Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Seth Brundle

Thankfully MEPs are starting to publicly make a stand against the UK. Will the threat of this be enough for Johnson to end this antagonism?

https://twitter.com/berndlange/status/1367438682337255427

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Again, there is already a separate thread on Brexits impact on Northern Ireland:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058151723&page=27

Issues as to the UK complying with the WA and Trade Deal go here, issues with threats of violence in Northern Ireland or other issues related to Northern Ireland go there.

While there will often be an overlap, just ask yourself this before posting "is my post more about Brexit, or more about Northern Ireland"

J Mysterio

NI is fundamental to Brexit?!?

Hurrache

The threat of the return to violence by loyalist paras is also a direct result of Brexit and the associated protocols.

Seth Brundle

J Mysterio wrote: »

NI is fundamental to Brexit?!?

Mod note: whilst there may be an overlap, in terms of Loyalist troublemaking and where they may threaten to attack, let's keep that in the NI thread.

Winters

Cant help but think this is all a media distraction from the budget announced yesterday by Sunak. The Brits reacting rather than having a long term plan.

Enzokk

First steps taken by the EU,

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1367461284577497091?s=20

So what happens if no side backs down? Just no-FTA-deal then I suppose with only the WA to fall back on, which is what we are having the ruckus about. Fun times indeed.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

So what happens if no side backs down? Just no-FTA-deal then I suppose with only the WA to fall back on, which is what we are having the ruckus about. Fun times indeed.

No FTA deal and WTO terms (end April if you believe the Tory government deadline but they have come and passed so many times now anyway I don't think anyone has an actual firm date) while EU raises a case as per the arbitration clause in the WA.

HalfAndHalf

This issue I have with all this is how we’re looking in all of it.

1. EU make the unilateral decision to trigger Article 16 with no consultation of U.K. or Ireland threatening the GFA and a border on the island.

2. U.K. make the unilateral decision to extend the U.K./NI trade transition period with no consultation of the EU or Ireland.

What the hell is government doing behind the scenes about all of these unilateral decisions about OUR LAND!!!

Nody

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

This issue I have with all this is how we’re looking in all of it.

1. EU make the unilateral decision to trigger Article 16 with no consultation of U.K. or Ireland threatening the GFA and a border on the island.

2. U.K. make the unilateral decision to extend the U.K./NI trade transition period with no consultation of the EU or Ireland.

What the hell is government doing behind the scenes about all of these unilateral decisions about OUR LAND!!!

And once again and for the gazillion time 1 is 110% wrong. EU CONSIDERED activating article 16; it was never activated. For EU to activate article 16 they would need an full agreement to do it as it's not a yolo thing a EU president can do and hence such an activation would by it's very nature require Ireland's consent and agreement.

An Ciarraioch

Well, on 1, they rang Brussels pretty much as soon as they heard of the idea, and on 2, they were similarly quick about denouncing the proposal, so in both circumstances, they reacted almost instantaneously.

yagan

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

This issue I have with all this is how we’re looking in all of it.

1. EU make the unilateral decision to trigger Article 16 with no consultation of U.K. or Ireland threatening the GFA and a border on the island.

2. U.K. make the unilateral decision to extend the U.K./NI trade transition period with no consultation of the EU or Ireland.

What the hell is government doing behind the scenes about all of these unilateral decisions about OUR LAND!!!

1. A16 was tabled but not used, other single market methods that govern restrictions on specific goods like cross border tobacco and alcohol sales was applied upon Astra Zeneca to comply with.

2. Unless the UK is leaving the UN security council the Belfast Agreement/GFA is still legally binding so it have to honour the WA or face counter restrictions on trade with us in the EU.

J Mysterio

Simon Coveney comments on UK move to RTE.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1367393168782721029?s=20

I simply can't understand what possible benefit there is to the UK in this.

It's not 'changing the agenda', as the UK media don't seem to give a toss about this. It's can't be to placate the DUP, as they have been routinely ignored and or shafted. So what is the benefit here? What is the goal?

The EU were willing to work with the UK on these matters. Now the UK have put them on the defensive and again(!) damaged trust and relations with Ireland and the EU, while diminishing their international standing. You would have thought the futore surrounding their initial stab at international rule breaking may have straightened them up a little but, no.

So, no shame and no decency here but what is the strategy? Is there a strategy? Or is this simple arrogance and contempt for the EU and Ireland?

As pointed out earlier, the EU can really put them in a bad place over this, and the US administration have repeatedly warned the UK also. It's completely feckless?

Also, the DUP are just competely braindead. The protocol could be a boon to NI - 'best of both worlds' - but they insist on agitating. Them actually holding talks with paramilitaries on this really takes the biscuit and ups the ante, risking the peace. Is that their strategy?!?

Seems to me that if NI works within the protocol, it makes a UI less likely. If the UK/ DUP botch this, surely a UI is infinitely more likely.

yagan

J Mysterio wrote: »

Or is this simple arrogance and contempt for the EU and Ireland?

Also, the DUP are just competely braindead. The protocol could be a boon to NI - 'best of both worlds' - but they insist on agitating. Them actually holding talks with paramilitaries on this really takes the biscuit and ups the ante, risking the peace. Is that their strategy?!?

Seems to me that if NI works within the protocol, it makes a UI less likely. If the UK/ DUP botch this, surely a UI is infinitely more likely.

On your first point I think it was just an English imperial arrogance at the centre of Brexit. "they need us more than we need them" has been the standard attitude towards the EU and all nations that they want trade deals with. It's literally cakism.

On your second point at least all pretence that political unionism and violent paramilitarism are anti democracy has been confirmed.

And yes, they're obstreperous obstructionism against their own government and their total rejection of the peace process does sideline their cause entirely, both within Northern Ireland, the UK, the EU and the UN.

Geuze

J Mysterio wrote: »

Also, the DUP are just competely braindead. The protocol could be a boon to NI - 'best of both worlds' - but they insist on agitating. Them actually holding talks with paramilitaries on this really takes the biscuit and ups the ante, risking the peace. Is that their strategy?!?

Seems to me that if NI works within the protocol, it makes a UI less likely. If the UK/ DUP botch this, surely a UI is infinitely more likely.

I have not kept up to date, and I'm curious, have any Depts / Agencies in NI started to promote NI to businesses on this basis?

"Invest in NI - the best of both worlds - in the UK, and in the EU SM"

J Mysterio

Geuze wrote: »

I have not kept up to date, and I'm curious, have any Depts / Agencies in NI started to promote NI to businesses on this basis?

"Invest in NI - the best of both worlds - in the UK, and in the EU SM"

I presume not given the DUP have been actively disparaging the arrangement and have halted the neccesary infrastructure projects etc. (thus hindering implementation of the protocol).

There doesn't seem to be any vision for the opportunities this opens for NI. Just no, no, no.

Strazdas

J Mysterio wrote: »

Simon Coveney comments on UK move to RTE.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1367393168782721029?s=20

I simply can't understand what possible benefit there is to the UK in this.

It's not 'changing the agenda', as the UK media don't seem to give a toss about this. It's can't be to placate the DUP, as they have been routinely ignored and or shafted. So what is the benefit here? What is the goal?

The EU were willing to work with the UK on these matters. Now the UK have put them on the defensive and again(!) damaged trust and relations with Ireland and the EU, while diminishing their international standing. You would have thought the futore surrounding their initial stab at international rule breaking may have straightened them up a little but, no.

So, no shame and no decency here but what is the strategy? Is there a strategy? Or is this simple arrogance and contempt for the EU and Ireland?

As pointed out earlier, the EU can really put them in a bad place over this, and the US administration have repeatedly warned the UK also. It's completely feckless?

Also, the DUP are just competely braindead. The protocol could be a boon to NI - 'best of both worlds' - but they insist on agitating. Them actually holding talks with paramilitaries on this really takes the biscuit and ups the ante, risking the peace. Is that their strategy?!?

Seems to me that if NI works within the protocol, it makes a UI less likely. If the UK/ DUP botch this, surely a UI is infinitely more likely.

That writer I mentioned in the Guardian suggested the UK doesn't actually want a good relationship with the EU and may think a permanent state of friction and tension with them is a good thing (as a way of keeping the xenophobic Tory base happy and onside).

HalfAndHalf

Seems from the replies to my post that the point is being completely missed.

My point is, at no point in either of these two scenarios inside 3 months of Brexit have WE been considered when decisions about OUR LAND been made!

I don’t care about silly comments like the EU didn’t do the thing they did and the U.K. did it because they’re nasty and evil!

What I care about is at no point in either situation we’re we even consulted about something that directly impacts ourselves!

Hurrache

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Seems from the replies to my post that the point is being completely missed.

My point is, at no point in either of these two scenarios inside 3 months of Brexit have WE been considered when decisions about OUR LAND been made!

I don’t care about silly comments like the EU didn’t do the thing they did and the U.K. did it because they’re nasty and evil!

What I care about is at no point in either situation we’re we even consulted about something that directly impacts ourselves!

Without our consultations we'd had had a Brexit agreement a long ago. The NI protocol is a direct result of our consultation.

fly_agaric

Geuze wrote: »

I have not kept up to date, and I'm curious, have any Depts / Agencies in NI started to promote NI to businesses on this basis?

"Invest in NI - the best of both worlds - in the UK, and in the EU SM"

It may have been here or somewhere else online I saw this Invest NI webpage being mentioned which might qualify, in fact it seems to be taking that line:

https://www.investni.com/media-centre/features/northern-ireland-market-access-great-britain-and-european-union

Northern Ireland: Market Access to Great Britain and the European Union

This dual market access position means that Northern Ireland can become a gateway for the sale of goods to two of the world’s largest markets and the only place where businesses can operate free from customs declarations, rules of origin certificates and non-tariff barriers on the sale of goods to both GB and the EU.

edit: Maybe the DUP should get it taken down!

J Mysterio

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Seems from the replies to my post that the point is being completely missed.

My point is, at no point in either of these two scenarios inside 3 months of Brexit have WE been considered when decisions about OUR LAND been made!

I don’t care about silly comments like the EU didn’t do the thing they did and the U.K. did it because they’re nasty and evil!

What I care about is at no point in either situation we’re we even consulted about something that directly impacts ourselves!

Thats complete rubbish I'm afraid.

Long story short, the EU went to great lengths to find a solution for NI that could work for us and the island as a whole, offering NI unique advantages.

The border is in the Irish sea, not between Ireland North and South.

Irish opinion has always been central in the EU approach to Brexit.

Mr.Nice Guy

J Mysterio wrote: »

Simon Coveney comments on UK move to RTE.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1367393168782721029?s=20

I simply can't understand what possible benefit there is to the UK in this.

It's not 'changing the agenda', as the UK media don't seem to give a toss about this. It's can't be to placate the DUP, as they have been routinely ignored and or shafted. So what is the benefit here? What is the goal?

The EU were willing to work with the UK on these matters. Now the UK have put them on the defensive and again(!) damaged trust and relations with Ireland and the EU, while diminishing their international standing. You would have thought the futore surrounding their initial stab at international rule breaking may have straightened them up a little but, no.

So, no shame and no decency here but what is the strategy? Is there a strategy? Or is this simple arrogance and contempt for the EU and Ireland?

I read a good Twitter thread earlier by Michael Dougan, Professor of European Law at Liverpool University. This was his take:

1) Most generous explanation for HMG’s actions? Tories are now more worried about potential for DUP & paramilitary allies to plunge NI into serious disorder, than about immediate legal and diplomatic consequences of UK’s international lawbreaking.

2) But more likely explanation (since it fits into clear & established pattern)? Johnson only ever signed Protocol to “get Brexit done” with no real grasp of its implications / sincere intention of implementing it in good faith, so HMG simply places little value on own compliance.

3) Combined with (in general) the ideologue’s belief in untrammelled state sovereignty, where rules are optional and obligations exist only for others; and (in particular) the Europhobe’s contempt for the EU, its very existence being a source for spite and antagonism.

4) But UK conduct is unsustainable. We know: Protocol is result of choices made by Johnson & approved by Parliament; there is no credible alternative; it requires trust & cooperation to work; such trust requires honesty, not least about price NI must pay for Johnson’s Hard Brexit.

5) Yet Johnson continues to cover tracks & mislead public: “The position of Northern Ireland within the UK internal market is rock solid and guaranteed”. It isn’t. The UK state decided (& it was a choice) that one cost of Hard Brexit = NI’s legal and economic segregation from GB.

6) So long as Johnson refuses to be open and honest, certain NI unionists might believe there’s still a “better solution” - if only they can pile on enough pressure. There isn’t. NI unionists need to understand and accept a brute fact, however unpleasant it may be:

7) That English nationalists pursued Brexit regardless of cost to UK itself. With DUP's active assistance. No point complaining about threats to British identity, because the very meaning of “British identity” has been radically redefined by Tory Government and Parliament.

8) Would be right, eg for EU+US to pile serious pressure on Johnson Regime / make clear & tangible price to be paid by international delinquents. But ultimately NI’s stability depends on NI unionists accepting: Brexit changed everything. Which needs Tories to stop lying about it.

I agree with this analysis, which is why the final point worries me: unionists are never going to accept that they were sold a pup by endorsing Brexit. And it is in the Tory DNA to lash out at Brussels. This is a recipe for continued instability.

HalfAndHalf

J Mysterio wrote: »

Thats complete rubbish I'm afraid.

Long story short, the EU went to great lengths to find a solution for NI that could work for us and the island as a whole, offering NI unique advantages.

The border is in the Irish sea, not between Ireland North and South.

Irish opinion has always been central in the EU approach to Brexit.

It’s complete rubbish that on both occasions neither the EU or the U.K. consulted us before deciding a plan of action.

Ok then!!

Strazdas

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I read a good Twitter thread earlier by Michael Dougan, Professor of European Law at Liverpool University. This was his take:



I agree with this analysis, which is why the final point worries me: unionists are never going to accept that they were sold a pup by endorsing Brexit. And it is in the Tory DNA to lash out at Brussels. This is a recipe for continued instability.

All of Dougan's analysis suggests the Brexit govt being a group of chancers and untrustworthy spoofers, mixed in with total incompetents (tallying with Coveney's analysis of them being people you cannot trust).

FrancieBrady

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

It’s complete rubbish that on both occasions neither the EU or the U.K. consulted us before deciding a plan of action.

Ok then!!

Well, if the 'EU' didn't consult how come they rowed back on the Art 16 threat?

Of course they took our concerns on board and rescinded the idea almost immediately and held their hands up and admitted the mistake.

The UK consulted nobody and have actually gone ahead with their unilateral action.

A world of difference between the two.

HalfAndHalf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, if the 'EU' didn't consult how come they rowed back on the Art 16 threat?

Of course they took our concerns on board and rescinded the idea almost immediately and held their hands up and admitted the mistake.

The UK consulted nobody and have actually gone ahead with their unilateral action.

A world of difference between the two.

The EU publicised it’s plan, that’s how we found out! The decisions had been made before we found out. The two situations are the same.

Let me put it this way. Did either the EU or the U.K. contact us BEFORE deciding on a plan. No!!

fash

Nody wrote: »

And once again and for the gazillion time 1 is 110% wrong. EU CONSIDERED activating article 16; it was never activated. For EU to activate article 16 they would need an full agreement to do it as it's not a yolo thing a EU president can do and hence such an activation would by it's very nature require Ireland's consent and agreement.

Plus Article 16 is literally the mechanism spelled out in the NI Protocol. The UK is back to ignoring the thing altogether. Following the treaty is now grounds for the other party to not follow the treaty?

FrancieBrady

A 'mistake' that has been admitted to was made in the EU. Art 16 wasn't invoked. It will not happen again presumably.

The UK informed and discussed with nobody and has gone ahead...The DUP on it's own bat shut down infrastructure construction.

Nothing similar in the two situations.

fash

J Mysterio wrote: »

Simon Coveney comments on UK move to RTE.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1367393168782721029?s=20

I simply can't understand what possible benefit there is to the UK in this.

1. To gain concessions elsewhere (e.g. financial equivalence);
2. To keep Brexit going as a grievance issue for local politics;
3. To keep the NI protocol open as a grievance issue so that there is no "status quo" of being in the EU when NI gets to vote on the thing.

HalfAndHalf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'mistake' that has been admitted to was made in the EU. Art 16 wasn't invoked. It will not happen again presumably.

The UK informed and discussed with nobody and has gone ahead...The DUP on it's own bat shut down infrastructure construction.

Nothing similar in the two situations.

You’re still ignoring the question, but that’s not surprising seeing as you’ve convinced yourself that it didn’t happen.

Neither the EU nor the U.K. consulted us in either situation. This is a fact! Therefore as per my original point, the same. And also as per my original point, what annoys me the most about both times!