Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

yagan

fash wrote: »

. I note that our brexiter in residence was (hypocritically considering the UK's ties to Saudi, Russia etc) complaining about the EU's recent deal with China. It is interesting to note however the extent to which British fingers were all over that deal.

I think their current infatuation with Hong Kong is cargo culture behavior towards their own former global primacy.

They don't realise that Hong Kong is a non-EU Britain/Sino issue and not tangible like the Irish Sea protocol is. Portugal isn't tying itself in knots over Macau.

Hurrache

There can really only one reason why a country won't publish such a report, particularly given they publish similar reports related to other deals.
https://twitter.com/Brexit/status/1359165212256010243

Akrasia

Hurrache wrote: »

There can really only one reason why a country won't publish such a report, particularly given they publish similar reports related to other deals.
https://twitter.com/Brexit/status/1359165212256010243

Is it because they don't want to embarrass the EU because it's so much better than the deal they had while in the EU?

Seth Brundle

CelticRambler wrote: »

That is precisely the same problem that had Kate Hoey complaining on Sky this morning that English cats and dogs have to have passports to travel to NI; and it's not as if it wasn't flagged well in advance - there were numerous articles in the papers, before the UK asked for the original extension to the transitional phase, warning pet-owners of the extra hoops they'd have to jump through to take their pets out of GB. But the Johnson administration doesn't listen, doesn't engage, doesn't believe that the rules apply to them ...

Poor Kate is getting a bit of a slagging because of her complete change of position on the deal...

https://twitter.com/ScrtDrugAddict/status/1359492097926135814

fly_agaric

Strazdas wrote: »

Though this is disputed by vaccine experts. They say one country powering ahead with vaccinations is a fat lot of good if all its neighbours are lagging behind. It would be akin to Dublin vaccinating loads of people and the rest of the country hardly getting any vaccines. This is a virus that respects no borders.

Yes, we're all one human race in the end, but unfortunately the world is a nasty/ugly place & doesn't operate like that.

The countries that pulled up their drawbridge, closed borders and adopted quite authoritatrian measures have controlled the disease successfully.

At this stage, less vaccine for your country means more for mine when supply is limited, manufacture is complex and costly etc.

The EU may be behind the US and the UK in vaccinations but they will likely be well ahead of poorer countries (some of which have been hit harder/just as hard by Covid) in getting supply & vaccinating their populations.

RobMc59

Akrasia wrote: »

Robs obsession with the A16 blunder a few weeks ago is blatant deflection and attempts at point scoring

It's a bit like going to watch a match where your own side scores 10 own goals and the other team has 1 player sent off for a brainless tackle, and you focus entirely on the tackle, which was identified, and remedied within the rules of the game, while not mentioning the ludicrous amount of own goals your own team scored against themselves.

Johnson and his team have been lurching from crisis to crisis for the past 5 years. Almost every single commitment and promise and projection that they have made has been found to have been either a lie, or an error.
Now that the chickens are coming home to roost and the reality of brexit is becoming apparent, the strategy is to deflect attention and try to blame others for all of the consequences of the Tory government's own choices

Part of it is having to continually read how the reckless actions of the UK have put the integrity of the gfa and future peace of Ireland at risk.Then von der leyen attempts her ill advised antics and I'm being unreasonable and trying to deflect.
Her latest fantastic PR success is totally ignoring Irish representatives who expressed concerns over her actions.
To add further embarrassment for Brussels vaccine strategy,the WHO has approved the astra zeneca vaccine for use by all age groups.

yagan

RobMc59 wrote: »

the WHO has approved the astra zeneca vaccine for use by all age groups.

Got a link?

schmoo2k

RobMc59 wrote: »

Part of it is having to continually read how the reckless actions of the UK have put the integrity of the gfa and future peace of Ireland at risk.Then von der leyen attempts her ill advised antics and I'm being unreasonable and trying to deflect.
Her latest fantastic PR success is totally ignoring Irish representatives who expressed concerns over her actions.
To add further embarrassment for Brussels vaccine strategy,the WHO has approved the astra zeneca vaccine for use by all age groups.

But Rob that is not true:

The EMA noted that while there are not yet enough results in people over the age of 55 to give a specific figure for how well the vaccine will work for them; protection is expected given that an immune response is seen in older people.

Now certain countries have decided to use a different vaccine for older folks, but that is their sovereign right (see what I did there).

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

Part of it is having to continually read how the reckless actions of the UK have put the integrity of the gfa and future peace of Ireland at risk.Then von der leyen attempts her ill advised antics and I'm being unreasonable and trying to deflect.
Her latest fantastic PR success is totally ignoring Irish representatives who expressed concerns over her actions.
To add further embarrassment for Brussels vaccine strategy,the WHO has approved the astra zeneca vaccine for use by all age groups.

Can you please stop it. The only country that has put the GFA at risk is the UK. This is by Brexit and by also not implementing their side of the agreement into domestic law already. The fact that you keep bleating about the article 16 when triggering this will mean a border on this island and then the risk of attacks. It could also mean we get cut off from our biggest market, which just because the UK thought this was a good idea doesn't mean we will follow suit. Why do you think one of the reasons our politicians were so outraged?

Also, please get your facts straight. I have corrected you about this before, Brussels in this case, the EMA, has approved the Astrazenica vaccine for use in all ages. It is the individual countries that have decided against this and in a previous post I posted the different ages in different countries where its not advised. You were very quick to try and get a dig in about Ireland just following France and Germany with that post and it backfired.

moon2

RobMc59 wrote: »

To add further embarrassment for Brussels vaccine strategy,the WHO has approved the astra zeneca vaccine for use by all age groups.

EMA has recommended granting a conditional marketing authorisation for COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in people from 18 years of age

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/ema-recommends-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-authorisation-eu


I'm not aware of individual countries *not* approving AZ for ages 55+. Some countries, such as Italy, have approved AZ for all age groups and also recommended that vaccines with a higher proven efficacy should be given to people aged 55+. Considering the increased mortality in older people, this seems like a pretty rational and ethical way to allocate vaccines.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

Can you please stop it. The only country that has put the GFA at risk is the UK. This is by Brexit and by also not implementing their side of the agreement into domestic law already. The fact that you keep bleating about the article 16 when triggering this will mean a border on this island and then the risk of attacks. It could also mean we get cut off from our biggest market, which just because the UK thought this was a good idea doesn't mean we will follow suit. Why do you think one of the reasons our politicians were so outraged?

What I think the recent actions of the EU did was not so much put the GFA at risk but rather weaken the Withdrawal Agreement. Triggering article 16 by the EU has set an unfortunate precedent and the EU have less standing if the UK choose to trigger it for their own purposes in future.

PeadarCo

RobMc59 wrote: »

Part of it is having to continually read how the reckless actions of the UK have put the integrity of the gfa and future peace of Ireland at risk.Then von der leyen attempts her ill advised antics and I'm being unreasonable and trying to deflect.
Her latest fantastic PR success is totally ignoring Irish representatives who expressed concerns over her actions.
To add further embarrassment for Brussels vaccine strategy,the WHO has approved the astra zeneca vaccine for use by all age groups.

The vaccine situation has nothing to do with the EU or Brexit.

In terms of Northern Ireland Brexit has put the peace in Northern Ireland at risk. That's a fact of life. The way the British government has approached Brexit has been that Northern Ireland has had two options a border on the island of Ireland or a border down the Irish Sea. You either upset nationalists or unionists. You may not be aware but they have a history of not getting along. Upsetting the delicate balance which membership of the EU enabled was always going to cause trouble even though it was warned about and ignored. This is reckless.

You are deflecting because you constantly drag up an announcement that was negated in a matter of hours. Hours, it was never enforced and had no impact. The whole Brexit process has lasted more than a few hours. The DUP have had issues with the Irish Sea border from the minute it was mentioned. They naturally have always preferred a land border. The DUP did not sign up to the GFA. What the EU commission did had quiet literally no impact. If it wasn't the EU commission the DUP would have found something else to make a big deal about as they were already doing.

Your posts are trademark deflection. I appreciate you don't like all the negativity around the UK. However all this is a direct consequence of the actions of the UK government. If they had stayed in the EU CU and SM none of this would be happening. You need to get used to reading this stuff as it is going to be the reality for the next number of years. Getting annoyed with people pointing out the obvious is stupid. All the issues facing the UK were warned about countless times over the last number of years.

The Raging Bile Duct

Bit cynical wrote: »

What I think the recent actions of the EU did was not so much put the GFA at risk but rather weaken the Withdrawal Agreement. Triggering article 16 by the EU has set an unfortunate precedent and the EU have less standing if the UK choose to trigger it for their own purposes in future.

They didn't trigger it...

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did they join the EU PPE scheme? No and yet they were still lin the EU. They could have opted to go with the EU vaccination process, but being in the EU didn't stop them from going it as they did. As evidence I present the fact that this is exactly what they did.

It is wholly unrelated to exit as it has nothing to do with it, save for it being a great distraction to the actual Brexit issues.

It is incredible that we are supposed to believe that on vaccines the UK were great and due to not being in the EU could do a much better job, whilst at the same time believing that the UK are entirely powerless against the might of the EU in terms of fishing, music touring, agriculture etc etc.

OK, Christ, baby steps so. Can we all at least admit that the UK has done an excellent job just as far as sourcing vaccines goes?

Gerry T

RobMc59 wrote: »

Part of it is having to continually read how the reckless actions of the UK have put the integrity of the gfa and future peace of Ireland at risk.Then von der leyen attempts her ill advised antics and I'm being unreasonable and trying to deflect.
Her latest fantastic PR success is totally ignoring Irish representatives who expressed concerns over her actions.
To add further embarrassment for Brussels vaccine strategy,the WHO has approved the astra zeneca vaccine for use by all age groups.

Rob, just a couple of questions.

Do you know or accept that Boris Johnson nearly 3 weeks ago mentioned using Art16 and he again repeated this after the weekend when U von Der Leyen mentioned using Art16 ?

Do you know or accept that the EU action regarding Art16 was a suggestion and that the Art was neither invoked or revoked ?

Do you know or accept that any EU member state could have purchased it's own vaccines and approved them for use, that being a EU member did not prevent them from doing this as an individual country ?

Whats your thoughts on the UK approach of widening the gap between the first and second shots, in 2 months time the UK will need to give 12 million people their second shots which will take a lot of time, resources and vile's. Do you think this will slow down the current rate of UK daily vaccinations ?

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, Christ, baby steps so. Can we all at least admit that the UK has done an excellent job just as far as sourcing vaccines goes?

It has. What has to got to do with Brexit?

Bit cynical

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

They didn't trigger it...

Some accounts say that it was in place for about three hours before it was reversed, other accounts say that it was never triggered.

I'm inclined to think it was triggered since the regulation bringing it in to force was published but then retracted.

The cached version is still available (see below) but the text has been deleted from the EU website.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6eWB93-5ycYJ:https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/january/tradoc_159398.pdf

But whether or not it was triggered, the intention to trigger it was clearly there and we can draw conclusions from that. As I have said, politically it will have the effect of weakening the EU's position should the UK decide to trigger it for their own purposes in the future.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

What I think the recent actions of the EU did was not so much put the GFA at risk but rather weaken the Withdrawal Agreement. Triggering article 16 by the EU has set an unfortunate precedent and the EU have less standing if the UK choose to trigger it for their own purposes in future.

Sure, but Rob is posting about the GFA in relation to the threat of using article 16. He is also the only one that keeps posting about it and as others have pointed out, it was the UK that has continually talked about invoking it. Even today the threat was used again,

Gregory Campbell (DUP) asks when people in the Northern Ireland will be able to enjoy free trade within the UK, including from GB to NI.

Johnson says it is essential that there is untrammelled free trade of goods, services and capital across all parts of the UK. If necessary, he will invoke article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol to enable this, he says.

Guardian Updates from today

Even with this answer he is not being truthful. The deal he campaigned on for 2019 and then the deal he negotiated and then rushed through parliament has meant there is friction between NI and the UK. He did this, and there is a concerted effort to shift the blame for this.

demfad

Bit cynical wrote: »

Some accounts say that it was in place for about three hours before it was reversed, other accounts say that it was never triggered.

I'm inclined to think it was triggered since the regulation bringing it in to force was published but then retracted.

The cached version is still available (see below) but the text has been deleted from the EU website.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6eWB93-5ycYJ:https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/january/tradoc_159398.pdf

But whether or not it was triggered, the intention to trigger it was clearly there and we can draw conclusions from that. As I have said, politically it will have the effect of weakening the EU's position should the UK decide to trigger it for their own purposes in the future.

It's black and white. The mechanism is they inform the Joint Committee in order to trigger it. They didn't.

Foolish error politically as the UK/DUP were always going to make an Everest out of that molehill and indeed destabilize NI and blame it on EU.

Citing instability where none existed the UK and DUP KNOWINGLY created a vacuum for the likes of the UVF to fill.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

Sure, but Rob is posting about the GFA in relation to the threat of using article 16. He is also the only one that keeps posting about it and as others have pointed out, it was the UK that has continually talked about invoking it. Even today the threat was used again,

Well I think he has a point.

1. The GFA is under threat if the border is threatened. I think we can agree on that. It was an argument used repeatedly during the WA negotiations.

2. The border (and by extension therefore the GFA) is threatened by incautious triggering (or intentions to trigger) article 16.

3. The EU not merely talked about triggering article 16 but actually did it; or at the very least, lit the touch paper that would have set it off if no counter-intervention occurred.

4. Having set this precedent, the EU have handed political ammunition to Johnson in the UK who can now use the threat of A16 with impunity since the precedent has already been set by the EU.

I think a neutral observer would be far more critical of the EU since they actually pulled the trigger rather than the UK which merely talked about pulling the trigger.

The striking thing about the whole affair was how quickly the EU were to undo one of the sticking points of the WA negotiations, something that threatened to collapse the talks to Ireland's detriment if a solution was not found. Did they really care about the GFA and the open border issue or was it merely a stick to beat the UK with; something to be thrown away when it was no longer needed?

Capt'n Midnight

redcup342 wrote: »

It wasn't even reversed, it didnt happen as the Commission is accountable to Parliament.

Unlike the UK where Westminister isn't accountable to anyone except the English people (i.e. the Scots can't really decide anything and Northern Irelands only power is that it's a potential timebomb)

The UK PM gets to choose the next election as long as it's on or before 2 May 2024. Short of a massive backbencher revolt that's the only accountability.

If for example the Tories reckon the feel good from the Vaccine rollout will return them a majority before the pain of imposing rules on EU imports kicks in they and they alone could call another election. And then avoid accountability for another 5 years thanks to the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

Local elections are due on 6 May and that's a big opinion poll. Full custom controls on imports from the EU won't kick in until July.


Thanks to the lack of opposition the Conservatives can do as they please for years unless they miscalculate the timing of the next election. Dumping Scotland would deprive the opposition of about 50 seats if needs must.

Leroy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think he has a point.

1. The GFA is under threat if the border is threatened. I think we can agree on that. It was an argument used repeatedly during the WA negotiations.

2. The border (and by extension therefore the GFA) is threatened by incautious triggering (or intentions to trigger) article 16.

3. The EU not merely talked about triggering article 16 but actually did it; or at the very least, lit the touch paper that would have set it off if no counter-intervention occurred.

4. Having set this precedent, the EU have handed political ammunition to Johnson in the UK who can now use the threat of A16 with impunity since the precedent has already been set by the EU.

I think a neutral observer would be far more critical of the EU since they actually pulled the trigger rather than the UK which merely talked about pulling the trigger.

The striking thing about the whole affair was how quickly the EU were to undo one of the sticking points of the WA negotiations, something that threatened to collapse the talks to Ireland's detriment if a solution was not found. Did they really care about the GFA and the open border issue or was it merely a stick to beat the UK with; something to be thrown away when it was no longer needed?

What good is the ability to threaten it? I really don't see the value in that

So lets say they threaten it, which of course they already did only two weeks before the EU. And then what? They either go through with it or they back down. The EU backed down and look at the significant problems it has caused them.

Imagine if they had continued on the path. And you see that as something the UK can use in the future, the ability to shoot themselves in the foot?

Capt'n Midnight

fash wrote: »

. I note that our brexiter in residence was (hypocritically considering the UK's ties to Saudi, Russia etc) complaining about the EU's recent deal with China. It is interesting to note however the extent to which British fingers were all over that deal.

UK courts won't be allowed to decide if the UK's trading partners are engaged in genocide. So much for the moral high ground.

Some MPs view what's happened as pure "parliamentary chicanery" on what is a very important and emotive issue.

On the plus side it should make it easier to get the easiest trade deals ever.

fly_agaric

Bit cynical wrote: »

As I have said, politically it will have the effect of weakening the EU's position should the UK decide to trigger it for their own purposes in the future.

Taken alone it amounts to giving the UK a very flimsy excuse for it no one objective would accept, that's about it - especially if the UK take some real steps on the ground after they announce they are going to use it (vs doing a u-turn a few hours later).

I'm quite interested to see if they get up the courage to abrogate the NI Protocol some time this year as there's definitely a strong element in UK government that badly wish to do so.

Nody

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think he has a point.

1. The GFA is under threat if the border is threatened. I think we can agree on that. It was an argument used repeatedly during the WA negotiations.

2. The border (and by extension therefore the GFA) is threatened by incautious triggering (or intentions to trigger) article 16.

3. The EU not merely talked about triggering article 16 but actually did it; or at the very least, lit the touch paper that would have set it off if no counter-intervention occurred.

4. Having set this precedent, the EU have handed political ammunition to Johnson in the UK who can now use the threat of A16 with impunity since the precedent has already been set by the EU.

I think a neutral observer would be far more critical of the EU since they actually pulled the trigger rather than the UK which merely talked about pulling the trigger.

The striking thing about the whole affair was how quickly the EU were to undo one of the sticking points of the WA negotiations, something that threatened to collapse the talks to Ireland's detriment if a solution was not found. Did they really care about the GFA and the open border issue or was it merely a stick to beat the UK with; something to be thrown away when it was no longer needed?

Point 3 is wrong; they never activated article 16. They talked about activating article 16 and papers were drawn up on how to activate it as an option but it was never done and the first point of that would been to notify UK about the activation.

Now you claim in point 4 is honestly pointless because you're talking about a country and parliament who openly admitted they were going to break international law and a signed treaty and voted yes for said law. How exactly can you then claim a country that already voted for a law to break a treaty they signed themselves less then a year ago as giving them "more ammunition"? They have literally already voted to break the treaty yet you think EU preparing to possibly invoke article 16 (in accordance with the treaty) is somehow going to give them more ammunition? One side follows the agreed treaty, prepare the options; the other country votes for a law to intentionally break the treaty as they see fit after they signed it less then a year ago yet "neutral observer" would consider following a treaty is worse then intentionally voting to break international law over it? Sorry but I call BS on that.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

What I think the recent actions of the EU did was not so much put the GFA at risk but rather weaken the Withdrawal Agreement. Triggering article 16 by the EU has set an unfortunate precedent and the EU have less standing if the UK choose to trigger it for their own purposes in future.

It cannot be 'weakened'. It is an international agreement ratified by two sides and is the law as things stand. Either it exists or it doesn't, there is no halfway house. EU have fessed up and admitted even talking about revoking A16 was a big mistake.

If the UK wanted to rip it up for real, there would be serious consequences.

tubercolossus

fly_agaric wrote: »

I'm quite interested to see if they get up the courage to abrogate the NI Protocol some time this year as there's definitely a strong element in UK government that badly wish to do so.

'Abrogate' is a curious choice of words. It means cancel or abolish. They can't do that. They can 'trigger' it, ie the thing Brexiters are accusing the EU of which they didn't do. To actually do that would be a de facto declaration of economic war, and whatever it would be, an 'act of bravery' is not it.

tubercolossus

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1359590841619275776


Thread detailing the EU response to Gove's demands.

tl;dr We aren't changing anything that's not in the protocol. Institute all the many measures you agreed to do and which you haven't yet done, and we'll discuss what might in fact be possible.

Tony Connolly describes it as 'a hardline response' by Sefcovic.

RobMc59

yagan wrote: »

Got a link?

Yes,there are quite a few.

"World Health Organization scientists recommend Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine for all ages - ABC News" https://amp.abc.net.au/article/13142930

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

It has. What has to got to do with Brexit?

Because of Brexit they by default had to make their own deals for vaccines. It would have been an option anyway (one I don't believe anyone has taken) but being outside the EU meant they had to react to the situation and they have done.