Belfast Disturbances

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

.....that isn't a change of position, Rob. The two statements are perfectly logically compatible.

If there is flexibility built into the protocol, then no changes need to be made to the protocol. This isn't the Gotcha you seem to think it is.

Fionn,the original 'the UK has to abide by what it's agreed' has gone to 'there is flexibility within the protocol'.That is the line peddled by many here. From another viewpoint it appears the reaction of many in the UK against the underhanded way the protocol is being applied has taken brussels aback,the idea this would cause fracture within the UK appears to have backfired,especially as checks in NI ports have far outstripped checks in other major ports.
I'm not trying to say 'gotcha' it's there for all to see that brussels have once again miscalculated.

J Mysterio

RobMc59 wrote: »

Fionn,the original 'the UK has to abide by what it's agreed' has gone to 'there is flexibility within the protocol'.That is the line peddled by many here. From another viewpoint it appears the reaction of many in the UK against the underhanded way the protocol is being applied has taken brussels aback,the idea this would cause fracture within the UK appears to have backfired,especially as checks in NI ports have far outstripped checks in other major ports.
I'm not trying to say 'gotcha' it's there for all to see that brussels have once again miscalculated.

How has it been applied in an underhanded way? And actually, isn't it true to say that the protocol has not been fully implemented yet?

RobMc59

J Mysterio wrote: »

How has it been applied in an underhanded way? And actually, isn't it true to say that the protocol has not been fully implemented yet?

I posted a link a few days ago detailing how NI ports have to deal with considerably more checks than major ports in France and Holland.The apparent willingness of the EU to streamline the protocol now is welcome and a victory for commonsense rather than a victory for either party imo.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

Fionn,the original 'the UK has to abide by what it's agreed' has gone to 'there is flexibility within the protocol'.That is the line peddled by many here. From another viewpoint it appears the reaction of many in the UK against the underhanded way the protocol is being applied has taken brussels aback,the idea this would cause fracture within the UK appears to have backfired,especially as checks in NI ports have far outstripped checks in other major ports.
I'm not trying to say 'gotcha' it's there for all to see that brussels have once again miscalculated.

It isn't being applied, that's the problem. Since day one, when complaints about the Protocol have been raised, the retort has been, 'there are mechanisms within the protocol to deal with issues, implement the protocol as per your own responsibilities and then we can discuss the flexibilities already contained therein'.

Brussels have miscalculated? I don't think so. I think we've held firmly to a point in the EU; you've signed an agreement, implement your side of it and stop trying to weasel out of it, then we can discuss ways to make things smoother.

You'll recall that from the very start, I actually predicted that the UK position would be to try and sell utilising one of the existing mechanisms as, 'EU capitulation' to the domestic audience.....if a self professed moderate like yourself is already drinking the Kool Aid, my prediction looks all the more likely. Your language is very telling; a post or two back you were professing that you never supported Brexit, then you're in with the Express-type take that the EU expecting the UK to uphold their end of an agreement they made is somehow an attempt to fracture the UK? The Tories are managing to do that just fine on their own, this whole thing came about off the back of Cameron's absolutely atrocious attempt at trying to repair some of those fractures among his own party's support. I don't recall seeing the UK more divided in my lifetime, and that isn't due to the bloody NI Protocol.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

I posted a link a few days ago detailing how NI ports have to deal with considerably more checks than major ports in France and Holland.

Eh, no. You posted a link to a report of one person (one) saying that NI carried out more checks than France and the Netherlands, without giving any details of the number of checks carried out in France, and giving a figure for Rotterdam that had no context whatsoever.

That's not "detailing" - that's heresay. But quite consistent with the description of Johnson who supposedly "doesn't do detail".

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

How many times do you need to be told francie?-The UK are the Unionists.
You position has gone from no change to the protocol to frantically moonwalking saying there is flexibility built into the protocol.
I see the advantages to NI being in the single market and wanting the protocol streamlined to assist trade isn't unreasonable-I realise this cooperation doesn't suit the agenda of certain groups who would rather see conflict and discord to achieve their ends.

Just like you have been doing on here in other threads you are 'frantic' for the EU to be seen folding it's tent, and for others to say it.

I have been speaking about the flexibility in the Protocol since day one. The UK is being shown how to use it. That is what is happening.

The UK are Unionists for now...the sad thing is they are not NI Unionists though. NI Unionists are as we have seen expendable.

downcow wrote: »

Good point.
Francie would you like to see the Eu go the extra mile to minimise checks and disruption on entry to Larne and Belfast from gb?

I have said from the start that if GB used the Protocol properly there would be few issues...there will always be disruption though and the economies of north and south will come closer together, perfect as a prep for a UI. There were plenty of warnings but you couldn't be told.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Eh, no. You posted a link to a report of one person (one) saying that NI carried out more checks than France and the Netherlands, without giving any details of the number of checks carried out in France, and giving a figure for Rotterdam that had no context whatsoever.

That's not "detailing" - that's heresay. But quite consistent with the description of Johnson who supposedly "doesn't do detail".

Dismissing the comments of Northern Ireland's chief vet,Robert Huey as one person(one) is misleading to say the least and is a tactic usually used on other threads.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Dismissing the comments of Northern Ireland's chief vet,Robert Huey as one person(one) is misleading to say the least and is a tactic usually used on other threads.

There are people with political agendas at every level in NI. We had a senior politician caught inventing terror threats to fulfil a political goal Rob. Don't trust anything you hear.

Not saying the guy was wrong, just don't trust what anyone says on face value. That goes for all of them.

jimmycrackcorm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Eh, no. You posted a link to a report of one person (one) saying that NI carried out more checks than France and the Netherlands, without giving any details of the number of checks carried out in France, and giving a figure for Rotterdam that had no context whatsoever.

Indeed, it's very questionable to say there are more checks between GB and NI than the larger trade volumes between GB and the continent, or even GB and ROI.

Suggesting that the greatest volume of sea trade is GB-NI?

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Just like you have been doing on here in other threads you are 'frantic' for the EU to be seen folding it's tent, and for others to say it.

I have been speaking about the flexibility in the Protocol since day one. The UK is being shown how to use it. That is what is happening.

The UK are Unionists for now...the sad thing is they are not NI Unionists though. NI Unionists are as we have seen expendable.



I have said from the start that if GB used the Protocol properly there would be few issues...there will always be disruption though and the economies of north and south will come closer together, perfect as a prep for a UI. There were plenty of warnings but you couldn't be told.

Frantic?Pointing out the intransigence of brussels isn't frantic francie (!?)
What's to stop the EU recognising British standards haven't dropped,no one is trying to ship chlorinated chicken,steroid enhanced beef or knot weed ridden soil into NI.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Frantic?Pointing out the intransigence of brussels isn't frantic francie (!?)
What's to stop the EU recognising British standards haven't dropped,no one is trying to ship chlorinated chicken,steroid enhanced beef or knot weed ridden soil into NI.

Rob...there is not a hope in hell that anyone is going to trust the UK after the Brexit process. That is damage done by the UK and Brexiteers.

The Single Market is not going to be compromised and if you see that as 'intransigence' take it up with those who orchestrated Brexit. We'll get on with operating the Single Market we were happy with.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

Frantic?Pointing out the intransigence of brussels isn't frantic francie (!?)
What's to stop the EU recognising British standards haven't dropped,no one is trying to ship chlorinated chicken,steroid enhanced beef or knot weed ridden soil into NI.

Simple solution....the UK agree that they won't drop their standards. Problem solved.

The only reason that this is an issue is because the UK won't commit to that. The only logical reason they won't commit to that is because they want to keep it open as an option, and if they want to keep it open as an option, then it would be completely irresponsible of the EU to treat them as if they were committed to those standards.

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Simple solution....the UK agree that they won't drop their standards. Problem solved.

The only reason that this is an issue is because the UK won't commit to that. The only logical reason they won't commit to that is because they want to keep it open as an option, and if they want to keep it open as an option, then it would be completely irresponsible of the EU to treat them as if they were committed to those standards.

It's more of the 'we want our Brexity cake and we want to eat it'.

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

Dismissing the comments of Northern Ireland's chief vet,Robert Huey as one person(one) is misleading to say the least and is a tactic usually used on other threads.

No more questionable than dismissing Patrick Valence's suggestion, last year, that the transmission of coronavirus amongst the public gathered in indoor spaces wasn't of particular concern.

The Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland signed an agreement setting out the rules that would be applied within the United Kingdom at the end of the Transition Period. Those rules took into account the existing SPS protocols and food standards and the stated intention of to deviate from the standards in force, with the UK deliberately legislating in favour of reduced standards.

Are you seriously suggesting that the British Prime Minister didn't know what he was signing?

Against the backdrop of a pandemic caused by unrestricted movement of people across multiple epidemiological regions, do you believe it is responsible behaviour for a public health official to suggest that agreed disease prevention protocols are set aside for political convenience?

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Rob...there is not a hope in hell that anyone is going to trust the UK after the Brexit process. That is damage done by the UK and Brexiteers.

The Single Market is not going to be compromised and if you see that as 'intransigence' take it up with those who orchestrated Brexit. We'll get on with operating the Single Market we were happy with.

Whether you like it or not it looks like the EU and UK are going to iron out difficulties within the protocol.I welcome this.
If differences are sorted out are you happy with the fact NI appears to be in a better position to kick on in its own right,able to take advantage of its unique position?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Whether you like it or not it looks like the EU and UK are going to iron out difficulties within the protocol.I welcome this.
If differences are sorted out are you happy with the fact NI appears to be in a better position to kick on in its own right,able to take advantage of its unique position?

We'll see.

I would not be hopeful of stability politically any time soon.

I think you will see that instability continue, repelling investment and all the while the two economies growing closer together and the NI one particularly dependent on our economy.
The very real hindrance that Brexit is (and which the Protocol cannot fix )will push more and more into the 'consider unification on it's merits' camp and more into the 'unification is better' camp.


Suits me.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

No more questionable than dismissing Patrick Valence's suggestion, last year, that the transmission of coronavirus amongst the public gathered in indoor spaces wasn't of particular concern.

The Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland signed an agreement setting out the rules that would be applied within the United Kingdom at the end of the Transition Period. Those rules took into account the existing SPS protocols and food standards and the stated intention of to deviate from the standards in force, with the UK deliberately legislating in favour of reduced standards.

Are you seriously suggesting that the British Prime Minister didn't know what he was signing?

Against the backdrop of a pandemic caused by unrestricted movement of people across multiple epidemiological regions, do you believe it is responsible behaviour for a public health official to suggest that agreed disease prevention protocols are set aside for political convenience?

I defer to your opinion regarding disease prevention .
Although I,and many others suspect that brussels has attempted to weaponise the protocol to bring the UK to heel but has been rumbled.As I asked earlier is the UK suddenly likely to want to import chlorinated chicken,knot weed ridden soil etc to NI?

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

What's to stop the EU recognising British standards haven't dropped

The British government is stopping it. British farmers asked for current standards to be set as the guaranteed minimum going forward. The government said "no way" and drafted legislation to that effect. The Lords amended the legislation to guarantee that standards wouldn't be dropped. The government re-amended it to remove that guarantee.

Now, knowing that, and knowing that controls on imports into the UK have effectively been suspended until July, can you give us a 100% guarantee that there is no meat, fish or poultry entering the UK from, say, China or Thailand or India that meets the pre-Brexit standards?

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

As I asked earlier is the UK suddenly likely to want to import chlorinated chicken,knot weed ridden soil etc to NI?

It's not a question of what the UK "wants" to do, it's what it's actually doing to ensure that it doesn't happen. Right now, the island of Great Britain is one of Europe's least protected regions. On the one hand, because the relevant departments are desperately short staffed (not least because a huge cohort of inspectors are/were EU migrants who have left); and on the other, because the government in charge has very deliberately decided that lower standards might be a good thing, and taken active steps to permit them.

FrancieBrady

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's not a question of what the UK "wants" to do, it's what it's actually doing to ensure that it doesn't happen. Right now, the island of Great Britain is one of Europe's least protected regions. On the one hand, because the relevant departments are desperately short staffed (not least because a huge cohort of inspectors are/were EU migrants who have left); and on the other, because the government in charge has very deliberately decided that lower standards might be a good thing, and taken active steps to permit them.

The complete inability of Brexiteers to understand that the Single Market operates and succeeds on 'rules' not nod and wink promises.

This is conveniently portrayed as intransigence, revenge and dictatorial by somebody (Rob) who pretends he was in favour of the UK remaining in this system.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The complete inability of Brexiteers to understand that the Single Market operates and succeeds on 'rules' not nod and wink promises.

This is conveniently portrayed as intransigence, revenge and dictatorial by somebody (Rob) who pretends he was in favour of the UK remaining in this system.

You talk of rules yet how are the antics of French fishermen in this link abiding by rules?Or is it only the UK who must abide by the rules?

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210423-french-fishermen-seek-to-block-british-shipments-in-brexit-protest

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

You talk of rules yet how are the antics of French fishermen in this link abiding by rules?Or is it only the UK who must abide by the rules?

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210423-french-fishermen-seek-to-block-british-shipments-in-brexit-protest

Jesus H. That is French fishermen reacting to the UK not keeping to their part of a deal.

The UK you want the EU to trust.

Fionn1952

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus H. That is French fishermen reacting to the UK not keeping to their part of a deal.

The UK you want the EU to trust.

It's almost as if he didn't actually read any of the article beyond the headline.

Britain’s post-Brexit trade deal with the European Union allowed the bloc’s fishermen to keep fishing deep into British waters, but only once they had received a license.

Those licenses were expected to be issued swiftly but instead some 80% of the French fleet in the northern Hauts-de-France region, from whose coastline Britain’s southern shores are visible, were still waiting, French fishermen said.

“We thought it would be a matter of days. Four months on we’ve barely moved forwards,” said Bruno Margolle, who heads the main fishermen’s cooperative in Boulogne-sur-Mer

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

It's almost as if he didn't actually read any of the article beyond the headline.

The criteria has changed and some fishermen don’t meet or don't like those conditions which has resulted in demonstrations and blaming those pesky British(sound familiar?)

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

The criteria has changed and some fishermen don’t meet or don't like those conditions which has resulted in demonstrations and blaming those pesky British(sound familiar?)

Except it's a prime example of Britain agreeing to something and then trying to shift the goalposts before the ink is dry. Did the EU change any criteria with regards to the issuance of licenses? What part of their agreed terms are the EU not upholding in this example?

Either way, how is a group of people engaging in protest in any way akin to a government avoiding responsibility for an agreement they signed?

For someone against Brexit, you seem to take a very one-sided, blame the EU for everything, request more cake, Britain can do no wrong attitude that is reminiscent of the most hardline of Brexit supporters.

jimmycrackcorm

RobMc59 wrote: »

Frantic?Pointing out the intransigence of brussels isn't frantic francie (!?)
What's to stop the EU recognising British standards haven't dropped,no one is trying to ship chlorinated chicken,steroid enhanced beef or knot weed ridden soil into NI.

There should be no objection to the NI protocol then as it guarantees in the future that none of these is imported into this island.

RobMc59

Fionn1952 wrote: »

Except it's a prime example of Britain agreeing to something and then trying to shift the goalposts before the ink is dry. Did the EU change any criteria with regards to the issuance of licenses? What part of their agreed terms are the EU not upholding in this example?

Either way, how is a group of people engaging in protest in any way akin to a government avoiding responsibility for an agreement they signed?

For someone against Brexit, you seem to take a very one-sided, blame the EU for everything, request more cake, Britain can do no wrong attitude that is reminiscent of the most hardline of Brexit supporters.

Being concerned about the amount of control brussels wants over individual member nations doesn't mean I'm a brexiteer,I've told you this before I believe just as I've pointed out to francie Unionists aren't just in NI but it doesn't seem to sink in with either of you.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Being concerned about the amount of control brussels wants over individual member nations doesn't mean I'm a brexiteer,I've told you this before I believe just as I've pointed out to francie Unionists aren't just in NI but it doesn't seem to sink in with either of you.

That a boy ROb, just ignore the main points the poster made about the fishermen and the UK reneging on a deal. And why they shouldn't be trusted.

Fionn1952

RobMc59 wrote: »

Being concerned about the amount of control brussels wants over individual member nations doesn't mean I'm a brexiteer,I've told you this before I believe just as I've pointed out to francie Unionists aren't just in NI but it doesn't seem to sink in with either of you.

Unionists aren't just in NI?! So what? That's a total non-sequitur, absolutely no relevance whatsoever to some very simple questions.

You're concerned about the influence of, 'Brussels' over individual member nations? Britain isn't a member nation, so not really relevant again, is it?

You provided an example alleging that it was demonstrating that the EU are just as bad as the UK at not, 'keeping to the rules'....I highlighted that you'd actually posted an article detailing the reaction of some French fishermen to the UK changing the goalposts and trying to weasel out of what they'd agreed to. I asked you to detail what criteria the EU have changed in your example, or what part of their agreed terms are the EU not upholding which make the situation you've highlighted in France comparable to the British government's refusal to implement the NI Protocol and their constant attempts to back out of their agreements?

FrancieBrady

DUP, front and centre of stoking and promoting violence.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-56857627