News5 mins ago
The Northern Ireland Brexit Protocol
Can someone explain to me just what has changed since this Brexit deal was signed?
I just don't understand why the deal has to be renegotiated so soon.
My understanding was that it was 'open ready'.
Seriously - has something changed???
https:/
I just don't understand why the deal has to be renegotiated so soon.
My understanding was that it was 'open ready'.
Seriously - has something changed???
https:/
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think you meant 'oven ready' which is just a slogan.
What has developed is that how it should work, from both sides, is not the same. There was intent on 'goodwill' which IMHO is never a good idea.
Any agreement like this will have to grow and both sides will have to understand and develop to move forward. Or of could its down to hard borders all round which benefits no one.
What has developed is that how it should work, from both sides, is not the same. There was intent on 'goodwill' which IMHO is never a good idea.
Any agreement like this will have to grow and both sides will have to understand and develop to move forward. Or of could its down to hard borders all round which benefits no one.
I don't think much has changed, it's just differences on the interpretation and implementation that are the problem.
The UK side thought that things would be quite relaxed but, of course, the EU (in punishment mode) wants to apply the rules strictly which is not conducive to smooth trading between NI and the rest of the UK.
The UK side thought that things would be quite relaxed but, of course, the EU (in punishment mode) wants to apply the rules strictly which is not conducive to smooth trading between NI and the rest of the UK.
Thanks youngmafbog - Autocorrect jumping in there.
davebro - the Irish sea thing...I thought that was already agreed so as not to create a border between northern and southern Ireland? The part that throws me is that it seems the EU are enacting what was agreed - but what was agreed was impractical.
I think.
davebro - the Irish sea thing...I thought that was already agreed so as not to create a border between northern and southern Ireland? The part that throws me is that it seems the EU are enacting what was agreed - but what was agreed was impractical.
I think.
Typical Johnson I’m afraid.
He plainly either didn’t understand what he was doing or didn’t care.
Certainly the EU is being very fussy and there are ways round this, but it’s outrageous of the UK just to blame the EU: they’ve been offered a perfectly simple solution, which is to accept the EU’s food regulations but if course this is politically unpopular as ur violates the purity of Brexit.
Another solution is just to take things on trust or to label stuff as not for sale outside the UK. Whether that would work I don’t know.
He plainly either didn’t understand what he was doing or didn’t care.
Certainly the EU is being very fussy and there are ways round this, but it’s outrageous of the UK just to blame the EU: they’ve been offered a perfectly simple solution, which is to accept the EU’s food regulations but if course this is politically unpopular as ur violates the purity of Brexit.
Another solution is just to take things on trust or to label stuff as not for sale outside the UK. Whether that would work I don’t know.
//...they’ve been offered a perfectly simple solution, which is to accept the EU’s food regulations but if course this is politically unpopular as ur violates the purity of Brexit.//
It would be totally unacceptable to virtually everybody who voted for Brexit. The purpose of leaving the EU was to er... to leave the EU. Not to remain under its influence.
//Another solution is just to take things on trust or to label stuff as not for sale outside the UK.//
It would almost certainly work but it would not be acceptable to the EU. They have weaponised the Irish border to its fullest extent and are intent on maintaining control over NI affairs.
There is no doubt the NI protocol should never have been agreed. In order to protect the integrity of the EU's Single Market the integrity of the UK has been destroyed. It needs to be abandoned and the Irish (or rather their EU masters) left to put into place any border measures they think fit (which, if push comes to shove, will be none).
It would be totally unacceptable to virtually everybody who voted for Brexit. The purpose of leaving the EU was to er... to leave the EU. Not to remain under its influence.
//Another solution is just to take things on trust or to label stuff as not for sale outside the UK.//
It would almost certainly work but it would not be acceptable to the EU. They have weaponised the Irish border to its fullest extent and are intent on maintaining control over NI affairs.
There is no doubt the NI protocol should never have been agreed. In order to protect the integrity of the EU's Single Market the integrity of the UK has been destroyed. It needs to be abandoned and the Irish (or rather their EU masters) left to put into place any border measures they think fit (which, if push comes to shove, will be none).
It's been a contradiction inherent in the UK's departure. You cannot have a Customs border on the Irish border itself, owing to the terms and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement -- but also you must, because otherwise how can the UK leave the Single Market and set its own standards?
It's a nonsense to pretend that this contradiction doesn't exist, and it's also a nonsense to pretend that it wasn't caused by our leaving. This is not to say that Brexit shouldn't have happened, but it has to be accepted that one consequence of the UK's decision to leave was to create this contradiction.
It's a nonsense to pretend that this contradiction doesn't exist, and it's also a nonsense to pretend that it wasn't caused by our leaving. This is not to say that Brexit shouldn't have happened, but it has to be accepted that one consequence of the UK's decision to leave was to create this contradiction.
“ it would be totally unacceptable to virtually everybody who voted for Brexit. The purpose of leaving the EU was to er... to leave the EU. Not to remain under its influence”
Which is what I had said, more or less.
Most people in NI by the way did not vote for this tho inexplicably most unionists seem to have.
Which is what I had said, more or less.
Most people in NI by the way did not vote for this tho inexplicably most unionists seem to have.
//...wasn't this predictable at the time (but both sides) when the agreement was signed?//
Yes it was but I think the optimists believed that the EU would act pragmatically. There is no reason why goods destined for consumption in NI could not be separately identified from those which would find their way to The Republic. But the EU does not do pragmatism. It only does ideology. So we see military tanks being prohibited from being moved from one part of the UK to another because the mud on their tracks may contaminate EU soil.
A far better approach would have been for the UK to have simply declared that they have no intention of installing a hard border on the island and left the Irish and the EU to do what they wished as far as a border goes. Which I believe would have been precisely nothing. Then both sides could have set about a sensible approach which did not threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom simply to save the integrity of the EU.
Yes it was but I think the optimists believed that the EU would act pragmatically. There is no reason why goods destined for consumption in NI could not be separately identified from those which would find their way to The Republic. But the EU does not do pragmatism. It only does ideology. So we see military tanks being prohibited from being moved from one part of the UK to another because the mud on their tracks may contaminate EU soil.
A far better approach would have been for the UK to have simply declared that they have no intention of installing a hard border on the island and left the Irish and the EU to do what they wished as far as a border goes. Which I believe would have been precisely nothing. Then both sides could have set about a sensible approach which did not threaten the integrity of the United Kingdom simply to save the integrity of the EU.
It's not possible to avoid a border somewhere if you have diverging Customs standards. Since diverging from these standards was, at least partly, the point of Brexit, then it's a consequence we have to accept that the UK caused. Whether or not you were in favour of Brexit this is a basic fact. And, more to the point, it's also a basic fact that such a border goes against the GFA. So, I'm sorry, this is not the EU's "fault". They didn't cause this. And they couldn't propose to do nothing either.
//So in summary - it’s all the EU’s fault?//
I didn't say that.
The UK was foolish to sign an agreement which was contingent on the EU behaving pragmatically and reasonably when they have little or no history of behaving that way. The EU, for its part, is determined to extract as great an advantage as it can from the situation.
The EU was not party to the Good Friday agreement. If they want to erect customs posts along the Irish border to prevent the odd muddy tractor contaminating Irish soil then let them get on with it. The fact is that nobody had or has any intention of doing such a thing.
The UK should have been more determined to protect the integrity of the UK that it was to worry about that of the EU and as such should have insisted on a solution that did not involve a border in the Irish Sea. Stuff comes into the EU every day from all over the world without a customs officer or a clipboard in sight. It's easily do-able. But the EU had no will to do it and we were dopey enough to trust they would behave reasonably.
I didn't say that.
The UK was foolish to sign an agreement which was contingent on the EU behaving pragmatically and reasonably when they have little or no history of behaving that way. The EU, for its part, is determined to extract as great an advantage as it can from the situation.
The EU was not party to the Good Friday agreement. If they want to erect customs posts along the Irish border to prevent the odd muddy tractor contaminating Irish soil then let them get on with it. The fact is that nobody had or has any intention of doing such a thing.
The UK should have been more determined to protect the integrity of the UK that it was to worry about that of the EU and as such should have insisted on a solution that did not involve a border in the Irish Sea. Stuff comes into the EU every day from all over the world without a customs officer or a clipboard in sight. It's easily do-able. But the EU had no will to do it and we were dopey enough to trust they would behave reasonably.
Their club,NJ,their rules.Suppose you had just left your local golf club under a huff or a disagreement,would you expect them to say"oh,we will just lie down to NJs demands" or would you expect them to say"to hell with NJ,he left,not up to us to pander to him".This is what the EU is doing.Their club,their rules.
//Not sure that analogy works,...//
No it doesn't. It doesn't even come close.
It is indeed the EU's club and their rules. They can do what they like on their own premises. However, what this agreement does is subjects the UK to EU rules. It should never have been signed and the blame for that rests with the UK government. But the processes that the EU is insisting are followed are ridiculous and the reasons for saying those processes have failed (such as rejecting a consignment of goods because one of the customs forms was completed in blue type instead of black) are simply ludicrous.
Both sides are committed to showing good will to make the agreement work. It is clear that good will is lacking on the part of the EU and this is because they are intent on inflicting as much inconvenience - or even punishment - on the UK for having the temerity to leave. The only solution is to invoke Article 16 (which the EU did not hesitate to do earlier this year) and abandon the idea of customs checks on all goods entering NI. A concession could be made to check only goods destined for the Republic and the UK should make it clear that they are the only checks which will be undertaken. If that isn't acceptable then no checks at all is the alternative.
No it doesn't. It doesn't even come close.
It is indeed the EU's club and their rules. They can do what they like on their own premises. However, what this agreement does is subjects the UK to EU rules. It should never have been signed and the blame for that rests with the UK government. But the processes that the EU is insisting are followed are ridiculous and the reasons for saying those processes have failed (such as rejecting a consignment of goods because one of the customs forms was completed in blue type instead of black) are simply ludicrous.
Both sides are committed to showing good will to make the agreement work. It is clear that good will is lacking on the part of the EU and this is because they are intent on inflicting as much inconvenience - or even punishment - on the UK for having the temerity to leave. The only solution is to invoke Article 16 (which the EU did not hesitate to do earlier this year) and abandon the idea of customs checks on all goods entering NI. A concession could be made to check only goods destined for the Republic and the UK should make it clear that they are the only checks which will be undertaken. If that isn't acceptable then no checks at all is the alternative.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Two Yellow Cards But Not Sent Off
Football13 mins ago
Met Officer Threatened To Arrest A...
News14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
