The Irish protocol.

Seth Brundle

I believe the Eu will be changing their rules and making special exceptions to Uk to accommodate removal of many sea checks but you don’t think this will happen

There is no evidence to suggest that the EU would change their rules to suit a disingenuous third party simply because said third party does not want to implement an existing agreement. There is a route for the sea checks to be removed but again the UK does not want to agree to this.

In addition, if the EU were to change their rules, then it could prove more difficult in terms of other trading partners to the EU. Why should Norway for example abide by the rules when the UK has those rules dropped in response to the UKs childish behaviour. What benefit to the EU would these accommodations form?

So maybe you can explain why you believe that the EU will change their rules, make special exceptions and remove the sea checks with the UK when the UK has not yet fulfilled its obligations? Why would any trading partner do this?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117852115#Comment_117852115

I think the issue is whether there should be agreement on amendment or replacement of the protocol (which is what Frost/the UK government are calling for) or agreement on the implementation of the Protocol (which is what the Protocol itself calls for, what the EU is very much open to, and what I think Varadkar is backing, but which the UK seems averse to).

Presumably the UK government feels that what they want to happen can't be dressed up as an implementation of the protocol, so they are reluctant to engage with negotiations which are framed by the present protocol. They want to negotiate on changing the protocol, not on implementing it.

Their position is not a strong one:

1. The people saying the protocol needs to be changed are the same people who demanded it, negotiated it, signed it, hailed it as a triumph, and fought and won a general election on a manifesto of ratifying and implementing it. Even if you're of the opinion that the protocol is defective and needs to be changed or replaced, you can hardly have much confidence in them as the team to do that for you.
2. Leaving the personnel involved aside, the UK isn't is a very good place to negotiate anything with the EU right now. The EU doesn't have any reciprocal asks, so the UK has nothing to "tempt" the EU with. And for obvious reasons the EU doesn't trust the UK very much, so would see no need to take any risks on the deal they already have.
3. If the EU were to take risks, and put time and effort into negotiating a new deal, what reassurance do they have that the UK wouldn't promptly start pissing all over it again, as they have with the deal they just made?

So, as matters stand there is no upside, and much potential downside, for the EU in acceding to UK requests to renegotiate the protocol, while on the UK side - at the official level, at any rate - there seems to be no awareness of this fact, and certainly no attempt to come up with a strategy for addressing it. Which creates a kind of vicious circle - however averse the EU might be to renegotiating the protocol, they will be doubly averse to renegotiating it with a UK team who seem to have no clue about what they are doing, and no understanding of the position they have put themselves in. It's really hard to see negotiations in this situation having a good outcome for anyone.

A much, much, much better strategy would be for the UK to (a) appoint new, credible negotiators who would (b) engage enthusiastically with the Protocol processes for negotiating and agreeing the implementation of the protocol, in order to (c) rebuild some trust in and goodwill for the UK so that when they (d) look for amendments to the protocol in the future that are (e) framed so as to take account of the EU's objectives as well as of the UK's, they will get a better hearing.

On the specific question you ask, agreement on reduced seaport checks might be possible, but the onus is on the UK either to demonstrate that this will not jeopardise the EU's priorities and objectives or (more likely) to come up with other practicable and effective arrangements that can be operated instead of seaport checks to ensure that the integrity of the Single Market can be protected without hardening the land border. Again, past form does not inspire confidence in the willingness or ability of the UK to do this, so I think there needs to be a significant shift in UK thinking, attitudes and actions if they are to acheive what they want here.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117852148#Comment_117852148

Just posters ducking and diving.

I have been told over and over again on here that the EU would be applying the rules exactly the same with regard to goods moving from GB to NI as they do with goods moving from any other part of the world into the EU.

Instead of not addressing what I have been saying, maybe posters could tell me have they moved their position from the above, or have I somehow misunderstood them, and they actually think that the EU will use different rules for goods moving from GB to NI?

Let’s not go off again on the long rambles about how the UK could get rid of the Irish Sea checks using easements etc. just stick to simply addressing my point above.

I am happy to nail my colours to the mast and say that if the EU do not modify their position for eg medicines, then I will accept that I am wrong and that the EU will stand rocksolid and not move their position

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117853987#Comment_117853987

Show us some of these posts where you were told over and over again on here that the EU would be applying the rules exactly the same with regard to goods moving from GB to NI as they do with goods moving from any other part of the world into the EU.

Can't be hard to find if there are that many of them.

Seth Brundle

Just posters ducking and diving.

Nope, What you're being told has remained consistent.

I have been told over and over again on here that the EU would be applying the rules exactly the same with regard to goods moving from GB to NI as they do with goods moving from any other part of the world into the EU.

This is the case assuming (although the UK keep requesting extensions to grace periods which gives them a little leeway when compared to other countries trading with the EU.

Instead of not addressing what I have been saying, maybe posters could tell me have they moved their position from the above, or have I somehow misunderstood them, and they actually think that the EU will use different rules for goods moving from GB to NI?

Not sure what you mean by posters not adressing what you have been saying. You've been told things multiple times and yet continue coming back with the same questions.

The EU position has not moved from the boundaries of the protocol as agreed by both the EU and the UK. The EU will not use different rules for UK to EU trade assuming that the UK do not fulfil their side of the agremeent. There is absolutely no appetite currently by any EU member to offer the Uk preferential treatment while they do not carry out their obligations.

Let’s not go off again on the long rambles about how the UK could get rid of the Irish Sea checks using easements etc. just stick to simply addressing my point above.

The UK cannot get rid of sea checks to create easements for NI imports. This is up to the EU.

I am happy to nail my colours to the mast and say that if the EU do not modify their position for eg medicines, then I will accept that I am wrong and that the EU will stand rocksolid and not move their position

Sigh! So we're back to this again? OK, can you name a medication (i.e. an active ingredient, not a brand) that will be banned in NI as a result of the NIP?

Junkyard Tom

No renegotiation of the Tory/DUP Protocol.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117854014#Comment_117854014

I think you just need to look at Seth's post following yours to see that he is disagreeing with you (i think). Now he does create some ambiguity by saying "The EU will not use different rules for UK to EU trade assuming that the UK do not fulfil their side of the agreement. There is absolutely no appetite currently by any EU member to offer the Uk preferential treatment while they do not carry out their obligations".

I am getting closer, but I really would like to understand exactly what you guys are saying.

In one breath you seem to say that the EU will not remove any Irish sea checks, but then you always apply this 'unless'. So maybe you are saying that there is a possibility of the EU removing some Irish Sea checks? ...... and please don't confuse it again by saying "if the EU align e.g. veterinary rules". Let's park that the UK will do anything to align - which I believe and hope will not happen .

So a fairly simple question. Is there a possibility that the EU will withdraw any Irish Sea checks required under the protocol e.g. on medicines without any further alignment?

.... And as for Tom quoting a line from an EU article saying that they will not renegotiate, when they have said that they will "keep talking", are sending their negotiators to Belfast to meet the British negotiators, and are quoted on the BBC tonight as saying that they "are prepared to consider additional flexibilities". Tom seems not to see the writing on the wall that some of you are seeing as you gently soften your positions - or maybe you do not - but please tell us?

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117855230#Comment_117855230

What you 'have been told all along' is that the EU will operate the flexibility and easements within the Protocol. That may or may not see some checks being 'eased'. But the Protocol is going nowhere.

The border is in the Irish Sea and that is where it will stay, unless a better alternative is proposed.

Seth Brundle

When I referred to possibilities that checks might be removed, this would be on the basis of the UK aligning with EU rules. I have always said this and have told you this multiple times (although it never seems to sink in with you).

If the UK wishes to trade with the US then it will abide by regulatory standards held by the US. In exactly the same way, if the UK wishes to trade with the EU, it will abide by EU rules. The problem NI faces is that London simply doesn't want to do this. It is London's decision and nobody elses. If the UK agrees to align then the Irish sea checks will be reduced or possibly even removed.

As for removal of checks before alignment, this will simply not happen. The EU cannot leave a hole in its regulatory border.

This all has been a consistent message given to you for many months now.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117855294#Comment_117855294

this is an excellently clear answer and I really appreciate it. Francies answers are as slippery as an eel, but your answer gives us a clear basis for understanding each other.

If you are correct, I will hold my hands up. I am convinced ( naïvely you may say) that the EU is gradually going to move to a commonsense position of very few checks within the UK. I believe we will not have long to wait to see them park the rules around some medicines.

But, thank you for the clarification. Now we can watch this space to see who has guessed right

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117855281#Comment_117855281

I agree the protocol is going nowhere. How many times do I need to say this. The protocol, working effectively, with the bad bits removed, ensures there will not be a united Ireland for several generations ( minimum). And yes I agree, many checks will disappear. you are catching up now

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117855442#Comment_117855442

Well your predictions so far on court cases and disrupting Dublin haven't come to much, so I won't put much store in your latest one. I think we are hurtling towards a Border Poll myself.

Seth Brundle

I am convinced ( naïvely you may say) that the EU is gradually going to move to a commonsense position of very few checks within the UK.

...and yet there is zero evidence to sustain this line of thinking. The EU has absolutely no reason to change their position in favour of a third country that is acting like a spoilt child throwing a tantrum. In fact, it might even put them in a difficult position with their other trading partners and woukd also show potential trading partners that if you immediately ignore a signed agreement then you will be rewarded.

Assumibg that the UK dont change their position then it simply won't happen and any belief that it might is delusional.

No more deadlines with regards to negotiating it. Interesting development.

Peregrinus

"The EU is gradually going to move to a commonsense position of very few checks within the UK" is simply wishful thinking unless it's qualified with "in return for the UK making commitments and entering into arrangements to ensure that this won't threaten the integrity of the Single Market".

As I see it, the current state of affairs is that:

• the UK has unilaterally indefinitely extended its grace periods; and
• the EU has not accepted this; but
• at the same time the EU is not taking immediate enforcement action in response to this.

This results in an uneasy standoff; the EU hasn't resumed its enforcement action but could do at any time. This puts pressure on the UK to continue to engage with the EU to find a long-term agreement on implementation of the protocol, and in the meantime not to make changes to food, agricultural, biosecurity etc standards within GB that might mean moving away from effective alignment with EU standards. In the meantime GB-NI supply chains that rely on the grace period are provisional and are subject to considerable political risk; people may operate them but they won't invest in them or commit to them, and they'll take steps to reduce their dependence on them.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117855622#Comment_117855622

This is the bit that keeps confusing me Seth. You seem to be saying that the Eu may consider changing there position if Uk do likewise. That sounds like negotiating to me or ‘keep talking’ as the Eu prefer to call it.

I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I do not expect the Eu to unilaterally agree for everything to move freely from gb to Owc. I expect a common sense and thought out approach to be adopted by both sides. Both Uk and Eu have handled this very badly.

I believe the first common sense approach adopted is likely to be around medicines - and we won’t have long to wait to see, as medicines will hit a buffer at Xmas, if Eu does not change its position.

KildareP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117856587#Comment_117856587

If medicines hit a buffer it will be because of the Brexit deal HMG has signed up to with the EU. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Peregrinus

I don't think medicines are going to hit a buffer. The medicines that reportedly cannot be exported from GB to NI are generics - out-of-patent products that anyone is free to manufacture and that sell for a very low price. The profit margin on this is not high enough for it to make sense for GB producers to gear up to deal with with Brexit-related compliance obligations that would be involved in sending them to NI (or the Single Market); the price would go up to an extent that would make then uncompetitive with similar generics produced in the Single Market. What we see here, in fact, is a textbook illustration of Brexit making a UK manufacturing sector - in this case, the generic pharmaceuticals sector - uncompetitive.

The result is that the GB-based generic manufacturers will stop supplying the NI market. But this doesn't mean that the NI market will lack generics; the whole point of generics is that they are all the same; you don't care who manufactures your aspirin. NI will have unfettered access to generics produced in the Single Market.

If there are patented products which are only available from GB and to whose export the NI Protocol presents problems, the Protocol has a process for addressing that. SFAIK the UK have not raised the issue through that process. If so, that indicates either that there is no such problem, or that the UK is less interested in using available mechanisms to solve it than in whingeing about it for the benefit of Brexiters who need a constant "wicked EU" narrative to shore up their flagging morale.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117856508#Comment_117856508

Yip. Interesting

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117856589#Comment_117856589

Exactly. I agree again. But that does not mean everyone should bury their heads in the sand and not negotiate a way out. Both sides signed up to a flawed agreement and both sides have a responsibility to sort it out.

a few here want to close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears

Bigus

I posted this in the Brexit discussion but I see that here is a more active discussion so here’s my thoughts again,

The Eu has Some clever cookies representing it(as Bertie said at the Brexit committee meeting with Hilary Benn) and , 

NI is slipping nicely and quietly into Eu control via a United Ireland. 

Luckily, Feck all happened during July marching season, so Imho the unionists are a bellicose busted flush . The recent success of Wright Bus under the protocol in a staunchly unionist area represented currently by Paisley, is exactly how real wealth will change attitudes to a more pro Eu stance.

Once a UI is achieved, the sea will become a proper fortress Europe border and the Uk can be easily smacked into line then. 

Yes the grown ups , are playing the long game without being seen to be the bullies and doing the wrong thing to the poor toddlers, but ultimately know exactly what they’re at , while keeping peace as an EU CORE value.

Seth Brundle

a few here want to close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears

In fairness, there is only one poster doing that!

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117856655#Comment_117856655

I said this before, the rest of the EU want a UI not because of any dislike of Unionists or indeed the British, but because it now suits them and is beneficial to them.

It's is also beneficial and suits the British as they can go off sailing the 7 seas to prosperity without the problems they created at partition. If ever something came back to bite them in the ass it was walking away after the island was partitioned.

It also suits the US that a UI happens.

It's the perfect storm that Unionism has sailed right into, an economic and political colossus x2 that a UI suits and a failing former empire whom it also suits and who really doesn't care about the island it partitioned.

Seth Brundle

Ben Habib (who voted for the current agreement and now wants to change it) is delighted that Dave Trimble has written to Biden in the hope that foreign government interference can resolve his issue...

https://twitter.com/benhabib6/status/1434775562518675456

one response...

https://twitter.com/eire_saor/status/1434782082363006977

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117856878#Comment_117856878

Haha. You shouldn’t have supported the gfa then.

even if all of the above was true, it doesn’t matter a jot. Republicans raised the white flag and everyone signed up to fully support the right of self determination for the people of ni as to whether they are part of the Uk or the Eu. The people of ni know which side their bread is buttered on.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117858129#Comment_117858129

Well the thing Unionism **** it's pants about is that 'right' being given.

How much longer do you think the 'right' to decide can be denied to a significant portion of the population?

A larger proportion who now want a border poll than that which supported Scottish Ind. when it's referendum was called.

Unionism knows it is on very shaky ground, hence it's very shaky strategy and actions. It will never admit to that, but ho hum, events have moved on without them before.

downcow

I just got this consultation through to respond to https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-hgv-and-bus-driving-tests-and-allowing-car-drivers-to-tow-a-trailer-without-an-extra-test/changes-to-hgv-and-bus-driving-tests-and-allowing-car-drivers-to-tow-a-trailer-without-an-extra-test?fbclid=IwAR0Cp3aZ2yozjQBF7EImpzsiKQe3VqhajVr_XHVEHCll3y9SkCNkNKrcCVo

this is great to see that the UK are prepared to diverged on practical commonsense issues. I trust this will apply equally to our little bit of the UK.

The work of charities and youth organisations has been seriously hampered by the EU rule which does not allow staff members of those organisations to drive a minibus but volunteers can. It is a totally ludicrous situation, but someone in the EU thought it was a good idea. Hopefully this is one tiny example of how we will be able to shake off some nonsense EU legislation going forward.

Here is a quote below directly from the document

"This proposal does mean divergence from the current driving licence arrangements which were introduced when the UK was a member of the EU and which the UK continues to be aligned to. Drivers will continue to be able to drive abroad under the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic 1968. "

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117858292#Comment_117858292

We are getting a bit off topic, but I think we can all agree that one thing the protocol will definitely do is increase the number of nationalists who want to stay in this arrangement for purely financial reasons i.e. unfettered access to GB and EU. So an already strong majority is going to get stronger

KildareP

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117858499#Comment_117858499

And yet, you are advocating to remove the very aspects of the protocol that enable NI to have this best of both worlds situation!

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117858499#Comment_117858499

I would think most people concerned with financial security will go with what they deem the most 'secure' option.

If you think British society and it's economy looks secure in the medium to long term, I won't drag the thread off topic trying to disabuse of that notion. There's enough evidence existing already on the relevant Brexit threads.