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

The Irish protocol.

downcow

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

If Australia pull off their wish of not competing with the internal meat market but yet competing equally on U.K. meat imports, it will present a big challenge to how the U.K. manage the Irish border.
I am not sure what Australia have in mind (maybe some of you do) but it will be a challenge if the bottom falls out of Roi meat and ni meat holds up as it’s internal U.K. slab Murphy will make a fortune.
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

I think what the Aussies have in mind is to try to get parliamentary approval in the UK for a no-tariffs no-quotas trade deal with Australia.

Hence the rather desperate line that "we won't be competing with British beef producers, but with rather with Irish beef producers".

The British beef producers would have to be a bit dim to fall for this. Irish- and UK-produced beef is of similar quality, and if Aussie beef competes effectively with Irish beef on quality and price then it will compete effectively with UK-produced beef. Are the Aussies going to turn away customers offering to buy their beef? Are they going to turn away some customers, based on an algoritht that predicts whether those prospective customers, if turned away, will buy Irish beef instead, or UK beef instead? You'd have to be soft to think that.

It's a free market. It's customers who decide what beef they will buy. If Aussie beef is competitive as against Irish beef then it will certainly be competitive as against UK beef. What the Aussie producers spokesperson is saying here is just plámás.

For more useful stuff, read down a bit. Look at the figures. Currently Australia has a quota to import beef to the UK (subject to a 20% tariff) of 3,761 tonnes. They don't come anywhere near using it; last year the UK imported only 559 tonnes.

Now, obviously, with the tariff gone, the Aussies would hope to export more. In the Aussie press, there's been talk of raising beef sales to the UK by a factor of 10. That's a bit over-excited. But even if it's correct, that's only 5,600 tonnes. UK beef consumption is 1.2 million tonnes. Aussie imports, even raised by a factor of 10 from today, would be a drop in the ocean.

This deal matters, not because of the threat Aussie beef poses to UK beef producers, which is negligible, but because of the signal it sends about the UK's priorities in its trade deals, and about which interests it seeks to adance and which it will sacrifice for other gains. Beef producers (and, therefore, farmers generally) see themselves being placed in the second category. So do the counterparties for other big trade deals that the UK will be making - the SU, Mercosur, etc. They'll come in looking for quota- and tariff-free access for beef, and knowing that the UK are willing to concede this.

Of course, the UK is perfectly free to concede QFTF access in the Australia deald but deny it in the US deal. But this is a government that spent most of 202 demanding that the EU should give the UK terms that it had already given to Canada, and complaining that failure to do so was an affront to UK sovereignty. Seemingly they think that deals already made with one country pretty much have to be offered to others. Hence the worry on the part of UK farmers. And if NI farmers think they are somehow protected from these risks, they are a less canny crowd than I have previously thought them.

FrancieBrady

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Would you ever stop being silly. There is no "no surrender" or "not an inch" approach. What there is is a legally binding agreement between the UK and the EU. The EU is following the terms ofnthe agreement despite the anti-EU rhetoric you spew on here. There is no truth to it and is transparent for all to see. Nobody will change the agreement. Nobody, bar a few disgruntled bigots and drug dealers want it changed.
The Protocol has the backing of the EU, the US, the international markets and if you look carefully at the signature on it, the UK.

The think tank has to lie to make it's case. This for instance, is bull****:

The EU is in part responsible, with its aborted attempt to trigger the safeguarding mechanisms in Article 16 of the protocol over vaccine controls, which lay behind the DUP’s move to make abolishing the protocol party policy.

The Article 16 event happened in Jan 2021..in Sept 2020 the DUP were claiming:

the Northern Ireland protocol makes the North 'Europe's pawn'.

More disingenuous rubbish posted by downcow.

maestroamado

There was an interesting discussion on Andrew Marr this morning.
Edwin Poots and the EU trade comissioner...

LMHC

Seth Brundle wrote: »

But she is not wrong so I'm not sure if you're just repeating her or attempting to make a point.

Man representing terrorists and drug dealers complains about border checks that affect their business? He then threatens an unknown target (NI?) if they aren't allowed to continue with their criminal activities?
In my view this man is nothibg but a thug. Are you telling us that he represents unionists?

David Campbell sent a teenager on TV to explain the LCC position and was ridiculed for it.

Anyone taking him serious after tat. Is a whalloper

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

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.

But she is not wrong so I'm not sure if you're just repeating her or attempting to make a point.

downcow wrote: »

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.

Man representing terrorists and drug dealers complains about border checks that affect their business? He then threatens an unknown target (NI?) if they aren't allowed to continue with their criminal activities?
In my view this man is nothibg but a thug. Are you telling us that he represents unionists?

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Great article. It will put Francie and co off their breakfast.
This is the inevitable route which will require the EU to change its ‘no surrender’ ‘not an inch’ approach. If Roi were smart they would use this to their advantage and hang on to the cost tails of NI as we move towards that ‘best of both worlds’ position. And I think those smarter in Roi will ensure that happens.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/ni-protocol-political-movement

Would you ever stop being silly. There is no "no surrender" or "not an inch" approach. What there is is a legally binding agreement between the UK and the EU. The EU is following the terms ofnthe agreement despite the anti-EU rhetoric you spew on here. There is no truth to it and is transparent for all to see. Nobody will change the agreement. Nobody, bar a few disgruntled bigots and drug dealers want it changed.
The Protocol has the backing of the EU, the US, the international markets and if you look carefully at the signature on it, the UK.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Great article. It will put Francie and co off their breakfast.
This is the inevitable route which will require the EU to change its ‘no surrender’ ‘not an inch’ approach. If Roi were smart they would use this to their advantage and hang on to the cost tails of NI as we move towards that ‘best of both worlds’ position. And I think those smarter in Roi will ensure that happens.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/ni-protocol-political-movement

Why would it put me off my breakfast?

Another think tank (the amount of which (Nearly 200 in UK alone, that may be the reason the UK ****ed up so badly with Brexit) lies about what happened and gives a UK centric opinion and you, a unionist shafted by the UK, several times, start waving the flag of victory again.

I checked google and yet again failed to find any news that the EU had folded it's tent or whatever other absurdity that you are predicting.

There'll be adjustments in the protocol that are built into it already.

Going to finish my cornflakes now.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

If Australia pull off their wish of not competing with the internal meat market but yet competing equally on U.K. meat imports, it will present a big challenge to how the U.K. manage the Irish border.
I am not sure what Australia have in mind (maybe some of you do) but it will be a challenge if the bottom falls out of Roi meat and ni meat holds up as it’s internal U.K. slab Murphy will make a fortune.
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

The beef imported from Australia will be of a lower quality that that from ireland. It is produced differently and this is reflected in the meat itself.
Incidentally, this trade deal is likely to heavily damage UK farming.
Still if GB is happy to substitute quality for price, there is strong demand for Irish beef across the world. There should be no difficulty enlarging markets or opening new markets.

LMHC

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

Will the LCC send out kids onto the streets again.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

Great article. It will put Francie and co off their breakfast.
This is the inevitable route which will require the EU to change its ‘no surrender’ ‘not an inch’ approach. If Roi were smart they would use this to their advantage and hang on to the cost tails of NI as we move towards that ‘best of both worlds’ position. And I think those smarter in Roi will ensure that happens.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/ni-protocol-political-movement

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

LMHC

downcow wrote: »

Great article. It will put Francie and co off their breakfast.
This is the inevitable route which will require the EU to change its ‘no surrender’ ‘not an inch’ approach. If Roi were smart they would use this to their advantage and hang on to the cost tails of NI as we move towards that ‘best of both worlds’ position. And I think those smarter in Roi will ensure that happens.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/ni-protocol-political-movement

The protocol is here to stay, it was negotiated by the man who the DUP threw their chips behind. The UK doesn't particularly care for the North.

I believe there will be a slight change or variation in goods entering as it will take majority of power from those opposing it.

But It won't be ruled illegal as it doesn't breach international law that is annexed in the GFA

downcow

Great article. It will put Francie and co off their breakfast.
This is the inevitable route which will require the EU to change its ‘no surrender’ ‘not an inch’ approach. If Roi were smart they would use this to their advantage and hang on to the cost tails of NI as we move towards that ‘best of both worlds’ position. And I think those smarter in Roi will ensure that happens.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/ni-protocol-political-movement

downcow

If Australia pull off their wish of not competing with the internal meat market but yet competing equally on U.K. meat imports, it will present a big challenge to how the U.K. manage the Irish border.
I am not sure what Australia have in mind (maybe some of you do) but it will be a challenge if the bottom falls out of Roi meat and ni meat holds up as it’s internal U.K. slab Murphy will make a fortune.
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

Charles Babbage

Snickers Man wrote: »

I've read this four times and my response is still: "Huh?"

What is your problem, it is clear enough? Perhaps you should read it again.

Snickers Man

Charles Babbage wrote: »

There is a difference though. Imposing the border on land at the behest of people in England, when people on neither side of the that border wanted it, would have been an effective end to the entire peace settlement. The present situation represents the people in Britain changing their arrangements without agreement with N. Ireland, this is undesirable but is much less fundamental, it is not at all clear that the peace settlement in NI prevented people in Britain making arrangements among themselves.

I've read this four times and my response is still: "Huh?"

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

We heard that lady from Eu say last night that there is no absolutely alternative to the protocol. So your argument falls down

The EU has learned the hard way over the past few years that any openness or or concession will simply be trousered by the UK with no response in kind; the concession will be treated as a new baseline; and then the UK will continue to honk about the EU being inflexible, unwilling to concede, etc. The EU has therefore developed the strategy of not signalling any willingness to make any concessions until the UK indicates that it's ready to make a deal, which on past form only happens a very short time before some inescapable deadline.

As we've already discussed, the UK is still at the stage of fulminating about the Protocol without making any suggestions about what might replace it or even acknowledging that it might need to make such a suggestion. Obviously we're still some way off from the point where the EU might feel able to acknowledge that alternatives to the Protocol are possible.

Which is not to say that we'll ever get to that point. We got the Protocol because the UK decided that it didn't like the last deal that it negotiated and signed with the EU, fulminated about that for a while, pretended a willingness to leave with no deal, and finally got down to brass tacks and agreed something else - something which involved significant concession by, and significant trust on the part of, the EU.

If the UK now decides that it doesn't like that and wants to junk it and move to something else, the obvious thought for the EU is: we've been here before. How could we trust that the something else would endure any longer than May's deal did, or Johnson's deal did? And, if we have no reason to trust that, why go down this road again? So if the UK ever does get serious about replacing the protocol, it's going to have to (a) put forward a proposal for a replacement that will be attractive to the EU, and (b) offer a fairly compelling argument as to why things will be different this time, and the replacement will endure. Which is not going to be easy to do.

All of which suggest that, yeah, it may well not be possible to replace the Protocol. Right now, the EU is not minded to replace it, and the UK shows no signs of wanting to create the conditions in which the EU might be minded to replace it, and if someday it does want to create those conditions there is no guarantee that it can succeed in doing so. So it has painted itself into a pretty tight corner here.

But all of that is a counsel of despair for those in NI who would like to see the Protocol replaced. The road to replacement may be a long, narrow, uncertain and perhaps ultimately impossible one, but if you're not ready to accept that yet and want to pursue the possibility of replacement, then an absolute basic starting requirement is an idea about what to replace it with that has some chance of attracting the EU and of looking to them as though it might endure. Anyone who is honking about replacing the Protocol but not talking about what to replace it with is either very stupid or very hypocritical. And neither stupidity nor hypocrisy are what Northern Ireland needs right now.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

We heard that lady from Eu say last night that there is no absolutely alternative to the protocol. So your argument falls down

Is she wrong?
What acceptable alternative can there be to the protocol when the UK refuse to join the SM and CU whilst also insisting on their own standards?

downcow

Peregrinus wrote: »

The difference is that statement from the EU/RoI about the dangers of a hard border have mostly been made in in support of concrete proposals about what to do to avoid a hard border. Whereas statements from Brexity voices about the need to remove the protocol are typically characterised by a complete absence of any suggestion about what to put in place of the Protocol.
)

We heard that lady from Eu say last night that there is no absolutely alternative to the protocol. So your argument falls down

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

Apologies. I was slightly mischievous. I was just making a point as many on here claim every statement from unionists is a threat while somehow statements from Roi and Eu etc are just helpful warnings.

The difference is that statement from the EU/RoI about the dangers of a hard border have mostly been made in in support of concrete proposals about what to do to avoid a hard border. Whereas statements from Brexity voices about the need to remove the protocol are typically characterised by a complete absence of any suggestion about what to put in place of the Protocol.

downcow wrote: »

Unionists didn’t make the statement I posted. It was SF yesterday on non implementation of the Irish language act.

To be fair, put that in context. The DUP were threatening to block implemtenation of the Irish language act as a strategy for exerting pressure to have the Protocol removed (with, duh, no proposal for an alternative to the Protocol). Used for that purpose, the tactic obviously would be destabilising.

(To their credit, the DUP reversed themselves within a few hours and took the non-implementation threat off the table. Presumably some misfortunate DUP staffer is now exploring other employment opportunities.)

downcow

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem with that statement is obvious; it's nothing but deliberately inflammatory unless coupled with a serious and realistic proposal for a mechanism that can replace the Protocol and avoid a hard land border, so as to avert even greater instability. The LCC are not advancing such a proposal (and neither, so far as I can see, are most of the other voices calling for the removal of the protocol).

Apologies. I was slightly mischievous. I was just making a point as many on here claim every statement from unionists is a threat while somehow statements from Roi and Eu etc are just helpful warnings.

Unionists didn’t make the statement I posted. It was SF yesterday on non implementation of the Irish language act.

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

Surely you don’t have a problem with a simple statement that there will be instability in north if protocol is not removed??

The problem with that statement is obvious; it's nothing but deliberately inflammatory unless coupled with a serious and realistic proposal for a mechanism that can replace the Protocol and avoid a hard land border, so as to avert even greater instability. The LCC are not advancing such a proposal (and neither, so far as I can see, are most of the other voices calling for the removal of the protocol).

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Are they threatening violence because of something put in place, not by the EU, but by Westminster and signed off by the queen?
I do have a problem with threats of violence. I have a bigger problem when those that wanted this situation now seem to have regrets about it and seek to blame everyone but themselves.

Haha. Very interesting. It was SF said today that there would be instability in the north if there was not an Irish language act.
Now I know how to get to the truth.
And yes, you are probably correct that it was a threat.

Charles Babbage

Snickers Man wrote: »

The implication for the Good Friday Agreement was that one side of the national divide in Northern Ireland would have to lose, depending on whether the Border was put on the island or in the sea.

It's in the sea.
The Unionists have been forced to suck it up. And they don't like it. Cue riots in Belfast.

There is a difference though. Imposing the border on land at the behest of people in England, when people on neither side of the that border wanted it, would have been an effective end to the entire peace settlement. The present situation represents the people in Britain changing their arrangements without agreement with N. Ireland, this is undesirable but is much less fundamental, it is not at all clear that the peace settlement in NI prevented people in Britain making arrangements among themselves.

Snickers Man

downcow wrote: »

Yes absolutely a hard border on the island or in the Irish Sea is a problem

You're only seeing this now!!!

That was always the problem with Brexit as far as Ireland was concerned. There had to be a border SOMEWHERE. That's what Brexit meant. Unless Britain went for the "Staying in the Single Market and/or Customs Union" solution but that was unacceptable to the hard core Brexiteers. "That's not what the majority of the British people voted for!!" they screamed.
True, actually. Because it's not what they were asked.

The implication for the Good Friday Agreement was that one side of the national divide in Northern Ireland would have to lose, depending on whether the Border was put on the island or in the sea.

It's in the sea.
The Unionists have been forced to suck it up. And they don't like it. Cue riots in Belfast.

Of course, the people on "the mainland" considered this carefully when they were debating whether or not to leave the EU, didn't they?
Didn't they????

Snickers Man

Peregrinus wrote: »

EU is not a party to the Act of Union and is not bound by it and so can’t breach it.

Zing!

Peregrinus wrote: »

the ECHR point is a bit awkward; Brexit itself is being foisted on the people of NI not so much without any say as against their expressed wishes. I don’t think you can challenge the NI Protocol on this basis and yet argue that Brexit was just fine and dandy.

Zing!!

Peregrinus wrote: »

the argument that the Withdrawal Agreement Act violated the Belfast Agreement by changing the relationship of NI with the rest of the UK without NI consent; Brexit itself (as implemented by the Tories) changed that relationship,

Zing!!!

Peregrinus wrote: »

NI voted against Brexit, as you know, so if the Belfast Agreement argument is valid then it is an argument against Brexit as a whole, not just against the NI Protocol.

Zing! Zing! Badabing!!!

FrancieBrady

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Francie & downcow (and any others in NI) - is the NIP affecting you personally now and if it is, how? Are you seeing delays or shortages in shops? Has your workplace been affected?

I'm not in NI. Border dweller, no issues among the businesses or people I deal with.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Surely you don’t have a problem with a simple statement that there will be instability in north if protocol is not removed??

Are they threatening violence because of something put in place, not by the EU, but by Westminster and signed off by the queen?
I do have a problem with threats of violence. I have a bigger problem when those that wanted this situation now seem to have regrets about it and seek to blame everyone but themselves.

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

She reflected the views of the 27 EU members who are in unison on the TCA and NIP.
It also seems to have irked the loyalist terrorist and criminal groups.

Surely you don’t have a problem with a simple statement that there will be instability in north if protocol is not removed??

Seth Brundle

Francie & downcow (and any others in NI) - is the NIP affecting you personally now and if it is, how? Are you seeing delays or shortages in shops? Has your workplace been affected?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

It’s positive that she has felt the need to say this.
It’s like when a football chairman needs to say ‘our manager has the full support of the board’. Usually a sacking follows lol. Cheered me up when I heard her at it.

Problem for unionism is that it has talked itself into another strategic cul de sac. Nobody believes the 'causing great inconvenience/the people want the protocol gone stuff.