Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Discussion of what technically did or did not happen is at best red herring, and at worse a rather craven exercise in apologetics. If you want to understand the EU’s intent, and its likely consequences, simply look first at the reaction of the Irish government, whose interests the EU is supposed to have at heart, then add to it the reactions of the British government and every political party in Northern Ireland, unionist and republican alike.
|
Is it though? I recognise and understand the reaction to the suggestion that they pull the kind of stunt they were obviously intending to, at
some level. The reaction of all other parties to the agreement makes it obvious it would have been a bad move on their part. I'm simply question what the actually did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
The regulation was actually issued. How could it be a draft paper when it was due to start to be enforced the next day? Because it didn't start until the 30th, they had the chance to stop it from being enforced. Still leaves the matter of having to inform the Joint Committee, and the one month's notice required.
|
I'm not sure it was. Having read the actual text of the Article and supporting Annex 7 which details the actual procedure to be followed (it's disturbingly short), there is no take-backsies clause and it states that the initiating party will "without delay notify the <other party>" and "immediately notify enter into consultations". None of this is happening. I've no idea where your quoted text is from. Link?
[QUOTE=Sephiroth;36069658]
I've no idea why you let yourself come across as a sort
of EU defender.
What the EU tried to do is well reported, e.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...diplomatic-row
They didn't indicate that they would initiate the joint committee process and gave the clear impression that they weren't going to but intended acting unlawfully in terms of the Trade Deal./rish Protocol.
We all know this and you're the only member of the forum so far to appear to defend the EU's high handed action that they were forced to withdraw.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm questioning. Depending on your choice of news source, they either triggered it and rowed back (not provided for in the annex) or threatened it, whether deliberately or accidentally through a lesser bod not realising the implications. They can't not initiate the joint committee process because, at least from my reading, that is the mechanism for triggering Article 16. IANAL though and happy to be corrected. I'm not defending their actions or intent, just trying to determine what they actually did and from my reading of the actual Article 16 and Annex 7, I don't think they did.
For reference, the Protocol can be read in full
here.