Britain outside the EU

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

What is the EUs behaviour on Article 16? At worst, they seem to have threatened to trigger it but didn't. How is this any different to what Boris has previously done and continues to do?

I think there is some confusion in the general media over what actually happened. Even if you don't subscribe to the explanation that it was a draft paper that was never enacted, triggering Article 16 requires them to notify the joint committee immediately and a week long period of consultation to be initiated.

We are not in a week long period of consultation and as far as I know, the joint committee were never informed so it was never triggered.

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

Brussels has been forced into a humiliating U-turn in the face of outrage in London and Dublin after seeking to trigger a Brexit deal clause to establish border controls on vaccine doses moving into Northern Ireland from the Republic.

The European commission was forced to backtrack on its plan to effectively erect a vaccine border on the island of Ireland after both Boris Johnson and the Irish taoiseach, Micheál Martin, spoke personally to its president, Ursula von der Leyen.

EU sources said it had acted “in error” but the crisis highlighted the growing political furore over the lack of vaccine supply and tensions with the UK.

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.

[Paddy1]

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.

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.

[nomadking]

[QUOTE=Paddy1;36069677]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.



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?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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.

PROCEDURES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 16(3)
1. Where the Union or the United Kingdom is considering taking safeguard measures under Article 16(1) of this Protocol, it shall, without delay, notify the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, through the Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.
2. The Union and the United Kingdom shall immediately enter into consultations in the Joint Committee with a view to finding a commonly acceptable solution.
3. The Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may not take safeguard measures until 1 month has elapsed after the date of notification under point 1, unless the consultation procedure under point 2 has been concluded before the expiration of the state limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation.

Where else did you think I "cut and pasted" it from in my post #251?
I also highlighted "If the application of this Protocol leads to ...", meaning any effect has to already be happening and will continue to happen. It's not meant to be for unlikely hypotheticals. It's not a case of "might lead to...".

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

PROCEDURES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 16(3)
1. Where the Union or the United Kingdom is considering taking safeguard measures under Article 16(1) of this Protocol, it shall, without delay, notify the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, through the Joint Committee and shall provide all relevant information.
2. The Union and the United Kingdom shall immediately enter into consultations in the Joint Committee with a view to finding a commonly acceptable solution.
3. The Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may not take safeguard measures until 1 month has elapsed after the date of notification under point 1, unless the consultation procedure under point 2 has been concluded before the expiration of the state limit. When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation.

Did notification take place? Is there a consultation?


Considering is a very ambiguous word here. Either side will have positions that they might take. I don't think that means they have to inform the other party until that position becomes policy. Boris is considering exactly the same thing. Has he notified the EU?


Yes, they put their position up on their web site, as they do with lots of documentation that has been drafted. They don't just post policy. There's no doubt it was a consideration to trigger Article 16 but no action has taken place to initiate it.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Where else did you think I "cut and pasted" it from in my post #251?
I also highlighted "If the application of this Protocol leads to ...", meaning any effect has to already be happening and will continue to happen. It's not meant to be for unlikely hypotheticals. It's not a case of "might lead to...".

There is no process in progress that can currently lead to anything as there is no consultation taking place.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

Did notification take place? Is there a consultation?

Considering is a very ambiguous word here. Either side will have positions that they might take. I don't think that means they have to inform the other party until that position becomes policy. Boris is considering exactly the same thing. Has he notified the EU?

Yes, they put their position up on their web site, as they do with lots of documentation that has been drafted. They don't just post policy. There's no doubt it was a consideration to trigger Article 16 but no action has taken place to initiate it.

There is no process in progress that can currently lead to anything as there is no consultation taking place.

The impact of the protocol itself is required to have had an actual impact, not article 16 in isolation. Article 16 does not say "If the application of this Article leads to", it says "Protocol". The protocol is meant to enable free flow of goods between NI and Ireland, so Article 16 could be read in this instance as "If the free flow of goods between NI and Ireland leads to the movement of EU-owned vaccines moving to NI". Again, the "leads to" states that it must already be happening, it does not say "might lead to". Article 16 cannot be invoked purely on the basis of a hypothetical example, and an unlikely one at that.
The much more likely hypothetical example, would've been that UK vaccines would've been taken from NI to Ireland.
The regulation is headed "Brussels, 29.1.2021 , SEC(2021) 71 final".
The regulation wasn't just about invoking article 16, but the whole control of vaccines to other countries, and not just the UK.
Action was taken to start it. How else were the EU countries that were going to have to implement it, starting within a matter of hours. They were going to have to implement it on the 30th, and the regulation was issued on the 29th.
The invoking of Article 16 was never publicly raised beforehand, only the possibility of tracking and control of vaccine shipments.

Nobody at all was talking about invoking article 16 in connection with vaccines. That was quickly shut down after people found out about it after the regulation was actually issued. Nobody was able to shut it down before the 29th.

[Paddy1]

As I replied to @Sephiroth, I'm not defending the actions or intentions of the EU regarding the movement of vaccines. I find the idea of cutting off the supply of medical supplies to anyone obnoxious.

I was simply trying to determine whether or not Article 16 had been triggered and it seems you're saying it wasn't.

The reason I was trying to nail this down is that a lot of the media state, or at least give the impression, that they did trigger it and for instance, therefore it's now perfectly acceptable for Boris to trigger it. It's the whole basis of the DUPs Trigger Article 16 petition that's doing the rounds.

The misinformation around, particularly on our local media and social media is astounding at the minute.

Edit to add, I did misread your quote which stated "protocol leads to" so thank you for the correction.

[Sephiroth]

I took another look at the Protocol. I believe that the EC acted under the emergency provisions allowing immediate implementation of the announced measure.

It seems to me that they did actually trigger it and very quickly reversed that. I'm obviously willing to be corrected.

As to Boris triggering Article 16, he would be being advised to provided notice (rather than going for immediacy) so they can get round the table to test the Joint Committee mechanism. If necessary he can implement a week later (I think).

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

As I replied to @Sephiroth, I'm not defending the actions or intentions of the EU regarding the movement of vaccines. I find the idea of cutting off the supply of medical supplies to anyone obnoxious.

I was simply trying to determine whether or not Article 16 had been triggered and it seems you're saying it wasn't.

The reason I was trying to nail this down is that a lot of the media state, or at least give the impression, that they did trigger it and for instance, therefore it's now perfectly acceptable for Boris to trigger it. It's the whole basis of the DUPs Trigger Article 16 petition that's doing the rounds.

The misinformation around, particularly on our local media and social media is astounding at the minute.

Edit to add, I did misread your quote which stated "protocol leads to" so thank you for the correction.

The invoking of article 16 was part and parcel of the same regulation to track and control movement of vaccines.
Guardian

The EU’s aborted attempt to trigger article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol could be a blessing in disguise for Northern Ireland.
Its decision to pull the emergency cord on an agreement that had introduced regulatory checks on some products travelling between Britain and Northern Ireland without notifiying Dublin or London was quickly reversed.

BBC

It comes after the EU reversed a decision to trigger an emergency provision in the Brexit deal to control Covid vaccine exports from the EU.
Mr Gove said the bloc had recognised it "made a mistake" in triggering the measure, which could have seen checks at the Irish border.

RTE

The UK cabinet minister has demanded sweeping and swift changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol as the fallout continues from last week's move by the Commission to trigger Article 16 of the Protocol over the issue of exports of Covid-19 vaccines.

Irish Post

The EU attempted to trigger Article 16 in response to an ongoing row over supplies of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine.

Irish Times

However, amid a row over vaccine delivery shortfalls, the EU on January 29th invoked article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol which allows the EU or UK to unilaterally suspend aspects of its operations if either side considers that aspect to be causing “economic, societal or environmental difficulties”.
The European Commission reversed the move shortly afterwards.
The mechanism, which was created as a temporary measure, is only supposed to be triggered in the face of “serious” problems, but there is no definition of what “serious” entails.

The Journal(Ireland)

After invoking Article 16 to stop the unimpeded flow of vaccines from the European bloc into Northern Ireland, the EU later backtracked, following condemnation from Dublin, London and Belfast.

4 "triggers" and 2 "invokes" from 6 different non-anti-EU sources. They seem to be in agreement that it was in force and due to be implemented the next day, ie just hours away.

Any invoking of article 16 by the UK, wouldn't be based upon being anti-EU, but of helping NI and indeed Ireland itself.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Any invoking of article 16 by the UK, wouldn't be based upon being anti-EU, but of helping NI and indeed Ireland itself.

There is a huge loophole at the moment when it comes to exporting pharmaceuticals and that is the NI situation. As it stands, from the 1st January, you can't export certain drugs to the EEA. The list of drugs is based on exceptional need in the UK and can be seen here. Interestingly, COVID vaccines aren't on the list..

BUT

Northern Ireland is part of the EU Single Market for all intents and purposes so, in theory, you could send UK restricted medicines to Northern Ireland and then freely ship them to the EU

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

There is a huge loophole at the moment when it comes to exporting pharmaceuticals and that is the NI situation. As it stands, from the 1st January, you can't export certain drugs to the EEA. The list of drugs is based on exceptional need in the UK and can be seen here. Interestingly, COVID vaccines aren't on the list..

BUT

Northern Ireland is part of the EU Single Market for all intents and purposes so, in theory, you could send UK restricted medicines to Northern Ireland and then freely ship them to the EU

Isn't the problem that anything going to NI needs customs paperwork so that on the surface at least, ultimate destination is declared? That just leaves bootlegging as the risk.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Isn't the problem that anything going to NI needs customs paperwork so that on the surface at least, ultimate destination is declared? That just leaves bootlegging as the risk.

That's what I am not clear on. Before 1st January, exports outside of the single market were restricted for listed drugs. Now they are restricted from export from the UK. However, is there a restriction from Northern Ireland to the Republic?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

That's what I am not clear on. Before 1st January, exports outside of the single market were restricted for listed drugs. Now they are restricted from export from the UK. However, is there a restriction from Northern Ireland to the Republic?

There can't be a restriction from NI to the Republic as there's no physical border and therefore checks to ensure such restrictions are being applied.

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 ----------

This does not make pleasant reading. I hope Michael Gove steps up to the challenge.

Exports to the EU have plummeted by 68% since Brexit

The Road Haulage Association has criticised a lack of help from cabinet minister Michael Gove.

The volume of exports going through British ports to the EU fell by 68% last month compared with January last year, according to research.
The Road Haulage Association's chief executive Richard Burnett told The Observer that the organisation had also found 65-75% of vehicles arriving from the EU were returning to the bloc empty.

This was due to a lack of goods, delays in the UK, and because British companies had stopped exporting to the continent.
Mr Burnett said it was "deeply frustrating and annoying that ministers have chosen not to listen to the industry and experts" who have consistently called for more government consultation.

https://news.sky.com/story/exports-t...rexit-12211169

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

There can't be a restriction from NI to the Republic as there's no physical border and therefore checks to ensure such restrictions are being applied.

---------- Post added at 12:42 ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 ----------

This does not make pleasant reading. I hope Michael Gove steps up to the challenge.

https://news.sky.com/story/exports-t...rexit-12211169

You'd expect imports from the EU to be down to but I bet they're not or it's negligible at best

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You'd expect imports from the EU to be down to but I bet they're not or it's negligible at best

EU exports to the UK are not being checked until July.

There is also now a requirement for British exporters to have a named EU-based importer on their goods. This only comes into effect the other way round on 1st January 2022 for EU countries exporting to the UK.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

EU exports to the UK are not being checked until July.

There is also now a requirement for British exporters to have a named EU-based importer on their goods. This only comes into effect the other way round on 1st January 2022 for EU countries exporting to the UK.

So they're not down then...