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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

1235236238240241555

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,340 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    No, the purpose of the NIP is to protect the GF agreement by not requiring a border on the island of Ireland. It is a consequence of the UK not adhering to EU standards that a border has to be put somewhere and so it must be put in the Irish Sea.

    The UK could agree to adhere to the SPS requirements and that alone would reduce the requirements to have inspections by 80%, but they refuse to do so.

    The UK are simply painting themselves into a corner and are now demanding the EU help them out because it was the EU that made them do it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,271 ✭✭✭fash


    It was to promote more imports from Ireland - remember "best of both worlds" "maintain the all-Ireland economy"? Borders mean reduced trade - removing borders to increase trade was the whole point of the single market in the first place. Reinstalling that border with GB obviously results in diverted trade.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,021 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Have you read any of the Protocol? Who told you that its purpose was to "maintain the status quo"?



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The NIP is to maintain the status quo in terms of peace and to have a non-physical border on the island whilst still allowing for checks between the EU and the GB. it was a brilliant solution to a problem created by the UK leaving and having their various red lines.

    An outcome of the NIP is that it means it is easier for NI to source from the RoI and the rest of the EU when they previously might have sourced from the UK.

    Again, this supply chain change was a choice made purely by the UK government.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Has the UK changed any food or other standards ?

    They could align to the EU rules, or 80% of them :), with their existing standards.

    But it's 'fight the power' for the sake of being seen to be doing something. Forgetting that 18 months ago the UK was part of the committee making the rules and 6 months ago the the UK was enforcing those rules on third parties.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    The Tories and Frost are terrified of the protocol working because NI can be compared to the rest of the UK and when the NI economy begins to prosper compared to GB, Brexit can be the only reason.



  • Registered Users Posts: 876 ✭✭✭reslfj


    The NIP was specifically made to preserve the GFA and keep the common all island economy "All island and in the SM".

    The EU and Ireland couldn't care less about extra costs at an English supermarket chain.

    The rather small UK can follow - ALL - the rules of the EU market or get lost. Wein the 🇪🇺 EU is not missing much.

    Lars :)

    PS! Don't for a minute believe the EU will hit on the island of Ireland. The EU will use peaceful means much longer than your patience.

    But when it acts, the EU can stop half the English export - and fairly fast eliminate the GBP.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,148 ✭✭✭✭Lemming


    Has the UK changed any food or other standards?

    Yes I believe so; approval of previously-banned pesticides for some crops for one. Small but potentially significant as it may have a knock-on effect along the food-chain.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭schmoo2k


    The inability to supply certain medicines to their NHS Hospitals and GPs in the NI (I think they followed the Art 16 procedure for this already, i.e. notified the EU of the issue and after discussion came to an agreement before the month was up, hence it never came into play?)



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


    Seth,I don't think anyone envisaged UK products effectively frozen out of the NI market because of excessive red tape.If that was the intention of the EU then the UK's request to renegotiate the protocol is reasonable imo.If the EU refuses I don't know what the UK government will do,perhaps they are all hot air but if they ultimately believe that the protocol isn't working as it should then they may believe Art 16 is the only option.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    The UN, the US and pretty much any and every dispute arbitration entity, would take a very dim view of the former colonial power: Britain trying to use the GFA, NIP as leverage over Ireland.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The UK not envisaging something is not a reason to trigger Art 16. That is simply the "I didn't read it properly" excuse.

    However, all of this WAS completely predictable. The UK helped define the rules that applied to non-EU countries wanting to trade with the EU. The UK helped define the NIP and TCA (which they proudly said was a brilliant deal for the UK).

    The EU is simply standing by what the UK signed up to. The UK hasn't done that fully yet. And yet the UK complains that it isn't working.

    Genuine question, do you really think the UK would be happy with the EU not fulfilling its side of the agreement?



  • Administrators Posts: 53,335 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    You don't think anyone envisaged products frozen out due to red tape? Have you been living under a rock for 5 years?

    The difficulties that were going to occur were pointed out many, many times. It was pointed out so often that those who refused to accept that it was going to happen came up with the "Project Fear" thing.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    What medicines are not available in NI now that were prior to the transition period ending and the UK fully leaving the EU?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    The UK were members of the EU and would know full well the regulatory regimes the SM operates. So i don't buy this nonsense that they didn't realize. And if by some bizarre reason they actually didn't know, WHAT were they doing the last several years as Brexit was looming?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,342 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    I have low to zero empathy for the odd business here that makes noise they didn't realize such and such product would be effected by Brexit. It just means they didn't due their due diligence ahead of Brexit.

    I have less than zero empathy for an entire country like the UK to try and fly the same lame reason.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,694 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    UK products are not "effectively frozen out of the NI market" - or at least not because of "excessive red tape". But the complication of supplying certain products to NI - such as chilled meats - was envisages, and clear, easy-to-understand rules put in place. The UK government helped draft those rules, is currently pretending they never knew anything about them, and leaving individual import-exporters to figure out which ones they want and/or need to comply with.

    And, by the way, those very same "chilled meat" rules apply to imports into GB. I cannot bring them into GB from France in my campervan fridge because of the exact same regulations, copied by the UK government from the EU rule book and pasted into UK legislation.

    Except, of course, I can bring any old crap into GB, because the rules on chilled meat imports are not being enforced. So if I can just get my slightly dodgy horse-meat across the channel, Johnson and Frost think I should be able to label it as Best of British and send it, unchecked, to NI on the back of a promise that I've done everything by the book and cross-my-heart-and-hope-noone-dies never in a million years thought someone in Dundalk would buy it from that shop in Newry.



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


    If the EU said they are unhappy with certain aspects of the agreement and wanted to renegotiate parts of it I hope that the UK would listen to them.I agree that they may not be happy with that situation and understand that is probably the way that the EU feels now..I understand that if the issues couldn't be worked out the EU can use the mechanisms in place



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭KildareP




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭KildareP


    The EU didn't and wouldn't sign any deal until they were satisfied with what they were signing up to was acceptable to them.

    Literally - no deal is better than a bad deal.

    It's why trade negotiations with South America, the USA, Canada, Australia, to name but a few, are taking decades to produce an actual agreement.

    Whereas we look at how the super speedy UK trade deals are going: the Japanese deal is heavily favoured towards the Japanese, they've had to look to reopen the Ukraine one because of massive errors, and after over five years are effectively looking to go back to where they started from with the EU because the UK didn't bother to actually read it or understand it, they just wanted it signed. The rest of the deals are copy/paste rollovers not worth even speaking of such is the insignificance they have to the UK economy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    The UK government knew full well what they were signing up to. Full well. I've had enough of their deceit and lies.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Why would the EU or indeed any country (or league of countries) enter an international trade agreement if they weren't happy with it?

    Why would any country enter an international trade agreement if they didn't allow scrutiny of said agreement?

    The UK knew the rules prior to leaving the EU and dismissed any warnings.

    The UK's incompetence (or just dishonesty) when signing the agreement is not justification for renegotiating it within months of signing it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,439 ✭✭✭KildareP


    I'm beginning to think myself that they actually had no idea whatsoever.

    To sign up to something with the intention of not honouring it would actually require effort and forethought.

    Johnson & Co just want a quick win and then move onto getting the next big win in the bag with the minimum of effort required.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭yagan


    The UK government demanding a renegotiation of a deal that they negotiated line by line and then ratified by a democratic majority in their own parliament highlights only that they're incapable of living with the decisions they make themselves.



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


    Countries do renegotiate trade agreements,Barrack Obama did it with the North American trade deal for example so the idea that it is unheard of is untrue.



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,065 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    First time I've posted here since the new site launched!


    To be honest, the impression I get is that Whitehall would have extensively counselled them about the short and long term consequences of what they're doing. What they've consistently done is kicked the can down the road and then complain when the time comes that they now have a bigger problem which they themselves created.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,035 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    They are also prioritising/ favouring the unionists in NI. The majority in NI seem to be fine with the protocol (in addition to the majority having been against Brexit in the first place).

    This stuff about protecting soldiers who killed innocents in NI is also disgraceful, and couldn't have been brought forward at a worse time. Again, this is something the unionists want to see.

    Unionists are always on the wrong tack though. Brexit was bad for the union, and so it was counter productive for them to support it, and indeed prop up the Tory government. Now that we have the protocol, they should support it as it effectively keeps the union jack over their heads. If the protocol is brought down, all bets are off, and a United Ireland may well be hastenened.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,783 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I did not suggest that trade deals couldn't be renegotiated.

    What I said was that the UK's reasons for wanting a renegotiation were not acceptable.



  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    The more recent 'renegotiations' are a fine example of the big partner imposing conditions on the smaller one.

    They are now arguing over country of origin rules. The sort of thing that's very relevant for the UK.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭yagan


    NAFTA was ratified in 1994, long before Obama was elected.

    You intentionally ignored the part in the post you replied to where they said government's don't have to enter trade agreements they're against.

    The deal that the Johnson administration wants to change is the same deal it negotiated, signed and then put to parliament for ratification. The UK governments current stance against its own creation is oxymoronic and only the most entrenched in British exceptionalism can't see that.



Advertisement