Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

1234235237239240555

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    That's a fairly naive view imo Sam.

    I think it very unlikely that the US would attempt to punish the UK beyond expressing concern just because of the views of a few misty eyed old Americans.

    Having said that,I still believe the protocol is good for NI but does need more work on joint recognition of standards which probably aren't available in the current version.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,521 ✭✭✭20silkcut


    If brexit ultimately scuppers the Good Friday agreement the US won’t sign any trade deal with the U.K. No matter who’s in the White House. Nothing misty eyed about it that is pretty crystal clear.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Keep telling yourself that Rob. I'm sure the German car makers are only around the corner too.

    The US wouldn't just annoy little old Ireland if it showed support for the UK. It would annoy the EU. The UK is, despite what the tabloids say, weaker than at any time in its history.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Oh and that's bad for Ireland. A strong, stable neighbour and indeed partner was far better for Ireland than the unstable mess we have.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    I think the protocol is the way forward but believe uk standards should be viewed on parity with EU standards without any conditions attached.If the UK deviates from those standards then they deserve anything they get.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    There's two issues here.

    One is that the US will not react well if they perceive the UK to be undermining or violating the NI Protocol, which was agreed by the UK in order to protect the GFA, about which the USA has always felt very proprietorial. You may dismiss this as the concerns of "misty-eyed Irish Americans", but I think you're whistling in the dark; one of those misty-eyed Irish Americans is Biden, J, so these views are very influential, no matter how you characterise them. The US has already been pretty forceful in communicating its views about this, and about its implications for a UK/US trade deal, to the UK, and I don't expect that to change.

    The other is the broader issue not of Ireland or the GFA, but simply of the UK as a credible international actor with whom it is worthwhile making agreements. if the UK doesn't regard itself as bound to comply with agreements that it makes, the value of making agreements with the UK is severely diminished; the UK's reputation, diplomatic capital and ability to pursue its objectives in international relations is depleted. The Prime Minister of New Zealand recently made a speech addressing the UK's desire to joint the CPTPP (over which New Zealand, as a current member, has a veto) and made the rather pointed comment that the UK, in seeking to join, needed to "re-commit" to a "rules-based order". That's fairly strong stuff, from a party that has no particular skin in the game as far as Ireland or the GFA are concerned. The "re-commit" language suggests that New Zealand doesn't currently view the UK as a country that is committed to observing the treaties it makes. Damage has already accrued to the UK from its NIP antics, and it will continue to accrue until the UK changes course and shows that it takes its treaty commitments as seriously as other countries expect it to.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Make your mind up murphaph,is the EU a dynamic powerhouse on the world stage or hanging on what the US say?

    As I've said,I believe the protocol(but a tweaked protocol to recognise UK standards with no conditions)is the best situation for all.If the UK uses the mechanisms built into the agreement with the UK it's nothing to do with any other countries outside the EU.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Your belief is delusional. It's clearly not in the interests of the EU to recognise UK standards with no conditions. There would then be nothing to stop the UK modifying its standards and freely exporting goods of whatever quality the UK liked to the EU, without any kind of inspection, control or restraint.

    And what is causing problems for the the UK is not its use of the mechanisms built into the NIP; it's its refusal to use those mechanisms, opting instead to moan and whinge, to fail or refuse to implement provisions it doesn't want to implement, to threaten outright breach of the treaty, and to demand renegotiation of the treaty that it has already negotiated, signed, ratified and hailed as a triumph for Boris Johnson on the claim - simultaneously blatantly dishonest and wholly irrelevant - that it has a right to renegotiation because it didn't understand what it was negotiating, signing and ratifying.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    The UK government convinced itself some years ago that the EU would eventually agree to mutual recognition of standards. The multiple reasons why this won't happen have been explained to them repeatedly but when you don't have a Plan B.......



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,377 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    I've read your previous post on misty eyed Americans in disbelief and then this one about the EU recognising UK standards and I'm at a loss for words.

    Im forced to actually ask you. Have you read any of the news whatsoever internationally for the last 12 months? Genuinely. Because if you had you would know the pressure the US is applying and you would equally know there is absolutely no trust in the UK government to hold any agreement or standards.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    OK,can you answer these question?

    Which is more important to you as a citizen of the EU?Maintaining the integrity of the EU or the GFA?What should the EU do if the UK trigger art16 as they believe the protocol isn't working?



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,412 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The UK have already changed standards. One example is the temporary allowance to use neonicotinoid thiamethoxam in the UK.

    They also have committed to further changes (which really mean looser controls)



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    Same question to you lister.If the UK trigger art 16 as they are entitled to do as per the agreement which is more important,the EU or the GFA?



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,377 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    They are not entitled to trigger Article 16 based on their spurious argument over sausages. The article was not created for such a ridiculous low proposition. So frankly your premise of arguement i shall dismiss immediately.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,412 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    On what grounds are the UK currently entitled to trigger Art 16?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭KildareP


    Nice try.

    It is not the actions of the EU that have placed the Good Friday Agreement at risk here, it is entirely the actions of the UK. The UK chose to Brexit. The EU didn't want the UK to leave.

    The UK thus needs to arrive at a form of Brexit that is compatible with its existing mutual obligations whilst also allowing for changes coming about because of Brexit.

    It is not up to the EU to choose one over the other, that's the UK's job in delivering a viable Brexit.

    Thankfully, the UK obligated themselves to maintaining no border on the island of Ireland whilst also ensuring the EU SM is protected by signing the NIP, a protocol they had an equal part in developing, negotiating, finalising and signing, so that question does not arise on the EU side.

    That it now wants to rip up that agreement reflects entirely on the UK, not on the EU.

    If the UK reneges on its agreement, it's entirely the UK to blame for any fallout that occurs from now on, not the EU, because it's the UK choosing to go against what it previously committed to do.

    If the UK wants to do that then it can do so it at its peril. The world is watching. Because their honour and trustworthiness is fast eroding to nothing:




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    The sausage war is a stupid name created by tabloids and is only the tip of the problem.If the UK believes that the protocol isn't working as envisaged and trigger the inbuilt mechanism within the agreement what do you think the EU should do about it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    As far as I'm aware,Frost said its not the time to trigger anything but if they believe the protocol isn't working then they may well do so as is their right.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,412 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    In fairness, Frost talks a lot of crap. On what grounds would they have to trigger Art 16 currently? You even claimed "If the UK trigger art 16 as they are entitled to do as per the agreement which is more important,the EU or the GFA?" - why are they entitled to do so? What has changed to trigger it?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,861 ✭✭✭Christy42


    That will be the UK's choice. Not Ireland or the EU's. The EU has repeatedly negotiated deals with the UK that preserve the Good Friday Agreement. The UK has repeatedly decided they don't like these deals after the fact. There is no choice between the GFA and the EU. It is simply the UK making the choice.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    He doesn't matter what Frost said, remember he was saying this was a great deal only a few months ago.

    What are the grounds for triggering A16? And do you think, given they have admitted to not understanding the deal they signed, that they actually understand what triggering A16 actually means?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,267 ✭✭✭fash


    No they shouldn't - the EU shouldn't have its standards dictated to it by a tiny belligerent island. Remember all that stuff about "sovereignty" and "taking back control"? It cuts both ways. The UK can align with EU standards - or not.



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,305 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It has already been pointed out several times that triggering Art 16 won't fix the prob and is only designed as a temporary measure. Posturing and threatening to trigger is bluster and bullshit therefore that you seem to have bought into.

    It is the ultimate jumping up and down on the sidelines threatening to shoot yourself more designed for the homegrown misinformed than it is a credible threat, we in the EU is going to worry about.



  • Registered Users Posts: 66,305 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Meanwhile, as I said we in the EU are just getting on with it and taking a wayward 3rd country to court.

    EU to Escalate Legal Action Against U.K. Over N. Ireland - Bloomberg



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭peter kern


    what is not working that is fault of the EU, you talk about belives , but what are the facts that dont work and how do you deal with them realistically, given that this is obviously not an easy situation. but the fact remains the eu did not create this issue.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The reason NI has so many checks relative to the volume of goods is that the shipments are smaller. Down to pallet level or smaller.

    It's the cheesemakers problem of needing the same amount of certs for one posted cheese or one truckload.

    M&S I have no sympathy for as they source so little stuff in Ireland. They got caught out / didn't prepare by setting up a distribution centre in Scotland. A centre in NI or Ireland or on the Continent would allow them to directly import non GB food products into NI. Having a centre in NI would mean less paperwork as the spitting of the loads would happen later.



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    As to which is more important, why should I have to choose? Both are important and both are compatible.

    As to what the EU should do if the UK triggers Art 16, a necessary preliminary to any discussion is to ask if you have read Article 16?

    On edit:

    Evidently you haven't read Article 16. If you had, you would know that it doesn't give the UK (or the EU) any right to do anything on the basis of "believing that the protocol isn't working".

    Have a read of Article 1=6 and then come back and reframe your question to state why you think the UK would be entitled to trigger it, and what you think "triggering it" would involve. What exactly would the UK do that would amount to "triggering Art 16"?



  • Registered Users Posts: 479 ✭✭armchaircoach


    Also it it must be noted that article 16 can be invoked to temporarily remedy an outcome in the IP that is not working (which then actually triggers intense bilateral discussions on how to fix that one specific item). However the protocol needs to have actually been implemented in full in order to prove that this outcome has not worked, something that the brexiteers have so far refused to do.


    Currently all we have is them saying a thing we said would work when it suited us to say so, now won't work as it suits us now to say that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    If the UK want to ditch the protocol then what is the alternative?

    It appears, from the complete lack of detail, that they are back to being in the SM for all the benefits but none of the obligations. That was a non runner from Day 1.

    So, if a land border is ruled out, which they are at pains to say it is, only alternative left is the original all UK backstop. Until such time as alternative technologies provide a solution.

    There really are very simple solutions to al of this, already explained many times to the UK. That they don't like those solutions is not relevant. That is the cards they have dealt themselves.

    I agree with the post above, Art 16 is the new No Deal threat.

    Post edited by Leroy42 on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,831 ✭✭✭RobMc59


    The purpose of the protocol is to maintain the status quo,not promote more imports from Ireland.



Advertisement