Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

thanks this is a really good post !

Where does the article say that "the EU is insisting on them"? It doesn't. So why are you choosing to frame the matter this way? Who is telling your that this arises out of the EU's insistence, and why are you believing them?

The actual facts of the matter are that the NI Protocol provides for these checks, and the NI Protocol has legal force and effect because the UK and the EU have jointly agreed it. Furthermore, they only jointly agreed it because the UK rejected a previously-agreed version of the Withdrawal Agreement which didn't include it. So if anybody insisted on the NI Protocol it was the UK, not the EU. Is the source in which you place such faith telling you this? If not, you should ask yourself why not, and you should ask yourself whether you should continue to accept what it says as uncritically as you currently do.

What has changed since the NI Protocol has agreed to make the UK so unhappy about the protocol that, at the time, it insisted on having? Is it anything the EU has done?

No, it isn't. At the time the UK and the EU agreed the NI Protocol, they also agreed a "Political Declaration" on the future relationship between them. That agreement stated that the parties would pursue "an ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership across trade and economic cooperation with a comprehensive and balanced Free Trade Agreement at its core", which would include a "level playing field" and "deep regulatory and customs co-operation" and would uphold "the common high standards applicable in the Union and the United Kingdom . . . in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change . . .".

The Political Declaration was not legally binding. It was intended as an outline agreement for the trade deal that the UK and the EU were to negotiate. That trade deal, when negotiated, signed and ratified, would be legally binding. If the trade deal had stuck to what was envisaged in the Political Declaration, then the NI Protocol would indeed have been low-impact, because GB-NI trade would have been subject neither to customs tariffs nor to much in the way of regulatory checks — the level playing field and common regulatory standards would have made this unecessary.

But that's not what happened because, some months after signing the Political Declaration, the UK decided that that's not what it wanted after all. Far from negotiating a trade agreement with a level playing filed, deep regulatory co-operation and common standards, they decided what they really wanted was a "Canada-style" agreement - zero tariffs, zero quotas, no level playing field, no regulatory co-operation, and minimal provision in relation to common standards.

In other words, the UK didn't want the trade agreement that they said they wanted when the NI Protocol was agreed, which would have made the NI Protocol low-impact. They wanted a quite different trade agreement, which would make the NI protocol high-impact. Specifically, it would mean significant regulatory checks on GB-NI Trade.

Because the Political Declaration wasn't legally binding the UK were within their rights to do this. (Assuming it represented a genuine change of mind, of course. But let's assume that.) But they are not within their rights in presenting it as something the EU insisted on because, of course, it was a unilateral decision by the UK, made with full knowledge of the impact it would have on NI, and which the EU resisted.

In other words, if the NI Protocol is proving more burdensome for NI than was anticipated when it was agreed, it's because the UK, acting unilaterally and with full knowledge of the consequences, freely decided to make it so. A source that tries to sum this up as "the EU insisted" is, frankly, lying to you.

It is not ignorance (on UK govt's part). It is malice. Not on M&S chairman's part though imo. They just want to do their business in Ireland and NI as before, which UK govt. have made impossible. He doesn't really care how that comes about...

Thought it was an interesting article. In particular for what it shows about the BBCs approach to reporting these issues and the UK relationship to Ireland post Brexit. When you don't read too closely there, NI is conflated with "Ireland". These trade barriers are also presented as a bilateral problem between UK and "Ireland".

There is a test coming today because the UK is going to give a 3 month ultimatum as well as plan unilateral overhauls that make a land border inevitable before the end of the year.

So again I ask where is the EU standing up for a member state?

I see Michael Martin coming out yesterday weakly saying we were going to "consider carefully" what the UK govt says today. Really? Consider carefully? A deal we've signed?

What he and the EU should be saying, and what they would be saying if this were Germany, is

"OK, so you want to deviate and unilaterally change our binding agreement? Here are the list of trade and economic sanctions we will be placing on the UK the following day..."

Are we getting that? Of course not.

His use of language is disgraceful. Using 'incendiary' is incendiary in itself.

What do you want from the EU?

You didn't want them to invoke Article 16 previously because that was kneejerk.

Yet you want them to threaten all sorts of trade tariffs at the UK who, despite all the bluff and bluster, haven't yet actually done anything wrong.

I can't help but feel no matter what the EU does, you're going to find fault regardless.

The NIP/TCA outlines what measures are available to both sides in the event of a dispute, that's all either side needs to know. It shouldn't need exact countermeasures laid out as if it's going to somehow allow one or the other side to weigh up whether it wants to renege on the agreement or not. If the UK wants to break the agreement, they will. If they're going to reluctantly abide by it and then moan about it for time immemorial, they'll do that also. It's not up to the side abiding by the agreement to somehow coerce or convince the other side not to break it. If they do break it, then you consider your options and escalate accordingly.

The simple reality is, this is the UK blustering yet again. They've done it on every single occasion up to now and this is no different. They'd love nothing more than the EU to start threatening an all out trade war (which you previously derided the EU for a kneejerk reaction over AztraZeneca) because it gives them the chance to point the finger and shout "SEE!! SEE!! WE TOLD YOU THEY WERE EVIL!" and the EU completely loses the moral high ground of being cool, calm and collected (which you also previously accused the EU of doing over AstraZeneca/A16 discussions).

Let them have their tantrum. When push comes to shove, they'll quietly back down and move on to the next shouting match where we'll start around this well-worn track once again.

Yeah, we have seen the movie before. Frost and the government will make speeches demanding change, that time is running out, that the EU need to decide if they care about NI or not. That, as a sovereign nation, the UK cannot be expected to be told what rules to follow, but the EU needs to accept that the UK will make sure that all the rules will be followed!

It's a complete contradiction wrapped up in itself. Even that interview by the M&S boss, where he basically says that the rules are a bit complicated and hard so they should just let them go, or at least what he deems as unimportant.

And that is very much the thinking of the government. That rules are really that important, that its ok to ignore them as really it not that much of a problem. Whilst at the same time saying that following the same rules is a complete non starter as it removes the very essence of the nation.

So the UK announce yet another ultimatum. The EU will say it will consider it (unlike the UK, the EU appears to be willing to learn from its mistakes and having got burnt so badly by the mention of Art 16 earlier in the year will know that the considered, boring, slow approach is the better option).

Martin was perfect in his comments yesterday following the call with Johnson. Of course they will consider it. That may take all of 5 seconds but by effectively not commenting they are taking all the air out of the it and the news agenda moves onto the next thing.

What was illuminating to you? Why is it illuminating? Is there anything mentioned in the article that is new and not used for other international trade agreements?

I cannot see anything new in there other than people asking the EU to break its rules to suit the UK. This would mean the EU would fall foul of all other agreements it has signed with other countries/trade areas and something it will not do. Asking the EU to do that is pointless and just useless posturing.

So despite many posters on here telling you the reasons for the issues, and the probable solutions, you think it is all just naysayers and a few misguided misty eyed old Americans!

So Rob, what is your solution? It cannot involve the EU having to give up anything btw, they already have a deal and it would be ridiculos (misty eyed some would say) that the UK thinks that it claim for freedom and sovereignty overrides that of the EU.

That the very people that convinced you that they had secured a wonderful deal, the very side that convinced you that Brexit simply had to involve a complete break are now the very side that have convinved you that the deal is actually completely unworkable and was never a runner but is only terrible because they never thought that the EU would actually stick to the deal is very worrying.

You have said a number of times that you don't agree with Brexit, yet you continually call for the EU to drop it own rules to help Brexit be less crap than it undoubhtedly is.

As the UK were so fond as telling everyone, this is a democratic decision, as was the vote on the deal itself, and that the UK government is now looking to renege on that mandate should be a kick in the teeth for every brexiteer and democrat in the UK

We cannot decide the EU response on whether the UK public likes it or not. You voted for Brexit, you deal with the politicians that led you there and is leading the response. They negotiated the deal and there was ample opportunity for extensions to ensure this was done right. But "Get Brexit Done" won it and now you deal with it.

Agree that Ireland needs to be ready to face unpalatable options (if this process of trying to get the UK to implement what they agreed to runs out of road). Kermit.de.frog lays blame on the EU (as is his wont) but I think Micheál Martin is the one who'd be most likely of all the EU leaders to argue hard for doing nothing at all and letting any British actions slide at EU level. He's not made for facing this kind of challenge (am unsure if any of our politicians in or out of government are up to it?)

I think the EU itself and also the other leaders will be more concerned with the future of the single market and implications of just allowing a party the EU makes trade agreements with to suffer no consequences when they ignore certain parts of the agreement(s) they do not like while taking full advantage of the parts they do like.

Wherever you put checks, one side or the other will be unhappy. There is no squaring of this circle.

What do you specifically mean by "over-zealous"?

You should clarify this please.

What specific aspects of the NIP "stick in the craw of moderate British people"?

There is no comparison between Irish fisherman protesting over quotas and the UK government protesting over a Brexit deal they were directly involved in formulating and willingly signed up to.

It doesn't help when you have a leader always seeking middle ground when there is no middle ground.

Varadkar understands there is no half way. He is far better than Martin at getting that across. Martin always seeks a compromise and soothing language.

There is either a land border or there isn't.

We have an agreement and the British should implement it.

For sure, but the point would be that those who fear Martin saying 'Go easy on the Brits' to the EU have nothing to fear. It's essentially a bilateral negotiation between the EU and the UK and doesn't even involve the Irish govt. Also, the rules of the Single Market are the rules of the Single Market and they couldn't renegotiate the Protocol even if they wanted to (would set a very dangerous precedent for future EU agreements).

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. Despite all the bluff and bluster by Frost, Johnson and Lewis, the Brexit UK position is incredibly weak and they are virtually friendless if they try to take on the EU.

The jist of their new 'plan' seems to be exactly what their plan was a few years ago. They want all the benefits of SM but none of the obligations.

Ah, but they know they will never be a runner so they, quite brilliantly I think we can all agree, have put in that far from not following the EU rules, which of course impinge of UK sovereignty, the UK will ask all traders to be really, really, really honest and fair and promise, scouts honour, that they won't ever try to bend of break the rules to gain any sort of advantage.

And that if they get what they want this time, they 100% promise that they will totally stick to it and won't be back looking for even more again.

And of course everything should be put in transition until all of this can be agreed, even though they were offered an extension previously and claimed that it was a terrible idea because business needed certainty.

In any healthy democracy this government would be out of office by the end of the day.

And lest we forget, to get the deal both sides had to make compromises. So to change anything the UK will have to offer up something to the EU. I note that they offered nothing. They are still under the illusion that simply their own importance is enough.