Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Wombat3 said:
This stuff is really simple: it was a stupid agreement which was knowingly entered into for a simple reason : to get Brexit over the line and sort it out afterwards.
Unfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
Take a quick look at yourself. You’re arguing for entering an agreement you didn’t intend to actually honour as it was all about “getting brexit done” and blaming the opposition for not doing what you wantUnfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
I appreciate your honesty but not your blame storming. Own it, deal with it, and stop the pretence on who was negotiating in bad faith.
roger.mellie said:
Wombat3 said:
This stuff is really simple: it was a stupid agreement which was knowingly entered into for a simple reason : to get Brexit over the line and sort it out afterwards.
Unfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
Take a quick look at yourself. You’re arguing for entering an agreement you didn’t intend to actually honour as it was all about “getting brexit done” and blaming the opposition for not doing what you wantUnfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
I appreciate your honesty but not your blame storming. Own it, deal with it, and stop the pretence on who was negotiating in bad faith.
Then blame the other party.
Wombat3 said:
Mrr T said:
Sway said:
Because you're not listening...
It's not about checks or controls. It's the fact that irrespective of checks or controls, the EU is stating unequivocally that if companies ship fresh meat, seeds, seed potatoes and some other goods from GB to NI, they will trigger Article 16 against the whole thing.
Because the EU health certificate forms do not have a box to tick for those goods.
Why would I listen since you do not even seem to understand what is going on. The EU have not suddenly said the UK has to apply SPS check which mean certain type of food cannot move in to NI from GB. It's not about checks or controls. It's the fact that irrespective of checks or controls, the EU is stating unequivocally that if companies ship fresh meat, seeds, seed potatoes and some other goods from GB to NI, they will trigger Article 16 against the whole thing.
Because the EU health certificate forms do not have a box to tick for those goods.
The UK have agreed this in the committee with a transition period of 6 months. Frosty is threatening to again (he has already unilaterally other transition period agreed by the UK in the committee) unilaterally extend the transition period.
The EU is saying that's a breach of the IP and committee agreement, which it clearly is.
Unfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
roger.mellie said:
Take a quick look at yourself. You’re arguing for entering an agreement you didn’t intend to actually honour as it was all about “getting brexit done” and blaming the opposition for not doing what you want
I appreciate your honesty but not your blame storming. Own it, deal with it, and stop the pretence on who was negotiating in bad faith.
I agree the premise of signing it whilst planning to breach is out of order. I appreciate your honesty but not your blame storming. Own it, deal with it, and stop the pretence on who was negotiating in bad faith.
However, I cannot actually see that this is what the UK have done. None of this detail was thrashed out - it was all kicked down the road to be worked out, under good faith on both sides and against the overarching principles and aims agreed in the Protocol.
Problem does genuinely seem to stem from the vaccine b
ks, where it seems that all good faith and trust for both parties disappeared. Sway said:
I agree the premise of signing it whilst planning to breach is out of order.
However, I cannot actually see that this is what the UK have done. None of this detail was thrashed out - it was all kicked down the road to be worked out, under good faith on both sides and against the overarching principles and aims agreed in the Protocol.
Problem does genuinely seem to stem from the vaccine bks, where it seems that all good faith and trust for both parties disappeared.
Sway - I’d like to rephrase a question I asked yesterday - why is Boris/UK continuing with this process? If this thread is to be believed, dealing with the EU is a hassle and not worth it, so why is he not calling it quits on the whole deal?However, I cannot actually see that this is what the UK have done. None of this detail was thrashed out - it was all kicked down the road to be worked out, under good faith on both sides and against the overarching principles and aims agreed in the Protocol.
Problem does genuinely seem to stem from the vaccine b
ks, where it seems that all good faith and trust for both parties disappeared. Having spent a lazy Sunday morning going through the protocol as I nurse a thick head it seems to me the very existence of the protocol should be enough for the UK to invoke article 16
"If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental
difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom
may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures."
I'm not sure the meat issue is a serious economic issue but I'm pretty sure the lads in balaclavas amount to a "serious societal" issue.
"If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental
difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom
may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures."
I'm not sure the meat issue is a serious economic issue but I'm pretty sure the lads in balaclavas amount to a "serious societal" issue.
Leins said:
Sway said:
I agree the premise of signing it whilst planning to breach is out of order.
However, I cannot actually see that this is what the UK have done. None of this detail was thrashed out - it was all kicked down the road to be worked out, under good faith on both sides and against the overarching principles and aims agreed in the Protocol.
Problem does genuinely seem to stem from the vaccine bks, where it seems that all good faith and trust for both parties disappeared.
Sway - I’d like to rephrase a question I asked yesterday - why is Boris/UK continuing with this process? If this thread is to be believed, dealing with the EU is a hassle and not worth it, so why is he not calling it quits on the whole deal?However, I cannot actually see that this is what the UK have done. None of this detail was thrashed out - it was all kicked down the road to be worked out, under good faith on both sides and against the overarching principles and aims agreed in the Protocol.
Problem does genuinely seem to stem from the vaccine b
ks, where it seems that all good faith and trust for both parties disappeared. If it were me (probably a good thing it's not) - I'd make it really clear that east/west is as critical as north/south for the GFA.
I'd make it really clear the various pragmatic options available.
I'd also point out that without pragmatic options starting to be discussed and considered, then the automatic outcome is that the inverse issue occurs - and as mentioned, that's hugely assymetric. Of course, it's quite a beautiful approach as it's hardly like the EU can complain!
But, as I've said many times, one of the biggest problems is that the comms is bloody poor - but then the days of governments being able to produce effective briefing methods for laymen are long gone.
Hence you still get people talking about checks, instead of bans. Although in one or two instances, I've got a feeling the poster concerned knows exactly what they're doing.
roger.mellie said:
Wombat3 said:
This stuff is really simple: it was a stupid agreement which was knowingly entered into for a simple reason : to get Brexit over the line and sort it out afterwards.
Unfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
Take a quick look at yourself. You’re arguing for entering an agreement you didn’t intend to actually honour as it was all about “getting brexit done” and blaming the opposition for not doing what you wantUnfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
I appreciate your honesty but not your blame storming. Own it, deal with it, and stop the pretence on who was negotiating in bad faith.
The issue is more about how you end up there in the first place with people who have no respect for a democratic mandate and never had any intention of trying to strike a balanced agreement in the first place (in any area)
Like I said, bunch of
s. The only people bleating about us possibly breaking some aspect of this agreement are all firmly rooted in the remain camp, again, simply because it suits a narrative.
The NIP is a classic example of what is taught on every negotiating skills course ever run: The only deal that is worth doing and will last is a win-wun deal.
The NIP is not that and therefore its no surprise to see it failing. I firmly suspect we knew this would happen, indeed expected it.
What it has achieved is that there has been a fundamental change brought about by agreeing to it which is that we have left the EU.
Having got there then we move on and it's not us that are being shown up as being vindictive & impractical. As Raab said this morning, there would be general outrage if we spoke about Wallonia or Catalonia or Corsica in the terms that people in the EU are referencing NI. What's needed is a modicum of respect for the integrity of our nation.
Edited by Wombat3 on Sunday 13th June 11:54
Sway said:
To be honest, I don't bloody know!
If it were me (probably a good thing it's not) - I'd make it really clear that east/west is as critical as north/south for the GFA.
I'd make it really clear the various pragmatic options available.
I'd also point out that without pragmatic options starting to be discussed and considered, then the automatic outcome is that the inverse issue occurs - and as mentioned, that's hugely assymetric. Of course, it's quite a beautiful approach as it's hardly like the EU can complain!
But, as I've said many times, one of the biggest problems is that the comms is bloody poor - but then the days of governments being able to produce effective briefing methods for laymen are long gone.
Hence you still get people talking about checks, instead of bans. Although in one or two instances, I've got a feeling the poster concerned knows exactly what they're doing.
You see I view it from the other side, and my thoughts are that Boris knows he can’t. That’s why he played chicken up to December, then sacrificed NI to get the deal done when the EU didn’t blinkIf it were me (probably a good thing it's not) - I'd make it really clear that east/west is as critical as north/south for the GFA.
I'd make it really clear the various pragmatic options available.
I'd also point out that without pragmatic options starting to be discussed and considered, then the automatic outcome is that the inverse issue occurs - and as mentioned, that's hugely assymetric. Of course, it's quite a beautiful approach as it's hardly like the EU can complain!
But, as I've said many times, one of the biggest problems is that the comms is bloody poor - but then the days of governments being able to produce effective briefing methods for laymen are long gone.
Hence you still get people talking about checks, instead of bans. Although in one or two instances, I've got a feeling the poster concerned knows exactly what they're doing.
For other talk on here of the EU direspecting NI, well I’m afraid my opinion is they protected RoI, which I for one am very glad of. It was up to Boris to protect NI, but he either didn’t care enough about it, or his hand was forced due to not having enough negotiating power. I don’t believe he’ll ever pull the plug on the EU and have the UK go it alone
From
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-57459...
"The UK is also due to ban the import of chilled EU meat products to Great Britain in October."
It's not clear in the article whether this is part of a plan or as a response to the current situation. If it's part of planned changes as part of the Brexit transition then surely it's logical that the UK can't expect to ship chilled meat products in the other direction?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-57459...
"The UK is also due to ban the import of chilled EU meat products to Great Britain in October."
It's not clear in the article whether this is part of a plan or as a response to the current situation. If it's part of planned changes as part of the Brexit transition then surely it's logical that the UK can't expect to ship chilled meat products in the other direction?
Leins said:
Sway said:
To be honest, I don't bloody know!
If it were me (probably a good thing it's not) - I'd make it really clear that east/west is as critical as north/south for the GFA.
I'd make it really clear the various pragmatic options available.
I'd also point out that without pragmatic options starting to be discussed and considered, then the automatic outcome is that the inverse issue occurs - and as mentioned, that's hugely assymetric. Of course, it's quite a beautiful approach as it's hardly like the EU can complain!
But, as I've said many times, one of the biggest problems is that the comms is bloody poor - but then the days of governments being able to produce effective briefing methods for laymen are long gone.
Hence you still get people talking about checks, instead of bans. Although in one or two instances, I've got a feeling the poster concerned knows exactly what they're doing.
You see I view it from the other side, and my thoughts are that Boris knows he can’t. That’s why he played chicken up to December, then sacrificed NI to get the deal done when the EU didn’t blinkIf it were me (probably a good thing it's not) - I'd make it really clear that east/west is as critical as north/south for the GFA.
I'd make it really clear the various pragmatic options available.
I'd also point out that without pragmatic options starting to be discussed and considered, then the automatic outcome is that the inverse issue occurs - and as mentioned, that's hugely assymetric. Of course, it's quite a beautiful approach as it's hardly like the EU can complain!
But, as I've said many times, one of the biggest problems is that the comms is bloody poor - but then the days of governments being able to produce effective briefing methods for laymen are long gone.
Hence you still get people talking about checks, instead of bans. Although in one or two instances, I've got a feeling the poster concerned knows exactly what they're doing.
For other talk on here of the EU direspecting NI, well I’m afraid my opinion is they protected RoI, which I for one am very glad of. It was up to Boris to protect NI, but he either didn’t care enough about it, or his hand was forced due to not having enough negotiating power. I don’t believe he’ll ever pull the plug on the EU and have the UK go it alone
Which kinda f
ks RoI. Pretty much half of Irish beef production comes to the UK - well, it does if we don't mirror the same ban. Leins said:
Sway said:
To be honest, I don't bloody know!
If it were me (probably a good thing it's not) - I'd make it really clear that east/west is as critical as north/south for the GFA.
I'd make it really clear the various pragmatic options available.
I'd also point out that without pragmatic options starting to be discussed and considered, then the automatic outcome is that the inverse issue occurs - and as mentioned, that's hugely assymetric. Of course, it's quite a beautiful approach as it's hardly like the EU can complain!
But, as I've said many times, one of the biggest problems is that the comms is bloody poor - but then the days of governments being able to produce effective briefing methods for laymen are long gone.
Hence you still get people talking about checks, instead of bans. Although in one or two instances, I've got a feeling the poster concerned knows exactly what they're doing.
You see I view it from the other side, and my thoughts are that Boris knows he can’t. That’s why he played chicken up to December, then sacrificed NI to get the deal done when the EU didn’t blinkIf it were me (probably a good thing it's not) - I'd make it really clear that east/west is as critical as north/south for the GFA.
I'd make it really clear the various pragmatic options available.
I'd also point out that without pragmatic options starting to be discussed and considered, then the automatic outcome is that the inverse issue occurs - and as mentioned, that's hugely assymetric. Of course, it's quite a beautiful approach as it's hardly like the EU can complain!
But, as I've said many times, one of the biggest problems is that the comms is bloody poor - but then the days of governments being able to produce effective briefing methods for laymen are long gone.
Hence you still get people talking about checks, instead of bans. Although in one or two instances, I've got a feeling the poster concerned knows exactly what they're doing.
For other talk on here of the EU direspecting NI, well I’m afraid my opinion is they protected RoI, which I for one am very glad of. It was up to Boris to protect NI, but he either didn’t care enough about it, or his hand was forced due to not having enough negotiating power. I don’t believe he’ll ever pull the plug on the EU and have the UK go it alone
It seems reasonably obvious that with NI part UK and with historic agreemenst on free movement between Eire and UK including NI that any checks across the Irish Sea need to be minimal.
There were already some animal checks prior to Brexit- dont those apply to direct routes from EU to Eire too?
sunbeam alpine said:
From
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-57459...
"The UK is also due to ban the import of chilled EU meat products to Great Britain in October."
It's not clear in the article whether this is part of a plan or as a response to the current situation. If it's part of planned changes as part of the Brexit transition then surely it's logical that the UK can't expect to ship chilled meat products in the other direction?
The argument is that NI isn't "the other direction" and that it's an internal market so nothing to do with the EU.https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-57459...
"The UK is also due to ban the import of chilled EU meat products to Great Britain in October."
It's not clear in the article whether this is part of a plan or as a response to the current situation. If it's part of planned changes as part of the Brexit transition then surely it's logical that the UK can't expect to ship chilled meat products in the other direction?
sunbeam alpine said:
From
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-57459...
"The UK is also due to ban the import of chilled EU meat products to Great Britain in October."
It's not clear in the article whether this is part of a plan or as a response to the current situation. If it's part of planned changes as part of the Brexit transition then surely it's logical that the UK can't expect to ship chilled meat products in the other direction?
Do they mean export to or import from?https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-57459...
"The UK is also due to ban the import of chilled EU meat products to Great Britain in October."
It's not clear in the article whether this is part of a plan or as a response to the current situation. If it's part of planned changes as part of the Brexit transition then surely it's logical that the UK can't expect to ship chilled meat products in the other direction?
Sway said:
They didn't agree that those goods would be banned at all.
The period was specifically to come to an agreement on how to move forward, and implement it.
Everything - every single thing - comes back to NI being both fully in the UK market, as well as the single market with respect to trade with RoI.
You cannot suggest that saying that NI citizens cannot eat British meat respects that over riding position.
Of course, there's a flip side. By lifting the existing EU forms, and replacing the header with UK - no EU nation would be able to send fresh meat to GB.
That, is an asymmetric effect in comparison to NI citizens having to source their meat from RoI/EU instead of GB...
There are many pragmatic solutions (one being that approved traders can send to NI. Crikey, I even recall bottles of Poitin with 'not for sale in RoI' on the bottles (or similar - I was a very young lad at the time...).
Unfortunately, the only solution the EU is willing to accept is full UK adoption of EU oversight on SPS.
Once again you are just making things up. The period was specifically to come to an agreement on how to move forward, and implement it.
Everything - every single thing - comes back to NI being both fully in the UK market, as well as the single market with respect to trade with RoI.
You cannot suggest that saying that NI citizens cannot eat British meat respects that over riding position.
Of course, there's a flip side. By lifting the existing EU forms, and replacing the header with UK - no EU nation would be able to send fresh meat to GB.
That, is an asymmetric effect in comparison to NI citizens having to source their meat from RoI/EU instead of GB...
There are many pragmatic solutions (one being that approved traders can send to NI. Crikey, I even recall bottles of Poitin with 'not for sale in RoI' on the bottles (or similar - I was a very young lad at the time...).
Unfortunately, the only solution the EU is willing to accept is full UK adoption of EU oversight on SPS.
I have linked many times to the committee agreement. Read it. No where does it say the transition period is for the parties to reach further agreement. In fact if you go through the documents there is no wording that suggest the committee was deferring any decisions for further negotiations.
The transition period was for companies to adapt before SPS applied to goods moving from GB to NI.
It does not matter what you or I think of the IP and the committee agreement. Thats what BJ and chums signed up to.
As for the trusted trader scheme the EU have made no mention of it. They have NOT said it cannot be used. Why its not being used I do not know. I suggest you do not know either.
Sway said:
Mrr T said:
Sway said:
No, they're not.
You're ignoring the agreement to resolve the issue of banned goods into the Single Market (but they did indeed agree that there needed to be a solution that respected NI's place in the UK).
You're also ignoring the doc which covers agreement of the approach to 'goods not at risk' - and who can authorise those shippers.
The UK agreed in the committee to implement EU rules which would not allow some good from the GB to NI. Are you suggesting Gove with the army of civil servants did not understand what they agreed to? You're ignoring the agreement to resolve the issue of banned goods into the Single Market (but they did indeed agree that there needed to be a solution that respected NI's place in the UK).
You're also ignoring the doc which covers agreement of the approach to 'goods not at risk' - and who can authorise those shippers.
I have looked at the approach to good not at risk. The EU have clearly allowed the UK to set up and administrator a trusted trader scheme. Since the end of the transition is still seen as a problem one must assume the companies moving the goods cannot comply with the requirements for approval.
Please, don't lie. The agreement in principle to come to a solution that enabled NI to be part of the overall UK food market is in there.
Assumptions are a thing you're great at (in one direction) - I can guarantee with absolute confidence that Sainsbury's are able to meet the criteria. The EU are still saying no - over ruling their own signed acceptance of the application.
So no, one must not assume...
From the Command Paper.
So, why say that there's no mention of an agreement in principle regarding these goods?
Edited by Sway on Sunday 13th June 11:53
AW111 said:
roger.mellie said:
Wombat3 said:
This stuff is really simple: it was a stupid agreement which was knowingly entered into for a simple reason : to get Brexit over the line and sort it out afterwards.
Unfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
Take a quick look at yourself. You’re arguing for entering an agreement you didn’t intend to actually honour as it was all about “getting brexit done” and blaming the opposition for not doing what you wantUnfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
I appreciate your honesty but not your blame storming. Own it, deal with it, and stop the pretence on who was negotiating in bad faith.
Then blame the other party.
Wombat3 said:
This stuff is really simple: it was a stupid agreement which was knowingly entered into for a simple reason : to get Brexit over the line and sort it out afterwards.
Unfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
So the EU was acting in bad faith when the UK signed up to the IP and committee agreement. But the UK was acting in good faith when they sign it knowing they planned to break it. Unfortunately sometimes that's where you find yourself when dealing with people who never negotiate in good faith and were plainly doing everything possible to create an imbalanced situation, or indeed to kill the whole process.
The only other options are either you give up and acquiesce or you negotiate forever.
Anyone who thinks the EU view this as about anything more than advantage and maybe a side order of punishment needs their bumps felt.
I am sure at times companies have to sign up to contracts which are far from idea to achieve an end result. However, if they then breach the contract and it goes to court and claiming you do not need to carry out some parts of the contact because they disadvantage you it not going to fly.
Of cause the EU negotiating position was to gain advantage for the EU. That's sort of what they where there to do.
Sway said:
I agree the premise of signing it whilst planning to breach is out of order.
However, I cannot actually see that this is what the UK have done. None of this detail was thrashed out - it was all kicked down the road to be worked out, under good faith on both sides and against the overarching principles and aims agreed in the Protocol.
It wasn't, at all. However, I cannot actually see that this is what the UK have done. None of this detail was thrashed out - it was all kicked down the road to be worked out, under good faith on both sides and against the overarching principles and aims agreed in the Protocol.
AFAIK the only things left to be decided were fishing rights which were agreed would be decided year by year.
The NIP was agreed by Boris as the only way of getting his view of Brexit over the line. He got that, and knowingly offered up NI as a sacrificial lamb. If he honestly thought that he could agree to something knowing it's consequences, and then attempt to renegotiate it once the consequences become obvious to the public then he is even more of an idiot that I thought possible.
There is no reason for the EU to put time and effort into reopening negotiations they closed 6 months ago, simply to appease Boris's domestic audience.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff