The attempt to say that continuing with Brexit was a political decision, for the reasons above, is totally redundant. No decision was required to carry on with the transition. The government had confidence in its ability to manage transition, therefore the only politically motivated decision possible was to delay. Continuing with the transition was business as usual, and did not offer those that wanted to leave any extra advantage. Indeed, it would have presented distinct disadvantages, not least the question of cost that the EU would have drawn us into, and the risk of conditions added in as part of it. No one can doubt that the EU would have done its best to gain leverage from such an insane and pointless decision, that would have once again weakened our position. Yes it would keep people happy, but that is the upshot of continuation. The people upset by it were already upset, just as the happy ones were already happy. Again, no political advantage from that. The trite argument that staying on course meant the tories were advantaged by keeping the people happy that would have become unhappy if they had decided to delay is spectacularly bizzarre and self defeating.. The only thing that would have changed anything, and therefore create political gain, was a decision to delay, which would have created an unmitigated mess that only remainers would have politically benefitted from. In truth, going ahead with Brexit was a practical decision, despite remainders hoping to persuade people it was political, though it is a shame that so many were taken in by the argument. There was no alterior political benefit from continuing as planned. The only political benefit that could have been derived by any side was the opportunity to say 'look, we can't live without them', to imply that even the government know we are better off together, or, the greatest wish of undemocratic remainders, to stall Brexit all together - does anyone believe they would not still be saying we should delay even today, if we had made such a calamitous decision at the time? I am afraid their motives are entirely transparent, and will only fool those who wish to believe. As it goes, events regarding covid unfolded in a way that showed, very clearly, that having an independent approach was far more effective than a pan EU approach. The EU had to act more swiftly because we caught them on the hop, we were not subject to the scare mongering by certain EU leaders that unquestionably held back use of the AZ vaccine, costing potentially tens of thousands of lives, and we are the subject of unprecedented growth prediction compared to the EU. It is Good, on that front, that the Government continuing with business in progress, rather than making the political decision to change course, had such a demonstrably positive effect. Forging ahead with the transition could only be considered to be a political decision if you believe that leaving the EU was the wrong thing to do. Its a fair opinion to hold, but it is not a fact.
So Cummings "admits"* that they only signed off on the NI protocol to get Brexit over the line but had absolutely no intent on abiding by it. What does that make the UK? https://www.theguardian.com/politic...k-always-intended-to-ditch-ni-protocol-brexit These ****ers do not care one little jot if NI descends into violence again. *boasts
Really? Well that is a shock. It was pretty clear at the time that the DUP (and others) were being given the message that "it'll be fine....we can change it later". What is clear now is the DUP (and others) are hoping that the end game is a hard border on the island of Ireland and GFA, that they never supported, is trashed. Hopefully they are wrong.
The UK hasn’t ever squared the need to trade with the EU with the realisation that it holds the cards. If we want to benefit from its rules, then those are the rules. This is a massive dilemma at the heart of Brexit and is usually addressed by accusing them of being unreasonable or by gravity defying denials such as they need us more than we need them and that we can replace trade with them by trading around the globe (at the same time that we reduce emissions). It’s unpalatable to face up to this. So we didn’t, hence a protocol we signed in bad faith.
It's Cummings. I'd treat anything he says with caution tbh. I wonder if it was more like there was the intention to sign it off to get over the first hurdle and actually leave (because otherwise we'd still be limbo) and negotiate improvements later down the line? didn't the EU take the line that the withdrawal agreement had to be signed before negotiatiation? Genuine question, I can;t recall exactly.
Well, it's a bit strange that it is panning out exactly as Cummings predicted (of course that could be DC retrofitting the facts, he's got form); and that Johnson's pronouncements at the time (no checks, throw paperwork in the bin) that were dismissed by 'our' side as him lying actually turn out to be not lies at all but government intention. Anyhoo, just a quick reminder of the good faith of our chief negotiator; just remember that all of these people (apart from the swivel-eyed nutters) will say whatever suits them and their careers: And while we're at it, the most craven of them all: They all know it's a disaster. They always have.
It’s certainly the case that any agreement between parties can be subject to renegotiation and improvement. But ultimately the fundamentals have to be agreed, agreement about the purpose of thing has to be shared. Or it least that’s what our bosses would say if we took that approach to employment contracts.
If the protocol was signed up to in the knowledge, of both parties, that it could not, in the long run be achieved without breaching the commitment to the Good Friday Agreement made within, then clearly both parties signed it knowing it needed to be amended. A boarder in the Irish Sea is as much an imposition on the GFA as a border between the Republic and the UK is. The EU have decided it is preferential though, despite the way it breaches the GFA, and remainers have decided that they must be in the right. It is a point of view, not a fact, and not amending the protocol leaves the EU just as guilty of trashing the GFA.
You are aware that the Boris-led cohort currently in power used Brexit purely to get into power? They had/have absolutely no coherent plan of how to implement it, never had and were never interested in having one. So how could it have been anything other than 'mismanaged'?
STATESMEN are always willing to do that when it is required. Unfortunately there were no such esoteric beasts available within our government when we needed them.
Tbh I suspected it at the time. The sudden acceptance of a border down the Irish sea by Johnson after saying no UK Prime Minister could ever countenance it was suspicious to say the least. And then the way he was telling NI business that there would be no checks or additional paperwork to import/export to GB under the protocol showed that he was quite happy to tell different audiences different "truths". But where are we now? The EU, I believe, are in a genuine bind. They have shown that they want to protect Ireland but they can only go so far. If the integrity of the SM is threatened too much the other member states will push back. Their new proposals have gone further than most people thought they would and still have a united membership behind them. But I think it still may not be enough. The problem is that the two sides are motivated by different things. The EU is totally rules based. The challenge for them is to find a process that fits the rules. On this occasion they have even proposed tweaking the rules to squeeze these new proposals in! The response from business seems positive and I suspect the protocol would now do what it was intended to do - give NI relative free access to both the EU and GB markets. The problem is that the UK sees it as a political issue. The DUP, ERG and others will never accept a border down the Irish sea or any ECJ involvement in conflict resolution. And it now looks like they were told that these were only in the NIP to "get brexit done" and would never be implemented. The EU member states are unlikely, imo, to accept NI being in the SM, under EU rules, without having the final arbiter of trade disputes being the ECJ. So unless Johnson breaks his promise to those he told that the NIP would never be implemented or the EU come up with alternative to the ECJ (may be the ECJ in another guise), I think there is a real risk of a trade war now.
Do you not occasionally look at all of the nutcases/grifters/conmen/incompetents/shape shifters (as you seem quite happy to describe them now) on the brexit side and think
Man who broke the law to create irreversible constitutional crisis complains about the difficulties of an irreversible constitutional crisis: https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1448623746110173185 EDIT: Cummings' thread justifying what he did then is a joy to behold: https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1448029839571685383
Sorry? You call Cummings a liar, Paisley a nutter, Johnson incompetent... Is that saying something about you? I was wondering how you process the apparent conflict. OK, I'll turn it round. Are there ANY credible competent figures who advocated for Leave? Here are the major backers: Gove Johnson* Hannan Hoey Tice Davis Farage Widdecombe Martin**** Cummings Redwood ***** Grayling Eustace Leadsome* Ratcliffe** Dyson** Mogg** Lawson** Odey*** Forman**** Wolfson**** Munnery**** Francois Bridgen Frost* Paisley***** Donaldson***** Sammy Wilson***** R Walker (Iceland) **** C Fox ***** George Smith (That's Iain Duncan to you) Neil** Jenkyns Dorries Digby "not a single job" Lord Jones * Well documented as pro-EU until it suited them politically ** Professed support for UK before moving production/office/assets/self overseas (inc to EU) *** Explicitly bet UK economy failing on brexit **** Backed brexit but now pleading special case for their sector ***** Head-the-ball Here are a few reserves if you are having trouble making up a first XI: Carole Malone The Two Mikes off Talksport Sam Allardyce Neil Warnock Cilla Black if she was alive Richard Madeley Matthew Le Tissier
er not quite. There's a difference between a personnel evaluation of someone's professional performance and direct insult. Suggesting what someone is reported to have said be treated with a pinch of salt (especially given the circumstances) is somewhat different to calling them an downright liar Read my post about IP again which was an anecdote that I offered no opinion on again. So much aggression for a Friday afternoon I see nothing has change in here. Have a good weekend chap and maybe take some time out to relax.
Hopefully making this public is a negotiation tactic to make the UK see the EU are prepared for the worse. An implied threat if you like. However I suspect they are genuinely gearing up for a trade war. I think there is a general feeling in the EU that they have gone as far as they can. While NI is operating in the SM, the EU will, I feel, insist on the ECJ being the final arbiter on any trade disputes. It's inconceivable, imho, that they will allow part of the SM to operate outside that oversight. But it now has become a UK red line, even though they signed up to it less than a year ago. So, unless some kind of fudge (perhaps a reduced ECJ role or joint oversight with The Supreme Court) I think a rock has just met a hard place.
And the elephant in the room? ECJ oversight of Northern Ireland trade is a breach of the Good Friday Agreement (because it does not have the consent of the Northern Irish peaple), which both the UK and EU knew at the time to be a breach of the condition, in the protocol, that the GFA would be respected. Both parties knew the matter had to be renegotiated. But the EU have gone as far as they are willing to go, aparently.
Anyone interested in the current situation with regards the Northern Ireland Protocol needs to read this article (warning: it is very long): https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2021/1015/1254033-connelly-brexit-blog/ I think the fact that Sefčovič chose to speak to the NI business groups to resolve the specific trade issues underlines what I said about the EU being rules and process focused. They want the protocol to work. Meanwhile the UK continues to focus on the politics, now raising the ECJ as an "issue" when it was never raised before. From speaking to my family over there, it's clear that most people were happy with the protocol already. With these latest proposals getting a very positive reaction from NI business, I suspect that only those with a very entrenched political dogma will be against it now. Unfortunately they are the ones that have the ear of the government and also get all the media attention over here in Britain. The next few weeks are going to be crucial.
I think, if an argument is being made that says the ECJ has never been an issue before, it is pretty safe to say it is not one that is based on reality. There appears to be a very heavy bias here. Read this by all means, but perhaps try a few other sources as well. UK citizens are equally concerned about EU bad faith, most notably because of the EU's placing of a hard border on the Island of Ireland because they wanted to use the Protocol illegally to punish us for getting our vaccine orders in early. Didn't last long though (and yes, they did actually proceed with doing it), when they realised that people could see exactly what they were doing, and that the only possible motivation was revenge. What short memories remainers seem to have.
Just to be clear it was the British who established a hard border on the Island of Ireland, with the Government of Ireland Act of 1920. It was the influence of the EU that removed the border as an economic and social barrier, some 70 + years after its imposition. It is a fact that the border ceased to exist in most practical economic ways principally because both sovereign states became members of the European Economic Union in 1973. The most significant impact being the Single European Act, (sponsored by the UK premier Margaret Thatcher), which led to the establishment of the single market in 1992, and the removal of economic restrictions between the Republic and the North. This in turn laid the foundations for the political agreement that ended the armed civil war within Northern Ireland - the 1998 Belfast Agreement.
Exactly. And that resulted in the people in the north of Ireland that wanted to identify as being British being able to do so while equally those that saw themselves as Irish being given that recognition. The Belfast Agreement (GFA) is an amazing achievement that is being severely challenged by Brexit.
And as such you would hope that the parties involved would go as far as possible to resolve any issues. But apparently the EU has gone as far as it is willing to go to protect the Agreement, even though they are aware that it is in serious breach, because the people of Northern Ireland are being bypassed in EU decision making that directly affects them, which is not permitted by the GFA. The EU cannot say it was unaware of this, or the UK Governments assertions that it was the case, and therefore MUST have signed the protocol, which promises to respect the GFA, with the intention of resolving the inherent issues. Every time the EU apply a law that affects trade between Northern Ireland and Geat Britain, they breach the GFA, every time the UK request a renegotiation, they attempt to honour the stated intention of the protocol, to protect the GFA, and every time the people of Northern Ireland say the GFA is being breached by the EU’s actions, they are absolutely spot on.
Respect for the Good Friday Agreement is implicit in the protocol, and is applied before any other part. EU laws affecting trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are discretionary. Yet they are continually used to breach the GFA. And the EU has said it would rather breach the GFA than use its discretion. It is a very complex subject. Macron can’t even fully grasp it. He claimed recently that trade between London and Belfast is different to trade between Lyon and Paris, because the former are not part of the same Nation. That is the level of ignorance (at best) or wilful disrespect (at worst) that the UK Government are having to deal with when negotiating with the EU.
It is a conundrum, where in effect the GFA was created within the context of both parts of Ireland being part of the EU. I doubt it would have been possible if say the UK had never joined. roll on twenty years and that reality is smacking people in the face. The imposition of the border was only recognised by the Republic in 1999, after the creation of the single market and the signing of the truce with the GFA in 1998. To retain the integrity of the single market and the GFA was only possible if the UK agreed border controls between GB and Northern Ireland through a process either side of the Irish Sea. Now that the Protocal as a practical tool of international trade is under threat. If ( and the stakes are so high it’s a big if), it fails then the first part of the puzzle is no longer there. The loss of a single market on the island of Ireland and the return of custom controls between the North and Republic. That in turn will no doubt see the collapse of the GFA. Pressure on Dublin to return the constitution to its pre 1999 declaration on a United Ireland. Retrenchment by the ultra Nationalists (Republicans and Unionists), maybe to the point of a return to civil war. Or a speedy movement to reunification of Ireland as one nation.
Yes, the GFA was founded on the basis that the whole of Ireland would be operating within the same customs union and market. That is why the NIP was such a brilliant peace of cooperation and compromise from both sides. For one territory to, in effect, work within two custom unions and trading markets simultaneously was a feat many thought impossible. And was the only solution that protects the GFA. I the latest EU proposals have been welcomed by NI business and there are few, if any, problems with the way the NIP will now operate. The only issues being raised now are purely political dogma.
