BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…17461747174917511752…2110

Comments

  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,697
    A little of column A, a lot of column Brexit
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,697
    Frost as delusional (best case) as ever...

    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,916
    Government paper on NI

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1004581/CCS207_CCS0721914902-001_Northern_Ireland_Protocol_PRINT__1___2_.pdf
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,916
    With regard to the rights to trigger Article 16. It's hard to deny the bolded element below.


    321
    ARTICLE 16

    Safeguards

    1. 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. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protoco
    l.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    With regard to the rights to trigger Article 16. It's hard to deny the bolded element below.


    321

    ARTICLE 16

    Safeguards

    1. 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. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protoco
    l.
    I am really struggling with the idea of your primary goal being a diversion of trade and then to apply a safeguard to prevent it.

    Such a shame that they can not stand on their hind legs and loudly tell the residents of NI that they (and they alone) have access to the sunlit uplands where they can ride unicorns whilst eating cake
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,916
    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    With regard to the rights to trigger Article 16. It's hard to deny the bolded element below.


    321

    ARTICLE 16

    Safeguards

    1. 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. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protoco
    l.
    I am really struggling with the idea of your primary goal being a diversion of trade and then to apply a safeguard to prevent it.

    It does appear that one part of it says that fresh sausages can't be traded and another part says it shouldn't affect trade. The problem is when both sides focus too heavily on the bits they like without considering the contradictory other bit.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    I know it's maddening that everyone foresaw this and then both sides went ahead anyway denying that it was going to happen, but that doesn't help make it workable. A "look the other way unless it is definitely going wrong" policy seems to be the only one that's likely to fly. The thing is that brexit means they need to formalise that policy.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    With regard to the rights to trigger Article 16. It's hard to deny the bolded element below.


    321

    ARTICLE 16

    Safeguards

    1. 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. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protoco
    l.
    I am really struggling with the idea of your primary goal being a diversion of trade and then to apply a safeguard to prevent it.

    It does appear that one part of it says that fresh sausages can't be traded and another part says it shouldn't affect trade. The problem is when both sides focus too heavily on the bits they like without considering the contradictory other bit.
    presumably Sainsbury's have rejigged their supplychain and now buy sausages from the south.

    As a way of minimising reunification disruption it is rather clever
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,916
    kingstongraham said:

    I know it's maddening that everyone foresaw this and then both sides went ahead anyway denying that it was going to happen, but that doesn't help make it workable. A "look the other way unless it is definitely going wrong" policy seems to be the only one that's likely to fly. The thing is that brexit means they need to formalise that policy.

    The reason why I was the only person alive who thought it was a decent idea is that they need to agree something that will be accepted democratically in four years time. So ideally without all the political rhetoric some compromises could have been made.

    The issue is that any concession e.g. sausages needs to be agreed by all the EU27 and the commission rather than simply the joint committee, and after years of sparring and a need to prove Brexit is a disaster, there is no desire to do that.

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,916
    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    With regard to the rights to trigger Article 16. It's hard to deny the bolded element below.


    321

    ARTICLE 16

    Safeguards

    1. 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. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protoco
    l.
    I am really struggling with the idea of your primary goal being a diversion of trade and then to apply a safeguard to prevent it.

    It does appear that one part of it says that fresh sausages can't be traded and another part says it shouldn't affect trade. The problem is when both sides focus too heavily on the bits they like without considering the contradictory other bit.
    presumably Sainsbury's have rejigged their supplychain and now buy sausages from the south.

    As a way of minimising reunification disruption it is rather clever
    Yes, they will do, but other suppliers won't bother. That can legitimately be described as a long term diversion of trade.

  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    In four years the EU you are gambling that Northern Ireland will side with them. It is entirely possible that won't be the case and NI decide to sack it off.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    With regard to the rights to trigger Article 16. It's hard to deny the bolded element below.


    321

    ARTICLE 16

    Safeguards

    1. 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. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protoco
    l.
    I am really struggling with the idea of your primary goal being a diversion of trade and then to apply a safeguard to prevent it.

    It does appear that one part of it says that fresh sausages can't be traded and another part says it shouldn't affect trade. The problem is when both sides focus too heavily on the bits they like without considering the contradictory other bit.
    presumably Sainsbury's have rejigged their supplychain and now buy sausages from the south.

    As a way of minimising reunification disruption it is rather clever
    Yes, they will do, but other suppliers won't bother. That can legitimately be described as a long term diversion of trade.

    It would be interesting to see figures to see how much the NI economy has pivoted away from GB
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,916
    It's also supposed to be a protocol that evolves, so change should be expected.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    john80 said:

    In four years the EU you are gambling that Northern Ireland will side with them. It is entirely possible that won't be the case and NI decide to sack it off.

    And then?
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    It's also supposed to be a protocol that evolves, so change should be expected.

    A future PM may have other ideas but my guess is that the current one does not care about the future of NI so I see all the Frosty stuff as window dressing
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    kingstongraham said:

    john80 said:

    In four years the EU you are gambling that Northern Ireland will side with them. It is entirely possible that won't be the case and NI decide to sack it off.

    And then?
    My prediction is that NI will leave the EUs single market and then the UK will control goods through business and let the EU impose a hard border and take the flack for it. Let's call it the long game. It could go the other way and it reunified Ireland but I am not so convinced as let's face it the EU managed through decades to annoy a population so much they voted to leave.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,605
    Are the demographics of NI not tending towards being more in favour of a unified Ireland anyway?

    Last time they were asked 55% of NI wanted to stay in the EU.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,916
    EU reaction is in. The UK must have known it would distort trade, because sausage ban etc. Completely ignoring the words they agreed in article 16.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,697
    Reaction from Experts in trade ranges from staggered theUK is so useless to comical...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,916
    Raoul Ruparel has a fairly balanced take on Twitter.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,556
    TheBigBean said:

    Raoul Ruparel has a fairly balanced take on Twitter.

    He is usually very good. Admitting that you didn't get it right the first time would be fine if it hadn't been accompanied by pretending they had no idea these problems would arise or that it is all the previous government's fault.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    This Government is fucking exhausting
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    john80 said:

    In four years the EU you are gambling that Northern Ireland will side with them. It is entirely possible that won't be the case and NI decide to sack it off.

    Demographics mean there is a very low probability of Unionist MLAs regaining a majority.

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,916
    edited July 2021
    tailwindhome said:

    john80 said:

    In four years the EU you are gambling that Northern Ireland will side with them. It is entirely possible that won't be the case and NI decide to sack it off.

    Demographics mean there is a very low probability of Unionist MLAs regaining a majority.

    They can still collapse the assembly though can't they? And I think the UK government said at the time the WA agreement was agreed, they would then consider a referendum.

    Ultimately, the aim should be something that is accepted by the majority.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    TheBigBean said:

    tailwindhome said:

    john80 said:

    In four years the EU you are gambling that Northern Ireland will side with them. It is entirely possible that won't be the case and NI decide to sack it off.

    Demographics mean there is a very low probability of Unionist MLAs regaining a majority.

    They can still collapse the assembly though can't they? And I think the UK government said at the time the WA agreement was agreed, they would then consider a referendum.

    Ultimately, the aim should be something that is accepted by the majority.
    surely something as major as toodling off to join another country should require a super majority?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,329
    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    tailwindhome said:

    john80 said:

    In four years the EU you are gambling that Northern Ireland will side with them. It is entirely possible that won't be the case and NI decide to sack it off.

    Demographics mean there is a very low probability of Unionist MLAs regaining a majority.

    They can still collapse the assembly though can't they? And I think the UK government said at the time the WA agreement was agreed, they would then consider a referendum.

    Ultimately, the aim should be something that is accepted by the majority.
    surely something as major as toodling off to join another country should require a super majority?
    I'd agree, but the principle was set at 51% in 2016.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    edited July 2021
    pblakeney said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    tailwindhome said:

    john80 said:

    In four years the EU you are gambling that Northern Ireland will side with them. It is entirely possible that won't be the case and NI decide to sack it off.

    Demographics mean there is a very low probability of Unionist MLAs regaining a majority.

    They can still collapse the assembly though can't they? And I think the UK government said at the time the WA agreement was agreed, they would then consider a referendum.

    Ultimately, the aim should be something that is accepted by the majority.
    surely something as major as toodling off to join another country should require a super majority?
    I'd agree, but the principle was set at 51% in 2016.
    2014 surely?
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,329
    kingstongraham said:

    pblakeney said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    TheBigBean said:

    tailwindhome said:

    john80 said:

    In four years the EU you are gambling that Northern Ireland will side with them. It is entirely possible that won't be the case and NI decide to sack it off.

    Demographics mean there is a very low probability of Unionist MLAs regaining a majority.

    They can still collapse the assembly though can't they? And I think the UK government said at the time the WA agreement was agreed, they would then consider a referendum.

    Ultimately, the aim should be something that is accepted by the majority.
    surely something as major as toodling off to join another country should require a super majority?
    I'd agree, but the principle was set at 51% in 2016.
    2014 surely?
    That one too now you mention it.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,916
    50%+1 was set in the BA/GFA.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    edited July 2021
    TheBigBean said:



    Ultimately, the aim should be something that is accepted by the majority.

    The only thing that has shown anything like achieving a majority is the UK having a closer relationship to Europe and thereby removing the trade barriers. This also has the support of 4 of the 5 parties (and occasionally the DUP)

    On the Protocol is split (IIRC) 48% to 46% against.

    56% voted Remain

    57% want their 'MLA to vote to remain in the Single Market'
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!

Categories