nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

swampgas

sondagefaux wrote: »

The EU is a constant negotiation within the Council between the member states, within the European Parliament between the various groups, and between the Council, Commission and Parliament.

If there's one thing that the EU is expert in, it's negotiations.

As for brinksmanship, it doesn't work with the EU.

The Greeks threatened to default on their debts and leave the euro. That was a vastly bigger danger to the EU than not having a trade agreement with Britain (it has one with Northern Ireland already sorted).

Yet the other eurozone states, the Commission and the Parliament held firm, and the Greeks backed down, with a few face-saving scraps thrown in for them.

Agreed.

If the British haven't draw any lessons from that, or from the "negotiations" over the Withdrawal Agreement, in which the EU told the British what they wanted and got it, then they're utter morons.

My own take on it is that the UK's problem is that they cannot do a realistic deal with the EU without a truly massive climbdown.

They simply don't want to accept that they are not the empire they used to be, that they do not have the influence or the power they used to have, and that they are not better than the unwashed savages across the channel.

Pride, hubris, arrogance, call it want you want, but the UK will continue to stagger round like a drunk looking for fight until they internalise their true status in the modern world.

Strazdas

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Brexit is also predicated on the idea that once Britain voted to leave other nations would follow. This hasn’t happened and infact has regressed in terms of probability. But it doesn’t stop the pro Brexit posters that float through here magnifying any scraps or hints to that end.

If the Italians were also angling to leave this minute the Brits may well have faced a more positive outlook for trade negotiations. But hey ho, here we are.

Fundamentally, if Britain leave and the EU carries on regardless (particularly if it sees more states accede over the next decade) then Brexit has been a terrible failure from the perspective of its architects. The presumption was not that Britain would be alone, but that Britain was getting out first.

I think this more than anything will be a huge problem for the Brexiteers going forward. If the EU is still going strong and Brexit UK is struggling somewhat, no amount of lies in the British press will be able to cover this up.

sondagefaux

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well quite! But that is exactly my point. Barnier showed how strong a united EU is.

So faced with that again the UK are going to really struggle to gain any advantage. So anyone would tell you that some change in process is required. It may not work, but it won't end up any worse than if they simply go toe to toe.

The key is maintaining the EU mandate. We already see and hear pockets of disagreement with the EU, though since most of Phase I was more academic to most countries than economic it was easier to stay on board.

Of course the elephant in the room is that this isn't the 1st time the EU has entered in trade talks with different members wanting different things. So they are well versed in how to handle it. The UK seem to think that this is the 1st time this has happened (in line with the thinking of the UK throughout this process that they are unique and special).

The whole idea of the EU is compromise. The UK will be attempting to create as many areas of compromise within members that they manage to get some gains. It isn't about getting everything, even the UK must know that is not possible so they are trying to get whatever they can.

The EU is a constant negotiation within the Council between the member states, within the European Parliament between the various groups, and between the Council, Commission and Parliament.

If there's one thing that the EU is expert in, it's negotiations.

As for brinksmanship, it doesn't work with the EU.

The Greeks threatened to default on their debts and leave the euro. That was a vastly bigger danger to the EU than not having a trade agreement with Britain (it has one with Northern Ireland already sorted).

Yet the other eurozone states, the Commission and the Parliament held firm, and the Greeks backed down, with a few face-saving scraps thrown in for them.

If the British haven't draw any lessons from that, or from the "negotiations" over the Withdrawal Agreement, in which the EU told the British what they wanted and got it, then they're utter morons.

LuckyLloyd

Brexit is also predicated on the idea that once Britain voted to leave other nations would follow. This hasn’t happened and infact has regressed in terms of probability. But it doesn’t stop the pro Brexit posters that float through here magnifying any scraps or hints to that end.

If the Italians were also angling to leave this minute the Brits may well have faced a more positive outlook for trade negotiations. But hey ho, here we are.

Fundamentally, if Britain leave and the EU carries on regardless (particularly if it sees more states accede over the next decade) then Brexit has been a terrible failure from the perspective of its architects. The presumption was not that Britain would be alone, but that Britain was getting out first.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote:

Of course the elephant in the room is that this isn't the 1st time the EU has entered in trade talks with different members wanting different things. So they are well versed in how to handle it. The UK seem to think that this is the 1st time this has happened (in line with the thinking of the UK throughout this process that they are unique and special).

Its another example of the UK never quite understanding what they had joined, which is making it hard for them to understand what they are leaving.

Professor Moriarty

SantaCruz wrote: »

This is a bit like the territorial claim to NI that we deleted in the GFA. They reckon we are still really British, even if we won't admit it.

Tell them what they want to hear.

Leroy42

reslfj wrote: »

This will not happen.

The WA has shown how powerful Michel Barnier is as EU negotiator when he keeps all 27 behind his mandate. This is what he is currently ensuring for the next round.
This time he has trade commissioner Phil Hogan with director-general for Trade Sabine Weyand behind his negotiations.

The EU27 team will negotiate as one united part.

Saying the UK has no other options but 'divide the EU27' is to say the UK has already lost next to everything.

Lars

Well quite! But that is exactly my point. Barnier showed how strong a united EU is.

So faced with that again the UK are going to really struggle to gain any advantage. So anyone would tell you that some change in process is required. It may not work, but it won't end up any worse than if they simply go toe to toe.

The key is maintaining the EU mandate. We already see and hear pockets of disagreement with the EU, though since most of Phase I was more academic to most countries than economic it was easier to stay on board.

Of course the elephant in the room is that this isn't the 1st time the EU has entered in trade talks with different members wanting different things. So they are well versed in how to handle it. The UK seem to think that this is the 1st time this has happened (in line with the thinking of the UK throughout this process that they are unique and special).

The whole idea of the EU is compromise. The UK will be attempting to create as many areas of compromise within members that they manage to get some gains. It isn't about getting everything, even the UK must know that is not possible so they are trying to get whatever they can.

reslfj

Leroy42 wrote: »

....
So give the French access ....

...as the deadline looms, the likes of France, in this example, would pressure ???? (who????)

They have very little other options. They lost out pretty big in the WA agreement and whilst it can be said that the divide and conquer failed then, this is very different and will directly effect every EU country.

...
Although that has been shown to be completely delusional, what other strategy have they left that would not show to everyone how pointless all this has been?

This will not happen.

The WA has shown how powerful Michel Barnier is as EU negotiator when he keeps all 27 behind his mandate. This is what he is currently ensuring for the next round.
This time he has trade commissioner Phil Hogan with director-general for Trade Sabine Weyand behind his negotiations.

The EU27 team will negotiate as one united part.

Saying the UK has no other options but 'divide the EU27' is to say the UK has already lost next to everything.

Lars

SantaCruz

sondagefaux wrote: »

The UK's Ireland Act 1949 says that the state referred to in UK law as the 'Republic of Ireland' is not a foreign state (and therefore its citizens are not foreign).

This is a bit like the territorial claim to NI that we deleted in the GFA. They reckon we are still really British, even if we won't admit it.

ancapailldorcha

sondagefaux wrote: »

What's not to attack? The guy's an idiot.

No insults please.

sondagefaux

L1011 wrote: »

I wouldn't trust the Home Office to accept settled status on Irish citizenship as proof that you "weren't British" in that type of case.

Irish citizens who live in the UK can choose to use either British law or EU law (for now at least) when it comes to the family reunion provisions of immigration law.

In cases where someone has dual British/Irish citizenship, the UK can decide that they must use UK law if the person has never exercised their freedom of movement rights under EU law.

Using EU law has some advantages, but you have to meet the requirements set out in EU law if you want to benefit from it.

One of the requirements set out in EU law is that an EU citizen can't be absent from the host EU country they live(d) in for 2 or more years if they want to claim a right for their spouse to get permanent residency in that host EU country.

In the Gemma Capparelli case, she had deliberately renounced her British citizenship so she would have to be treated under EU law.

But she had left the UK for more than 2 years at the time of her application, so she didn't have any entitlement under EU law to have her non-EU (American in this case) husband join her and be entitled to permanent residency.

The fact that she was born in the UK and lived there for most of her life is immaterial as she legally renounced her British citizenship.

In Emma deSouza's case, the UK wants to treat her as a British citizen (against her will) so that the application for permanent residency for her husband would be treated under British law rather than EU law.

She's obviously objected to this and claimed that it infringes her rights under the Good Friday Agreement.

This now seems moot as the UK government has committed to change the law/rules so that 'the people of Northern Ireland' WILL have the right to be treated as EU citizens, if they want to be, for these purposes.

More about the Capparelli case here: https://www.freemovement.org.uk/revoking-british-citizenship-northern-ireland/

sondagefaux

Strazdas wrote: »

Lots of attacks on Tice too though. The 'disciples' are beyond help obviously.

What's not to attack? The guy's an idiot.

sondagefaux

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Or are forced to because of legal necessity or nicety because of how the Home Office applies the rules.

Look at the cases of Emma DeSouza or Gemma Capparelli

Emma DeSouza hasn't been forced to register for anything. Neither has Gemma Capparelli.

Emma DeSouza has been told by the Home Office that she's a British citizen whether she likes it or not.

This means that the UK immigration law applicable to her husband, a US citizen, are more restrictive than they would be if she was accepted as an EU migrant living in the UK, entitled to be treated under EU immigration law.

However, under the agreement to get the NI Assembly in operation again, the UK government will change the law/rules so that people from Northern Ireland in Emma DeSouza's position will be treated as if they were EU migrants living in the UK for the purposes of the family reunion provisions of EU freedom of movement law/the family reunion provisions set out in the Withdrawal Agreement.

Gemma Capparelli renounced her British citizenship. Her American husband applied for legal immigration status in the UK under EU law, not under UK law.

Under EU law, she had to be resident/working in the UK for at least 5 years and not absent from the UK for 2 years or more before he could make an application for permanent residency in the UK as the spouse of an EU migrant in the UK.

As she had been out of the UK for at least 2 years (she had only recently moved back to Belfast after an absence of over 2 years), she didn't meet the conditions set out in EU law.

As an Irish citizen, she has an absolute legal right to permanent residency in the UK, including Northern Ireland, but she does not have the right to have her American husband with her, unless they both meet the requirements of UK immigration law.

If they had applied for legal immigration status for her husband on the basis that she was an Irish citizen living in the UK, the application would have been treated differently, as she would have then had the same rights as British citizens in the UK (based on the UK's Ireland Act 1949) which aren't as extensive as those afforded to EU citizens who have lived in the UK for at least 5 years and not been absent from the UK for 2 years or more.

There's an explanation here:

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/revoking-british-citizenship-northern-ireland/

In neither case was any Irish citizen refused a right to live in the UK.

In both cases, the women wanted to be treated as EU citizens as it would have (potentially) made it easier for their American husbands to gain permanent residency rights in the UK, under EU law, rather than if they were treated as British citizens resident in the UK, making it harder for their American husbands to gain permanent residency rights in the UK under British law.

Emma deSouza was told that because she was from Northern Ireland she was a British citizen and her husband's application would be treated as if made under British law.

That doesn't mean she herself doesn't have a right to reside in the UK (it would be absurd to prevent British citizens born in the UK from living in the UK, even if they were entitled to another citizenship), but she claims that the Good Friday Agreement entitles her to be treated as an Irish citizen, which means that EU rules on permanent residency for her husband would apply rather than the UK rules.

Her proposed court case doesn't have to go ahead now, because the UK government has committed to deal with people in her situation by changing the law/rules to give 'the people of Northern Ireland' the right to be treated as Irish citizens if they want for the purposes of family reunion rights.

These cases are nothing to do with the rights of Irish citizens to live in the UK.

They're about whether or not these women should be treated as British citizens resident in the UK or as EU migrants resident in the UK for the purposes of deciding which law (EU law or UK law) should be used to determine whether or not their American husbands have a right to permanent residency in the UK.

In the case of Gemma Capparelli, she deliberately renounced her British citizenship so that she and her husband would have to be treated under EU law.

But they didn't meet the requirements set out under EU law, because she had left the UK for too long to benefit from the rights set out in EU law.

The newspaper reporting of the Gemma Capparelli case in particular leaves a lot to be desired, and none of it presents the true legal picture of her and her husband's circumstances.

Strazdas

Thargor wrote: »

Scrolling down through all the usual anti-EU bullsh1t and lies you find people randomly throwing in climate change denial and comments about cyclists running red lights and causing accidents, they are such cliches.

Lots of attacks on Tice too though. The 'disciples' are beyond help obviously.

Thargor

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They're deeply depressing.

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TiceRichard/status/1217722290823143424

The responses to this are really magic.

Scrolling down through all the usual anti-EU bullsh1t and lies you find people randomly throwing in climate change denial and comments about cyclists running red lights and causing accidents, they are such cliches.

L1011

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Or are forced to because of legal necessity or nicety because of how the Home Office applies the rules.

Look at the cases of Emma DeSouza or Gemma Capparelli

I wouldn't trust the Home Office to accept settled status on Irish citizenship as proof that you "weren't British" in that type of case.

Capt'n Midnight

L1011 wrote: »

Irish citizens don't need to register but can if they have some perverse reason to want to

Or are forced to because of legal necessity or nicety because of how the Home Office applies the rules.

Look at the cases of Emma DeSouza or Gemma Capparelli

Leroy42

TBF to the UK, what other option do they have? They cannot possibly face down the EU as a combined force, so the only hope is to break it apart. So give the French access to fish if they agree to give full access to freight licences. To the French that might be of little consequence, certainly not anywhere close to fish, so they are happy enough to agree. (This is just an example I have no basis for choosing either or these).

The hope would be that as the deadline looms, the likes of France, in this example, would pressure the likes of Ireland, Poland or whatever to give in for the good of the EU as a whole. You can certainly see discussions along the lines of 'agree to this or face a massive economic hit and possibly losing power'.

They have very little other options. They lost out pretty big in the WA agreement and whilst it can be said that the divide and conquer failed then, this is very different and will directly effect every EU country.

The entire Brexit strategy, as much as one can call it that, seems to have been entirely based on the presumption that the EU would never really let the UK go and as such would do whatever it took to keep things as they were. Although that has been shown to be completely delusional, what other strategy have they left that would not show to everyone how pointless all this has been?

On a separate point, I am really surprised, (well not really I suppose) that the media has allowed these nonsensical discussions about Big Ben Bells and fireworks to get any traction. Surely they should be asking, fine get your bell, but what is your plan for the next day? What actually changes? Because rather than gaining sovereignty on 31st, they are actually losing it, at least until end of transition.

sondagefaux

storker wrote: »

There's no need. They prefer to get this information from the likes of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, which give them the versions of this information that they'd rather hear. Factual information direct from the EU horse's mouth just can't compete...

Government of fecking eejits, by fecking eejits, for fecking eejits.

Here's how the EU concludes international trade agreements:

For trade agreements, the special procedure under Article 218(6) TFEU is applied. This procedure requires the European Parliament's consent.6 Once Parliament has given its consent, the Council can then adopt a decision to conclude the agreement following the procedure and voting rules set out in Article 218(6) and Article 218(8) TFEU respectively.

...mixed agreements also require the agreement to be ratified at national level by Member States. In the case of mixed agreements, the treaty enters into
force only when the non-EU trade partner, the EU and all Member States have exchanged ratification instruments.

A brief explanation of what a 'mixed' trade agreement is under EU law:

Whenever an international agreement includes shared competences or concurrent competences or Member States' competences, then the agreement is said to be 'mixed'. Whenever a trade agreement also contains provisions belonging to shared competences, it is concluded as a mixed agreement. While for agreements falling under exclusive EU competence the EU ratification procedure (explained below) is sufficient to ensure the entry into force of the agreement, mixed agreements must be ratified by EU
Member States in accordance with their domestic ratification procedures. Domestic procedures vary from Member State to Member State. In federal Member States, ratification procedures also involve approval by the chamber of the national parliament representing the regions (such as the Bundesrat in Germany) or the approval of the regional and community parliaments (as in the case of Belgium), whenever competences of sub-federal entities are concerned by the agreement.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/593489/EPRS_BRI(2016)593489_EN.pdf

'Competences' here means legal powers.

The role of the European Council in the EU's international agreements:

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/international-agreements/

How the voting system in the Council works (the number of member states needed for a simple majority will be reduced to 14 after the UK leaves), including a brief definition of what a 'qualified majority' is:

qualified majority (55% of member states, representing at least 65% of the EU population, vote in favour)

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/

In practical terms, 55% of member states (minus the UK) will be 15 out of 27 member states, and these member states must have a combined population of at least 65% of the total EU population.

Sowing division when you're either going to need such a majority or unanimous agreement is possibly the most stupid strategy you could adopt.

BonnieSituation

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Strange statistics. As far as I know, there are about 320k Irish citizens in Northern Ireland alone. I wonder do those figures only relate to GB? In which case, do Shengen area EU citizens not have to register in Northern Ireland.

There's 1.64m Irish Citizens in NI.

*I'm obviously ignoring the post-2005 changes for effect.

storker

sondagefaux wrote: »

You'd think the Brits would know by now (or at least have had a quick read of the EU treaties to see) how the EU ratifies international trade agreements.

There's no need. They prefer to get this information from the likes of the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, which give them the versions of this information that they'd rather hear. Factual information direct from the EU horse's mouth just can't compete...

sondagefaux

serfboard wrote: »

The perverse reason that Johnson and his bunch of cronies can't be trusted?

After all, we know the story of the Jamaicans who "trusted" that they didn't need to register - and who got deported many years later ...

The UK's Ireland Act 1949 says that the state referred to in UK law as the 'Republic of Ireland' is not a foreign state (and therefore its citizens are not foreign).

This is why Irish citizens living in the UK are treated as if they were British citizens.

They are not subject to any immigration controls and have the same rights as British citizens who live in the UK.

sondagefaux

Enzokk wrote: »

The British have a plan, as cunning one that is as cunning as a fox that has been appointed as Professor of Cunning at Oxford.

Brexit: Tories prepare to ‘sow division’ in EU

It is such a brilliant plan you wonder how Cameron and May haven't thought about it before. If only May tried to bypass the negotiation team of the EU and rather went straight to the heads of government instead, we may have seen a different result. Or maybe the Brexit minister could go on a similar tour to try and garner support from individual nations, maybe then May would have still been PM.

I am having deja vu here, the same delusional arguments are being made. Only this time there is a majority to push through the disaster plan. Somehow WTO terms are better for the UK now that they will pay the EU money, instead of no-deal before where they could say no to their outstanding debts. Can anyone make sense of this?

Sowing division may seem like a clever strategy, until you realise that any possible free-trade agreement would have to be agreed by a special qualified majority of the member states of the EU, and by a majority of MEPS

If there's too much division among the EU member states, such majorities might not be possible to obtain...

Furthermore, any free-trade agreement that goes beyond the legal powers that have been delegated to the EU by its member states must be ratified by all the member states of the EU, in accordance with their own constitutional requirements.

In almost all cases, this will mean a majority is needed in all the national parliaments of the EU members, and, in some cases (e.g. Belgium), in regional legislatures.

And, of course, in the European Parliament.

You'd think the Brits would know by now (or at least have had a quick read of the EU treaties to see) how the EU ratifies international trade agreements.

Would you enter into negotiations to buy a house from a group of 27 relatives who'd jointly inherited it, without knowing who had the legal authority to make the decisions to sell the house, accept offers, sign contracts etc?

If they all needed to agree to everything, would it be a good idea to try to sow division among them?

If a qualified majority needed to agree to everything, would it be a good idea?

It's painful to see how uninformed the British government and parliament still are about the EU and how it works after all the negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement.

First Up

Enzokk wrote:

I am having deja vu here, the same delusional arguments are being made. Only this time there is a majority to push through the disaster plan. Somehow WTO terms are better for the UK now that they will pay the EU money, instead of no-deal before where they could say no to their outstanding debts. Can anyone make sense of this?

I note that the "cabinet minister" didn't predict what the EU would say in reply to Boris.

Probably just as well.

Enzokk

The British have a plan, as cunning one that is as cunning as a fox that has been appointed as Professor of Cunning at Oxford.

Brexit: Tories prepare to ‘sow division’ in EU

It is such a brilliant plan you wonder how Cameron and May haven't thought about it before. If only May tried to bypass the negotiation team of the EU and rather went straight to the heads of government instead, we may have seen a different result. Or maybe the Brexit minister could go on a similar tour to try and garner support from individual nations, maybe then May would have still been PM.

Cabinet ministers close to the future trade talks believe the UK also has two advantages in the talks:
Divisions within the EU. During the withdrawal talks the EU united around three areas - money, citizens' rights and Northern Ireland. But in the future trade talks the 27 EU members will have different and sometimes competing interests.

One cabinet minister told me: "The 27 have differing interests. The French really care about fishing, the Poles don't care about fishing, they care about freight and the Maltese don't care about freight, they care about tourism. So member states could trade off and say we will champion two issues to help each other. Boris could then burn a bridge on that issue and effectively sow division."

The "credible" threat of no-deal. Ministers believe that if the talks prove too difficult Boris Johnson will be taken seriously if he threatens to break off the talks without a deal.

Failure to reach a deal in the trade talks would have less grave consequences for Britain than a no deal Brexit without a withdrawal agreement last year, according to ministers.

They point out that the three elements at the heart of last year's deal - Northern Ireland, citizens' rights and the UK's exit payment - will stand whatever happens.

The cabinet minister told me:

"Boris can say to the EU: you know I was prepared for the original no deal last year but was thwarted by parliament which blocked no-deal. I am now prepared for a WTO no-deal [trading on WTO terms in the event of no trade deal] which isn't so bad and I can do what I like in Parliament. So it is a credible threat."

I am having deja vu here, the same delusional arguments are being made. Only this time there is a majority to push through the disaster plan. Somehow WTO terms are better for the UK now that they will pay the EU money, instead of no-deal before where they could say no to their outstanding debts. Can anyone make sense of this?

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think he may have meant that good bound only for NI and not onward to the Republic will not attract a tariff and they won't need to be checked for quality etc. as they will already meet the UK standard.

But of course checks will need to be made on goods entering NI to ensure that is the case, i.e., they are not for export outside of NI. I think he was trying to make this point at the beginning of the video but got muddled.

Goods entering NI from Britain will need to be checked for quality because they'll need to meet the EU standards which Northern Ireland will be implementing. Northern Ireland will not be implementing UK standards.

As for tariffs, the process will be that goods will have tariffs imposed on them, (unless there's a free-trade agreement which abolishes all tariffs on goods traded between GB and the EU), if there is a risk that goods may be sent across the border into Ireland/the EU, either in their own right or as components of/ingredients of other goods.

Goods arriving into Northern Ireland directly from outside the EU/outside the rest of the UK (eg. a good imported directly into Northern Ireland from Malaysia) will be subject to any applicable UK tariffs, unless the goods are deemed to be at risk of being transported into the EU, either in their own right or as components of/ingredients of other goods.

Whether a particular good/type of good/class of goods are risky goods within these provisions of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (part of the Withdrawal Agreement) will be decided by a Joint Committee.

Goods subjected to tariffs, but which remain in Northern Ireland will lead to the tariffs being refunded or waived once proof has been supplied that they have remained in Northern Ireland.

The UK government claims this process will be painless, and that tariff refunds (or even tariff waivers) will be made more or less instantly or at least very, very quickly.

How that works in practice obviously remains to be seen.

Here's a link to the text of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/840230/Revised_Protocol_to_the_Withdrawal_Agreement.pdf

Infini

Only good thing come Jan 31st is the Brexit tools in the EU parliment are all sacked as they no longer have a job. Nothing of importance lost in that regard.

Professor Moriarty

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TiceRichard/status/1217722290823143424

The responses to this are really magic.

They're deeply depressing.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/TiceRichard/status/1217722290823143424

The responses to this are really magic.

serfboard

L1011 wrote: »

Irish citizens don't need to register but can if they have some perverse reason to want to

The perverse reason that Johnson and his bunch of cronies can't be trusted?

After all, we know the story of the Jamaicans who "trusted" that they didn't need to register - and who got deported many years later ...