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; } } }

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

downcow

Peregrinus wrote: »

Once the UK government decided that Brexit had to mean hard Brexit, then it meant a rabies border somewhere. And the UK government decided that it should be between GB and NI, rather than between NI and IRL. And, in so far as the people of the UK were permitted to exercise a judgement about that decision, they resoundingly endorsed it, given the Tories a substantial majority on a manifesto to ratify and implement the WA which provided for it.

So, yeah, by all means come and protest in Dublin about that. You'll be protesting against a party that didn't want a rabies border anywhere, but was unable to persuade the UK government, parliament and people of the merits of that view. A pig-headed refusal to hold the true authors of NI's misfortune to account and instead try to deflect blame elsewhere is bound to succeed. :rolleyes:

So i think you are on the same page as those her who say Eu will stand firm and won’t change.
You will be proved wrong.
As you rightly say the rules are clear about rabies vaccines entering Eu. Watch as that rule for one gets changed - I’d give it no more than six months. And these are not the flexibilities Francie talks of, although he will no doubt claim it is after it happens

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So yet again were going around in circles where you make a claim and others here point out the realities of the situation, again.
You were given information about the rabies checks that your daughter's dog will face when she returns from Scotland.
Have you got alzheimer's because you seem to quickly forget facts shortly after being given them?

Well what will you say if the Eu eventually drop that requirement without any vet agreement in place?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Watch this space. I think it’s you that hasn’t had everything explained to you. There will be changes and these will be more than the flexibilities that Francie talks about.

downcow wrote: »

So i think you are on the same page as those her who say Eu will stand firm and won’t change.
You will be proved wrong.
As you rightly say the rules are clear about rabies vaccines entering Eu. Watch as that rule for one gets changed - I’d give it no more than six months. And these are not the flexibilities Francie talks of, although he will no doubt claim it is after it happens

Nothing will change until the UK commit to implementing the Protocol in full.

See what happened yesterday with Data and GDPR? The UK showed they would play ball on protections that are standard in the EU (practically in every way, they have said they are remaining in the EU and using the EU standard in this respect) so the EU have allowed them access to Data for crime prevention and other uses.

The same thing will happen here. The UK will commit to following the rules or be told to sling their hook.

You are still trying to set up a win here...from, 'The Protocol must go and the EU will fold the tent, to ah, we showed them on bringing the Pooch from the Highlands.

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

So i think you are on the same page as those her who say Eu will stand firm and won’t change.
You will be proved wrong.
As you rightly say the rules are clear about rabies vaccines entering Eu. Watch as that rule for one gets changed - I’d give it no more than six months. And these are not the flexibilities Francie talks of, although he will no doubt claim it is after it happens

Of course the EU will make changes. They were always willing to. That'sd why there's a process for doing this built into the NIP.

It would just be a lot easier for everyone, and safer for NI in general and the peace process in particular, if the Vote Leave Government didn't have to go through all the performative whingeing and threatening before it makes use of the process, and if the likes of you didn't feel the need to pretend to take that seriously.

The changes will not be radical. The UK government has worked hard to ensure that they will not be. They will certainly be less extensive than they could have been if the UK displayed a modicum of good faith and trustworthiness.

But, however small they are, they will be hailed by Johnson and his cheerleaders as a famous victory and you, poor sap, will either believe him or - more probably - pretend to. Facing up to the fact that the people who should be the Union's last friends in Great Britain don't give a damn about NI and are systematically sacrificing its wishes and welfare on the altar of hard Brexit would be just too scary.

fash

downcow wrote: »

Very enlightening response. Thanks for that!

So you agree, this is entirely the natural consequence of what unionist Brexiters sought - and you therefore fully support it?

FrancieBrady

fash wrote: »

So you agree, this is entirely the natural consequence of what unionist Brexiters sought - and you therefore fully support it?

No doubt downcow has read The Newsletter this AM which is trying to do a Daily Mail/Express stunt and mis-inform it's readers.

Headline:

EU signals major softening on Irish Sea border rules for medicines as it agrees to change its legislation

The headline doesn't quite match the reality though as the headline does not mention the terms for the EU being flexible. Flexibility that was built into the WA and Protocol.

He probably glossed over this bit:

Mr Šefčovič framed his offer in the context of a firm UK commitment to accept and implement the protocol in the long term.

He said: “Full implementation of the protocol is our fundamental starting point. On that basis, we can discuss which permanent flexibilities in the implementation we can agree to.”

He defended the protocol, saying that “nobody has yet suggested a better workable alternative” and went on: “The protocol needs to be fully and correctly implemented and at the same time our approach has been – and still is – solution-oriented, constructive and flexible”.

BonnieSituation

downcow wrote: »

Watch this space. I think it’s you that hasn’t had everything explained to you. There will be changes and these will be more than the flexibilities that Francie talks about.

This sounds exciting.

Tell us what's going to happen in "this space"?

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Watch this space. I think it’s you that hasn’t had everything explained to you. There will be changes and these will be more than the flexibilities that Francie talks about.

Changes have always been possible within the boundaries of the NIP which was agreed and ratified by the UK.
The NIP itself will not change.
But again, you already know this.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Well what will you say if the Eu eventually drop that requirement without any vet agreement in place?

The EU might make changes to requirements pending some form of agreed porocess put in place by the UK e.g the EU Pet Travel Scheme. We'll wait and see. Currently though the UK has decided not to go with food and veterinary standards alignment or through the EU Pet Travel Scheme so your daughter needs to have her dog checked.
Again, you were previously told this here and nothing has changed since then.

lurleen lumpkin

A bit of sense getting through.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1409846742040911874?s=19

Seth Brundle

Interesting survey completed by QUB through the following twitter thread. I'll post a number of the results. The results show that both the British government need to get the finger out and implement what they agreed and the EU need to show that this is the best way forwards for NI in that whilst it doesn't affect NI constitutionally, it does place them in a better position than GB in terms of trade.

https://twitter.com/hayward_katy/status/1410121979018059781

E5HCqU0WEBAitqw?format=png&name=4096x4096

E5HCqU0WEBAitqw?format=png&name=4096x4096

E5HEhz9XMAMw8GH?format=png&name=4096x4096

E5HFgTRWEAErGVq?format=png&name=4096x4096

E5HGuOiWYAIk20w?format=png&name=4096x4096

fash

. for anyone worried that UK judiciary were going to shoot down the NIP...

FrancieBrady

fash wrote: »

. for anyone worried that UK judiciary were going to shoot down the NIP...

Is that an official verdict or an opinion?

Seth Brundle

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is that an official verdict or an opinion?

The verdict is still continuing...
https://twitter.com/SMurphyTV/status/1410183934093238273

BonnieSituation

Here's the Guardian's take on it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/30/belfast-court-dismisses-legal-challenge-to-brexit-northern-ireland-protocol?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

---

You're always on shaky ground when you have to use 220 year old law as the basis of your argument.

I can't imagine many of us here were truly worried about this though.

I had no idea Aiken was party to this frivolity. Shame.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Here's the Guardian's take on it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jun/30/belfast-court-dismisses-legal-challenge-to-brexit-northern-ireland-protocol?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

---

You're always on shaky ground when you have to use 220 year old law as the basis of your argument.

I can't imagine many of us here were truly worried about this though.

I had no idea Aiken was party to this frivolity. Shame.

Yep, as expected, they made a few barristers richer.

lurleen lumpkin

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yep, as expected, they made a few barristers richer.

Including our former Attorney General no less. When he's not helping out the unionists with their nonsense case he's busy leading the legal fight against our abortion services legislation. Top guy.

Kermit.de.frog

Surely the Act of Union was impliedly repealed when we left the union given it references Ireland?

VinLieger

Wait didnt Downcow assure us they would find it unconstitutional?

hometruths

downcow wrote: »

10am 30th June judge will rule. So I don’t know why you are saying the legal cases have been unsuccessful

The legal cases have been unsuccessful.

[Deleted User]

I can remember reading that there were some votes among Republicans for Brexit, amazing how right they have been proven, they must be surprised themselves. Incredible how it has damaged and is continuing to damage unionism five years on. Despite the likes of Jim Allister arguing passionately for it!

BluePlanet

schmittel wrote: »

The legal cases have been unsuccessful.

Oh but not yet, the Appeal! :rolleyes:

briany

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I can remember reading that there were some votes among Republicans for Brexit, amazing how right they have been proven, they must be surprised themselves. Incredible how it has damaged and is continuing to damage unionism five years on. Despite the likes of Jim Allister arguing passionately for it!

It's probably Jim Allister's dearest wish that there be some kind of real border created between RoI and NI. Brexit just happened to be the best opportunity to achieve it.

We, down south, were largely happy with the arrangement as it stood pre-2016. Unionists like Allister certainly picked their side and their priorities, but have the gall to act offended and dismayed that Ireland does the same.

Remember, actions have consequences. Let the DUP and the TUV and whoever else remember this when they act in a rash, myopic fashion.

BonnieSituation

briany wrote: »

It's probably Jim Allister's dearest wish that there be some kind of real border created between RoI and NI. Brexit just happened to be the best opportunity to achieve it.

We, down south, were largely happy with the arrangement as it stood pre-2016. Unionists like Allister certainly picked their side and their priorities, but have the gall to act offended and dismayed that Ireland does the same.

Remember, actions have consequences. Let the DUP and the TUV and whoever else remember this when they act in a rash, myopic fashion.

Sure it's against the GFA for the Taoiseach to voice opinions on his wish for a UI according to belligerent Unionists.

[Deleted User]

I think the leader of the UUP might offer some hope for unionism, but there's no one else. The other parties are hopeless, looking increasingly like dinosaurs. This legal appeal was another joke too, they knew they'd no real chance of stopping the protocol.

I understand there's a temptation to revel in the crisis in unionism, but it is negative to see a large section of the island's population feeling alienated all the time. Now, its leaders may be to blame for that, but it's unfortunate all the same. What chance has NI got if a large proportion of the population rate Jamie Bryson, Ian Paisley, Jim Allister, Ben Lowry and Edwin Poots as credible political voices?

briany

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Sure it's against the GFA for the Taoiseach to voice opinions on his wish for a UI according to belligerent Unionists.

They're not exactly quiet about their own particular preference regarding the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.

Sure lookit, anyone would act out if they felt the walls closing in on them. That's what's happening, here. They're losing. They're lashing out. They're losing more because of the lashing out.

briany

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

What chance has NI got if a large proportion of the population rate Jamie Bryson, Ian Paisley, Jim Allister, Ben Lowry and Edwin Poots as credible political voices?

They're never going to stop voting this like in unless they realise they're not up to the job, so in that sense a bit of pain is a positive thing.

FrancieBrady

They are not taking it well. Seems the British judiciary are now the enemy too.

https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1410232900822446082

BluePlanet

The Unionists, by taking this case have effectively undermined and weakened the Act of Union. They've made the highest court (in NI now, but next in the UK proper) to declare the Act of Union is repealed by newer treaties.

Peregrinus

BluePlanet wrote: »

Oh but not yet, the Appeal! :rolleyes:

Oh, there'll be an appeal. Hoey was reported as saying, before judgment was handed down, that either way there would likely be an appeal. And, since it was handed down, both McAllister and Habib have said there will be an appeal. As Habib is the moneybags behind the whole thing - the crowdfunding effort was not a resounding success - if he is willing to throw good money after bad then I see no obstacle to an appeal.

And, really, you don't start this kind of case unless you're willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court. Had McAllister, etc, won in the High Court the government would certainly have appealed, so they would have needed to go to the Supreme Court to win their point conclusively.

I think in a constitutional case of this significance, they can appeal directly to the Supreme Court - i.e. they won't have to take the usual route through the Court of Appeal first.

But it's not a great position from which to appeal on. They lost on literally every point in the High Court. It's a bit of a hill to climb. Donaldson (not a party to the case himself) has resorted to claiming that the case establishes important principles (a bit like Labour's "but we won the argument!" vindication of their election defeat in 2019) but, even there, he is asserting that the court established principles which, in its judgment, the court explicitly does not establish. None of the plaintiffs or their supporters are likely to say so, but this judgment will have been a severe disappointment for them.