Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 7)

[AW111]

Condi said:

Tuna said:

Alignment with a third party standards over which we have no control is absolutely the worst deal the UK could make - by definition it benefits the EU and harms the UK.

In the case of NI that is exactly what the Government signed up to as it was the only way for their version of Brexit to happen. It was explicitly known at the time, and why the DUP couldn't support the deal presented.

As you may know, that paper you quoted is a UK briefing paper, and not the agreement signed between the UK and EU.

All this was obvious at the time, but swore it would all be easy-peasy.

And some of you fools believed him

[APontus]

AW111 said:

All this was obvious at the time, but swore it would all be easy-peasy.

And some of you fools believed him

I reckon plenty saw it coming, but most don't care, so long as they aren't in or reliant on NI.

[Sway]

Condi said:

Tuna said:

Alignment with a third party standards over which we have no control is absolutely the worst deal the UK could make - by definition it benefits the EU and harms the UK.

In the case of NI that is exactly what the Government signed up to as it was the only way for their version of Brexit to happen. It was explicitly known at the time, and why the DUP couldn't support the deal presented.

As you may know, that paper you quoted is a UK briefing paper, and not the agreement signed between the UK and EU.

If I recall correctly, you've claimed the legal agreement only left fishing quotas to be agreed?

In reality, the joint Committee had a few things to continue negotiating:

Goods not at risk identification and management systems.

SPS management (including mechanisms to prevent blocking goods from entry to NI from GB).

Etc.

[GetCarter]

He now thinks he's the Prime Minister of America. Obviously drunk. God help us all.

[turbobloke]

AW111 said:

All this was obvious at the time, but swore it would all be easy-peasy.

And some of you fools believed him

Not relying on politicians is the only way to go. When their lips move etc.

Beyond that, the sky hasn't fallen in, what's for tea? Sausages.

[Tuna]

Condi said:

Tuna said:

Alignment with a third party standards over which we have no control is absolutely the worst deal the UK could make - by definition it benefits the EU and harms the UK.

In the case of NI that is exactly what the Government signed up to as it was the only way for their version of Brexit to happen. It was explicitly known at the time, and why the DUP couldn't support the deal presented.

Not true, however confidently you might assert it. The NI protocol requires that *both* parties respect the other's rights (specifically that the EU respects the rights of NI to receive goods from the UK without disruption) and that there is a continued commitment to developing frameworks and solutions that enable this "two system" state to be maintained.

Clearly that is not the same as committing to alignment - as there remains a clear mechanism to maintain independent control. It's true the EU can (and it seems are) refusing to accept that independence, but that is not a failure of the UK, is it?

[Condi]

Tuna said:

Not true, however confidently you might assert it. The NI protocol requires that *both* parties respect the other's rights (specifically that the EU respects the rights of NI to receive goods from the UK without disruption) and that there is a continued commitment to developing frameworks and solutions that enable this "two system" state to be maintained.

Clearly that is not the same as committing to alignment - as there remains a clear mechanism to maintain independent control. It's true the EU can (and it seems are) refusing to accept that independence, but that is not a failure of the UK, is it?

Nowhere does it say the EU have to respect the rights of NI to receive goods without disruption at all. The overarching principle is that NI is effectively part of the EU single market, and so rules which apply to the SM also apply to NI. That is what the UK signed up to, as it was the only way to do the deal Boris wanted. The are some nuances in that, but mainly regarding NI's ability to export to GB, and how taxes are collected for goods moving from GB to NI. Nowhere does it say (and I've read it!) that the EU is bound to find a way for uninterrupted trade of all goods.

It is illogical to think that the EU will allow products into NI, which can then be freely transported around the whole of Europe with no checks, if those products would not be allowed via another entry point. Otherwise NI will become a back-door for all sorts of products the SM regulates against. The EU are dead against that, one of their "red lines" if you will.

[AW111]

turbobloke said:

Not relying on politicians is the only way to go. When their lips move etc.

Beyond that, the sky hasn't fallen in, what's for tea? Sausages.

This is not the first time you've used that non-answer to deflect criticism of

Oddly enough, its exactly the same non-answer that Trump supporters use.

"It doesn't matter that my chosen leader is a liar (who's been sacked from several jobs for lying), because they're all like that".



ps Having seen the quality and integrity of your posts on the climate threads, I can see why you take this point of view

[Electro1980]

Tuna said:

Condi said:

But it's not a shared problem. The EU are happy with the arrangement that they and Boris agreed less than 7 months ago. The implications were obvious to anyone who read it at the time, and the only reason Boris was able to agree that deal where May wasn't was because he wasn't relying on DUP votes. Signing away NI was a small price to pay at the time to "Get Brexit Done".

To now want to renegotiate the deal he signed such a short time ago - or worse, threaten to unilaterally ignore it - shows very poor statesmanship and is another example of him not being able to think about the longer term consequences of his actions. While in the past he may have been able to talk his way into and out of deals again, the EU see no reason to renegotiate. It is a problem entirely of his own making, and one which affects the UK alone.

Seriously, you're just reinforcing that you haven't got a clue on what has been agreed and negotiated.

From the other thread:


Note *for the first half of next year* - this was, from day one, a temporary arrangement to allow a more permanent solution to be found. This is absolutely not about renegotiating - it's about continuing existing negotiations as previously arranged.

Secondly, note that *from day one* if was acknowledged that disruption could only be avoided by coming to a deeper arrangement, and that the UK's position was for a Free Trade agreement recognising agri-food issues.

Unfortunately the same die-hard Remainers are spinning this desperately to present an entirely different narrative that suits their agenda of forcing alignment by the back door. Not only is that wildly dishonest, it shows incredible naivety. [b]Alignment with a third party standards over which we have no control is absolutely the worst deal the UK could make - by definition it benefits the EU and harms the UK.[\b]

Edited by Tuna on Sunday 13th June 12:47

So, what would a good deal look like:

a) Alignment with EU rules
b) A customs boarder in the Irish Sea, splitting the U.K. in two
c) A customs boarder between EU and and NI, breaching the Good Friday agreements.

You have to pick one of those as they are the only options.

[Tuna]

Electro1980 said:

So, what would a good deal look like:

a) Alignment with EU rules
b) A customs boarder in the Irish Sea, splitting the U.K. in two
c) A customs boarder between EU and and NI, breaching the Good Friday agreements.

You have to pick one of those as they are the only options.

No, that's not the case, is it? Hobson's choice by omitting more pragmatic solutions, and a few left-field ones.... and to be pedantic, if you can't even spell 'border'...

[Sway]

Tuna said:

Electro1980 said:

So, what would a good deal look like:

a) Alignment with EU rules
b) A customs boarder in the Irish Sea, splitting the U.K. in two
c) A customs boarder between EU and and NI, breaching the Good Friday agreements.

You have to pick one of those as they are the only options.

No, that's not the case, is it? Hobson's choice by omitting more pragmatic solutions, and a few left-field ones.... and to be pedantic, if you can't even spell 'border'...

Indeed. Especially as the GFA is not purely a North - South agreement...

I'm sanguine about essentially "early" controls in the Irish Sea. They can be essentially invisible, especially with low value shipment derogations.

What I'm not happy with, on a principle basis as well as the impact to both GFA and NIP, is a unilateral ban on critical goods that aren't intended for the EU, purely because an EU form doesn't have the right tick box...

Of course, the NIP requires continual review and adaptation to continually reduce impacts on the island of Ireland. RoI losing over 40% of it's beef sales is going to bite. This absolutely is an area with asymmetric outcomes

[Vanden Saab]

Sway said:

Tuna said:

Electro1980 said:

So, what would a good deal look like:

a) Alignment with EU rules
b) A customs boarder in the Irish Sea, splitting the U.K. in two
c) A customs boarder between EU and and NI, breaching the Good Friday agreements.

You have to pick one of those as they are the only options.

No, that's not the case, is it? Hobson's choice by omitting more pragmatic solutions, and a few left-field ones.... and to be pedantic, if you can't even spell 'border'...

Indeed. Especially as the GFA is not purely a North - South agreement...

I'm sanguine about essentially "early" controls in the Irish Sea. They can be essentially invisible, especially with low value shipment derogations.

What I'm not happy with, on a principle basis as well as the impact to both GFA and NIP, is a unilateral ban on critical goods that aren't intended for the EU, purely because an EU form doesn't have the right tick box...

Of course, the NIP requires continual review and adaptation to continually reduce impacts on the island of Ireland. RoI losing over 40% of it's beef sales is going to bite. This absolutely is an area with asymmetric outcomes

How far do you think the Irish with EU support are going to push it before they realise that the UK are not going to back down and come to an agreement? Will they actually enact the ban at the end of June or will the UK extend unilaterally for another 3 months to take it to the UK October deadline when the Irish will have make a decision on whether to destroy their beef industry.

[Electro1980]

Tuna said:

Electro1980 said:

So, what would a good deal look like:

a) Alignment with EU rules
b) A customs boarder in the Irish Sea, splitting the U.K. in two
c) A customs boarder between EU and and NI, breaching the Good Friday agreements.

You have to pick one of those as they are the only options.

No, that's not the case, is it? Hobson's choice by omitting more pragmatic solutions, and a few left-field ones.... and to be pedantic, if you can't even spell 'border'...

So, you are resorting to attacking my spelling because, as I am dyslexic, I struggle with homophones? Very clever of you

I think that answers the question it leaves me with, but I’ll ask it anyway. This is an Internet forum. You answer in a text box. You are not limited to those replies. You could write anything you wanted. What “left field” or “pragmatic” options are there? There are only 5 choices that I can see, the above three, rejoining the EU, which I assumed you would be against, and extending the transition period, which isn’t really an answer, just kicking it in to the long grass.

Let’s face it though, Johnson is going to take option 6, run away and hid, point fingers at others and accept zero responsibility.

[Electro1980]

Sway said:

purely because an EU form doesn't have the right tick box...

Do you not understand international trade? It is ALL based on having the right ticks in the right boxes.

[Sway]

Electro1980 said:

I think that answers the question it leaves me with, but I’ll ask it anyway. This is an Internet forum. You answer in a text box. You are not limited to those replies. You could write anything you wanted. What “left field” or “pragmatic” options are there? There are only 5 choices that I can see, the above three, rejoining the EU, which I assumed you would be against, and extending the transition period, which isn’t really an answer, just kicking it in to the long grass.

• SPS equivalence deal

• Goods permitted under the 'no risk of entry' mechanisms, if necessary marked with "not for sale in RoI"

• heath cert forms updated to have the tick box for fresh meat/frozen chicken/seeds, with attendant operator licencing and applicable phytosanitary checks (if necessary, with enhanced testing of animals prior to slaughter)

One thing that isn't happening, is your 'option 6'. We've already announced we are spooling up our replacement SPS controls from the EU ones we've operated for 30 years. The same forms, with UK at the top instead. This creates the same conditions for EU shipments to GB - except that issue is an order of magnitude greater for EU nations than it is for UK producers...

What I absolutely don't want to see, however if the EU do not budge is exactly what will happen, is a replacement of prepared meat crossing the Irish Sea with live animals being shipped purely for slaughter within a 'different' SPS jurisdiction.

[robemcdonald]

I really don’t see how this is Boris’s fault.
Going through that level of detail is not the responsibility of the PM. Most likely a leftie civil servant “forgot” to flag it as an issue. The guardian reading yogurt knitter probably did it to discredit Boris.

It’s only a tiny detail that has only just come to light and should be completely ignored. The EU is completely unreasonable in its expectation that we would have resolved this issue in the agreed (by them not us) time frame. Surely it’s up to them to just let us continue.

Let’s not forget Jeremy Corbyn wanted to give Northern Ireland to the French..

Etc..

[Unknown_User]

robemcdonald said:

I really don’t see how this is Boris’s fault.
Going through that level of detail is not the responsibility of the PM. Most likely a leftie civil servant “forgot” to flag it as an issue. The guardian reading yogurt knitter probably did it to discredit Boris.

It’s only a tiny detail that has only just come to light and should be completely ignored. The EU is completely unreasonable in its expectation that we would have resolved this issue in the agreed (by them not us) time frame. Surely it’s up to them to just let us continue.

Let’s not forget Jeremy Corbyn wanted to give Northern Ireland to the French..

Etc..

[roger.mellie]

robemcdonald said:

I really don’t see how this is Boris’s fault.
Going through that level of detail is not the responsibility of the PM. Most likely a leftie civil servant “forgot” to flag it as an issue. The guardian reading yogurt knitter probably did it to discredit Boris.

It’s only a tiny detail that has only just come to light and should be completely ignored. The EU is completely unreasonable in its expectation that we would have resolved this issue in the agreed (by them not us) time frame. Surely it’s up to them to just let us continue.

Let’s not forget Jeremy Corbyn wanted to give Northern Ireland to the French..

Etc..

Get ready for people arguing that you can’t knit yogurt rather than defending Boris.

[Condi]

Sway said:

• SPS equivalence deal

The UK has already said they want to move away from EU food and farming regulations, and also agree a FTA with the USA and Australia to name 2 which have very different farming practices and certainly in the case of the US use methods and chemicals banned here and in the EU.

Chances of EU accepting an equivalence deal when the UK are trying desperately to sign agreements with countries from which the EU don't import many food products = 0.

[turbobloke]

Condi said:

Sway said:

• SPS equivalence deal

The UK has already said they want to move away from EU food and farming regulations, and also agree a FTA with the USA and Australia to name 2 which have very different farming practices and certainly in the case of the US use methods and chemicals banned here and in the EU.

Chances of EU accepting an equivalence deal when the UK are trying desperately to sign agreements with countries from which the EU don't import many food products = 0.

Says you.