Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Kermit.de.frog

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's an appalling article. One of the worst I've ever read considering the source. There's not one metric being presented for the EU allegedly taking London's side in looking for flexibility. No policies or even a quote from officials.

I presume you mean Ireland taking London's side, not the EU?

MM went on the BBC and seemed to be trying to play two sides.

This is naturally enraging because there is no balance to be struck. There is a binary outcome. Border on land or in the sea.

And to be fair the EU has expended huge political capital on it. I think MM comments were a mistake tbh.

MrMusician18

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it was a shocking mistake. But, to be fair, once we pointed it out we got it reversed in a matter of hours. Which, once a mistake like that has been made, is pretty much what you want. Is there anything more the Commission could have done?

Possibly there is. We don't know by whom the mistake was made or at what point in the process. This isn't a matter of naming-and-shaming some individual; more of understanding how the error arose and being satisfied that measures have been taken to prevent such a thing happening again. And, possibly, we could be satisified about that without some unfortunate fonctionnaire having to be publicly pilloried. But we do need to know that the fault in the process has been identified and rectified.

UvdL could've explained how this happened but the commission has decided that the public need not know the details.

This along with the inability to explain the vaccine problems adds to the feeling that this commission is incompetent. It's not a good look.

Leroy42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Completely disagree. They can win by maintaining the high moral and practical ground which they had for 4 years which is why Britain had to accept the protocol in the end and that remarkable intrusion on UK sovereignty. A border inside their own own country.

Because they couldn't put any credible and coherent argument against it.

And what happens? All that hard work to keep Britain on the back foot on the protocol blown up through an act of mindblowing stupidity.

It doesn't matter it didn't happen in the end, it's the precedent that matters.

The point is that nothing has been blown up. A mistake was made, rectified, and we are back to the exact position we were in before.

Of course, the UK will try to use it for leverage, but who is going to listen? Certainly the Brexiteers and the UK media, but then they are going to clap anything no matter what.

But that is just noise. But in terms of leverage I think the recent example of Gve attempting to use it to demand the EU do something shows it for what it is. That got no where, and he was pretty forcefully put back in his box.

Will that stop the UK from using it to justify them doing things, no, but then it is simply the excuse. If it hadn't happened they would simply use something else, or make something up.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

So my point stands: still a year behind the French. That makes Britain a follower, not a leader.

Rather a childish point IMHO, but yes the French legal system ratified it last year.

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I presume you mean Ireland taking London's side, not the EU?

MM went on the BBC and seemed to be trying to play two sides.

This is naturally enraging because there is no balance to be struck. There is a binary outcome. Border on land or in the sea.

And to be fair the EU has expended huge political capital on it. I think MM comments were a mistake tbh.

I mean the article's statement that the EU is losing patience with Dublin and sympathizing with London regarding the need for flexibility in the border agreement. Some sort of corroborating evidence or other indication would have been nice instead of just making the assertion.

BonnieSituation

yagan wrote: »

An error becomes a mistake when it's not corrected. Dwelling on A16 is a mistake.

Agreed. But the FF cohort are so awful at EU engagement that they will end up causing more issues.

Pure mountain out of a molehill stuff. Amateurs.

Kermit.de.frog

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Agreed. But the FF cohort are so awful at EU engagement that they will end up causing more issues.

Pure mountain out of a molehill stuff. Amateurs.

But it isn't especially if you are pro the single market.

So let's run through what the commission nearly did.

1. Force physical checks with immediate effect at the border to check pharmaceuticals

2. Ireland refuses to implement the checks or can't for logistical reasons

3. Within hours checks set up at French ports on goods to Ireland as single market needs to be protected

Result: Ireland defacto out of the single market all conceivably in the space of a day

This nearly happened. That's how serious the situation was.

It's the most pro EU posters who should be the most furious about it if anything.

BonnieSituation

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But it isn't especially if you are pro the single market.

So let's run through what the commission nearly did.

1. Force physical with immediate effect at the border to check pharmaceuticals

2. Ireland refuses to implement the checks or can't for logistical reasons

3. Within hours checks set up at French ports on goods to Ireland as single market needs to be protected

Result: Ireland defacto out of the single market all conceivably in the space of a day

This nearly happened. That's how serious the situation was.

It's the most pro EU posters who should be the most furious about it if anything.

It didn't though. And seriously why are we going back over this now 3 weeks later?

ancapailldorcha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But it isn't especially if you are pro the single market.

So let's run through what the commission nearly did.

1. Force physical checks with immediate effect at the border to check pharmaceuticals

2. Ireland refuses to implement the checks or can't for logistical reasons

3. Within hours checks set up at French ports on goods to Ireland as single market needs to be protected

Result: Ireland defacto out of the single market all conceivably in the space of a day

This nearly happened. That's how serious the situation was.

It's the most pro EU posters who should be the most furious about it if anything.

But it didn't. Therefore, there's no need to be furious. HM government was literally looking to just unilaterally revoke parts of the treaty it signed but you keep coming back to this.

rock22

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's an appalling article. One of the worst I've ever read considering the source. There's not one metric being presented for the EU allegedly taking London's side in looking for flexibility. No policies or even a quote from officials.

Simon Coveney, speaking on multiple radio shows, did offer flexibility in dealing with UK and DUP concerns. He is reported in UK press "Foreign minister Simon Coveney insisted conceding ground to ensure the peace process is protected should not be seen as a "weakness"." so the EU were correct to point out that Ireland seem to want to ride two horses at once.

Considering triggering Article 16 was reasonable, and probably correct, in the context of a possible export of vaccine out of the EU when EU contacts were not being honoured. It is one of the reasons for the article being there.
Of course it was premature, and Irish government should have been consulted. But the interests of all the citizens of the EU must trump any political damage with the UK and DUP.

We could be rapidly spending the support we have gotten, and continue to get, from our EU colleagues.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

But it isn't especially if you are pro the single market.

So let's run through what the commission nearly did.

1. Force physical checks with immediate effect at the border to check pharmaceuticals

2. Ireland refuses to implement the checks or can't for logistical reasons

3. Within hours checks set up at French ports on goods to Ireland as single market needs to be protected

Result: Ireland defacto out of the single market all conceivably in the space of a day

This nearly happened. That's how serious the situation was.

It's the most pro EU posters who should be the most furious about it if anything.

The Article 16 thing blew over very quickly. It was scarcely even a news story by the Monday morning. It would have been far more of an issue / controversy if it had dragged on for days or weeks.

View

Strazdas wrote: »

The Article 16 thing blew over very quickly. It was scarcely even a news story by the Monday morning. It would have been far more of an issue / controversy if it had dragged on for days or weeks.

It “blew over” because Ireland had a hissy fit when we were asked about implementing a measure intended to save lives within EU countries, because we aren’t willing to face up to the fact that we have an international land border and have clear plans in place on how to operate a hard border in full.

Essentially we prioritised our relationship with the U.K. over our relationship with the other EU countries, which is always what Brexiters believed we would do if pushed. Be under no illusion, should the NI protocol inconvenience them, they can and will push it to and past breaking point, because they believe that we will fold, rather than implement a hard border.

Sam Russell

View wrote: »

It “blew over” because Ireland had a hissy fit when we were asked about implementing a measure intended to save lives within EU countries, because we aren’t willing to face up to the fact that we have an international land border and have clear plans in place on how to operate a hard border in full.

Essentially we prioritised our relationship with the U.K. over our relationship with the other EU countries, which is always what Brexiters believed we would do if pushed. Be under no illusion, should the NI protocol inconvenience them, they can and will push it to and past breaking point, because they believe that we will fold, rather than implement a hard border.

Art 16 was a stupid legal response to a problem that would not exist. They were talking about export from the EU of vaccines.

Who was going to export them - the Trotters?

The product was already a controlled entity in short supply requiring special handling. To cross the NI border they would have to be in Ireland before crossing. How were they going to get here?

Having got ready to cross the border, who was going to buy it?

Totally stupid logic was applied by totally stupid people.

Strazdas

View wrote: »

It “blew over” because Ireland had a hissy fit when we were asked about implementing a measure intended to save lives within EU countries, because we aren’t willing to face up to the fact that we have an international land border and have clear plans in place on how to operate a hard border in full.

Essentially we prioritised our relationship with the U.K. over our relationship with the other EU countries, which is always what Brexiters believed we would do if pushed. Be under no illusion, should the NI protocol inconvenience them, they can and will push it to and past breaking point, because they believe that we will fold, rather than implement a hard border.

That's a strange interpretation. The issue was Northern Ireland and the border. Don't forget GB is causing us huge problems with their Irish Sea border - the one caused by Brexit. The EU Single Market are not the ones giving us grief.

BonnieSituation

View wrote: »

It “blew over” because Ireland had a hissy fit when we were asked about implementing a measure intended to save lives within EU countries, because we aren’t willing to face up to the fact that we have an international land border and have clear plans in place on how to operate a hard border in full.

Essentially we prioritised our relationship with the U.K. over our relationship with the other EU countries, which is always what Brexiters believed we would do if pushed. Be under no illusion, should the NI protocol inconvenience them, they can and will push it to and past breaking point, because they believe that we will fold, rather than implement a hard border.

Surely it was a case of us prioritising our relationship with the other citizens of ours on this island who happen to be jurisdictionally compromised.

Surely a Partitionist like yourself should be able to see that as a priority?
Martin is a terrible Taoiseach, but he's at least not as bad as his compatriot Lynch.

The EU flubbed and it was sorted and all with a couple of hours. People need to move on now.

yagan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The EU flubbed and it was sorted and all with a couple of hours. People need to move on now.

I guarantee that the same people who all in a heap about A16 being tabled will also be at the forefront of a border poll insisting that we can't afford reunification.

Basically closet British unionists in Ireland awaiting the fleets return to Kingstown.

Sam Russell

How diligently is the NI protocol being implemented? Is there full SPS inspection? What is happening WRT cars - VAT and RoO - is all this happening as per the protocol?

Who is checking?

ArmaniJeanss

I haven't read Article 16.

But I'd be very doubtful if it was ever intended to be something that, from nowhere, gets invoked by 'midnight tonight' which is what nearly happened.

I always assumed it would be a slow process, preceded by the usual tortuous discussion and behind the scenes diplomacy - and if it becomes inevitable that it's going to invoked then Ireland would at least have a time-frame to prepare.

If at that stage Ireland came down on the 'UK side' then we'll have made our decision and have to live with it. But I don't think we can be accused of being on the UK side during the events of a few weeks ago. If not instantly agreeing with knee-jerk decisions is seen as a sign of being unsupportive then it would be worrying.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Rather a childish point IMHO, but yes the French legal system ratified it last year.

Childish? You were the one who chose to highlight a tardy British decision (based on a case started while the UK was still subject to EU law) as an example of Britain not weakening employee protections? I was pointing out that they're applying the same logic as the French courts (and Germany, but they never got properly off the ground there because of various related rules).

Remember that just about every word and phrase of EU law has been transposed into UK law, so any case before the courts at the moment - especially one that's been going on for some time - will not reflect Brexit Britain's hopes and aspirations, but is judged according to the rules drawn up by the EU.

Sam Russell

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I haven't read Article 16.

But I'd be very doubtful if it was ever intended to be something that, from nowhere, gets invoked by 'midnight tonight' which is what nearly happened.

I always assumed it would be a slow process, preceded by the usual tortuous discussion and behind the scenes diplomacy - and if it becomes inevitable that it's going to invoked then Ireland would at least have a time-frame to prepare.

If at that stage Ireland came down on the 'UK side' then we'll have made our decision and have to live with it. But I don't think we can be accused of being on the UK side during the events of a few weeks ago. If not instantly agreeing with knee-jerk decisions is seen as a sign of being unsupportive then it would be worrying.

If Art 16 was invoked in a normal way, we would be consulted in the normal way by discussion within the Commission and then the Council of Ministers.

We could agree or disagree, and make our views known. Other member states would express their views and a decision would be taken, usually by consensus. The points of view remain in the room, and a united decision would be announced - that is how these things are handled. No-one knows what actualy happened because the guilty are in hiding.

There would not be a UK side to be considered. The UK is not a member state and are not present in the discussion at that point - if ever. The EU would decide their position, and it would be presented through the proper channels - not through the tabloids.

CelticRambler

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I haven't read Article 16.

But I'd be very doubtful if it was ever intended to be something that, from nowhere, gets invoked by 'midnight tonight' which is what nearly happened.

You presume wrongly. Read the Article!

rock22

The Commision was wrong to talk of invoking Article 16 at the time they did so.
However, the Commission was dealing with a situation where vaccines manufactured for EU Citizens , and using EU funds, were potentially being exported from the EU. And the manufacturer stated that only when all orders to the UK were fulfilled would any vaccine be supplied to EU, irrespective of the contract entered into. In those circumstances, the Commission had to take action. It is not hard to see that the only land border with the UK would be a potential problem.

Where the commission erred was in not waiting for evidence that any supply did transit NI into GB. We all know now that didn't happen. And the commission was premature in talking about invoking article 16. (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. ). But if, vaccine was being removed from Belgium to supply orders in the UK , and the vaccine was being shipped through NI, then the commission would be remiss not to consider invoking article 16.
As it happened the commission corrected the error within hours. Article 16 was never invoked.

NeuralNetwork

The Commission was wrong because it was going down the route of triggering Article 16 for something that had nothing to do with the U.K. / Ireland border and which was an extremely hypothetical threat and in so doing, handed huge amounts of political firepower to the U.K. government and the British press.

It was like fixing a leaking roof by threatening to just demolish the house.

There’s no getting around the fact that it was disproportionate, diplomatically insensitive and wrong.

The whole way the discussions went on around that AstraZeneca scenario seemed to lack any kind of measured response and calm, cool logic. It was unseemly and I think they scored a lot of own goals, not just with the Article 16 issue, but with all of it.

There were accusations flying before facts were established and angry confrontational press conferences and that doesn’t inspire confidence.

It also fed a narrative that the EU has a vaccines crisis, which it really does not.

I’m very pro-European but I’m not uncritical of the commission and I think that was an extremely poor performance for a whole variety of reasons.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Oh look - Brexit-Britain catching up with the French, who enforced that rule a year ago. :rolleyes:

If it's a sign of anything, it's that the EU (and its member states) will lead the way, and Brexit-Britain will follow along like a stray dog hoping to be treated nicely.

Yes Childish!

CelticRambler wrote: »

Childish? You were the one who chose to highlight a tardy British decision (based on a case started while the UK was still subject to EU law) as an example of Britain not weakening employee protections? I was pointing out that they're applying the same logic as the French courts (and Germany, but they never got properly off the ground there because of various related rules).

Remember that just about every word and phrase of EU law has been transposed into UK law, so any case before the courts at the moment - especially one that's been going on for some time - will not reflect Brexit Britain's hopes and aspirations, but is judged according to the rules drawn up by the EU.

BonnieSituation

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I haven't read Article 16.

But I'd be very doubtful if it was ever intended to be something that, from nowhere, gets invoked by 'midnight tonight' which is what nearly happened.

I always assumed it would be a slow process, preceded by the usual tortuous discussion and behind the scenes diplomacy - and if it becomes inevitable that it's going to invoked then Ireland would at least have a time-frame to prepare.

If at that stage Ireland came down on the 'UK side' then we'll have made our decision and have to live with it. But I don't think we can be accused of being on the UK side during the events of a few weeks ago. If not instantly agreeing with knee-jerk decisions is seen as a sign of being unsupportive then it would be worrying.

"Nearly" never won the race.

So now the EU are too fast?

All of the consideration and tortuous discussions happened already so that A16 could be implemented quickly. And to that end it, wasn't even invoked/enacted/implemeted.

Zubeneschamali

rock22 wrote: »

The Commision was wrong to invoke Article 16 at the time they did so.

They did not invoke Article 16.

NeuralNetwork

The issue isn’t speed. It’s choice of tool.

You can go establish the facts in a calm way or you can start threatening to break the windows. The commission did the later.

Whether they actually went through with it or not isn’t the point. They did huge communications damage and diplomatic damage and fed the Brexiteers with months worth of material to throw back at them.

It was a broader issue than just the Irish / U.K. border too. The way that that whole week was handled was shocking and fed a global narrative that there’s a vaccines crisis in Europe when there really wasn’t, rather there were teething problems with one of several suppliers.

A speedy reaction would have been to calmly commence an investigation.

Whatever about the Tories threatening to do similar, the EU isn’t the Tories. There’s a reasonable expedition that it should have far higher standards and be a lot more calm and measured.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to hold the European Commission to a higher standard than a rabid bunch of English nationalists.

I expect more and that week was disappointing.

tubercolossus

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

Whether they actually went through with it or not isn’t the point. They did huge communications damage and diplomatic damage and fed the Brexiteers with months worth of material to throw back at them.

Is that really the case? We've had Gove's testy letter DEMANDING all sorts of EU action, and Sefcovic told him to sling his hook. Exit Michael Gove. What else are they going to do?

Unleash the Dog of War that is David Frost? Pur-lease.

NeuralNetwork

So what? Let Gove rant.

The EU should be better than to even respond to such nonsense.
By stooping to their level you lose the moral high ground.

Basically that week turned into headlines about “EU Vaccine Fiasco” and it was being carried by international media including major US networks.

The EU needs to operate in a calm, measured way and just float on over this stuff. If you respond to Brexiteers in anger they just use it against you in spin.

ambro25

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

So what? Let Gove rant.

The EU should be better than to even respond to such nonsense.
By stooping to their level you lose the moral high ground.

Basically that week turned into headlines about “EU Vaccine Fiasco” and it was being carried by international media including major US networks.

The EU needs to operate in a calm, measured way and just float on over this stuff. If you respond to Brexiteers in anger they just use it against you in spin.

There is a country intergalactic light-mile to go, before any moral high ground could ever be lost to Johnson's government.

So the EU Commision strayed a centimeter or ten that way? Big wow.

It's just noise. And actually more useful to the EU27 (very loud and very clear message to contracting parties like AZ: don't welsh on the deal, or else) than to the UK and/or Brexiteers.

So Brexiters use that aborted A16 launch for PR leverage? So effing what! Doesn't get their shellfish/pigs/cosmetics/roadies/ballet dancers <etc> through to EU buyers, nor food on their table and a roof on their head, does it?

I think the one thing people need to do in anger, is practice their inner Gallic shrug, tbh. Let the UK continue to testiculate in the trading and diplomatic void of third party status.