have been making threats to try and get their way. I know you don't want to believe that, but care to demonstrate that they haven't?

You want me to demonstrate that the EU haven't been making threats?? I would expect the EU to say things that could be interpreted as "threats" if you had a mind to. Did the UK government expect them to not explain the consequences of doing what the EU wants? They're the EU! This isn't the Lib Dems now.

But... What that has to do with the government signing an agreement, making their whole election messaging about that agreement, then deciding it's no good is completely beyond me.

You seem to assume that if I say that there is a difficult and seemingly intractable problem, Boris says that it's all sorted and not to worry about it, then it turns out Boris hasn't actually sorted it at all and he needs to break the law to not solve it in a different way - that is defending the EU against any possible criticism. For clarity - it isn't.

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

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.

So do you.

pangolin

Fascinating how fast the usual suspects have moved from "we got a great deal, well done Boris" to "yeah it was a bad deal, never liked it, wait we did like it but then we found the Trojan horse, no hold on it was always clear the EU would act in bad faith, had to sign it though, good job Boris has the balls to renege on it"

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

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?

Herman's Hermits.

Might as well be.

It has been reported that the EU have been making threats to try and get their way. I know you don't want to believe that, but care to demonstrate that they haven't?

You want me to demonstrate that the EU haven't been making threats?? I would expect the EU to say things that could be interpreted as "threats" if you had a mind to. Did the UK government expect them to not explain the consequences of doing what the EU wants? They're the EU! This isn't the Lib Dems now.

But... What that has to do with the government signing an agreement, making their whole election messaging about that agreement, then deciding it's no good is completely beyond me.

You seem to assume that if I say that there is a difficult and seemingly intractable problem, Boris says that it's all sorted and not to worry about it, then it turns out Boris hasn't actually sorted it at all and he needs to break the law to not solve it in a different way - that is defending the EU against any possible criticism. For clarity - it isn't.

OK, so the reports can't be discounted.

We also have the point made previously about us not taking lectures on sticking to international law from EU hypocrites - or pro EU hypocrites.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

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.

So do you.

No, I'm content that I've a position.

But then, I've been paying attention to what's happening, not just checking the colour of the rosette

Stevo_666 said:

It wasn't apparent to me at the time - probably should have been paying more attention but tbh it wasn't top of my personal priority list. Hey ho.

Stevo_666

pangolin said:

Fascinating how fast the usual suspects have moved from "we got a great deal, well done Boris" to "yeah it was a bad deal, never liked it, wait we did like it but then we found the Trojan horse, no hold on it was always clear the EU would act in bad faith, had to sign it though, good job Boris has the balls to renege on it"

The WA was the precursor to a trade deal.

It would not have been an issue if the EU hadn't moved the goal posts by pulling the Canada option, which was on the table and was the basis for the UK agreeing the WA. As stated above.

Those sneaky Euro types...

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

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.

I'm pretty sure I do have a position, as I set It out above. You have failed to address any of my points and have resorted instead to insults. I wonder why?

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

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.

So do you.

No, I'm content that I've a position.

But then, I've been paying attention to what's happening, not just checking the colour of the rosette

Stevo_666 said:

It wasn't apparent to me at the time - probably should have been paying more attention but tbh it wasn't top of my personal priority list. Hey ho.

You also have a team.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

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.

So do you.

No, I'm content that I've a position.

But then, I've been paying attention to what's happening, not just checking the colour of the rosette

Stevo_666 said:

It wasn't apparent to me at the time - probably should have been paying more attention but tbh it wasn't top of my personal priority list. Hey ho.

You also have a team.

No, I have a preferred outcome.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

pangolin said:

Fascinating how fast the usual suspects have moved from "we got a great deal, well done Boris" to "yeah it was a bad deal, never liked it, wait we did like it but then we found the Trojan horse, no hold on it was always clear the EU would act in bad faith, had to sign it though, good job Boris has the balls to renege on it"

The WA was the precursor to a trade deal.

It would not have been an issue if the EU hadn't moved the goal posts by pulling the Canada option, which was on the table and was the basis for the UK agreeing the WA. As stated above.

Those sneaky Euro types...

Do you have a reliable source that a Canada style deal had been offered that we had accepted and then got pulled.

I thought that until very recently we were still insistent that we would have the same or better access to the SM.

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

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.

I'm pretty sure I do have a position, as I set It out above. You have failed to address any of my points and have resorted instead to insults. I wonder why?

Posting idiotic articles from the Telegraph isn't having a position.

tailwindhome

Go Team!

tailwindhome said:

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

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

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.

So do you.

No, I'm content that I've a position.

But then, I've been paying attention to what's happening, not just checking the colour of the rosette

Stevo_666 said:

It wasn't apparent to me at the time - probably should have been paying more attention but tbh it wasn't top of my personal priority list. Hey ho.

You also have a team.

No, I have a preferred outcome.

I am sure you will disagree, but in my view you bat for the Irish team which heavily influences your preferred outcome / position.

briantrumpet

This fiasco is rapidly turning into one of the Trump episodes where the goalposts keep moving ("I didn't say that", "OK, I said that, but I was only joking", "OK, I wasn't joking, but there's nothing illegal about it", "OK, maybe it illegal, but you really want to investigate Hillary Clinton/Joe Biden/Barack Obama, because when they did it it was far worse", etc.)

We seem to have got to the point where those trying to defend Johnson's incompetence and/or lying and excusing breaking the law have arrived at the Clinton/Biden/Obama defence.

Hint: just because you claim someone else has done it doesn't make one's own incompetence, dissembling, or law-breaking go away.

spatt77

Tusk offered a Canada style deal in October 2018!

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

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:

class="Italic">"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?

That was rather a careless assumption. What was it you said about assumptions?

rjsterry

Well this can't be right, Stevo was sure that there was no ceding of sovereignty in the Japan UK trade deal and yet here I'm reading that the state aid rules in that very treaty are more onerous than those the UK is offering the EU.

https://amp.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a&__twitter_impression=true

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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:

class="Italic">"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?

That was rather a careless assumption. What was it you said about assumptions?

"I assumed something that wasn't in the contract that I signed would be part of the contract..."

rick_chasey

What we can say is the cabinet would do well to read cake stop, as cake stop seems regularly ahead of where the government is...

briantrumpet

That's weird. Stevo's quoting of the Telegraph piece by Ambose Evans Pritchard seems to have suffered a glitch, and didn't include this, which was in the original:

"If it is true that Michel Barnier “explicitly” threatened to obstruct exports and food supplies from Great Britain to Ulster by means of an extreme and malicious interpretation of the Protocol – as the Prime Minister asserts – it is the EU that is playing fast and loose with international law, and arguably crossing a line into geopolitical vandalism.

If it is not true, this country needs a new government immediately. The facts will out."

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

What we can say is the cabinet would do well to read cake stop, as cake stop seems regularly ahead of where the government is...

More frightening that the media is either so useless or compliant

surrey_commuter

spatt77 said:

Tusk offered a Canada style deal in October 2018!

Do you have a source?

I was not aware that it was his to offer and I thought they refused to discuss trade until the WA was agreed. Agreeing this was our biggest mistake.

tailwindhome

The UKs 3 biggest mistakes, aside from the original sin of Brexit, were

-triggering art50 without a plan

-unnecessarily defining Brexit as 'controlling money, laws and borders'

-accepting the principle that there couldn't be any change at the Irish Border

tailwindhome

The 4th error has been consistently setting deadlines thinking the EU are going to be moved by deadlines the UK Gov has imposed on itself.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Well this can't be right, Stevo was sure that there was no ceding of sovereignty in the Japan UK trade deal and yet here I'm reading that the state aid rules in that very treaty are more onerous than those the UK is offering the EU.

https://amp.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a&__twitter_impression=true

Paywalled, can't read it.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Well this can't be right, Stevo was sure that there was no ceding of sovereignty in the Japan UK trade deal and yet here I'm reading that the state aid rules in that very treaty are more onerous than those the UK is offering the EU.

https://amp.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a&__twitter_impression=true

Paywalled, can't read it.

Does this work? https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

That's weird. Stevo's quoting of the Telegraph piece by Ambose Evans Pritchard seems to have suffered a glitch, and didn't include this, which was in the original:

"If it is true that Michel Barnier “explicitly” threatened to obstruct exports and food supplies from Great Britain to Ulster by means of an extreme and malicious interpretation of the Protocol – as the Prime Minister asserts – it is the EU that is playing fast and loose with international law, and arguably crossing a line into geopolitical vandalism.

If it is not true, this country needs a new government immediately. The facts will out."

The EU's rather extreme interpretation of the protocol has also been reported on other website. No smoke without fire Brian. I know you cant believe that the angelic EU would stoop to anything like that to try and get their way...

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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:

class="Italic">"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?

That was rather a careless assumption. What was it you said about assumptions?

I agree, trusting the EU to act in good faith after committing to certain points was rather naive of the UK govt. I mean, look at the people they were dealing with...