UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The concerns expressed about BoJo before he became PM were that he was was lazy, suggesting he wouldn't bother with reading such documents and would wing it. It's impossible to prove one way or the other. But it could explain why it was left in the Withdrawal Agreement.

Was it possibly something that had to be included, otherwise the EU wouldn't accept the agreement?

Just guessing at why it was maybe left in at the time

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The concerns expressed about BoJo before he became PM were that he was was lazy, suggesting he wouldn't bother with reading such documents and would wing it. It's impossible to prove one way or the other. But it could explain why it was left in the Withdrawal Agreement.

So did nobody read it and point it out? It was hardly a secret document. The expectation was that it wouldn't be needed in the first place. The Withdrawal Agreement is only meant to be transitional(according to the EU Treaty). The legal(and every other) definition of "transitional" is that it is a "passing phase", and not for all eternity.

How would it be acceptable for another country to dictate what could and could be shipped from GB to NI?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So did nobody read it and point it out? It was hardly a secret document. The expectation was that it wouldn't be needed in the first place. The Withdrawal Agreement is only meant to be transitional(according to the EU Treaty). The legal(and every other) definition of "transitional" is that it is a "passing phase", and not for all eternity.

How would it be acceptable for another country to dictate what could and could be shipped from GB to NI?

I'll take a cue from you in my response.
Since when has it been it acceptable for a third country to dump subsidised goods into the EU Single Market?

When has it ever that the corrupted EU has ever acted in good faith?

Perfectly valid legal arguments which suggest the EU is the rule/treaty/law breaker here.... not the UK!

1. Essential condition of participating in Withdrawal Agreement (WA) : to secure a free trade agreement (FTA)
2. The EU has been acting in breach of a material term of the WA by denying the UK an FTA
3. The EU has attempted to impose wholly unreasonable restrictions on the UK which no other country would accept
4. The treaty was therefore entered into by the UK on a false premise from the EU
5. The EU has breached its legal obligation to act in good faith
6. The WA breaks the terms of the Good Friday Agreement
7. The WA is in breach of the ECHR principle of the right to vote
8. The WA is in breach of the UN Charter's principle of “self-determination”, its most important tenet
9. The UK Government must now pass an Act of Parliament superseding and revoking the WA

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'll take a cue from you in my response.
Since when has it been it acceptable for a third country to dump subsidised goods into the EU Single Market?

Since always. Any loss making business, whether funded by taxpayers, business loans, or spare business captial is being "unfairly" propped up. Where is the evidence that is the plan? NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. In the main it is Labour, SNP, Lib Dems that are in favour of massive state subsidies. The EU Props up whole countries and industries. Poland alone gets several billion each year. Even a non-EU member such as Turkey gets massive assistance.
Under the NI Protocol, the EU could continue to subsidise businesses and countries in the EU, but PREVENT GB from doing the SAME in NI. We would have to ask for their agreement first. Which other non-EU country in the universe allows that? As with so many other issues, which other non-EU country in the universe is ASKED by the EU to do that?

[Sephiroth]

The main thing is to avoid the EU using intricate cross-linked wording in the WA to dictate or interfere with our internal market policies.

Although I wouldn't have done it the way Boris is. I prefer the cross the bridge approach having anticipated the fears.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Since always. Any loss making business, whether funded by taxpayers, business loans, or spare business captial is being "unfairly" propped up. Where is the evidence that is the plan? NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. In the main it is Labour, SNP, Lib Dems that are in favour of massive state subsidies. The EU Props up whole countries and industries. Poland alone gets several billion each year. Even a non-EU member such as Turkey gets massive assistance.
Under the NI Protocol, the EU could continue to subsidise businesses and countries in the EU, but PREVENT GB from doing the SAME in NI. We would have to ask for their agreement first. Which other non-EU country in the universe allows that? As with so many other issues, which other non-EU country in the universe is ASKED by the EU to do that?

Cummings is a believer in state subsidy and in picking winners. He's no Conservative. It's up to entrepreneurs to pick winners as they tend to have more success than the state in doing so. Hence the country becomes richer and can afford to spend more on public services.

If state subsidy wasn't an issue then we would have signed a deal with the EU by now and we we wouldn't have gambled £400m on OneWeb.

The real tragedy is that the Withdrawal Agreement was perceived as BoJo's one policy success story.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Cummings is a believer in state subsidy and in picking winners. He's no Conservative. It's up to entrepreneurs to pick winners as they tend to have more success than the state in doing so. Hence the country becomes richer and can afford to spend more on public services.

If state subsidy wasn't an issue then we would have signed a deal with the EU by now and we we wouldn't have gambled £400m on OneWeb.

The real tragedy is that the Withdrawal Agreement was perceived as BoJo's one policy success story.

"Tragedy"? Highly over-stated. He got us out of the EU and that was obviously the only way. The next step would be to deal with the gotchas in the WA which is now (bad timing) occurring.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

"Tragedy"? Highly over-stated. He got us out of the EU and that was obviously the only way. The next step would be to deal with the gotchas in the WA which is now (bad timing) occurring.

Theresa May's deal was actually better. BoJo just accepted the EU's original offer and it has come back to bite him!

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Cummings is a believer in state subsidy and in picking winners. He's no Conservative. It's up to entrepreneurs to pick winners as they tend to have more success than the state in doing so. Hence the country becomes richer and can afford to spend more on public services.

If state subsidy wasn't an issue then we would have signed a deal with the EU by now and we we wouldn't have gambled £400m on OneWeb.

The real tragedy is that the Withdrawal Agreement was perceived as BoJo's one policy success story.

And the evidence still unsurprisingly completely missing. Where do you get this idea that the NI protocol is purely about state subsidies? Any evidence? Even if it was, it's still a requirement that the EU doesn't ask of other countries, is a matter for a UK Parliament, and certainly not something that should have to depend on EU approval. If it was about a "level playing field", then the EU would have to ask our approval of anything they wanted to do. Is that the case? Of course not, it's solely about the EU DICTATING to us.

[Carth]

EU idea of a level playing field

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

And the evidence still unsurprisingly completely missing. Where do you get this idea that the NI protocol is purely about state subsidies? Any evidence? Even if it was, it's still a requirement that the EU doesn't ask of other countries, is a matter for a UK Parliament, and certainly not something that should have to depend on EU approval. If it was about a "level playing field", then the EU would have to ask our approval of anything they wanted to do. Is that the case? Of course not, it's solely about the EU DICTATING to us.

It's all linked to the Good Friday Agreement and the island of Ireland approach with no borders. Understand that and the rest will fall into place.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's all linked to the Good Friday Agreement and the island of Ireland approach with no borders. Understand that and the rest will fall into place.

So still no evidence of any of your claims.
So where exactly in the GFA say, that the EU rules over NI? Where does it say that NI is to be a separate customs territory to GB?
If anything the GFA says that Ireland and the EU can't block a UK trade deal with the EU. It is Ireland and the EU insisting on a hard border, NOT the UK.

1. (1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains
part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the
consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll
held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.

Has this happened yet?

3. All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total
disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They also confirm their
intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the
Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to
achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years
following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement
and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.
4. The Independent Commission will monitor, review and verify progress
on decommissioning of illegal arms, and will report to both Governments
at regular intervals

The IRA are still active and armed.
As well as the INLA.

Two men, aged 35 and 34, have been arrested after a gun and ammunition were found in west Belfast.
The Paramilitary Crime Task Force was conducting an investigation into the criminal activities of the INLA.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Carth

Was it possibly something that had to be included, otherwise the EU wouldn't accept the agreement?

Just guessing at why it was maybe left in at the time

I think that's it, but he would also have been mindful of the political declaration that both sides wanted a no tariff trade deal. If the EU does not renege on that, we won't have a problem. Boris is acting now because the EU is threatening a no deal. Clearly, he thinks that by threatening this, the EU will have less of a lever.

It's just politics, no need to blow this out of all proportion, although we all know that some remainers do like to have their fun!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So still no evidence of any of your claims.
So where exactly in the GFA say, that the EU rules over NI? Where does it say that NI is to be a separate customs territory to GB?
If anything the GFA says that Ireland and the EU can't block a UK trade deal with the EU. It is Ireland and the EU insisting on a hard border, NOT the UK.
Has this happened yet?
The IRA are still active and armed.
As well as the INLA.

The solution seems to be that the Republic and NI are both in the Single Market (or very close to it) or both out of it and the Republic won't leave the EU.
This article sums up the issue: https://flipchartfairytales.wordpres...johnsons-suez/