The Irish protocol.

maestroamado

downcow wrote: »

Yes indeed. I don’t like Poots but fair play to him he done well. Bit of ranting from the Eu person

For me it was a stunt to bring the Unionists to the debate...

downcow

maestroamado wrote: »

For me it was a stunt to bring the Unionists to the debate...

Andrew marr was part of a stunt to bring in unionists? Why?? Makes no sense

maestroamado

downcow wrote: »

Andrew marr was part of a stunt to bring in unionists? Why?? Makes no sense

It makes perfect sense to me as DUP part of the long term plan.
I should not have use the word stunt.
Having this debate tell me there is a lot going on as now NI is at a crossroads.
I expect Boris and others expected this...

Junkyard Tom

So here's where we are now; we have to threaten the British Government.



Anyone have any idea what unilateral actions would be? When Trump levied tariffs on China the Chinese targeted businesses in Republican voting states with retaliatory tariffs. Will we see a similar surgical EU move designed to hurt the Tory heartlands?

maestroamado

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So here's where we are now; we have to threaten the British Government.



Anyone have any idea what unilateral actions would be? When Trump levied tariffs on China the Chinese targeted businesses in Republican voting states with retaliatory tariffs. Will we see a similar surgical EU move designed to hurt the Tory heartlands?

it will likely be discussed i n Cornwall in the coming days and not an IRISH politician involved...

Peregrinus

Why in God's name would it be discussed in Cornwall? As Tom points out, it's a unilateral EU decision; it will be discussed and made in Brussels.

(And what's with the Daily Mail-style random CAPITALISATION of words?)

The answer to Tom's question, I think, is that the EU will abide by the rules; they will invoke the dispute resolution mechanisms already agreed between the EU and the UK, which will likely involve referring the matter to arbitration. If the UK refuses to participate in arbitration, or refuses to abide by the outcome, then the EU can suspend selected provisions of the WA and/or the TCA. The EU gets to select which provisions it will suspend, but its counter-measures must be proportionate to the UK's breach of its obligations, and they can't include suspending the NIP or any part of it, so they will be measures that affect GB rather than NI. They are likely to be thematically related to the particular breach that has been referred to arbitration - e.g. if the complaint is that the UK is not operating SPS requirements on chilled meats imported into NI, the counter-measure might be a tariff on UK meats products

maestroamado

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why in God's name would it be discussed in Cornwall? As Tom points out, it's a unilateral EU decision; it will be discussed and made in Brussels.

(And what's with the Daily Mail-style random CAPITALISATION of words?)

The answer to Tom's question, I think, is that the EU will abide by the rules; they will invoke the dispute resolution mechanisms already agreed between the EU and the UK, which will likely involve referring the matter to arbitration. If the UK refuses to participate in arbitration, or refuses to abide by the outcome, then the EU can suspend selected provisions of the WA and/or the TCA. The EU gets to select which provisions it will suspend, but its counter-measures must be proportionate to the UK's breach of its obligations, and they can't include suspending the NIP or any part of it, so they will be measures that affect GB rather than NI. They are likely to be thematically related to the particular breach that has been referred to arbitration - e.g. if the complaint is that the UK is not operating SPS requirements on chilled meats imported into NI, the counter-measure might be a tariff on UK meats products

It was mentioned on the news that Bidan, Boris and one of the EU heads would likely be having a chat...

Peregrinus

I think we may be confusing two distinct issues.

Pressure on the UK to abide by its agreements will certainly be applied at the G7 meeting. Biden is lending his aid to this.

An EU decision about what countermeasures to apply, if the dispute comes to that, will be made by the EU. It won't happen yet. It won't happen at the G7 meeting. Biden won't be involved. Ireland certainly will.

maestroamado

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think we may be confusing two distinct issues.

Pressure on the UK to abide by its agreements will certainly be applied at the G7 meeting. Biden is lending his aid to this.

An EU decision about what countermeasures to apply, if the dispute comes to that, will be made by the EU. It won't happen yet. It won't happen at the G7 meeting. Biden won't be involved. Ireland certainly will.

There are two separate and i think Biden is already involved as USA were principle players in the GFA.
I agree Biden wont be involved in the decision but the USA will have an input.

I expect there is alot going on behind the scenes, hopefully there can be a compromise.

Peregrinus

maestroamado wrote: »

There are two separate and i think Biden is already involved as USA were principle players in the GFA.
I agree Biden wont be involved in the decision but the USA will have an input.

I expect there is alot going on behind the scenes, hopefully there can be a compromise.

There is a compromise. The NIP is the compromise, remember.

This is the UK's difficulty. They may feel that a different compromise would be better, and there may be solid arguments for that. But if you want to encourage the EU to consider a different compromise, displaying such manifest bad faith in relation to the compromise you've already negotiated, agreed and committed to is probably a poor strategy; why would the EU think would be any more committed to any new compromise than you are to this one?

If the UK wants to move on to a new compromise, it needs to practice trust-building strategies, not trust-destroying ones. They are not so stupid as to not know this. Which lead to the conclusion that they don't really want a new compromise; their true strategy is either (a) to pick away at the NIP until it collapses, and then try to blame the EU for that or (b) to bluster and bloviate, then cave and claim the cave as a famous victory which couldn't have been won without all the blustering and bloviating.

We've been here before. You could have analysed the UK's position in more or less these terms repeatedly over the past five years. And, every single time, the UK has, in the event, caved and claimed the cave as a victory. So you might think that that's what they'll do this time too.

And that conclusion might be reinforced by the thought that this issue this is all about, NI's place in the union, is one they don't give a damn about. We know they don't give a damn about it because, if they did, they wouldn't have made the decisions they made that got them to this point.

An Claidheamh

downcow wrote: »

Ni farmers of all backgrounds will be very glad to be able to stamp our meat with a union flag and ‘U.K. produce’
https://www.farmersjournal.ie/aussies-eyeing-up-irish-beef-share-in-uk-625353

Downcow and his inability of understanding the NI protocol ( or “Irish protocol” ) is proof unionists live in la la land

Instead better to post British “think tank” (a contradiction in terms) by smarmy rent a knobs supporting their deluded belief Britain cares about them

Be fun to see how the British rag press react when Biden makes a fool of the UK and their “special relationship”

British beef is about as popular as British wine, no one buys it

Orangemen will be queueing up in Dublin with their begging bowls again and their cows are Irish lark pretty soon

‘The only thing the British have ever given Europe is mad cow disease’

DUP ought to stop wasting everyone’s time

downcow

I am interested would you guys like to see Eu and U.K. reach an arrangement that meant almost all checks within the U.K. were not necessary or do you secretly want a series of checks at the Irish Sea ?

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

I am interested would you guys like to see Eu and U.K. reach an arrangement that meant almost all checks within the U.K. were not necessary or do you secretly want a series of checks at the Irish Sea ?

We'd be delighted with an agreement in which no Irish Sea checks were required. EU did in fact negotiate, sign and ratitfy such an agreement, as you may recall, with enthusiastic Irish support. It was the UK, under the influence of the certified loon wing of the Tory party, which repudiated that and demanded, instead, the WA+NIP that we now have.

A deal which didn't require any Irish Sea checks would in every possible way be in RoI's interests. Not only is it less politically contentious in NI, which would be an unqualified good thing, but it is also highly likely to involve fewer impediments to RoI-GB trade, which would be a big bonus for us. What's not to like.

The line being peddled at the moment by Brexiteers to their more simple-minded supporters, that the NIP was unjustly imposed on the UK by the wicked EU, controlled by the sinister Varadkar, is so far from the truth as to be laughable. Irish Sea barriers serve the interests of nobody but hard Brexiteers, and they exist because, and only because, hard Brexiteers prioritise their hard Brexit over the wishes and interests of Northern Ireland. Those who oppose the NIP and wish to see it changed need to focus their efforts on whose who brought it about; the hard Brexit wing of the Tory party and their useful idiot enablers in Ulster.

Mav11

Naïve question maybe, but what would be the issue with holding a referendum in NI asking where the preferred custom checks should be? After all, these are the people most directly affected. Would it be permissible under the GFA?

Whatever the outcome of the poll, all sides would then get behind it to ensure its success. Might put an end to this endless and very tiresome brexit squabbling.

maestroamado

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is a compromise. The NIP is the compromise, remember.

This is the UK's difficulty. They may feel that a different compromise would be better, and there may be solid arguments for that. But if you want to encourage the EU to consider a different compromise, displaying such manifest bad faith in relation to the compromise you've already negotiated, agreed and committed to is probably a poor strategy; why would the EU think would be any more committed to any new compromise than you are to this one?

If the UK wants to move on to a new compromise, it needs to practice trust-building strategies, not trust-destroying ones. They are not so stupid as to not know this. Which lead to the conclusion that they don't really want a new compromise; their true strategy is either (a) to pick away at the NIP until it collapses, and then try to blame the EU for that or (b) to bluster and bloviate, then cave and claim the cave as a famous victory which couldn't have been won without all the blustering and bloviating.

We've been here before. You could have analysed the UK's position in more or less these terms repeatedly over the past five years. And, every single time, the UK has, in the event, caved and claimed the cave as a victory. So you might think that that's what they'll do this time too.

And that conclusion might be reinforced by the thought that this issue this is all about, NI's place in the union, is one they don't give a damn about. We know they don't give a damn about it because, if they did, they wouldn't have made the decisions they made that got them to this point.

I believe when the UK allowed the border on the Irish sea they knew this is exactly what would happen. Its a golden opportunity for them to get a permanent solution and i do not blame them.
Hopefully if its managed properly it well work and we will have what we all want. I expect the EU will lose patience with this after a very short time and it is in our interest more than anyone to get it sorted...

Junkyard Tom

Mav11 wrote: »

Naïve question maybe, but what would be the issue with holding a referendum in NI asking where the preferred custom checks should be?

The problem would be that it would exclude everyone else in Ireland who don't want the border hardened particularly those living in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan, Lietrim and Louth.

Peregrinus

Mav11 wrote: »

Naïve question maybe, but what would be the issue with holding a referendum in NI asking where the preferred custom checks should be? After all, these are the people most directly affected. Would it be permissible under the GFA?

Whatever the outcome of the poll, all sides would then get behind it to ensure its success. Might put an end to this endless and very tiresome brexit squabbling.

We already know the answer to this question. NI, by a large majority, doesn't want border controls either on the land border with the Republic or on the sea border with Great Britain. We don't need to hold a referendum to establish this. And it would embarrass the UK government, and offend and alienate both communities in NI, to hold a referendum in which the question was essentially "Here's a stick, both ends of which we have deliberately dipped in shît. Which end would you like?"

The objection to holding a referendum, apart from pointlessness and offensiveness, is that it would involve the Tory government conceding that the model of Brexit that they impose on NI requires the consent of NI, and conceding that would threaten the majoritarian simplism by which the whole Brexit project is justified in the first place.

The other problem with your proposal is that you identify the people of NI as "the people most directly affected". Borders and border controls are by definition a bilateral concern; people on both sides are affected. How could you defend the position that the erection of border controls on the NI/RoI border requires the democratic endorsement of the people of NI but not of the people of RoI? And similarly for the erection of border controls on the NI/GB border?

Fred Cryton

downcow wrote: »

The protocol will be challenged next week in the british high courts.
I am interested in what you guys believe is an appropriate way forward if it is declared illegal, as I have a haunch it will.
Is it appropriate to continue down an illegal road or will it be time for a rethink?

Wrong title. This is the Northern Ireland Protocol. Not the Irish Protocol.



There will be no impact on the Republic of Ireland's trade arrangements with EU26 or GB.

Mav11

Peregrinus wrote: »

We already know the answer to this question. NI, by a large majority, doesn't want border controls either on the land border with the Republic or on the sea border with Great Britain. We don't need to hold a referendum to establish this. And it would embarrass the UK government, and offend and alienate both communities in NI, to hold a referendum in which the question was essentially "Here's a stick, both ends of which we have deliberately dipped in shît. Which end would you like?"

The objection to holding a referendum, apart from pointlessness and its offensiveness, is that it would involve the Tory government conceding that the model of Brexit that they impose on NI requires the consent of NI, and conceding that would threaten the majoritarian simplism by which the whole Brexit project is justified in the first place.

The other problem with your proposal is that you identify the people of NI as "the people most directly affected". Borders and border controls are by definition a bilateral concern; people on both sides are affected. How could you defend the position that the erection of border controls on the NI/RoI border requires the democratic endorsement of the people of NI but not of the people of RoI? And similarly for the erection of border controls on the NI/GB border?

I would suggest that very few want border controls, but custom (not border) controls are an unavoidable consequence of brexit, assuming the Roi stays in the EU.

"and offend and alienate both communities in NI"

It is never offensive to ask for a democratic view or opinion.

"Here's a stick, both ends of which we have deliberately dipped in shît. Which end would you like?"

Isn't that the issue that pertains now, a kind of "Hobsons choice", as a result of brexit, that is the core of the problem?

Maybe its an insoluble issue, particularly with the current tory government but I really can't see "constructive ambiguity" being successful in this case.

Mav11

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The problem would be that it would exclude everyone else in Ireland who don't want the border hardened particularly those living in Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan, Lietrim and Louth.

I get and understand that.
So where is the "Win / Win" or the "Win / Lose", because all I can see at this point is "Lose / Lose" and attempting to minimise the loss!

Peregrinus

Mav11 wrote: »

I would suggest that very few want border controls, but custom (not border) controls are an unavoidable consequence of brexit, assuming the Roi stays in the EU.

"and offend and alienate both communities in NI"

It is never offensive to ask for a democratic view or opinion.

But your assumption is that this kind of majoritarian simplism is democratic.

I would have thought that the entire history of NI is a compelling refutation of that assumption. Plus, of course, that approach to Brexit as a whole is the reason why the implementation of Brexit has been the shambolic parade of dishonesty and incompetence that we have seen.

What's needed here is not a position that can command the support of 50%+1 of the population, and your hope that "all sides would then get behind" such a solution is, um, very naive, given the experience of the past five years. What's needed here is an attempt to build consensus; a commitment to constructing a solution that commands the broadest possible support by accommodating as many diverging views as possible, at least to some extent. If you want a policy that "all sides will get behind" then you want a policy that all sides feels they have had input into, and have helped to shape. That's the precise oppposite of a referendum in which all options but the two shîttiest have been arbitrarily excluded, and the two shîttiest are polar opposites of one another.

Mav11 wrote: »

"Here's a stick, both ends of which we have deliberately dipped in shît. Which end would you like?"

Isn't that the issue that pertains now, a kind of "Hobsons choice", as a result of brexit, that is the core of the problem?

Maybe its an insoluble issue, particularly with the current tory government but I really can't see "constructive ambiguity" being successful in this case.

Yes, that is the problem. It has been the problem with Brexit all along. But it's not an insoluble issue; there are other countries in which the population is more or less equally divided over the merits of EU membership, and they have dealt with that much more successfully than the UK has.

Taking the approach which hasn't worked in the UK and using it in an attempt to address NI's particular Brexit issues, when it's the very approach that has previously proved so disastrous in NI on other matters, comes with absolute cast-iron copper-bottomed guarantee of failure.

Mav11

Peregrinus wrote: »

But your assumption is that this kind of majoritarian simplism is democratic.

You're assuming that I am arguing for a simple majority i.e. 50+1. I am not.
It may have to be some form of a qualified majority, but I wouldn't go there, before the principle is discussed.

golfball37

What annoys me about the coverage of this is the propensity of even mild unionist commentators to blame Varadkar, Coveney and the EU. It was their prime minister who signed up to it therefore its an internal uk matter.
Until they get the source of the problem right there’s no point exploring solutions.

ELM327

Mav11 wrote: »

You're assuming that I am arguing for a simple majority i.e. 50+1. I am not.
It may have to be some form of a qualified majority, but I wouldn't go there, before the principle is discussed.

the GFA defines what a majority is for a referendum on reunification, this is not up for debate.

Mav11

ELM327 wrote: »

the GFA defines what a majority is for a referendum on reunification, this is not up for debate.

The suggestion was not about a referendum on reunification, but about a poll on where custom checks should take place.

Peregrinus

Mav11 wrote: »

You're assuming that I am arguing for a simple majority i.e. 50+1. I am not.
It may have to be some form of a qualified majority, but I wouldn't go there, before the principle is discussed.

If you're proposing a referendum in which the options are "border control on the land border" and "border controls on the sea border" I don't see how you can include a qualified majority provision. What happens if neither option secures the qualified majority? This is a highly likely outcome, given that we know the favoured option - no check at all - won't even be on the ballot paper.

Donald Trump

downcow wrote: »

David Sterling said
"Without this, Northern Ireland seems destined to a sustained period of political instability, poor economic performance, heightened community tension and a real risk of trouble spilling onto the streets,"

Earlier this week European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen sparked anger among unionists when she told other EU leaders the protocol must be fully implemented.

Loyalist Communities Council (LCC) Chairman David Campbell said Mrs Von Der Leyen was like an "ostrich with her head in the sand" and warned Northern Ireland is set to "descend into chaos this summer" as anger around the protocol grows.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/compromise-needed-or-ni-protocol-could-hit-economy-and-cause-political-instability-former-civil-service-boss-warns-40482707.html

Downcow, there appears to be a sizeable portion of Northern Ireland who defer to those in Westminister. They want those in Westminister to make their decisions for them.


This is the result of that. People who don't understand your issues, or really give a shit about you, are making decisions that affect both you and themselves......and unsurprisingly take the decision that benefits them most without much actual consideration for impacts on you.


If that setup is what you want in general, then you can't be moaning when that is what you get. The UK government willingly signed an agreement on your behalf. Which is the way you want it. So you need to live with it.



You're ire is meaningless when directed at the EU. You have outsourced your ability to negotiate and make decisions.

Mav11

Mav11 wrote: »

You're assuming that I am arguing for a simple majority i.e. 50+1. I am not.
It may have to be some form of a qualified majority, but I wouldn't go there, before the principle is discussed.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're proposing a referendum in which the options are "border control on the land border" and "border controls on the sea border" I don't see how you can include a qualified majority provision. What happens if neither option secures the qualified majority? This is a highly likely outcome, given that we know the favoured option - no check at all - won't even be on the ballot paper.

I said a qualified majority may have to be considered as an option and obviously as part of that consideration the scenario outlined by you would have to be assessed and again, I wouldn't go there before the principle is accepted as an option.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why you keep referring to "border controls", an emotive and inaccurate label, when the concerns are about "customs checks", a completely different animal?

downcow

Mav11 wrote: »

Naïve question maybe, but what would be the issue with holding a referendum in NI asking where the preferred custom checks should be? After all, these are the people most directly affected. Would it be permissible under the GFA?

Whatever the outcome of the poll, all sides would then get behind it to ensure its success. Might put an end to this endless and very tiresome brexit squabbling.

Yeah. I could live with that. But much better to have some compromises to minimise checks

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Yeah. I could live with that. But much better to have some compromises to minimise checks

There are currently checks because the UK government chooses not to implement the arrangements and because the UK government has decided against following the same level of food and veterinary standards as the EU i.e. the UK wants the ability to reduce these standards and has already used this ability.
The level of checks could be reduced drastically but London does not appear to want this.
The blaming of the EU on these checks is part of a narrative that holds no truth in reality. It suits a narrative simply because Brexit isn't the pot of gold under the rainbow that it was sold as.

You've been told this over and over again. For some reason, it never seems to sink in. :rolleyes: