PROMS-BBC disappoint

[Jdsk]

Let's just take the emboldened part.

So you agree with the rest?

I'm just guessing here, but... probably not.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

... to avoid using electronic customs they will cut off a member state from the EU.

Do you think that the only issue for the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is electronic customs?

Jonathan

[mercalia]

... to avoid using electronic customs they will cut off a member state from the EU.

Do you think that the only issue for the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is electronic customs?

Jonathan

well the problem was how to have customs without a visible prescence to not create problems for the G.F.A? Yes? The preferred soln for the UK was electronic but the EU rejected it so we get all this nonsense now that undermines UK sovereignty, whether we have customs between the UK and Northern Ireland in the sea or the north keeps adhering to EU rules and is then a vassal part of the EU which is what Johnson agreed to

[roubaixtuesday]

Thats just the start. No agreement will be broken until we do some thing on the ground. And if this sabre rattling dont have any affect I bet the whole Northern Ireland protocol will be rescinded and put us back to square one with the difference we have already left the EU and presumably trading on WTO terms and the EU cant intimidate us any more and will have to face up the reality of either accepting a problematic electronic system for handling customs in Ireland or cutting off the state of Ireland from the EU and have a customs border in the Irish sea - the tables have turned. ( I see Cummings handy work in this)

egad, that's a remarkable rant.

Let's just take the emboldened part.

The EU controls a third of our food supply and 40% of our trade. They haven't tried to intimidate us at all. But they certainly could if they so chose.

So you agree with the rest? to avoid using electronic customs they will cut off a member state from the EU. Maybe you have been drinking too much schnapps or French wine

Of course not. It's a ridiculous rant. The emboldened part is just the most bizarre part of it.

[roubaixtuesday]

Let's just take the emboldened part.

So you agree with the rest?

I'm just guessing here, but... probably not.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

... to avoid using electronic customs they will cut off a member state from the EU.

Do you think that the only issue for the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is electronic customs?

well the problem was how to have customs without a visible prescence to not create problems for the G.F.A? Yes? The preferred soln for the UK was electronic but the EU rejected it so we get all this nonsense now that undermines UK sovereignty, whether we have customs between the UK and Northern Ireland in the sea or the north keeps adhering to EU rules and is then a vassal part of the EU which is what Johnson agreed to

No. There were and are multiple problems at the border: movement of people, crime and security including organised crime, movement of goods, product recognition, collections of tariffs, undocumented historical practices, phytosanitary precautions, sharing of services in remote areas eg in health, citizenship and rights of residence, political futures, and many more. The "visible presence" is one issue amongst many.

The UK signed up to the GFA in its capacity as a sovereign state.

Then it signed up to the Withdrawal Agreement in its capacity as a sovereign state.

Then it passed into law the Withdrawal Act as a sovereign state.

Now it says it intends to pass into domestic law the ability to breach the Withdrawal Agreement. With the close interactions between all of those factors at the border can you see why people are worried?

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

From the Prime Minister's spokesperson:

"The withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol aren’t like any other treaty.

It was agreed at pace in the most challenging possible political circumstances to deliver on a clear political decision by the British people with the clear overriding purpose of protecting the special circumstances of Northern Ireland.

It contains ambiguities and in key areas there is a lack of clarity. It was written on the assumption that subsequent agreements to clarify these aspects could be reached between us and the EU on the details and that may yet be possible."

But why did they the cut the bit about the Prime Minister having his fingers crossed behind his back?

Nobutseriously that's absolutely fair about reaching future agreements. But that's not what he's done today... the domestic law of the UK isn't a subsequent agreement with the EU. And the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland didn't even pretend that it was.

Jonathan

[mikeonabike]

From the Prime Minister's spokesperson: .... [The WA] was agreed at pace in the most challenging possible political circumstances

Why did it have to be agreed at pace? Was it because Johnson had promised to agree the WA by October/January? And he wouldn't want to be called out for making unachievable promises!

Now of course most of NI is reconciled to the WA so Johnson's latest curveball only gives NI more uncertainty. Maybe NI would rather keep the WA now.

[Jdsk]

Now of course most of NI is reconciled to the WA so Johnson's latest curveball only gives NI more uncertainty.

Exactly.

And that uncertainty will affect the specification of the not-yet-written information systems, amongst many other things.

And the odds-on next President of the USA has expressed his opinion on how this could affect those trade talks.

Jonathan

[roubaixtuesday]

From the Prime Minister's spokesperson:

"The withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol aren’t like any other treaty.

It was agreed at pace in the most challenging possible political circumstances to deliver on a clear political decision by the British people with the clear overriding purpose of protecting the special circumstances of Northern Ireland.

It contains ambiguities and in key areas there is a lack of clarity. It was written on the assumption that subsequent agreements to clarify these aspects could be reached between us and the EU on the details and that may yet be possible."

But why did they the cut the bit about the Prime Minister having his fingers crossed behind his back?

Nobutseriously that's absolutely fair about reaching future agreements. But that's not what he's done today... the domestic law of the UK isn't a subsequent agreement with the EU. And the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland didn't even pretend that it was.

Jonathan

That is a either a devastating indictment of the agreement signed by Johnson, or a devastating indictment of Johnson's honesty.

[Jdsk]

It can't be the latter... devastation requires there being something there to devastate.

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

It can't be the latter... devastation requires there being something there to devastate.

Jonathan

It is hard to negotiate with one who will repudiate any bargain made whenever it is convenient.

[mercalia]

Do you think that the only issue for the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is electronic customs?

well the problem was how to have customs without a visible prescence to not create problems for the G.F.A? Yes? The preferred soln for the UK was electronic but the EU rejected it so we get all this nonsense now that undermines UK sovereignty, whether we have customs between the UK and Northern Ireland in the sea or the north keeps adhering to EU rules and is then a vassal part of the EU which is what Johnson agreed to

No. There were and are multiple problems at the border: movement of people, crime and security including organised crime, movement of goods, product recognition, collections of tariffs, undocumented historical practices, phytosanitary precautions, sharing of services in remote areas eg in health, citizenship and rights of residence, political futures, and many more. The "visible presence" is one issue amongst many.

The UK signed up to the GFA in its capacity as a sovereign state.

Then it signed up to the Withdrawal Agreement in its capacity as a sovereign state.

Then it passed into law the Withdrawal Act as a sovereign state.

Now it says it intends to pass into domestic law the ability to breach the Withdrawal Agreement. With the close interactions between all of those factors at the border can you see why people are worried?

Jonathan

and they will rescind the Withdrawal Agreement as-is as a sovereign state, but not the crucial GFA. The problems you mention will exist where ever the border is and how ever it is maintained

[mercalia]

It can't be the latter... devastation requires there being something there to devastate.

Jonathan

It is hard to negotiate with one who will repudiate any bargain made whenever it is convenient.

thats the morality of interstate agreements - enlightened self interest. if you think that states operate based on some kind of self sacrificing personal moral principles you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Thats why we have seen Barnier lay claim to the fish in UK waters and by implication the right of EU fishing boats to operate there without any agreement from the UK

[Jdsk]

... and they will rescind the Withdrawal Agreement as-is as a sovereign state, but not the crucial GFA.

Why do you think that the UK Government will "rescind" the WA... have they said or "hinted" that they will?

Jonathan