Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Staffsknot]

15 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

The only legal basis on which goods cross the Irish border without without checks is the protocol. As you say, it is either enacted or it isn't, and the evidence suggests it has been in operation since January.

The only way the NIP is enacted is if it is being honoured by all parties. The grace periods to implementation the EU granted mean it cannot be fully implemented. 

You argued this yourself a while back as evidence the EU would cave on SM inviobility because it isn't atm. The EU granted grace periods to lend the current status temporary legitimacy. When that expires we are back to @Bob8's options with a choice of 2.

We can't go round another circular argument again.

The enforcement action is because the UK is breaching the NIP by not implementing fully the NIP... because they believe they can tear up the NIP or avoid implementing it in full.

If the NIP was implemented and honoured nothing would be unilaterally suspended, no grace periods would be in operation and we wouldn't be having DUP politician's letters hitting the papers about how they have actively banned Stormont depts from implementing the NIP.

Edited July 30, 2021 by Staffsknot

[pig]

59 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

"Drag down" in what sense? What are you afraid of losing?

Yes what are you afraid of losing

[14stFlyer]

8 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Effectively you are asking EU to scale back checks, take it on faith those checks are done, then if there's an issue to have signed away your right to enforcement through a judicial system they can't pass laws in

These checks are on U.K. territory. Why should they not be covered by U.K. law?  The rest of it appears to be signalling intent to me. 
 

I see this command paper as basically saying “this is what we are going to do unless you change from obstructionist to helpful on all current Brexit related issues”.  

[slawek]

Just now, 14stFlyer said:

These checks are on U.K. territory. Why should they not be covered by U.K. law?  The rest of it appears to be signalling intent to me. 
 

I see this command paper as basically saying “this is what we are going to do unless you change from obstructionist to helpful on all current Brexit related issues”.  

Because NI is in the CU/SM and some EU laws, listed in NIP,  apply.  

[Staffsknot]

3 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

These checks are on U.K. territory. Why should they not be covered by U.K. law?  The rest of it appears to be signalling intent to me. 
 

I see this command paper as basically saying “this is what we are going to do unless you change from obstructionist to helpful on all current Brexit related issues”.  

Same as US law is applicable over domestic law in instances. Without the ECJ role you wouldn't have got it accepted as the border and signed off allowing the deal - which is linked to the NIP as signed.

Given if it is under UK you are taking it on faith UK will not pass legislation that effectively creates a legal get out, over which the EU has no say and on which the integrity of their SM rests.

Much of what you see as obstructionist is basic exasperation and mistrust from EU. They thought they had an agreement with May that unravelled. They have just watched Boris get what he wants, then immediately go evil EU and we are off to the races anytime they show flexibility on anything.

People only compromise for so long. Von der Leyen saw how little that got the EU in the end and just stopped bending over backwards. They will be flexible within what is signed but threats get us nowhere. After 3 years of 'we will leave with no deal if you don't give us more and that will hurt your economies' the threats no longer have same impact as they did.

I think the EU has just reached the point they want to deal with other stuff and see it as coming back every year.

[yelims]

39 minutes ago, 14stFlyer said:

These checks are on U.K. territory. Why should they not be covered by U.K. law?  The rest of it appears to be signalling intent to me. 
 

I see this command paper as basically saying “this is what we are going to do unless you change from obstructionist to helpful on all current Brexit related issues”.  

Because your government negotiated, ran a campaign, won an election on the treaty which hands over control of this aspect to EU

in other words the people willed it, get over it.

[yelims]

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gei/goodsexportsandimportsmay2021/

The value of goods imports from Great Britain for January to May 2021 was €4,246 million, a decrease of €2,312 million (-35%) compared with January to May 2020.

——

well solution is very simple it seems for Ireland, finish the job Boris started and kill the other 65% of imports coming from UK

no imports from uk no problems with borders

[thecrashingisles]

1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:

People only compromise for so long. Von der Leyen saw how little that got the EU in the end and just stopped bending over backwards. They will be flexible within what is signed but threats get us nowhere. After 3 years of 'we will leave with no deal if you don't give us more and that will hurt your economies' the threats no longer have same impact as they did.

 'No deal' was the default established by the Article 50 process. It wasn't something invented as a threat by the UK, and arguably it was effectively used against the UK, particularly in radicalising domestic opposition to Brexit.

Edited July 30, 2021 by thecrashingisles

[slawek]

Just now, thecrashingisles said:

 'No deal' was the default established by the Article 50 process. It wasn't something invented as a threat by the UK.

Irrelevant. Not invented but used by the UK. 

It is like threating someone hanging on a cliff with no help and then saying that it wasn't my fault because I didn't invent the gravity. 

[Bob8]

10 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

 'No deal' was the default established by the Article 50 process. It wasn't something invented as a threat by the UK.

That would involve breaking the GFA.

It woud still be a choice of the two from three.

[thecrashingisles]

8 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

That would involve breaking the GFA.

It woud still be a choice of the two from three.

No it wouldn't. The GFA doesn't say anything about customs borders. It's only implied from the context in which the agreement was reached.

[thecrashingisles]

10 minutes ago, slawek said:

Irrelevant. Not invented but used by the UK. 

It is like threating someone hanging on a cliff with no help and then saying that it wasn't my fault because I didn't invent the gravity. 

Was it though? The UK never had a credible 'no deal' position, not least because without parliamentary backing for it, it could be blocked, as we saw repeatedly.

[coypondboy]

On 7/29/2021 at 4:27 PM, Staffsknot said:

The skangers in each community did take over the criminal enterprises but things have escalated beyond controls by just the loyalist or republican old heads. There's a lot of youngsters who idolised the older paramilitaries and want to make a name for themselves now.

The average person in NI always did want to get on with life, but a good chunk of the politicians and paramilitaries rely on that not being too comfortable for their existence.

An ex-RUC officer once told me the loyalists will end up going back to violence. When he went to the prisons the republicans were getting qualifications and prepping for politics, the loyalists were in the gym doing reps and shouting no surrender. Only one group was ready for the peace. That's a protestant saying it.

This moment has given some loyalists who were fading into irrelevance in day-to-day folks lives the chance to shape things again. Its very hard to get them back in their box.

Ho do you think they will react if sinn fein have a majority at stormont with a first minister and push for a referendum on irish unity, could you see it all erupting again, Only takes a few idiots to shoot some catholics indiscrimately for the tit fot tat to return ?

[slawek]

19 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Was it though? The UK never had a credible 'no deal' position, not least because without parliamentary backing for it, it could be blocked, as we saw repeatedly.

TCA was negotiated with a WTO threat. The UK intentionally refused any extension.  

[thecrashingisles]

2 minutes ago, slawek said:

TCA was negotiated with a WTO threat. The UK intentionally refused any extension.  

The protocol isn't part of the TCA.

[Staffsknot]

50 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

 'No deal' was the default established by the Article 50 process. It wasn't something invented as a threat by the UK, and arguably it was effectively used against the UK, particularly in radicalising domestic opposition to Brexit.

No deal was the default and what was threatened by taking Article 50. The UK took it so they threatened it and repeatedly tried to use it as the 'all options on table' give us what we want threat. Do you forget 'no deal is better than a bad deal' mantra?

29 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Was it though? The UK never had a credible 'no deal' position,

If the UK hadn't asked for an extension you would have got no deal. Indeed the peroging of Parliament was an attempt to give the ability to stave off blocks & checks so please don't rewrite history. They could chat down the clock if they wanted and simply default exit - May's no extensions deadline set that. An opposition can't force the issue from minority and Boris has binned any Brexit dissenters.

31 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

No it wouldn't. The GFA doesn't say anything about customs borders. It's only implied from the context in which the agreement was reached.

GFA doesn't explicitly state so but the context of it is pseudo co-sovereignty and establishing North-South co-agencies under Strand 2.

More importantly Martin McGuiness and Arlene Foster signed a joint declaration stating the need for open borders prior to Ref. The WA was written and signed to accomodate this. We signed it saying minimise or avoid any reduction in open border NI-Ireland.

Biden has gone on record to say any diversion from and open North South border would be seen as damaging the GFA and prevent UK-US trade deals. So that's a GFA signatory and guarantor as well. Remember my wildcard point.

Also there are provisions about ensuring peace and stability on the island of Ireland - the history of border posts has been of bombings and violence so bit of a head scratcher how that helps. The clauses also state only security measures consumate with the threat level posed.

NI isn't a game let me be very clear to anyone thinking of ******ing around for points scoring, because you end up with a 19 yr old from Chelmsford patrolling in S Armagh and shitting it that the windows are all open in summer - because that's what you do if there's going to be an explosion to minimise broken windows. Suddenly M&S having sausages is not the biggest priority.

 

[coypondboy]

6 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

No deal was the default and what was threatened by taking Article 50. The UK took it so they threatened it and repeatedly tried to use it as the 'all options on table' give us what we want threat. Do you forget 'no deal is better than a bad deal' mantra?

If the UK hadn't asked for an extension you would have got no deal. Indeed the peroging of Parliament was an attempt to give the ability to stave off blocks & checks so please don't rewrite history. They could chat down the clock if they wanted and simply default exit - May's no extensions deadline set that. An opposition can't force the issue from minority and Boris has binned any Brexit dissenters.

GFA doesn't explicitly state so but the context of it is pseudo co-sovereignty and establishing North-South co-agencies under Strand 2.

More importantly Martin McGuiness and Arlene Foster signed a joint declaration stating the need for open borders prior to Ref. The WA was written and signed to accomodate this. We signed it saying minimise or avoid any reduction in open border NI-Ireland.

Biden has gone on record to say any diversion from and open North South border would be seen as damaging the GFA and prevent UK-US trade deals. So that's a GFA signatory and guarantor as well. Remember my wildcard point.

Also there are provisions about ensuring peace and stability on the island of Ireland - the history of border posts has been of bombings and violence so bit of a head scratcher how that helps. The clauses also state only security measures consumate with the threat level posed.

NI isn't a game let me be very clear to anyone thinking of ******ing around for points scoring, because you end up with a 19 yr old from Chelmsford patrolling in S Armagh and shitting it that the windows are all open in summer - because that's what you do if there's going to be an explosion to minimise broken windows. Suddenly M&S having sausages is not the biggest priority.

 

they have some excellent snipers as well always remember seeing the sniper's at work sign when driving through bandit country in the late 90's not sure if it is still there but terrifying for any young squaddie on foot patrol.

[Staffsknot]

25 minutes ago, coypondboy said:

Ho do you think they will react if sinn fein have a majority at stormont with a first minister and push for a referendum on irish unity, could you see it all erupting again, Only takes a few idiots to shoot some catholics indiscrimately for the tit fot tat to return ?

It depends what comes. Some may want a mini armed struggle but olif Britain honours the poll they ain't fighting to win. I suspect you'd get a Rhodesia / SA style moment where when they aren't the ruling power those who can't accept it head to Britain and spend years talking about betrayals.

The PSNI will have a job for a couple of years but most of the muppets will have stuffed themselves in the run up. They like to make threats and I'm sure they will target the PSNI as 'collaborators'.

[Bob8]

53 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

No it wouldn't. The GFA doesn't say anything about customs borders. It's only implied from the context in which the agreement was reached.

It would . Sorry if I have not presented this to you before.

Well, I have many times, but I have faith in you to get it.

You can choose any two of three, but if you choose three it is a contradiction:
1 Leaving the SU/CM
2 Maintaining the GFA
3 Maintaining the integrity of the UK,

No deal would be choosing 1 and 3.

It would break the GFA obviously.

You seem to think it is a rule I just made up, so allow me to help you through.

If we leave the SM/CU (as we have), we need to put a border somewhere to mark about the two separate markets. That can be around the UK, which would break the GFA as it puts a border in Ireland. It could also between Ireland the island and Britain (NIP), which breaks up the integrity of the UK but keeps the GFA intact.

Or, we can avoid the border entirely, by staying in the single market.

If you think it is me making up a rule, please explain which bit you do not get and we can discuss that.

 

[Staffsknot]

3 minutes ago, coypondboy said:

they have some excellent snipers as well always remember seeing the sniper's at work sign when driving through bandit country in the late 90's not sure if it is still there but terrifying for any young squaddie on foot patrol.

Yes we didn't have drones back then either and wireless everywhere making everything nice and confusing.

Basically the closest parallel is West Bank and we don't want to descend into that as a sizable chunk of the defence budget would need to descend into NI.

Take it you were deployed or civilian role?

[thecrashingisles]

16 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

No deal was the default and what was threatened by taking Article 50. The UK took it so they threatened it and repeatedly tried to use it as the 'all options on table' give us what we want threat. Do you forget 'no deal is better than a bad deal' mantra?

If the UK hadn't asked for an extension you would have got no deal. Indeed the peroging of Parliament was an attempt to give the ability to stave off blocks & checks so please don't rewrite history. They could chat down the clock if they wanted and simply default exit - May's no extensions deadline set that. An opposition can't force the issue from minority and Boris has binned any Brexit dissenters.

GFA doesn't explicitly state so but the context of it is pseudo co-sovereignty and establishing North-South co-agencies under Strand 2.

More importantly Martin McGuiness and Arlene Foster signed a joint declaration stating the need for open borders prior to Ref. The WA was written and signed to accomodate this. We signed it saying minimise or avoid any reduction in open border NI-Ireland.

Biden has gone on record to say any diversion from and open North South border would be seen as damaging the GFA and prevent UK-US trade deals. So that's a GFA signatory and guarantor as well. Remember my wildcard point.

Also there are provisions about ensuring peace and stability on the island of Ireland - the history of border posts has been of bombings and violence so bit of a head scratcher how that helps. The clauses also state only security measures consumate with the threat level posed.

NI isn't a game let me be very clear to anyone thinking of ******ing around for points scoring, because you end up with a 19 yr old from Chelmsford patrolling in S Armagh and shitting it that the windows are all open in summer - because that's what you do if there's going to be an explosion to minimise broken windows. Suddenly M&S having sausages is not the biggest priority.

 

You’re not starting from the beginning. Have you forgotten how May’s attempts to negotiate were rebuffed and all EU member states were told to repeat in unison: “no negotiation without notification”? The EU wanted the threat of no deal because they thought it gave them all the leverage.

Leaving the EU is a political decision, not a moral sin.

[Staffsknot]

9 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

It would . Sorry if I have not presented this to you before.

Well, I have many times, but I have faith in you to get it.

You can choose any two of three, but if you choose three it is a contradiction:
1 Leaving the SU/CM
2 Maintaining the GFA
3 Maintaining the integrity of the UK,

No deal would be choosing 1 and 3.

It would break the GFA obviously.

You seem to think it is a rule I just made up, so allow me to help you through.

If we leave the SM/CU (as we have), we need to put a border somewhere to mark about the two separate markets. That can be around the UK, which would break the GFA as it puts a border in Ireland. It could also between Ireland the island and Britain (NIP), which breaks up the integrity of the UK but keeps the GFA intact.

Or, we can avoid the border entirely, by staying in the single market.

If you think it is me making up a rule, please explain which bit you do not get and we can discuss that.

 

I'm nominating you for the George Cross for courage in adversity

[Bob8]

3 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

I'm nominating you for the George Cross for courage in adversity

Thank you!

I am really at a loss as to how to make this simpler. I keep being reminded of this video:

 

I am the engineer and @thecrashingisles is in sales thinking he is a genius.

[thecrashingisles]

17 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

It would . Sorry if I have not presented this to you before.

Well, I have many times, but I have faith in you to get it.

You can choose any two of three, but if you choose three it is a contradiction:
1 Leaving the SU/CM
2 Maintaining the GFA
3 Maintaining the integrity of the UK,

No deal would be choosing 1 and 3.

It would break the GFA obviously.

You seem to think it is a rule I just made up, so allow me to help you through.

If we leave the SM/CU (as we have), we need to put a border somewhere to mark about the two separate markets. That can be around the UK, which would break the GFA as it puts a border in Ireland. It could also between Ireland the island and Britain (NIP), which breaks up the integrity of the UK but keeps the GFA intact.

Or, we can avoid the border entirely, by staying in the single market.

If you think it is me making up a rule, please explain which bit you do not get and we can discuss that.

You are making the assumption that neither Ireland nor the EU can modify anything about how they operate in order to accommodate the new situation created by the fact that the UK is no longer an EU member. There is no practical basis for this assumption, and indeed it undermines the primacy that all sides say they give to the Good Friday Agreement.

[Staffsknot]

Just now, thecrashingisles said:

You’re not starting from the beginning. Have you forgotten how May’s attempts to negotiate were rebuffed and all EU member states were told to repeat in unison: “no negotiation without notification”? The EU wanted the threat of no deal because they thought it gave them all the leverage.

Leaving the EU is a political decision, not a moral sin.

Right so Article 50 is triggered - you have a time limit and then if none you are out on your **** with nowt. Its not a sin but nobody had a clue what Brexit was.

The EU stuck to its procedures and we took ages to debate amongst ourselves what the actual nebulous concept of Brexit might be apart from leaving. Was it stay in SM - oh can't do that as apparently Brexit was definitely about borders. OK what about all these programmes - no shit we said we were taking our money back... errr Brexit means Brexit.

The EU just ran its standard by the book approach. We evolved an approach on the fly until we ran out of Parliamentarians and put in a clown.

Now from the start we are onto UK triggers Article 50 and will crash out with no deal. Its not a sin it was a political decision that was a bad idea... but not all politicians agreed.

In fact I'm pretty sure if we go back through your Remain days you will have made these very points until you drove down the Road to Damascus or Droitwich Bypass, whichever it was.

So Britain was threatening ( and Boris bloody was right up until his oven ready turkey signing) no deal repeatedly. To claim not is to rewrite history, Steve Baker unexplainably thinking he was a Spartan and the 1922 turning back the clock to 1922 and getting militant.