Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

HalfAndHalf

54and56 wrote: »

The spoilt child analagy is mine and isn't intended as mindless Brexit bashing. In my opinion it accurately describes how the UK are actually behaving.

I also think option 1 would be great but without genuine trusted engagement by the UK any efforts Ireland would undertake to smooth things over would just be appeasement and the problem with appeasement is that it actually rewards and encourages the party being appeased to undertake more objectionable behaviour not less.

In my view as long as the UK continues to act in bad faith in breach of the GFA, WA and/or TCA their behaviour needs to be called out for what it is (I chose to describe it using a spoilt child analagy) and firmly challenged using all legal and soft power options available to Ireland and the EU/USA (the latter as guarantors of the GFA) until such behaviour stops (might require a new UK government) and they start to earn back the trust they've lost through being good trustworthy and honourable neighbours rather than the delinquent bad actors they currently are.

How exactly does extending transition periods for certain aspects of the NI protocol break the GFA?

Surely if those transitions being extended break the GFA then by their very definition they break it by their existence.

The closest we’ve come to breaking the GFA since Brexit that I’m aware of was the non-event short lived border the EC flirted with with article 16.

Seems to be a lot of one sided/eyed opinions here again.

Leroy42

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Now what is it they say about assumptions again?

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

Its not really an assumption, they have made it pretty clear that they will not accept being rule takers, so they want to make the rules.

HalfAndHalf

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

Its not really an assumption, they have made it pretty clear that they will not accept being rule takers, so they want to make the rules.

You assume that they want to be head of a new global order. That’s a bit much isn’t it. Doesn’t lead to much constructive debate with such emotive led assumptions being stated does it.

Jizique

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Britain is now about to set out their future international strategy, and it does not include the EU.







Seems crazy to concentrate on dealing with countries on the opposite side of the planet!

They really are trying to wave their willy around with this big increase in nuclear weapons as well, such a crowd of wasters

Leroy42

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

You assume that they want to be head of a new global order. That’s a bit much isn’t it. Doesn’t lead to much constructive debate with such emotive led assumptions being stated does it.

They have said, many times, they want to be rule makers not takers. That they are more important than the EU.

Only today they announced a big increase in Nuclear armament.

Brexit is based on assumptions and lack of reasonable debate.

roosterman71

rock22 wrote: »

I might be guilty of reading more into this press briefing than is warranted but I am less than overwhelmed by the support from the WH in US M. Martin has gotten regarding the UK breach of NI protocol.

Listening on RTE this morning and I don't feel that the US, at least the White House, really understand the threat to the GFA and how the UK position in suspending the NI protocol could undermine it.

At a Q&A session with M Martin and Jen Psaki (white house spokesperson) there was no criticism of UK . These was just an encouragement to "both the European Union and the UK government to prioritise pragmatic solutions", implying a failure on both sides.

Additionally, she seemed to direct Martin to "speak to those governments directly" , presumably not understanding that Ireland is the EU and that the problem is not with the EU side but rather with a UK government who are happy to tear up agreements as soon as the ink is dry.

It is hard to know if this is the US signalling that it wants a hands-off approach , or if it hasn't been well briefed by our diplomats. Or that UK has managed to brief much better. But any idea that Biden would be a shiny knight to come to the rescue of Ireland (and the EU) in this argument seems misplaced.

Seems the US are intent on making sure the GFA is held in place
https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2021/0316/1204440-us-good-friday-agreement/

This is good. We need the US to support all this carry on to ensure the GFA remains in tact and that both sides do their upmost to keep the peace up north

HalfAndHalf

Leroy42 wrote: »

They have said, many times, they want to be rule makers not takers. That they are more important than the EU.

Brexit is based on assumptions and lack of reasonable debate.

Yes they’ve said they want to be rule makers. Where did they say they are more important than the EU? Source or more assumptions?

Leroy42

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Yes they’ve said they want to be rule makers. Where did they say they are more important than the EU? Source or more assumptions?

Are you serious?

"They need us more than we need them."

The entire debate was around how the EU were holding them back.

HalfAndHalf

roosterman71 wrote: »

Seems the US are intent on making sure the GFA is held in place
https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2021/0316/1204440-us-good-friday-agreement/

This is good. We need the US to support all this carry on to ensure the GFA remains in tact and that both sides do their upmost to keep the peace up north

Where does extending the transition period of certain parts of the NI protocol break the GFA? I find the use of the GFA as a political stick really offensive. Where does it stipulate in the GFA that if the U.K. continue to import plants with U.K. soil into NI in an agreement made 23 years after the GFA was signed then it is broken?!?

HalfAndHalf

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are you serious?

They need us more than we need them.

That doesn’t translate to being more important, that was sales speech on the difference in trade import export.

Leroy42

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Where does extending the transition period of certain parts of the NI protocol break the GFA? I find the use of the GFA as a political stick really offensive. Where does it stipulate in the GFA that if the U.K. continue to import plants with U.K. soil into NI in an agreement made 23 years after the GFA was signed then it is broken?!?

That is now almost irrelevant. The UK recently signed two international agreements, which they are now breaking.

Leroy42

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

That doesn’t translate to being more important, that was sales speech on the difference in trade import export.

Ah ok, in your opinion.

So you ask for proof, I provide it, and you wave it away as simply a sales pitch?

roosterman71

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Where does extending the transition period of certain parts of the NI protocol break the GFA? I find the use of the GFA as a political stick really offensive. Where does it stipulate in the GFA that if the U.K. continue to import plants with U.K. soil into NI in an agreement made 23 years after the GFA was signed then it is broken?!?

It's nothing to do directly with the GFA. The NIP aligns NI with the EU. The UK signed up to it, great deal, etc. To maintain that alignment, and that agreement, the UK and EU agreed to multi lateral agreement to changes to ensure there was a handshake and both sides were relatively happy. But the UK then just went and extended the grace period to allow unfettered access of goods into the SM. That goes against the NIP, which would then mean the single market needs to be protected and a customs border would possibly need to be erected. And that would mean that for the second time in our countrys history that the UK would have forced a border in Ireland

PeadarCo

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Yes they’ve said they want to be rule makers. Where did they say they are more important than the EU? Source or more assumptions?

It's pretty much their negotiation strategy with the EU.

The EU have set out the terms on which the UK will get access to the EU markets. The more access the UK wants the more EU rules the UK will have to follow. This is a situation where the UK is a rule taker. The UK have been very unhappy with this. A huge number of the complaints that have come from Brexiters has been to do with the EU enforcing it's rules on UK trade. Brexiters have wanted the EU to change the terms of the trade agreement to suit the UK ie the UK makes the rules. The current mess around the Northern Ireland protocol is a perfect example.

CelticRambler

54and56 wrote: »

In my view as long as the UK continues to act in bad faith in breach of the GFA, WA and/or TCA their behaviour needs to be called out for what it is

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

How exactly does extending transition periods for certain aspects of the NI protocol break the GFA?

For someone who's just raised the point about the risk of making assumptions, you, yourself, are banging a drum based on one: 54and56 referred to the UK breaching the WA. Unilaterally extending transition periods is a breach of the NI Protocol, which is a key part of the WA.

HalfAndHalf

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah ok, in your opinion.

So you ask for proof, I provide it, and you wave it away as simply a sales pitch?

Show me where someone said the U.K. is more important than the EU and you’ll be right. What you’re saying is only your opinion, it isn’t proof.

All it does is steer the narrative to Brit hate which you seem to do a lot instead of reasoned debate. It’s boring.

HalfAndHalf

CelticRambler wrote: »

For someone who's just raised the point about the risk of making assumptions, you, yourself, are banging a drum based on one: 54and56 referred to the UK breaching the WA. Unilaterally extending transition periods is a breach of the NI Protocol, which is a key part of the WA.

I’m not banging a drum, I’m asking a question of those that keep stating that what the U.K. have done breaks the GFA.

Multiple posts, and certain pets of the press keep stating or hinting that it breaks the GFA, like playing silly games with the GFA is a sensible idea and all I’m asking is for evidence on where it does.

I’m not sure where that ties in to me banging a drum and assumptions. It’s a simple question.

Gerry T

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

How exactly does extending transition periods for certain aspects of the NI protocol break the GFA?

Surely if those transitions being extended break the GFA then by their very definition they break it by their existence.

The closest we’ve come to breaking the GFA since Brexit that I’m aware of was the non-event short lived border the EC flirted with with article 16.

Seems to be a lot of one sided/eyed opinions here again.

Going back before Christmas the EU offered an extension to the UK, to give more time so that the "wrinkles" could be ironed out. Johnson was having none of it and wanted to plough on with "brexit means brexit".
Both parties agreed to a number of extensions, financial services being the big one and the simplified checks at all borders, plus a zero checks at the NI-GB sea border. The UK decided unilaterally to continue with this zero check approach at the NI border and introduce a number of other changes such as relaxing checks on soil imports. This is a breach of the agreement and as such the UK is breaking international law.
Before Christmas the UK introduced legislation allowing them to unilaterally change the WA, this is a breach of that international agreement as the agreement expressly prevents either party from taking action that threatens the agreement.
So that's twice that the UK have breached international law.

What your grasping at is the EU mentioning but not triggering ART16 and within Hrs apologising for the miscommunication, hardly the same thing.

Don't you agree ?

HalfAndHalf

Gerry T wrote: »

Going back before Christmas the EU offered an extension to the UK, to give more time so that the "wrinkles" could be ironed out. Johnson was having none of it and wanted to plough on with "brexit means brexit".
Both parties agreed to a number of extensions, financial services being the big one and the simplified checks at all borders, plus a zero checks at the NI-GB sea border. The UK decided unilaterally to continue with this zero check approach at the NI border and introduce a number of other changes such as relaxing checks on soil imports. This is a breach of the agreement and as such the UK is breaking international law.
Before Christmas the UK introduced legislation allowing them to unilaterally change the WA, this is a breach of that international agreement as the agreement expressly prevents either party from taking action that threatens the agreement.
So that's twice that the UK have breached international law.

What your grasping at is the EU mentioning but not triggering ART16 and within Hrs apologising for the miscommunication, hardly the same thing.

Don't you agree ?

I’m not grasping at anything, you can see from my quoted post that I stated non-event and short lived.

The rest of what you’ve said has nothing to do with the question I’m asking and have asked a number of times.

How does it break the GFA. It’s being flung around an awful lot why can’t anyone answer this simple question? Or is it that it doesn’t but it makes for some good cannon fodder and bashing?

CelticRambler

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

I’m not banging a drum, I’m asking a question of those that keep stating that what the U.K. have done breaks the GFA.

Multiple posts, and certain pets of the press keep stating or hinting that it breaks the GFA, like playing silly games with the GFA is a sensible idea and all I’m asking is for evidence on where it does.

I’m not sure where that ties in to me banging a drum and assumptions. It’s a simple question.

You keep asking the same question, and making the same assertion, but you haven't provided a single quote from anyone to support that assertion.

The UK has breached the NI Protocol: that is a fact, and legal proceedings have been started in respect of the breach. So you don't need to keep pretending that somehow the UK is acting in good faith.

There is an argument to be made that Brexit in and of itself is a breach of the GFA, especially as the Tory government under Theresa May did a deal with the DUP to make it happen - but let's see the quotes that you've taken issue with, seeing as it's important enough for you to have asked us several times over to justify the assertion.

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

How does it break the GFA. It’s being flung around an awful lot

Only by you.

ujjjjjjjjj

Leroy42 wrote: »

ujjjjjjjjj, what do you think would actually satisfy the UK?

IMO nothing short of full benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities will ever be enough.

Both Gove and Frost have stated they want and end to the EU itself. Replacing it, one assumes, with a global order where the UK retake their place at the head of globe.

When one is dealing with that level of thinking there really is nothing the EU can reasonably do to satisfy the UK

Bear with me on this one....

I think the British are reasonably happy with the Brexit deal they have negotiated (within political circles) - they have tariff free trade with the EU but had to sacrifice little in terms of loss of sovereignty as they see it. The NI protocol from their point of view is a mess though as it means putting a border through the Irish Sea (in essence a border within your own country). So this is problematic for them for many reasons.

Ever since the day of the referendum I've been endlessly discussing with people how will the North be dealt with as ultimately there has to be a trade border somewhere - it's ended up pragmatically in the Irish Sea (suspended at the moment) and from an Irish point of view it's better there than between Newry and Dundalk......

The question moving forward is how will the British make it work internally and the suspension at the moment I don't think is anything particularly malicious just a bit of a fudge to buy sometime as it's a total clusterf**k of a mess for them. I often think we all over analyze intentions and devious plans when the reality is often just political incompetence and fudging being the core of the issue.

I suspect in time what will happen is the suspension will end and in the meantime the Brits will try to smooth the processes in NI and no doubt throw some money at the problem and give the North some more civil service jobs and cash to placate Arlene and I'm sure Arlene behind the scenes is at this.....

Yes Brexit caused the mess and we can happily sit back and know we had nothing to do with it !! but the mess is there nonetheless and hopefully there will be a fudge and we all move on.

HalfAndHalf

CelticRambler wrote: »

You keep asking the same question, and making the same assertion, but you haven't provided a single quote from anyone to support that assertion.

The UK has breached the NI Protocol: that is a fact, and legal proceedings have been started in respect of the breach. So you don't need to keep pretending that somehow the UK is acting in good faith.

There is an argument to be made that Brexit in and of itself is a breach of the GFA, especially as the Tory government under Theresa May did a deal with the DUP to make it happen - but let's see the quotes that you've taken issue with, seeing as it's important enough for you to have asked us several times over to justify the assertion.


Only by you.

Hahahahah! Wow, you could have just said you don’t know the answer!!! Oh wait, why do that when you can divert and use passive aggression to make up what I’m thinking to make ‘try’ to make yourself look intelligent. I haven’t mentioned the WA or breaking the NI protocol, just the GFA.
I guess you just don’t have the answer.
Thanks.

yagan

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Yup absolutely agree the EU as it stands isn't a federal state.

It's a voluntary union as proven by the UK democratically choosing to leave.

Think of it more as a club house rather than a family.

54and56

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

How exactly does extending transition periods for certain aspects of the NI protocol break the GFA?

Full explanation of how unilateral extension of the mutually agreed transition period breaks EU law, not the GFA.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1132

Does that clarify things a bit for you?

ancapailldorcha

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Hahahahah! Wow, you could have just said you don’t know the answer!!! Oh wait, why do that when you can divert and use passive aggression to make up what I’m thinking to make ‘try’ to make yourself look intelligent. I haven’t mentioned the WA or breaking the NI protocol, just the GFA.
I guess you just don’t have the answer.
Thanks.

Banned for one day.

54and56

HalfAndHalf wrote: »

Where does extending the transition period of certain parts of the NI protocol break the GFA? I find the use of the GFA as a political stick really offensive. Where does it stipulate in the GFA that if the U.K. continue to import plants with U.K. soil into NI in an agreement made 23 years after the GFA was signed then it is broken?!?

Actually Brexit, by potentially removing the UK from the CU and SM altered the constitutional settlement agreed to in the GFA without the consent of the people of NI who voted against it.

No one advocated that the UK (like any other EU country) didn't have the democratic right to leave the EU but by making that decision, in particular that Brexit should include exclusion from the SM and CU, it was altering a fundamental underpinning principle of the GFA that there be no barriers to trade or movement on the island of Ireland.

From that point forward a least worst solution to the reality that border checks would have to placed somewhere between the EU and the UK had to be agreed.

Ireland was fortunate enough to be able to get the EU to use it's negotiating advantage to get the least worst option from our point of view i.e. keep NI in the EU SM and have checks done between GB and NI.

Of course the DUP et al and BoJo's hard core Brexit supporters didn't like that outcome but they voluntarily conceded in order to get a (fairly poor) deal on goods but not services with the EU when don't forget they could have held out, forced a border between NI and RoI and secured their Australia / Mongolia type deal instead.

Now just a few weeks later they are welching on the deal and making themselves even more untrustworthy.

I've often suffered from buyers remorse myself but I've rarely seen a case of it on the scale currently being experienced by BoJo & Co. It really is something to behold.

CelticRambler

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

The question moving forward is how will the British make it work internally ...

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

I suspect in time what will happen is the suspension will end and in the meantime the Brits will try to smooth the processes in NI and no doubt throw some money at the problem...

Why do you only "suspect" that that's what'll happen. Are you saying that you don't trust the British Government to do what they said they'd do? To do what they said was going to be really, really, easy (remember MaxFac)? To implement the computer systems that they paid the Japanese for? To give the EU access to the UK-NI-RoI import-export data, as they promised? To employ the vets and inspectors and customs officers that they need? Or, to put it another way: to keep to the agreement that they signed back in January - a year ago - and boasted about as a great success.

There's no need to ask how will the British make it work internally because everything they need to do is written down in black and white (with Johnson's signature under it). What makes you think they're justified in creating new problems to address the problems that only arise because they haven't implemented the solutions that were laid out for them a year ago?

BlitzKrieg

I wouldnt bother, HalfandHalf is the embodiment of a bad faith argument in this thread.

He pops in thinking he has some sort of 'Gotcha question' spams the thread until someone actually gives a full answer and then hides until everyone has forgotten his last point and comes back with a new 'gotcha question' ignoring all the prior times he has been corrected in this thread.

You can go back just a few pages to find his last 'gotcha point' where he made a big fuss over CETA not being approved so it wasnt a big threat the EU not approving the Brexit Agreement. (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116516650&postcount=3467)


Of course when his question was answered fully he didnt thank or respond to the answer he just went away to do whatever he does until the next opportunity for another 'gotcha question'

You were just the unfortunate recipient of his latest streak of urine.

ujjjjjjjjj

CelticRambler wrote: »

Why do you only "suspect" that that's what'll happen. Are you saying that you don't trust the British Government to do what they said they'd do? To do what they said was going to be really, really, easy (remember MaxFac)? To implement the computer systems that they paid the Japanese for? To give the EU access to the UK-NI-RoI import-export data, as they promised? To employ the vets and inspectors and customs officers that they need? Or, to put it another way: to keep to the agreement that they signed back in January - a year ago - and boasted about as a great success.

There's no need to ask how will the British make it work internally because everything they need to do is written down in black and white (with Johnson's signature under it). What makes you think they're justified in creating new problems to address the problems that only arise because they haven't implemented the solutions that were laid out for them a year ago?

Slow down a bit.

To try and understand things here it helps to look at it from a British perspective.

The Northern Ireland situation is a total pain in the rear end ? Because where there should be a border there can't be a border...... (the GFA, NI peace etc etc means it can't be there..)

The entire thing is a fudge (an entirely necessary fudge) but it is a fudge and the only fudge that was dreamt up that kinda worked was a border in the Irish Sea for trade.

On Jan 1 the Brits and NI just weren't ready even close to being ready to deal with this and chaos ensued hence the suspension and another fudge. They were never going to have any of it in place preemptively as even in late 2020 no one really knew which way it was going to go. Writing it down and talking about it means little in reality. You have to remember Boris got elected effectively by saying he would get a deal and get Brexit done, oven ready etc etc and he won a huge majority. So he is gonna sell it, talk it up even if the reality behind the scenes was that nothing was in place.

I suspect ( it's not about trust as I could be on here all night telling you why I don't trust the Irish government let alone the British one....) that in six months they will have enough processes in place to fudge this thing through and keep trade moving seamlessly enough between the NI and mainland UK.

They are buying time to get things in place.

It's not ideal but it was somewhat inevitable in my opinion.

Personally I am not getting in twist about it as in six months it will probably all be a memory and there will be something else to row about in the gift that keeps on giving.

CelticRambler

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

On Jan 1 the Brits and NI just weren't ready even close to being ready to deal with this and chaos ensued hence the suspension and another fudge.

They had five years to figure it out, and eleven months from signing off on the NIP to get the necessary systems in place. There's no "fudge" involved - it's either sheer wilful incompetence, or deliberate provocation on the part of the British government (and those who elected them).

And again, on what grounds is your hope and belief based? Over and over and over again you've stated this hope and belief that the British Government will sort things out, but all the evidence to date suggests that they're making things worse, not better. So how come you're so sure that in six more months (less than the extension they refused) they'll have got their act together and this will all be a bad memory?

[And in the meantime, what are the Scottish fishermen, Welsh sheep-farmerns, English sausage makers, Cornish shellfish exporters do about the separate and still un-addressed problem with trading with the rest of Europe? Are we, the EU, supposed to fudge that side of Brexit for them too? ]