Britain outside the EU

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm curious as to which court would have been involved with the UK's threatened legal action - which may yet happen.

Article 16 is not really court action though, it's just a device to convene talks (assuming this is what you're referencing).

[TheDaddy]

Remember when we were told our standards would improve and taking back control would lead to more accountability? Where's that now as Owen Patterson is basically let off for his egregious breaking of the lobbying rules, I've said it before but the levels of corruption are shameful and more akin to a third world junta than the mother of all Parliaments, most of the current incumbents of which aren't fit to clean the chamber, let alone make decisions for the rest of us in it

[Taf]

My SIL in France has been told by her neighbour that her son is leaving the fishing industry as the boat he worked on has been sold. Due to a lack of licences to fish UK/Channel Island waters.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Remember when we were told our standards would improve and taking back control would lead to more accountability? Where's that now as Owen Patterson is basically let off for his egregious breaking of the lobbying rules, I've said it before but the levels of corruption are shameful and more akin to a third world junta than the mother of all Parliaments, most of the current incumbents of which aren't fit to clean the chamber, let alone make decisions for the rest of us in it

I'm sure this would have happened even if we were EU members but it makes it harder for us to hold other nations to account with such lax standards ourselves.

We know the cost of Brexit - a 4% reduction in GDP according to the Government's own figures. It's disappointing that our governance standards are decreasing as well.

[1andrew1]

"We are dealing with ideologues. You cannot reason with them."

Disappointing that agreement has not been reached and yet more pressure on Johnson.

EU warns UK on Northern Ireland protocol after inconclusive talks

Speaking in Brussels after hours of inconclusive talks on Friday with UK Brexit minister Lord David Frost, the EU’s Brexit negotiator Maros Sefcovic told reporters: “Let there be no doubt that triggering Article 16 — to seek the renegotiation of the protocol — would have serious consequences.

“Serious for Northern Ireland, as it would lead to instability and unpredictability. And serious also for EU-UK relations in general, as it would mean a rejection of EU efforts to find a consensual solution to the implementation of the protocol.”..

The EU said its reforms would cut customs checks by half and health checks by 80 per cent on British products clearly destined for Northern Ireland. But UK officials have said this does not go far enough...

After the inconclusive talks on Friday, Sefcovic said: “We have seen no move at all from the UK side. I find this disappointing and once again, I urge the UK government to engage with us sincerely.”..

While some advocated targeted action, such as slowing cross-Channel trade with more intensive customs and health checks, others favour the more dramatic move of ending the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which permits tariff and quota-free goods trade between the EU and UK...

The UK would then have a year to decide whether to stick with the protocol and the TCA, or trade on World Trade Organization terms...

“If the TCA [termination] is triggered it would be 12 months before it takes effect. You start a new clock with a new deadline,” said one EU diplomat. “The member states don’t think this negotiation is going anywhere. We are dealing with ideologues. You cannot reason with them.”

https://www.ft.com/content/e028f050-...a-48ed90b8671f

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

"We are dealing with ideologues. You cannot reason with them."

Disappointing that agreement has not been reached and yet more pressure on Johnson.


https://www.ft.com/content/e028f050-...a-48ed90b8671f

If the cap fits …

There is an equally idealogical commitment to the European project within the Commission - after all it was their reckless idea to hitch the Northern Ireland peace process to the entire treaty bandwagon in the first place, and their insistence on nonsensical provisions about the movement of refrigerated meats within the territory of a sovereign country that has got us where we are.

They are using strong words right now, but they have good reason to be uttering dark threats. If the UK invokes Article 16, it will have taken a legal measure within the provisions of the treaty which the EC will have no option but to challenge legally … and that process could take quite some time to see through. It’s all very well them complaining about Lord Frost et al being idealogues, but what’s really eating them up is the fact that triggering Art.16 might just give the UK as much breathing space as it needs. The EU will either have to fight it out, and lose all control over its precious market controls in the meantime, or else come to terms in order to salvage something.

They really don’t want the UK to trigger Art.16, while I suspect the UK really does. All else is theatrics.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

They really don’t want the UK to trigger Art.16, while I suspect the UK really does. All else is theatrics.

Post 2926 refers. Although Brexiters may sometimes get triggered by the prospect of triggering Article 16, it just means the EU and UK have to discuss safeguarding measures for the NI protocol.
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2926

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Post 2926 refers. Although Brexiters may sometimes get triggered by the prospect of triggering Article 16, it just means the EU and UK have to discuss safeguarding measures for the NI protocol.
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2926

Is that right? The EU stuck the NI Protocol onto the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) which TM negotiated (bar the 4 year clause). The EU wouldn't discuss trade unless we completed the WA stage. So Boris was lumbered with that.

Sensible Tories always said that NI peace did not need the NI Protocol, which is a stitch-up to eventually detach NI from the UK and in the meantime make it as difficult as possible for NI to function constitutionally within the UK.

"Safeguarding measures" just don't cut it. The UK wants the NI Protocol to be renegotiated to remove the ECJ from marking its own homework. Additionally, the UK wants all customs formalities removed from trade between GB and NI because it just isn't working right now. The EU has offered to halve the customs paperwork which, I simply understand, is from 80 pages to 40 per consignment!

Pierre has the psychology exactly right.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Is that right? The EU stuck the NI Protocol onto the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) which TM negotiated (bar the 4 year clause). The EU wouldn't discuss trade unless we completed the WA stage. So Boris was lumbered with that.

Sensible Tories always said that NI peace did not need the NI Protocol, which is a stitch-up to eventually detach NI from the UK and in the meantime make it as difficult as possible for NI to function constitutionally within the UK.

"Safeguarding measures" just don't cut it. The UK wants the NI Protocol to be renegotiated to remove the ECJ from marking its own homework. Additionally, the UK wants all customs formalities removed from trade between GB and NI because it just isn't working right now. The EU has offered to halve the customs paperwork which, I simply understand, is from 80 pages to 40 per consignment!

Pierre has the psychology exactly right.

I'm afraid I'm not party to Pierre's views on the psychology at play here.

We held all the cards for the easiest trade deal ever, so I'm surprised at the need to renegotiate a fantastic deal.

Johnson should have learnt from the Paterson scandal that trying to change the rules during the game rarely works.

Marking your own homework neatly describes what he wanted to do in Parliament by appointing a new standards committee dominated by the governing party. The Single Market is overseen by the ECJ and that's why it is involved in Northern Ireland. That link cannot be broken simply because the right wing of the Conservative Party have an ideological aversion to it.

Here's some information on Article 16.

Article 16 ain’t no weapon – it is a remedial tool.

It really is not something to ‘threaten’.

*

In summary: invoking article 16 is not to be done casually or by mere oversight.

There are many substantive and procedural conditions to be fulfilled before it can be invoked.

And unless those conditions are met, then article 16 measures are not available.

Even when all the conditions are met, the scheme of the article and the annex is that there would be a collaborative review-and-consultation to the use of the measures.

All this is – or should be – obvious from the title of the article: ‘Safeguards’.

And not Reprisals.

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/09/...ng-to-trigger/

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm afraid I'm not party to Pierre's views on the psychology at play here.

We held all the cards for the easiest trade deal ever, so I'm surprised at the need to renegotiate a fantastic deal.

Johnson should have learnt from the Paterson scandal that trying to change the rules during the game rarely works.

Marking your own homework neatly describes what he wanted to do in Parliament by appointing a new standards committee dominated by the governing party. The Single Market is overseen by the ECJ and that's why it is involved in Northern Ireland. That link cannot be broken simply because the right wing of the Conservative Party have an ideological aversion to it.

<SNIP>

The conflation of the Paterson business with Brexit is of no value. If you're criticising Boris, then fine. But as this part of the topic is about what Pierre has postulated and particularly in respect of Article 16 then the UK government is doing the right thing to try to get out of the NI Protocol given the instability it is causing.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm afraid I'm not party to Pierre's views on the psychology at play here.

We held all the cards for the easiest trade deal ever, so I'm surprised at the need to renegotiate a fantastic deal.

Johnson should have learnt from the Paterson scandal that trying to change the rules during the game rarely works.

Marking your own homework neatly describes what he wanted to do in Parliament by appointing a new standards committee dominated by the governing party. The Single Market is overseen by the ECJ and that's why it is involved in Northern Ireland. That link cannot be broken simply because the right wing of the Conservative Party have an ideological aversion to it.

Here's some information on Article 16.

https://davidallengreen.com/2021/09/...ng-to-trigger/

I think you’re missing the point. Nobody is floating Art.16 as “reprisals”, except, possibly, the EC, which has its own reasons for casting the UK position in those terms. Plus other assorted sympathisers with an interest in presenting a strawman as an alternative to the UK’s actual position.

The point about Art.16 is it is a way of suspending most, if not all, of the irksome rules the UK wants rid of *while that collaborative review takes place*. And if the UK’s use of Art.16 is questioned as procedurally unsound, its invocation continues to apply while that undergoes legal challenge. Either way, invocation sweeps aside lots of rules interfering with the UK internal market, for quite possibly an extended period of time.

Those opposed to the UK’s position are by now so entrenched in their “gunboat diplomacy” narrative they can’t but assume Art.16 is HMG’s endgame, or perhaps just a defiant, jingoistic broadside from HMS Victory. It isn’t. When it is invoked -as it almost certainly will be - the EC will lose much of the regulation over goods that it has been trying to hold on to, for quite possibly a long while. Will they tolerate that while pursuing legal challenges or collaborative processes? Or will they suddenly improve their offer for fear of the new reality on the ground (or rather, in the Irish Sea) becoming the de facto settlement?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The conflation of the Paterson business with Brexit is of no value. If you're criticising Boris, then fine. But as this part of the topic is about what Pierre has postulated and particularly in respect of Article 16 then the UK government is doing the right thing to try to get out of the NI Protocol given the instability it is causing.

Major made the same point today when he said Johnson's government was behaving in unconservative behaviour and behaved in ways that were possibly politically corrupt.

For the record, I don't think everything Johnson touches turns to lead. I think he's done a good a job as any UK politician could do at COP 26, that kind of event is a good match for his skillset.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Major made the same point today when he said Johnson's government was behaving in unconservative behaviour and behaved in ways that were possibly politically corrupt.

For the record, I don't think everything Johnson touches turns to lead. I think he's done a good a job as any UK politician could do at COP 26, that kind of event is a good match for his skillset.

I can’t believe that, Major being such a supporter of Brexit and the current government, how can he say these things?

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I can’t believe that, Major being such a supporter of Brexit and the current government, how can he say these things?

Mealy mouthed

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I can’t believe that, Major being such a supporter of Brexit and the current government, how can he say these things?

He wasn't talking about Brexit. Maybe he just doesn't like the way populist governments operate, and who can blame him.