Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 2)

[Tuna]

Jazzer77 said:

Remind us again Tuna about the JCBs buried in London basements?

Lack of self awareness is up to Trumpian levels.

And that is relevant to this discussion how?

I'll freely admit that over twenty years of posting to this forum, I've said things that are wrong. - and happily admitted when people provide better information. That's the point of having a debate.

Now - provide some better information and I'll happily admit that you've been right about something relating to Brexit.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath on that one.

[Sway]

Condi said:

Vanden Saab said:

In that case you will be able to point out the part of the NI protocol that makes this clear...

Unsurprisingly it is not written in black and white, but references existing EU laws and articles which work to the same effect.

Tellingly, while a lot is mentioned of goods moving from NI to GB, less is mentioned of goods moving in the opposite direction.

Maybe you'd like to point out the bit in the WA which says that the UK can move whatever goods it likes between GB and NI? I'll help you out, the complete text is below, you want Articles 5 and 6, and I think the EU article it references coving the Customs Union is linked to below as well.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2013/952

Meanwhile, here a load of links which suggest than my understanding is correct;

Government Policy Paper The Customs (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 "The purpose is to ensure UK customs legislation can operate alongside the EU customs legislation that will also apply in respect of Northern Ireland." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-cus...

European Union Protocol page "Alignment with EU rules: as of the end of the transition period, Northern Ireland is subject to a limited set of EU rules related to the Single Market for goods and the Customs Union. The Union's Customs Code, for example, applies to all goods entering or exiting Northern Ireland." https://ec.europa.eu/info/relations-united-kingdom...

Wikipedia; "Unlike Great Britain, Northern Ireland continues to adopt EU Single Market regulations on goods and electricity (including the EU VAT) and remains an entry point into the EU Customs Union" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Protocol)

BBC "Northern Ireland will be aligned to the EU single market" - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50079385



I can of course go on, but when both United Kingdom government and EU Commission official pages say that NI will continue to adopt EU customs rules then BBC or Wikipedia articles are poor sources.

Customs legislation does not cover phytosanitary regs...

There is a clear statement that the co-chairs of the implementation Committee did indeed agree in principle early in the process that there needed to be a solution to the problem of 'banned' goods being able to go to NI to respect that NI does indeed remain wholly within the UK internal market.

One approach, when people talk of 'production moving' - is to send the animals live and process them in NI. Not exactly an improvement in animal welfare.

Of course, we're hoisting the EU by their own petard, as due to the EU not being willing to discuss options for NI, GB is adopting the same processes (and limitations).

That, is going to bite EU nations far harder than the effect on GB/NI...

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

Sway said:

I'll just repeat here...



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

The command paper is a UK document it is not part of the joint UK and EU agreement of the committee.

The joint agreement contains a transition period but does not require the EU to take part in any further negotiations.

From the command paper its clear Gove knew there would be an issue. The government could have done something about this in the committee but did not.

So you're saying the government command paper is lying, and there wasn't an agreement between the co-chairs that there needed to be a solution found to permit these goods to move internally within the UK?

Convincing argument there.

Especially when your premise is rooted in an absolute untruth.

You pointed to the docs. You claimed there was no reference to an agreement in principle. It is there, in the docs you pointed to.

Oh, there's another one - the Protocol states a few times that both parties are obligated to continually review processes and approaches to minimise the social and economic impact on the citizens of the island of Ireland.

UK citizens being banned from buying GB fresh meat (or seeds, etc.) would count exactly as that.

Edited by Sway on Sunday 13th June 15:26

Edited by Sway on Sunday 13th June 15:50

[Condi]

Sway said:

Customs legislation does not cover phytosanitary regs...

There is a clear statement that the co-chairs of the implementation Committee did indeed agree in principle early in the process that there needed to be a solution to the problem of 'banned' goods being able to go to NI to respect that NI does indeed remain wholly within the UK internal market.

Where is this "clear statement" within the regulations I quoted? Forget anything else, the paper quoted are what was signed by both parties, as the legal agreement.

Also, I don't know if you're deliberately confusing the issue or if you don't understand, but the ban on some products has nothing at all to do with phytosanitary rules. Phytosanitary rules apply when moving allowed goods between countries, ensuring they are free of disease etc. So if you wanted to move a pig between the UK and Belgium it has to have the correct paperwork, be proven free of some diseases, etc. Same with plants, foodstuffs etc etc.

The issue here is that chilled meat is banned outright. Nothing to do with the phytosanitary rules, but simply banned from entering the EU under the Customs Union rules. The same rules which both the UK and EU Commission say apply to NI.

[Jazzer77]

Tuna said:

Jazzer77 said:

Remind us again Tuna about the JCBs buried in London basements?

Lack of self awareness is up to Trumpian levels.

And that is relevant to this discussion how?

I'll freely admit that over twenty years of posting to this forum, I've said things that are wrong. - and happily admitted when people provide better information. That's the point of having a debate.

Now - provide some better information and I'll happily admit that you've been right about something relating to Brexit.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath on that one.

Its relevant as you firehose disinformation and bad faith arguments.
I coined the phrase "blockchain of BS" about you over a year ago.

This thread has declined noticably since your return.

[Jazzer77]

Is Gibraltar on similar terms as NI?

Are they deemed as within EU regarding food standards?

[Sway]

Condi said:

Sway said:

Customs legislation does not cover phytosanitary regs...

There is a clear statement that the co-chairs of the implementation Committee did indeed agree in principle early in the process that there needed to be a solution to the problem of 'banned' goods being able to go to NI to respect that NI does indeed remain wholly within the UK internal market.

Where is this "clear statement" within the regulations I quoted? Forget anything else, the paper quoted are what was signed by both parties, as the legal agreement.

Also, I don't know if you're deliberately confusing the issue or if you don't understand, but the ban on some products has nothing at all to do with phytosanitary rules. Phytosanitary rules apply when moving allowed goods between countries, ensuring they are free of disease etc. So if you wanted to move a pig between the UK and Belgium it has to have the correct paperwork, be proven free of some diseases, etc. Same with plants, foodstuffs etc etc.

The issue here is that chilled meat is banned outright. Nothing to do with the phytosanitary rules, but simply banned from entering the EU under the Customs Union rules. The same rules which both the UK and EU Commission say apply to NI.

The clear statement is in the UK command document. The co-chairs made that agreement.

Remember, the legally binding Protocol rather majors on the over riding principles that NI is part of Ireland, but also fully and completely the UK. At every point, the Committee and both nations must operate to enable that position to be maintained - fudge or not in a wider perspective.

They are banned through phytosanitary regs - that's why they're banned, because it is harder to certify safety. Customs and SPS regs are different things...

[Tuna]

Jazzer77 said:

Its relevant as you firehose disinformation and bad faith arguments.
I coined the phrase "blockchain of BS" about you over a year ago.

This thread has declined noticably since your return.

Feel free to actually provide evidence or counter argument, rather than conducting a remarkably weak ad-hom attack.

If I've provided any disinformation, you could easily have engaged on those issues - silence from you as ever.

It seems you simply don't like anyone daring to disagree with your viewpoint.

Tough.

[Ivan stewart]

How they all laughed at the clean break so-called no deal Brexit idea , you would have thought Boris of all people would have understood appeasement never works with bullies ,Oh well we are where we are !!!

[Condi]

Sway said:

They are banned through phytosanitary regs - that's why they're banned, because it is harder to certify safety. Customs and SPS regs are different things...

The reasons are largely academic. Chilled meats (among other goods) are banned from the EU Customs Union, the same customs union which both the UK and EU accept NI are part of, in practical if not legal terms.

And while the documents do agree that NI is part of the UK, the whole reason for the NI Protocol is to recognise the particular and special set of rules which apply to NI. These rules were all agreed to by Boris, who now wishes to renegade on them because either he didn't understand exactly what the practical implications were, or more likely, he agreed to them at the time expecting or hoping he'd be able to renegotiate later on. It is hardly surprising the EU don't wish to talk about it any more, given it was one of 2 major sticking points and lots of time was spent coming up with the initial agreement.

[AW111]

It looks increasingly likely that this spat will end in a 'no deal' type exit.

Which swore wouldn't happen.

Surprise surprise surprise - he lied.

Again.

[Sway]

Condi said:

Sway said:

They are banned through phytosanitary regs - that's why they're banned, because it is harder to certify safety. Customs and SPS regs are different things...

The reasons are largely academic. Chilled meats (among other goods) are banned from the EU Customs Union, the same customs union which both the UK and EU accept NI are part of, in practical if not legal terms.

And while the documents do agree that NI is part of the UK, the whole reason for the NI Protocol is to recognise the particular and special set of rules which apply to NI. These rules were all agreed to by Boris, who now wishes to renegade on them because either he didn't understand exactly what the practical implications were, or more likely, he agreed to them at the time expecting or hoping he'd be able to renegotiate later on. It is hardly surprising the EU don't wish to talk about it any more, given it was one of 2 major sticking points and lots of time was spent coming up with the initial agreement.

They're not academic when you've spent two posts claiming a reason that's false, especially when then trying to impugn my knowledge of the topic...

It's not renegotiation - it's application and approach. Something that is repeatedly called for in the Protocol to continually achieve the best possible outcome meeting those overarching principles.

So in fact, if the EU is as you claim completely unwilling to renegotiate, or review application, then the EU are in breach of said legal text.

[JeffreyD]

It seems pretty clear that EU rules on food apply.

So what specific clause are the EU breaking?

[Mrr T]

Sway said:

So you're saying the government command paper is lying, and there wasn't an agreement between the co-chairs that there needed to be a solution found to permit these goods to move internally within the UK?

Convincing argument there.

Especially when your premise is rooted in an absolute lie.

You pointed to the docs. You claimed there was no reference to an agreement in principle. It is there, in the docs you pointed to. Liar.

Oh, there's another one - the Protocol states a few times that both parties are obligated to continually review processes and approaches to minimise the social and economic impact on the citizens of the island of Ireland.

UK citizens being banned from buying GB fresh meat (or seeds, etc.) would count exactly as that.

Edited by Sway on Sunday 13th June 15:26

The command paper is a UK paper. It's correct if there is no further agreement then some goods cannot move from GB to NI. You do understand a paper issued by the UK cannot commit the EU. The fact its in the paper means its clear Gove knew what would happen.

The EU/UK agreement is set out in the committee agreements. There is nothing in those papers which commits the EU to further agreement to avoid the issue.

If you do not understand the difference between a paper issued by the UK and a joint agreement between the UK and the EU then its going to be hard for you to present any coherent arguments.

There is nothing in the agreement which stops those in NI purchasing the products its just the products cannot be sourced from GB.

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

Sway said:

So you're saying the government command paper is lying, and there wasn't an agreement between the co-chairs that there needed to be a solution found to permit these goods to move internally within the UK?

Convincing argument there.

Especially when your premise is rooted in an absolute lie.

You pointed to the docs. You claimed there was no reference to an agreement in principle. It is there, in the docs you pointed to. Liar.

Oh, there's another one - the Protocol states a few times that both parties are obligated to continually review processes and approaches to minimise the social and economic impact on the citizens of the island of Ireland.

UK citizens being banned from buying GB fresh meat (or seeds, etc.) would count exactly as that.

Edited by Sway on Sunday 13th June 15:26

The command paper is a UK paper. It's correct if there is no further agreement then some goods cannot move from GB to NI. You do understand a paper issued by the UK cannot commit the EU. The fact its in the paper means its clear Gove knew what would happen.

The EU/UK agreement is set out in the committee agreements. There is nothing in those papers which commits the EU to further agreement to avoid the issue.

If you do not understand the difference between a paper issued by the UK and a joint agreement between the UK and the EU then its going to be hard for you to present any coherent arguments.

There is nothing in the agreement which stops those in NI purchasing the products its just the products cannot be sourced from GB.

I have never once said there was a specific requirement for a future agreement.

There was an agreement in principle to permit those goods moving.

The Protocol is very clear - impact the economic or social aspects of NI then there needs to be a solution. At the moment, the EU is doing just that.

Of course, the amusement from my perspective is whilst I can taste your glee at sticking one up at BoJo and Gove, with NI residents buying their meat solely from EU nations - those EU nations are also going to have to find a buyer for all the meat (and seeds, etc.) that GB will not be buying from them, a far far larger amount.

[saaby93]

If Eire buys sausages from say Germany wont they normally pass through GB so will be banned?

[Sway]

saaby93 said:

If Eire buys sausages from say Germany wont they normally pass through GB so will be banned?

That's an interesting point. I'd have to chat to some colleagues on that one.

There's certainly ways of moving 'banned from local market' goods through a nation under a bond.

However, considering the reasons why fresh meat and seeds are banned from entry to the market, it wouldn't surprise me if bonds aren't available for those goods.

[Condi]

Sway said:

They're not academic when you've spent two posts claiming a reason that's false, especially when then trying to impugn my knowledge of the topic...

It's not renegotiation - it's application and approach. Something that is repeatedly called for in the Protocol to continually achieve the best possible outcome meeting those overarching principles.

So in fact, if the EU is as you claim completely unwilling to renegotiate, or review application, then the EU are in breach of said legal text.

They are academic because the practical implications are the same.

The NI being part of the Customs Union was the only way which the Good Friday agreement would be able to continue. Call it "application and approach" if you will, Boris is trying to go back on the agreement he signed. The agreement is very clear, and I've quoted the UK and EUC websites which state in black and white that NI will continue to follow the EU Customs Union.

Boris isn't just trying to talk about the interpretation and the practical application. He's trying to change the fundamental principles the EU believe in and have no interest in bending for NI. The "Command Paper" you frequently reference is a UK publication, not something agreed with the EU, not something which is legally binding, but is simply the UK's interpretation and understanding in a way which can be presented to parliament.

[Condi]

saaby93 said:

If Eire buys sausages from say Germany wont they normally pass through GB so will be banned?

Yes and no. They would, previously, have come across GB, but now go direct from the Continent via a ferry, or are airfreighted. Otherwise, yes, they would not be allowed in.

[crankedup5]

AW111 said:

It looks increasingly likely that this spat will end in a 'no deal' type exit.

Which swore wouldn't happen.

Surprise surprise surprise - he lied.

Again.

Political expediency imo.