Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207140#Comment_119207140

'1 and 2 are linked in that when (not if) divergance happens it creates arbitrage opportunities and it will be more worthwhile to route stuff through Ireland to get it onto the "mainland" into the bigger markets there.'

I would not be too sure about that.

It is clear from trade figures and trade activity of the NI ports that significant imports are going via NI ports rather than through Dublin - presumably to avoid checks in Dublin. Movement of shellfish has increased by 50 times that proves that, with such shellfish ending up in France.

They are not testing.

I have seen British (labelled as such with a flag to prove it) beef for sale in M&S in Blackrock, Dublin. Surely that is wrong - we have more than enough native beef to not need to import beef from GB.

I have seen potatoes from UK for sale in Tescos - I thought that was not allowed either.

fly_agaric

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207322#Comment_119207322

edit: Sorry, read quickly and missed your point about France and the shellfish...(if that is happening!)

I meant I think it is going on already (the kinds of examples you mention possibly - but for those, it may just be they are big well resourced companies shipping a lot of product, and are able to do it right and take the costs and hassle since end of transition?) but I'd be doubtful it leaks beyond Ireland yet.

However if there's a big regulatory gap between EU-UK, it becomes perhaps very profitable to send some stuff not intended for Ireland (either non food products or less perishable agri-food products) the long way via the open NI border, through Ireland to escape EU customs and get at the bigger and more important markets. Then we are in trouble! Ah well I'm sure bigger, more expert brains and brighter sparks than dim old me are busy thinking about it (I hope!)

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207322#Comment_119207322

M&S in foreign countries is essentially a shop for expats to get a taste of Blighty. Everything possible will be from the UK whether it makes sense or not.

joeysoap

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207322#Comment_119207322

And shelves filled with British sausages in their Newry store ( even though they can’t ‘get’ them 🙄 )

Enzokk

So something interesting is happening in the UK that I think shows they have no plan and is just making it up as they go along. The UK Government has snookered itself and it is funny to see. They have been using protecting the GFA as a reason for their NIP Bill that will override the NIP.

But in the rush to get rid of those asylum seekers that they do not want they have been stopped by the ECHR. I am sure we all know the ECHR is not the EU, but this is news to some. But the ECHR is named in the GFA as a cornerstone to the agreement and there is no disputing it. We could talk about the spirit of the agreement when it came to the EU single market as it is eluded to in the GFA but not named. The ECHR is in the agreement and the UK leaving the ECHR would be them ripping up the GFA and disrespecting what they claim to want to keep safe.

So it is clear in their rush to get their bonkers policy of sending refugees and asylum seekers to Rwanda and using it as a way to get rid of the GFA they have not actually read the GFA and realised what it would mean if they do leave the ECHR. You would have expected when Raab was asked if he had read the GFA he would have gone and read the damn thing. Seems he didn't otherwise you would have expected he would have told his fellow cabinet ministers they would be in breach of the GFA if the PM actually mentions leaving the ECHR.

https://twitter.com/OxfordDiplomat/status/1090918652101226496?s=20&t=w4iP-SWecfD1RHb_0RWvCA

So its funny that they have to choose what they care about. Do they care about protecting the GFA or do they care about getting rid of "illegal immigration" as you cannot do both really. You suspect the ECHR would find against them again and again in terms of their treatment of those they want to send to Rwanda. But to leave it would mean it undermines their reason for doing the NIP Bill.

https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1537044794278662144?s=20&t=8G8Lo5QoGrbdbHOUTbMLSw

Round pegs and square holes again, and a Government that doesn't have a clue what they are doing and are only putting plaster over cuts to save themselves. The discussion about Johnson getting one over Varadkar and Ireland the past few pages seem a little futile when the truth is exposed. They will do whatever they need to to stay in power. If it was politically expedient to enhance the agreement Varadkar made with Johnson they would go back to that as well after going against their word the week before, as long as it bought them extra time. No plan other than to survive one more news cycle.

farmerval

Quoting Marina Hyde in the Guardian today "THIS WILL ANNOY ALL THE RIGHT PEOPLE" this is the only policy of the current government. Keep up the Lynton Crosby playbook of never ending news saga's about nothing, no policy.

Igotadose

As always when the ECHR comes up, there's this gem.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1537001895365120000

Don't have time? The UK wrote the initial ECHR.

salonfire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207970#Comment_119207970

Watching that, it's hard to see the justification of the judgement from the ECHR.

Why aren't we screaming and sanctioning the Australians if offshore processing is so damaging to human rights.

No wonder the UK are pis*ed off.

54and56

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119208103#Comment_119208103

Going out on a limb here but maybe it's because Australia isn't signed up to the "European" Convention on Human Rights?

You're not Jamie Bryson in disguise are you?

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119208103#Comment_119208103

Oh I don't know; might be something in the name of EUROPEAN charter of human rights or something that might ring a bell for you why they don't sanction Australians...

salonfire

Very glib replies there. Because that's all you have. There's nothing wrong with a first world country using offshore processing.

If it was that egregious, the world would be critical of Australia, just like it is critical of other countries that abuse human rights.

Podge_irl

The world has been consistently critical of Australia's offshoring of migrant processing and there have been numerous investigations into rampant abuse of asylum seekers.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119208103#Comment_119208103

I don't think the ECHR is an official part of Eurovision.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207140#Comment_119207140

About that divergence, the UK is planning a bill for gene edited crops, but the EU don't like GMO imports so the UK's farmers will have that to worry about. Scotland are banning GMO against the UK's wishes.

Enzokk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119208168#Comment_119208168

You don't get out of a hole by keeping on digging. The problem with the UK system is not that they are using an offshore facility, it is that they are shipping asylum seekers to another country without the option of them returning to the UK. Had they decided to temporarily house those seeking asylum offshore and then process their applications and if successful let them enter the UK, I doubt there would have been as much fuss about the policy.

But those resettled have to apply for asylum in Rwanda and if successful stay in Rwanda. A country that doesn't have a great record when it comes to treating refugees and where people looking for asylum would not have any links. It is cruel and inhumane and anyone defending it should be considered such as well, IMO.

joeysoap

Suella Braverman pretty poor on Preston.

BonnieSituation

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119208980#Comment_119208980

You didn't need the qualifier there.

It never ceases to amaze me what people will support because it loosely ties into their politics.

McGiver

So the UK acted, so now the EU has acted with the legal action as predicted and expected. Where's @Kermit D. Frog?

Is the EU still throwing Ireland under the bus? 🇪🇺🇮🇪⏬🚌

McGiver

Šefčovič Press Conference:

“Let it be no doubt: There is no legal nor political justification whatsoever for unilaterally changing an international agreement,”

“Opening the door to unilaterally changing an international agreement is a breach of international law as well. So let’s call a spade a spade. This is illegal.”

peter kern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209455#Comment_119209455

but again the uk is not implementing the protocol as agreed for about a year now and the eu has not thrown ireland under the bus .....

at the end of the day the eu knows that you cant really square the circle... and it seems like the uk , with gibralter understands that you cant square the circle there either and frontex is regulating the border control for goods and people there. and it seems to be likely that gibraltar will join schengen in the near future and uk people will have to show passports to enter gibraltar .

as far as iam aware the eu is not doing anything more with the legal action, it has already done in the past and then stopped , to give the uk a bit more time to come to its senses, but now is going to press ahead with the old case .

it just seems nobody really realised that there was already issues with the single market protection, for about a year. as everybody was to focused on the article 16 noise .

johnnyskeleton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119204270#Comment_119204270

Mod note: No personal abuse please

paul71

The ECSC came into existence in 1951, and The EEC in 1958 and later still the EU. It has been making agreements with non-members now for 72 years, and for 25 years we were one of those non-members.

What is extraordinary is how mundane the matter of dealing with non-members is for the EU. Disputes arise from time to time, with Turkey, with The US, with Switzlerland, with Norway, with Iceland, with Canada, with Russia, with China, with Bylarus. What is also extraordinary is that in that 72 year history The ECSC, The EEC and The EU, in their dealings with non-members has NEVER thrown a member under the bus or compromised the internal market. Why? The answer is simple, why the hell would they? Membership and the internal market are the raison d'etre!

That is why Kermit is wrong. This is just another minor dispute with a minor country on the 72 year old path with another 200 year path ahead or the EU. It will be solved in the interest of the EU member states or the minor non-member will simply be told to trot along while we deal with the other 200 external relationships which the EU has.

There will be no Irexit and Ireland will not be thrown under a bus.

Sam Russell

If there is a breach (or even a large hole) in the SM due to the UK Gov failing to follow the NI Protocol, it will be dealt with by the EU through the ECJ, and by (punitive) sanctions against the UK by various ways that will hurt the UK much more than it hurts any single member state.

The UK has many soft parts in its underbelly that cannot take the pain the EU could inflict with no pain to the EU itself. Dover is one such point, City of London is another, and air travel is another. And that is before they look at financial penalties or the imposition of trade sanctions.

However, as we all know, the UK holds all the cards and the EU needs them more than the UK needs the EU. They are blessed to have Liz Truss and Mogg on their side.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210850#Comment_119210850

I think there'd be moderate amounts of pain for certain vulnerable businesses in places like Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland but there'll be no political blowback as it'll be clear this needs to be done to protect the single market.

The EU could just suspend flights. The middle classes of southern England wouldn't wear something like that.

peter kern

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206849#Comment_119206849

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1132

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_3676

yagan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210504#Comment_119210504

To sum up, nobody is throwing anyone under a bus, but the UK insists on lying down in the path of a bus.

The EU is a market consolidation retain purchasing power in a world of rising competing blocs. It's amazing how little traction RCEP has gotten on this side of the world yet it is of huge importance to us in the future.

Sam Russell

Well, RCEP might be important to the participants, but the extent of the deal might be important.

The deal Australia has with China got a bit of a setback when China put tariffs on Australian wine, so maybe the trade deal is a bit more fragile than its extent might suggest.

BlitzKrieg

The UK is such a political train wreck at the moment that events like this is only news worthy for a day or two before its replaced by the next crisis. So of course protocol amendment no longer making news and the uk has moved on to Boris's ethic advisor quitting and the interest rates at the bank of England going up. (Something they are desperately trying to make is not Brexit related) convenient as no papers are really able to do proper follow up explaining how full of **** Boris's "only making minor adjustments" claim was.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's used in the UK to repaint the EU's response as an over reaction later down the line when they work through the legal process and it becomes headlines again. Jacob Reese Mogg or some other twat will go on tv doing the rounds around Christmas going "We'd not even revisited the northern Ireland protocol since June, but the EU is so eager to punish us for Brexit they've pushed for a trade war, and at Christmas no less!"

McGiver

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209679#Comment_119209679

EU didn't proceed with the legal action before. Didn't start. It's started and being proceeded with now. That's the difference.