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

maestroamado

Peregrinus wrote: »

Johnson is talking to Biden because Biden cares about the North, not because Johnson does. If Johnson could avoid any mention of NI in that particular conversation he certainly would.

And I'm not quite seeing how Johnson having to discuss NI with Biden is somehow evidence that Johnson has a secret long-term agenda of getting rid of NI.

This is a conversation, no need for evidence..
NI is a basket case and no-one wants it so long term solution needed..
Whether they care or not makes no difference if they can resolve..
I am just hopeful...

[Deleted User]

I think the Unionists needed to thread much more cautiously here than they have done. Suppose they do inflict some kind of defeat on Ireland and their nationalist neighbours, how is that going to go for them? It'll inflame tensions and increase division ahead of a border poll, which is very likely within ten years and surely inevitable within 20.
They don't have the numbers in NI to keep acting like they do, but this penny is not dropping. Not an inch isn't going to work, it can't.

Peregrinus

maestroamado wrote: »

Johnson is talking to Biden about the north and it is a serious conversation.

Johnson is talking to Biden because Biden cares about the North, not because Johnson does. If Johnson could avoid any mention of NI in that particular conversation he certainly would.

And I'm not quite seeing how Johnson having to discuss NI with Biden is somehow evidence that Johnson has a secret long-term agenda of getting rid of NI.

maestroamado

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't understand your point here. What do you mean that the EU/UK border is 'in the middle of the EU"? It's in the nature of borders that the EU/UK border is on the edge of the EU.

(I suppose you could argue that the EU/Swiss border is in the middle of the EU. But let's let that one go.)

And I don't get your reference to Biden either. Who is the "he" that is telling Biden lies? And what is he saying that might be a lie?

Johnson is talking to Biden about the north and it is a serious conversation.
The Swiss thing is different as part of their country is not Governed from elsewhere.
I expected a lot more comment from our local politicians North and South...

Peregrinus

Mav11 wrote: »

Then when you consider the third option which has not been discussed here, but one which the French seem to be keen on, that is checks on all goods from the island of Ireland to prevent the importation of prohibited UK goods to the single market? That could hardly be considered a UK border check, it is not on the UK/EU border. Its a customs check.

Border checks aren't checks which happen at the border, but checks which happen because of the border. If goods (or indeed people) have to be checked because they have crossed a border then that's a border check, regardless of whether it happens at the border or (as is more and more the case these days) well away from the border.

Peregrinus

maestroamado wrote: »

Do you think he is telling Biden lies.... it is in the EU agenda as the EU/UK border is in the middle of the EU...

I don't understand your point here. What do you mean that the EU/UK border is 'in the middle of the EU"? It's in the nature of borders that the EU/UK border is on the edge of the EU.

(I suppose you could argue that the EU/Swiss border is in the middle of the EU. But let's let that one go.)

And I don't get your reference to Biden either. Who is the "he" that is telling Biden lies? And what is he saying that might be a lie?

Mav11

Peregrinus wrote: »

They're not really customs checks, are they? Because of the TCA there are no customs duties on UK-EU trade and, therefore, on GB-NI trade. So these checks aren't really about enforcing customs. They are about ensuring that goods don't enter the Single Market that are not compliant with Single Market rules. Essentially the NIP is an arrangement under which the EU trusts the UK to control this particular part of the Single Market's external border on behalf of the EU. So I'm happy with "border controls" as a term; they are the same controls which the EU itself applies on its external border everywhere else.

But, in the spirit of compromise, how about "border checks"?

I suppose its semantics really, but if you consider that one of the purposes of a customs check is to prevent the importation of prohibited goods, then its a customs check.

Then when you consider the third option which has not been discussed here, but one which the French seem to be keen on, that is checks on all goods from the island of Ireland to prevent the importation of prohibited UK goods to the single market? That could hardly be considered a UK border check, it is not on the UK/EU border. Its a customs check.

Anyway as I said, I take your point, more about semantics really.

maestroamado

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think Johnson cares one way or the other about this, and its certainly not on the EU's agenda.

Do you think he is telling Biden lies.... it is in the EU agenda as the EU/UK border is in the middle of the EU...

maestroamado

Biden has linked the Protocol and the GFA, a couple of weeks ago Edwin Poots had a live debate with Vice President of EU with Andrew Marr on Sunday morning, i never seen a UK politician in one to one talks with senior EU person before so for me they want to keep him sweet,
This year it is 100 years ans we have not been able to resolve. There needs to be new thinking in my view.
I do not think there will ever be serious tension in NI ever again as the thinking now is different and what went before will not happen now as the Americians are involved...

Peregrinus

maestroamado wrote: »

Start of a journey towards UI...

I don't think Johnson cares one way or the other about this, and its certainly not on the EU's agenda.

VinLieger

maestroamado wrote: »

Start of a journey towards UI...

Maybe something Boris would try but not a chance the EU would be complicit in something like this that hardens tensions and potentially leads to violence.

maestroamado

VinLieger wrote: »

I think your completely wrong but to what end exactly do you think this?

Start of a journey towards UI...

CaoimhinCong

maestroamado wrote: »

it will likely be my first time to ever be right about anything...

I'd hold judgement on that.

VinLieger

maestroamado wrote: »

I am just wondering if i am the only person on here who thinks.
That Boris Johnson stage managed this and possible collusion with EU...

I think your completely wrong but to what end exactly do you think this?

maestroamado

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you probably are, yes.

it will likely be my first time to ever be right about anything...

Peregrinus

maestroamado wrote: »

I am just wondering if i am the only person on here who thinks.
That Boris Johnson stage managed this and possible collusion with EU...

I think you probably are, yes.

maestroamado

I am just wondering if i am the only person on here who thinks.
That Boris Johnson stage managed this and possible collusion with EU...

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

A question for Roi and Eu is whether they are happy to see violence break out again on the island.
I had thought a few years ago that we were in a new place where there could never be significant sustained violence again. I was wrong. I believe now it is inevitable unless Roi / Eu start operating with a mind of compromise.
I am hearing more and more people I would describe as middle class and moderate saying that the only thing that will change this is violence. They believe strongly that Roi successfully used the threat of violence to get us to here.

The anti is definitely going up and none of us really know whether the now inevitable violence will be a flash in the pan or escalating and sustained for years to come.
The anger is directed primarily at the smug agitating Roi.

But this view is wholly divorced from reality. As endlessly pointed out, Brexit comes with the NIP because the UK governent refused to proceed with a Brexit that didn't include the NIP. And, having insisted on the NIP, the UK then made unilateral decisions designed to maximise the impact of the NIP on NI.

The notion that this problem can be fixed if "Roi / Eu start operating with a mind of compromise" is just mind-bendingly divorced from any kind of reality. NI's problems are caused by a series of unilateral decisions made by the UK government. EU and RoI have compromised extensively, and none of these compromises have prevented the UK from acting as it has. Things will change if, and only if, the UK decides that it does actually accord a greater priority to peace in NI than it currently appears to.

athlone573

downcow wrote: »

The anger is directed primarily at the smug agitating Roi.

Don't you feel that Unionist leaders have a moral responsibility to step up to the plate and be honest about the fact that the checks would be minimal and straightforward to implement if the GB government cooperated and implemented what it signed up to clear as day, instead if its duplicitous and obstructive attitude? On the contrary you have an 18 year old idiot getting TV time to threaten violence.

As it stands it seems Poots and co are driving mainstream voters away towards the Alliance party. Which is actually good to see.

irelandrover

downcow wrote: »

A question for Roi and Eu is whether they are happy to see violence break out again on the island.
I had thought a few years ago that we were in a new place where there could never be significant sustained violence again. I was wrong. I believe now it is inevitable unless Roi / Eu start operating with a mind of compromise.
I am hearing more and more people I would describe as middle class and moderate saying that the only thing that will change this is violence. They believe strongly that Roi successfully used the threat of violence to get us to here.

The anti is definitely going up and none of us really know whether the now inevitable violence will be a flash in the pan or escalating and sustained for years to come.
The anger is directed primarily at the smug agitating Roi.

No one is happy to see violence break out again.

So they are angry that Ireland used the threat of violence to get what they want, so to counter that they are going to use actual violence to get what they want.

what do you actually want. NO checks anywhere even tho standards aren't the same? The UK to align to EU standards so no checks anywhere? Or checks between Ireland and the EU? Whats the best outcome in your opinion?

CaoimhinCong

downcow wrote: »

A question for Roi and Eu is whether they are happy to see violence break out again on the island.

It won't happen, this is scare mongering. I speak with active and past UVF members through an iniative with Cois and EPIC (2 Organisations who help ex combatants of the IRA and UVF)

They have spoke on a level and said those elemts pushing for violence and disorder are either outside of the mainstream which if so it is 3 brigades of maybe 50 men and based loosely in SEA, East Belfast and LVF in antrim

Unionism has no direction or leadership and this has been exposed recently with Poots the creationist and Givan the absolute Whalloper gaining power. Unionism is going into a cul de sac which it will struggle to return from.

Alliance and UUP should benefit from an incompetent DUP who voted for brexit and all it entails.

downcow

A question for Roi and Eu is whether they are happy to see violence break out again on the island.
I had thought a few years ago that we were in a new place where there could never be significant sustained violence again. I was wrong. I believe now it is inevitable unless Roi / Eu start operating with a mind of compromise.
I am hearing more and more people I would describe as middle class and moderate saying that the only thing that will change this is violence. They believe strongly that Roi successfully used the threat of violence to get us to here.

The anti is definitely going up and none of us really know whether the now inevitable violence will be a flash in the pan or escalating and sustained for years to come.
The anger is directed primarily at the smug agitating Roi.

maestroamado

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Or we can lay the blame where it belongs -- at the feet of the Tories, the DUP, and Unionism in the north.

People can do as they please but this is a new game and people who have not a positive contribution to make will not be invited.
It will be interesting to see the reaction from the leaders on both sides in NI will say, also what the reaction of politicians in Republic.
For me Biden has put the GFA and the protocol on the same agenda and if the EU can come on board it be a new game.
People can continue to blame whoever but for me that is a big part of the problem.
We need people with new thinking and ways to resolve the whole NI thing long term.
Personally i think its great...

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

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

The NIP is a compromise, as has already been pointed out. That's not to say that further compromise is impossible. But if the NIP is more burdensome that anticipated when it was hailed as an 'oven-ready deal" and a triumph of UK negotiating skill, that's mainly because since then the UK has moved away from its stated policy of pursuing "deep regulatory and customs co-operation and a level playing field" with the EU to one of maximal divergence. The more GB diverges, naturally, the more significant and substantial the checks required by the protocol will be.

So if we are looking for compromises, one obvious possible compromise might be for the UK to steer back towards the policy of deep regulatory co-operation that it adopted in 2019, and abandoned without thinking (or possibly without caring) about the effect this would have on NI. And the EU has already signalled a willingness to make compromises of this kind; it's proposing co-operation on SPS issues that could remove up to 80% of the checks. The UK isn't, apparently, interested.

The UK's position seems to be that it can make unilateral decisions which will maximise impediments to GB/NI trade, and when they call for "compromise", what they really mean is that the EU should accept greater risk and greater insecurity in order to protect NI from the consequences of the UK's unilateral decisions. That's not really what "compromise" means, though; compromise requires the UK as well as the EU to do rather more, not rather less, than it has already agreed to.

Peregrinus

Mav11 wrote: »

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.

Well, fair enough. But I think it would make your proposal even less likely to work. If you have a qualified majority provision, the consequence is that the status quo is entrenched — there'll be no change unless 60% want it, or unless change secures a cross-community majority, or whatever. But then the people who want change are less inclined to participate in the referendum and commit to supporting the outcome wholeheartedly because — as they see it — the referendum is rigged against them; the whole thing is just a plot to get them to give up their campaign for change even if it enjoys majority support.

Mav11 wrote: »

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?

They're not really customs checks, are they? Because of the TCA there are no customs duties on UK-EU trade and, therefore, on GB-NI trade. So these checks aren't really about enforcing customs. They are about ensuring that goods don't enter the Single Market that are not compliant with Single Market rules. Essentially the NIP is an arrangement under which the EU trusts the UK to control this particular part of the Single Market's external border on behalf of the EU. So I'm happy with "border controls" as a term; they are the same controls which the EU itself applies on its external border everywhere else.

But, in the spirit of compromise, how about "border checks"?

Junkyard Tom

maestroamado wrote: »

The time has come to stopp blaming each other seems to be coming to an end thankfully...

Or we can lay the blame where it belongs -- at the feet of the Tories, the DUP, and Unionism in the north.

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.

I think the real game is on now which is what i expected but i did not think it would happen today...
There must be a serious lot of work going on for all this to happen today...
All we need now is the EU to join in the debate and there will have to be serious conversations in Ireland North and South to help resolve.
The time has come to stopp blaming each other seems to be coming to an end thankfully...

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:

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

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?