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

[DeltonaS]

loafer123 said:

Mortarboard said:

So we're back in the realms of fantasy island Brexit again.

"they need us more than them"

"biden will knock heads together"

"Boris didn't sell out NI permanently, major gambit, 3d chess move"

And then the spin:

"Eu not globally influential, it's the countries, innit"

"All it takes is applying the NIP in good faith, grr EU, baaaaad EU"

There's folk here who could host apprenticeships in barrel scraping.......

And in the meantime, the leading narrative on NI is being led by the DUP, with the loyalist terrorists two steps behind.

Christ

M.

It really doesn’t matter about the rhetoric.

All you need to understand is that the EU are attempting to keep the to prevent competition, whilst the U.K. will do anything it needs to to avoid that.

And another statement from the "fantasy Island Brexit".

It has nothing to do with competition, nor does the EU try to keep the U.K. within their regulatory orbit.

[Sway]

DeltonaS said:

loafer123 said:

Mortarboard said:

So we're back in the realms of fantasy island Brexit again.

"they need us more than them"

"biden will knock heads together"

"Boris didn't sell out NI permanently, major gambit, 3d chess move"

And then the spin:

"Eu not globally influential, it's the countries, innit"

"All it takes is applying the NIP in good faith, grr EU, baaaaad EU"

There's folk here who could host apprenticeships in barrel scraping.......

And in the meantime, the leading narrative on NI is being led by the DUP, with the loyalist terrorists two steps behind.

Christ

M.

It really doesn’t matter about the rhetoric.

All you need to understand is that the EU are attempting to keep the to prevent competition, whilst the U.K. will do anything it needs to to avoid that.

And another statement from the "fantasy Island Brexit".

It has nothing to do with competition, nor does the EU try to keep the U.K. within their regulatory orbit.

Except for the actual details...

T will bang on about Gove "accepting" the implementation. Except he didn't - as shown by the unilateral extension of UK recognition of SPS controls across the whole UK domestic market.

As shown by the NIP declaring an agreement to determine an approach to permit NI to remain within the UK market - including phytosanitary controls.

As shown by the committee minutes which show mechanisms for UK to unilaterally recognise goods of sufficiently low risk of entry to the Single Market.

As shown by the EU's subsequent stance that everything must conform to EU import controls for SPS goods, which wholesale excludes the ability to transport fresh meat, seeds, seed potatos and other foods to NI from GB - which fundamentally ignores the EU's signature that NI wholly remains within the UK regulatory market, as well as putting the food security of NI at risk. With unilateral triggering of Article 16 being threatened for whole UK if we do not accept their judgement.

So far, the only proposal the EU has put forward to break the impasse has been to adopt the market regulations and legal oversight of the EU - giving the EU total control of our SPS trading environment, but also our foodstuff internal market.

We've already seen multiple posters demonstrate their abject ignorance of the actual subject at hand.

Seemingly, it doesn't matter how many times they're pointed to the salient primary sources, as far as they're concerned any issues are purely down to Johnson/Gove/Tories/ref result. Which is rather amusing and utterly tragic all at the same time...

Edited by Sway on Sunday 13th June 03:00

[Mrr T]

Sway said:

Except for the actual details...

T will bang on about Gove "accepting" the implementation. Except he didn't - as shown by the unilateral extension of UK recognition of SPS controls across the whole UK domestic market.

As shown by the NIP declaring an agreement to determine an approach to permit NI to remain within the UK market - including phytosanitary controls.

As shown by the committee minutes which show mechanisms for UK to unilaterally recognise goods of sufficiently low risk of entry to the Single Market.

As shown by the EU's subsequent stance that everything must conform to EU import controls for SPS goods, which wholesale excludes the ability to transport fresh meat, seeds, seed potatos and other foods to NI from GB - which fundamentally ignores the EU's signature that NI wholly remains within the UK regulatory market, as well as putting the food security of NI at risk. With unilateral triggering of Article 16 being threatened for whole UK if we do not accept their judgement.

So far, the only proposal the EU has put forward to break the impasse has been to adopt the market regulations and legal oversight of the EU - giving the EU total control of our SPS trading environment, but also our foodstuff internal market.

We've already seen multiple posters demonstrate their abject ignorance of the actual subject at hand.

Seemingly, it doesn't matter how many times they're pointed to the salient primary sources, as far as they're concerned any issues are purely down to Johnson/Gove/Tories/ref result. Which is rather amusing and utterly tragic all at the same time...

Edited by Sway on Sunday 13th June 03:00

You do post some rubbish to try to support your view.

I have posted the link several times it not hard to read what's there. They are not minutes of the committee where both sides are making proposals. It says it clearly they are the joint decisions of the committee. They set out clearly the process for the implementation.

You may say in your view they do not reflect the IP. That's your view what matters is what the UK and the EU agreed in the committee.

Frost making unilateral changes to the committee agreement does not show Gove did not agree to the process. Read what is on the link, the process and the transition period are agreed by both parties.

The EU is demanding the UK carry out what they agreed to in the agreement about the end of the transition period. Nether the EU or the UK have made any mention of the trusted trader exemption.

So let put it this way, BJ and chums committed to the IP in the WA. The implementation of the IP was given to a joint committee. In December 2020 Gove on behalf of the government agreed in the commitee the process for implementation. So you can understand why I put the current problems down to BJ and chums.

[roger.mellie]

Sway said:

Except for the actual details...

T will bang on about Gove "accepting" the implementation. Except he didn't - as shown by the unilateral extension of UK recognition of SPS controls across the whole UK domestic market.

As shown by the NIP declaring an agreement to determine an approach to permit NI to remain within the UK market - including phytosanitary controls.

As shown by the committee minutes which show mechanisms for UK to unilaterally recognise goods of sufficiently low risk of entry to the Single Market.

As shown by the EU's subsequent stance that everything must conform to EU import controls for SPS goods, which wholesale excludes the ability to transport fresh meat, seeds, seed potatos and other foods to NI from GB - which fundamentally ignores the EU's signature that NI wholly remains within the UK regulatory market, as well as putting the food security of NI at risk. With unilateral triggering of Article 16 being threatened for whole UK if we do not accept their judgement.

So far, the only proposal the EU has put forward to break the impasse has been to adopt the market regulations and legal oversight of the EU - giving the EU total control of our SPS trading environment, but also our foodstuff internal market.

We've already seen multiple posters demonstrate their abject ignorance of the actual subject at hand.

Seemingly, it doesn't matter how many times they're pointed to the salient primary sources, as far as they're concerned any issues are purely down to Johnson/Gove/Tories/ref result. Which is rather amusing and utterly tragic all at the same time...

Edited by Sway on Sunday 13th June 03:00

I like your passion on this subject as TBH it’s rare on the UK side. You’re probably more genuinely unionist than most. You’re not just paying lip service to an ideal whilst excusing actions that fly in the face of it and I respect that even if I disagree.

All that said, you can’t argue that the EU are acting illegally. Lots of intent and this that and the other but not illegal as the UK gov have admitted through the unilateral declaration in the past.

Current impasse has multiple solutions but they all require one of two broad brush strokes. UK agrees to alignment, or EU recognises standards without alignment. Neither will eliminate checks but obviously the difference between them is political dynamite in some hands. Either way NI unionists aren’t getting what they want. The uk will not make its final decision based on internal membership, fair enough. But they are in the same corner as they were during the brexit negotiations, pick your priorities and own the decision.

[JagLover]

Northernboy said:

Unknown_User said:

Er, nope.

Scotland? Influential.

Wales, NI and England? Definitely, especially considering Englands ex-empires!

The UK itself as an entity? "Stolen credit" wouldn't you agree?

The Empire was British / UK, it was never English.

I understand that there are some Scots nowadays who wish to pretend that they played no part in it, but that’s an absolutely untenable position.

The UK acted as the UK, throughout the time of Empire. The nations were in it together, as were their citizens. Of course, it was a relatively few of those citizens who became rich, but that few were from all corners of these isles.

Scots in fact played a disproportionally large role in the British Empire. So yes very pathetic to try and claim it was an "English" empire.

[JagLover]

roger.mellie said:

Current impasse has multiple solutions but they all require one of two broad brush strokes. UK agrees to alignment, or EU recognises standards without alignment. Neither will eliminate checks but obviously the difference between them is political dynamite in some hands. Either way NI unionists aren’t getting what they want. The uk will not make its final decision based on internal membership, fair enough. But they are in the same corner as they were during the brexit negotiations, pick your priorities and own the decision.

As far as I can see the current dispute centres on internal trade, within both the UK and within companies (Supermarkets transferring stock to NI). So you have missed off a third option, which is a trusted trader scheme with these large retail chains being trusted to ensure internal stock transfers are not sold into the single market.

[Sway]

Roger, T - why are you both still posting as though this is about checks?

It's not about customs controls - it's about the EU stating that various goods cannot, irrespective of customs controls, be moved from GB to NI.

Trusted Trader/Approved operator schemes are irrelevant in that case.

[bitchstewie]

Tuna said:

digimeistter said:

Again, I really do struggle with your thinking.

It's very simple. Whatever the problem is, it's 'our' fault... and by 'our', I mean 'Boris'. Read any of Stewie's posts with that in mind and it all makes sense.

It's not solely Johnson's fault it's a shared responsibility.

You have the brass neck lecture others on staying silent how about picking up a few of the people who claim it's entirely down to the EU?

Thought not.

[Mrr T]

JagLover said:

roger.mellie said:

Current impasse has multiple solutions but they all require one of two broad brush strokes. UK agrees to alignment, or EU recognises standards without alignment. Neither will eliminate checks but obviously the difference between them is political dynamite in some hands. Either way NI unionists aren’t getting what they want. The uk will not make its final decision based on internal membership, fair enough. But they are in the same corner as they were during the brexit negotiations, pick your priorities and own the decision.

As far as I can see the current dispute centres on internal trade, within both the UK and within companies (Supermarkets transferring stock to NI). So you have missed off a third option, which is a trusted trader scheme with these large retail chains being trusted to ensure internal stock transfers are not sold into the single market.

Can I refer you to.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nor...

Open the document titled.

"Decision of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee on the
determination of goods not at risk"

The basis of a trusted trader scheme is already agreed. If you read the document you will see the requirements to use the scheme in detail. You will also see approval of a company to use the scheme is totally at the discretion of the UK.

Why its not being used is not clear.

[Sway]

Mrr T said:

JagLover said:

roger.mellie said:

Current impasse has multiple solutions but they all require one of two broad brush strokes. UK agrees to alignment, or EU recognises standards without alignment. Neither will eliminate checks but obviously the difference between them is political dynamite in some hands. Either way NI unionists aren’t getting what they want. The uk will not make its final decision based on internal membership, fair enough. But they are in the same corner as they were during the brexit negotiations, pick your priorities and own the decision.

As far as I can see the current dispute centres on internal trade, within both the UK and within companies (Supermarkets transferring stock to NI). So you have missed off a third option, which is a trusted trader scheme with these large retail chains being trusted to ensure internal stock transfers are not sold into the single market.

Can I refer you to.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nor...

Open the document titled.

"Decision of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee on the
determination of goods not at risk"

The basis of a trusted trader scheme is already agreed. If you read the document you will see the requirements to use the scheme in detail. You will also see approval of a company to use the scheme is totally at the discretion of the UK.

Why its not being used is not clear.

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.

[loafer123]

My understanding is that there are two issues;

1 certain goods banned from import (sausage wars)
2 reducing customs formalities through us adopting EU standards (what they want) or mutual recognition of each other’s standards as being equivalent (what we want)

[roger.mellie]

Sway said:

Roger, T - why are you both still posting as though this is about checks?

It's not about customs controls - it's about the EU stating that various goods cannot, irrespective of customs controls, be moved from GB to NI.

Trusted Trader/Approved operator schemes are irrelevant in that case.

I’m not. I’m presenting a biased NI view. I’m sure you know that.

The UK have openly admitted that certain goods (e.g. sausages) were going to fail the acceptable import test and the grace period was for supermarkets to reroute their supply chains. Not to expect a change in import restrictions.

It’s not all about checks as no matter what, checks already existed, have increased in quantity, and aren’t going away.

It’s partly about marketing a realistic acceptance of the new dispensation.

[roger.mellie]

JagLover said:

As far as I can see the current dispute centres on internal trade, within both the UK and within companies (Supermarkets transferring stock to NI). So you have missed off a third option, which is a trusted trader scheme with these large retail chains being trusted to ensure internal stock transfers are not sold into the single market.

True, but I’m very against solutions that just solve the problem for the big supermarket whilst ignoring every other business,

[Earthdweller]

roger.mellie said:

I like your passion on this subject as TBH it’s rare on the UK side. You’re probably more genuinely unionist than most. You’re not just paying lip service to an ideal whilst excusing actions that fly in the face of it and I respect that even if I disagree.

All that said, you can’t argue that the EU are acting illegally. Lots of intent and this that and the other but not illegal as the UK gov have admitted through the unilateral declaration in the past.

Current impasse has multiple solutions but they all require one of two broad brush strokes. UK agrees to alignment, or EU recognises standards without alignment. Neither will eliminate checks but obviously the difference between them is political dynamite in some hands. Either way NI unionists aren’t getting what they want. The uk will not make its final decision based on internal membership, fair enough. But they are in the same corner as they were during the brexit negotiations, pick your priorities and own the decision.

I am not sure of the notion of unionism in the way you paint it onto Sway

The is an acceptance within the U.K. that the U.K. is a sovereign nation as a whole, only in NI is there a different slant

The Republican/unionist view is a uniquely NI lens to view through

My view of Sway’s posts is one of explaining facts ( very well, informatively and quite educationally) and responding to misinformation and sometimes downright lies

I don’t see stating fact and challenging those saying things that aren’t as “being unionist”

Iirc he has challenged comments from the Leave side in the past

I don’t see his posts as other than balanced and very informative

I think to view him as unionist as opposed to a leaver is more a reflection of your bias than his

[Mrr T]

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.

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.

Edited by Mrr T on Sunday 13th June 09:32

[roger.mellie]

Earthdweller said:

I am not sure of the notion of unionism in the way you paint it onto Sway

The is an acceptance within the U.K. that the U.K. is a sovereign nation as a whole, only in NI is there a different slant

The Republican/unionist view is a uniquely NI lens to view through

My view of Sway’s posts is one of explaining facts ( very well, informatively and quite educationally) and responding to misinformation and sometimes downright lies

I don’t see stating fact and challenging those saying things that aren’t as “being unionist”

Iirc he has challenged comments from the Leave side in the past

I don’t see his posts as other than balanced and very informative

I think to view him as unionist as opposed to a leaver is more a reflection of your bias than his

Not sure what your point is here ED. I’ll not talk about sway in the third person as he’s very capable of defending himself.

My “notion” of unionism is those that actually believe the UK is stronger together than apart. Many claim to believe it but few support it in their actions and rhetoric. Sway does. Lots here don’t.

I’m fine with that apart from the faux unionists that all of a sudden are outraged about the current situation when anyone with a titter of whit could spot it coming a mile away .

[saaby93]

roger.mellie said:

those that actually believe the UK is stronger together than apart.

Setting aside notions and the rest of your post.
The UK obviously commands enough respect to host the G7.
Would one of the constituent parts be able to do same?

[Wombat3]

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.

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.

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.

[roger.mellie]

saaby93 said:

roger.mellie said:

those that actually believe the UK is stronger together than apart.

Setting aside notions and the rest of your post.
The UK obviously commands enough respect to host the G7.
Would one of the constituent parts be able to do same?

Setting aside my point!!

De nada mo chara.

Any constituent part of the G7 retains the right to host it, I’m reasonably but not 100% sure that in the event of a UK breakup that England would still have a seat at the table. They wouldn’t be the only one who’s voice has diminished in importance.

[Sway]

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.

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.

Edited by Mrr T on Sunday 13th June 09:32

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.