Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Some recent posts have been removed. Let's get back on topic please.

Leroy42

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.

This seems to be a line thrown out again and again. Having the moral high ground counts for nothing. It looks good on a piece of paper. Do you think England care about the moral high ground when it deals with Scotland? That they lied to them to secure a victory in the 2014 ref? Not a chance.

The Eu had the moral high ground and still do. UK wants to get everything and pay for nothing and blame the EU throughout the entire thing. They have just put in an unelected bureaucrat to handle the future relationship with the hated EU bureaucrats that they had to get away from! The EU know Frost's feelings towards them, but instead of looking to reset the relationship, the UK are doubling down.

You are basing too much of you opinion on the UK media. The rest of the EU care only about vaccine delivery. The UK is s third country. How the EU are seen by the Uk isn't an issue. They have a deal, a deal agreed by both sides. At worst it will delay the, as yet unknown, move to closer relationship in the future. But as the UK are seemingly intent of moving further away then I doubt that anything the EU did, good or bad, will really make a difference.

You are assigning logic and reason to people who have shown a total disregard for both for over 5 years.

McGiver

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

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

You're starting from a completely wrong set of assumptions under the influence of British weapon grade propaganda waged in last several weeks (I'm neither Irish nor British so nobody can tell me I'm biased).

1. Article 16 was not activated, it was drafted (Šefčovič confirmed that)
2. Even if it was activated as drafted it would not have meant any sort of border on the island of Ireland whatsoever - it would have only meant that any pharmaceutical exports crossing from the Republic to the Northern Ireland requiring an export certificate!

All made up.... Inflated issue.

Edit: I don't deny that it was a diplomatical faux pas and a misstep. But these things happen quite often. Just that in this case the toxic English (won't say British) regime skilfully leveraged that for their own propaganda. This is VERY similar to how the Russians operate in Central but also Western Europe - amplification, disinformation and manipulation.

Capt'n Midnight

More joined up Brexit preparations that the UK had oodles of time to sort out but didn't.

A zoo says its conservation programme has stalled due to a lack of post-Brexit paperwork.

"The paperwork that existed before Brexit has literally just vanished so all of those permits now need to be rewritten," he said.
...
Dr Cerian Tatchley, senior manager at BIAZA, said: "The lack of Brexit infrastructure for the movement of zoo and aquarium animals is affecting a wide number of zoos, their conservation work and therefore their ability to fight against extinction.

"While the focus has been on infrastructure to support agricultural animals, it feels like the important work of zoos and aquariums has been overlooked in these early months of Brexit."

"overlooked in these early months of Brexit." , yeah SNAFU

fash

McGiver wrote: »

You're starting from a completely wrong set of assumptions under the influence of British weapon grade propaganda waged in last several weeks (I'm neither Irish nor British so nobody can tell me I'm biased).

1. Article 16 was not activated, it was drafted (Šefčovič confirmed that)
2. Even if it was activated as drafted it would not have meant any sort of border on the island of Ireland whatsoever - it would have only meant that any pharmaceutical exports crossing from the Republic to the Northern Ireland requiring an export certificate!

All made up.... Inflated issue.

Edit: I don't deny that it was a diplomatical faux pas and a misstep. But these things happen quite often. Just that in this case the toxic English (won't say British) regime skilfully leveraged that for their own propaganda. This is VERY similar to how the Russians operate in Central but also Western Europe - amplification, disinformation and manipulation.

Indeed - the other thing about the proposal (aside from the fact that it clearly was something hastily drafted by someone in a legal department who had been provided with a list of "in case of trouble, here are your levers" , is the fact that a short-lived exceptional emergency is precisely the type of event to be addressed by article 16 - i.e. this is exactly what article 16 is for.
It needs to be clearly stated in order to contextualise, that only issue in reality is that using article 16 as intended provides cover for the perfidious Tories to use article 16 for other purposes illegally (albeit in a "specific and limited way").

Kermit.de.frog

McGiver wrote: »

it would have only meant that any pharmaceutical exports crossing from the Republic to the Northern Ireland requiring an export certificate!

Where was the export certificate - or lack of - to be checked? It requires physical checks to determine what are pharmaceutical goods or not in the first instance. Every border crossing defacto would require checks with a 3rd country.

If not France and Spain would implement them for us literally on the same day as either we declined or simply couldn't do it.

Ireland outside single market.

timetogo1

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It requires physical checks to determine what are pharmaceutical goods or not in the first instance. Every border crossing defacto would require checks with a 3rd country..

Yeah, that's one option, or maybe they could track the product. Like some agencies do with other products (cigarettes for example) so they know where the product ends up and if it was destined for another market.

Kermit.de.frog

timetogo1 wrote: »

Yeah, that's one option, or maybe they could track the product. Like some agencies do with other products (cigarettes for example) so they know where the product ends up and if it was destined for another market.

No. There is no tracking or anything like that. The rules are very simple.

Borders are secure - that is the rule - no bull****. That is why the unionists lost the argument in the north.

There is no middle ground.

Or is the EU to turn to other border countries and say we are doing a deal with the Irish to make the market insecure but you have to stick to the real rules?

Not going to work. Not going to be acceptable.

cantwbr1

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No. There is no tracking or anything like that. The rules are very simple.

Borders are secure - that is the rule - no bull****. That is why the unionists lost the argument in the north.

There is no middle ground.

Or is the EU to turn to other border countries and say we are doing a deal with the Irish to make the market insecure but you have to stick to the real rules?

Not going to work. Not going to be acceptable.

Actually there is tracking. In recent years regulations have come into force where by all drugs have unique serial numbers that are tracked from manufacture to issuing to the patient and all stages in between. Google Drug Serialisation for more information

Kermit.de.frog

cantwbr1 wrote: »

Actually there is tracking. In recent years regulations have come into force where by all drugs have unique serial numbers that are tracked from manufacture to issuing to the patient and all stages in between. Google Drug Serialisation for more information

Every truck, every trailer has to be checked. That's just the way it is.

Either it's the Irish sea or on land.

Take your pick.

cantwbr1

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Every truck, every trailer has to be checked. That's just the way it is.

Either it's the Irish sea or on land.

Take your pick.

I was specifically talking about pharmaceutical products which are 100% tracked from production to dispensing. The measures are in place to combat counterfeit drugs and smuggling of pharmaceuticals. As a result works for vaccines potentially being transported illegally across borders

Silent Running

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Every truck, every trailer has to be checked. That's just the way it is.

Either it's the Irish sea or on land.

Take your pick.

I didn't think we had a choice. It has already been decided and agreed. Just a problem of the DUP being a little slow on the uptake.

McGiver

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

Where was the export certificate - or lack of - to be checked? It requires physical checks to determine what are pharmaceutical goods or not in the first instance. Every border crossing defacto would require checks with a 3rd country.

The export certificate is essentially a "stamp". Somebody would have to make it. While making it it would be registered. You don't need a border check to intercept it. As other posters mentioned, pharma has a full traceability.
What I can foresee is that if this would have gone ahead, any problematic vaccine exports simply would not have got the "stamp", so they wouldn't even get to the border.

Seth Brundle

I see that David Trimble has a long winded pro-unionist article in today's IT about how bad the protocol is and how it will damage peace in NI :rolleyes:...

David Trimble: Tear up the Northern Ireland protocol to save the Belfast Agreement
The withdrawal agreement protocol ignores the fundamental principle of consent

johnnyskeleton

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I see that David Trimble has a long winded pro-unionist article in today's IT about how bad the protocol is and how it will damage peace in NI :rolleyes:...

David Trimble: Tear up the Northern Ireland protocol to save the Belfast Agreement
The withdrawal agreement protocol ignores the fundamental principle of consent

Well to be fair to him, while I do think characterising it as a constitutional change is a bit dramatic, it seems to me that there are three options:

1. Allign NI with UK and alienate nationalists contrary to spirit, if not exact wording of GFA;
2. Aliign NI with Ireland and alienate unionists contrary to their idea of constitutional statehood as possibly guaranteed by their right to remain in the UK under the GFA (which they largely don't accept in any event); or
3. Do what the GFA is all about at its core, which is finding a fudge or middle position that both sides can agree to.

The geopolitical reality is that the Northern Ireland protocol has chosen no. 1 for two very important reasons - the majority of NI citizens voted against Brexit and, whether Unionists like Trimble understand this or not, NI is far more important to the EU than it is to the UK, and the EU has much greater bargaining power. Hence 1. was chosen instead of 2.

Since the NI protocol has come into effect, we have seen a dramatic shift in Unionism to the extreme - DUP voters are turning towards TUV, and now we even see Nobel Peace Lauret David Trimble trying to undo the peace in Northern Ireland, presumably to keep UUP relevant to its voter base.

Ultimately I think everyone should be looking towards 3. if possible - just fudge it and stop agitating.

CelticRambler

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I see that David Trimble has a long winded pro-unionist article in today's IT about how bad the protocol is and how it will damage peace in NI :rolleyes:...

David Trimble: Tear up the Northern Ireland protocol to save the Belfast Agreement

All the usual whinging: it's the EU's fault, they annexed NI, GB outside the EU can be trusted, there'd be no problem if everyone was nice to Unionists. :rolleyes:

Why is this even in the Irish Times? If David Trimble has a problem with the NI Protocol, he should take it up with a certain Mr. Boris Johnson - his Prime Minister, who signed the Protocol and put the border in the Irish Sea; or maybe he could reflect on what way he himself cast his vote in the referendum, the act that brought us inevitably to this point.

yagan

If he justifies violence as legitimate response to the UK/EU agreement then he needs to be striped of his Nobel prize.

Actually when you read about the days leading up to the signing of the Belfast Agreement the UUP weren't enthusiastic but Blair wasn't giving them any other choice. It was either sign the peace agreement or be seen as against the end of the conflict.

James Molyneux was right when he said the IRA ceasefire was a disaster for Northern Ireland unionists. The planter could no longer subjugate the native.

Trimble's full proposal for anyone bothered:
https://centreforbrexitpolicy.org.uk/publications/correcting-the-damage-caused-by-the-northern-ireland-protocol/
Link to pdf is at the bottom.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Trimble's full proposal for anyone bothered:
https://centreforbrexitpolicy.org.uk/publications/correcting-the-damage-caused-by-the-northern-ireland-protocol/
Link to pdf is at the bottom.

Mutual Enforcement entails each side making a reciprocal legal commitment to enforce the rules of the other with respect (only) to trade across the border. Each side maintains autonomy - but commits to the enforcement of whatever rules the other seeks to impose in respect of goods crossing the border.

:pac::pac::pac:

GB doesn't currently have the resources to control it's own border and enforce its own rules - how and when are they going to be able to start enforcing the EU's rules aswell? :rolleyes:

Customs enforcement can require
12 The Centre for Brexit Policy evidence as to from where such products were supplied and proof that duty was paid. This can be assisted by recordkeeping requirements, similar to those that exist in tax matters. Such enforcement informs a prosecution on both sides of the border. The supplier of the product is therefore prosecuted as opposed to just the buyer/importer under the normal arrangements.

Oh yeah - that's a great way to boost exports: tell your domestic traders that they'll be prosecuted if someone from outside GB places an order for their product (but don't worry - we'll have a super user-friendly recordkeeping software system up and running in no time, just like the one the Japanese are working on for us that'll be ready for the 1st Jan 2021, and no we're not going to let the EU use it because ... sovereignty or summat.) :rolleyes:

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Trimble's full proposal for anyone bothered:
https://centreforbrexitpolicy.org.uk/publications/correcting-the-damage-caused-by-the-northern-ireland-protocol/
Link to pdf is at the bottom.

It's a rehash of the "alternative arrangements" thing, which is basically "I assume some boffin could do something with some sort of computer, ergo problems solved if there was only the political will to do so".

The only slight novelty in it is Mutual recognition:

Mutual Enforcement entails each side making a reciprocal legal commitment to enforce the rules of the other with respect (only) to trade across the border. Each side maintains autonomy - but commits to the enforcement of whatever rules the other seeks to impose in respect of goods crossing the border.

Relying on the UK to be a good faith actor is not exactly an attractive offer.

beerguts

What bothers me the most about the trimble article is that the Irish Times even printed it, this crap should be in the planter rag the Belfast telegraph, not in the most prominent paper in our state. This constant appeasement of them will end up straining relations with our European partners. if we are seen to be giving that sort of nonsense from trimble credence instead of demanding the protocol is inforced it will end badly for us in the Republic

joeysoap

This bit made me smile anyway

.....be restored to the natural Irish land border.....

Capt'n Midnight

UK is a step closer to keeping data transfers under the GDPR.


https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/19/brussels-says-eu-uk-data-flows-are-safe-to-continue-post-brexit

The decision of the European Commission is not yet final: it now requires an opinion from the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the green light from a committee composed of national representatives.

In the meantime, data flows between the two continue to operate through an interim regime included in the EU-UK free trade deal signed last year. This regime expires on June 30.

Spanish Eyes

Look, the reality is that Brexit is only an issue for those wishing to denigrate it.

It is definitely not for dilettantes anymore.

So what is the worst that can happen now, remember we all thought the worst implications would rest with the UK, but that seems ok to me at the moment.

Don’t see any panic.

Fionn1952

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Look, the reality is that Brexit is only an issue for those wishing to denigrate it.

It is definitely not for dilettantes anymore.

So what is the worst that can happen now, remember we all thought the worst implications would rest with the UK, but that seems ok to me at the moment.

Don’t see any panic.

....the UK is currently having ructions about issues raised by Brexit. In what world is this everything seeming okay?!

Brexit seems to be a pretty significant issue for an awful lot of people in NI, and the complaints are primarily coming from those who would argue in favour of it, not those who wish to denigrate it.

Rain Ascending

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

UK is a step closer to keeping data transfers under the GDPR.

https://www.euronews.com/2021/02/19/brussels-says-eu-uk-data-flows-are-safe-to-continue-post-brexit

This is an astute move by the Commission. Assuming the other bodies named in the article also give thier approval, the UK is effectively locked into maintaining a GDPR-like data regime. Certain vocal conserative voices in the UK would like to ditch GDPR, but now there would a large cost to doing so, namely loss of UK data adequacy.

Had the Commission said "no, the UK doesn't get data adequacy" (e.g. over concerns about data surveillance by UK security services) then the cost would be sunk and the UK would be free to trash the data protections in GDPR.

Enzokk

David Trimble should listen to what the former leader of the UUP said about the deal,

https://twitter.com/EmmandJDeSouza/status/1363062698645344256?s=20

My worry here is that he is listening to the base and the base isn't happy about the NI Protocol and he is being opportunistic here. We are just a few steps away from violence if those on the Unionist side doesn't temper anger and face reality. But it seems like they have chosen stand there with the fuel in hand instead of fire extinguishers.

listermint

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Look, the reality is that Brexit is only an issue for those wishing to denigrate it.

It is definitely not for dilettantes anymore.

So what is the worst that can happen now, remember we all thought the worst implications would rest with the UK, but that seems ok to me at the moment.

Don’t see any panic.

You had this terrible take two weeks ago and were pointed to all the customs issues the cliff fall of trade exports the exodus of money and jobs.

What's changed since then and why do you keep coming to with the same take. You know the meme with the head in sand. Insert here.

rock22

The Guardian today has an article saying Starmer is silencing his MPs regarding Brexit. They were told "not to focus on problems caused by Brexit when asking questions in parliament, dealing with the media,"

This seems strange, but the rationale seems to be that because Starmer lent Labour support ot the deal that any criticism will come back against them. From the article it seems many Labour MPS are unhappy to go along with what they call radio silence. It is quite possible that Brexit will do more harm to Labour than it will to the Tories.

prawnsambo

McGiver wrote: »

You're starting from a completely wrong set of assumptions under the influence of British weapon grade propaganda waged in last several weeks (I'm neither Irish nor British so nobody can tell me I'm biased).

1. Article 16 was not activated, it was drafted (Šefčovič confirmed that)
2. Even if it was activated as drafted it would not have meant any sort of border on the island of Ireland whatsoever - it would have only meant that any pharmaceutical exports crossing from the Republic to the Northern Ireland requiring an export certificate!

All made up.... Inflated issue.

Edit: I don't deny that it was a diplomatical faux pas and a misstep. But these things happen quite often. Just that in this case the toxic English (won't say British) regime skilfully leveraged that for their own propaganda. This is VERY similar to how the Russians operate in Central but also Western Europe - amplification, disinformation and manipulation.

Also (afaik), there's a one month period before it comes into effect and in the meantime, there are consultations built in to the process. So there's never a situation where it's invoked and put into practice immediately.