Northern Ireland sell out

ElBurroSinNombre said:
They did agree a solution, the NI protocol. The same protocol that we are now legislating to ignore
Click to expand...
And didn't Johnson praise it to the skies as the best deal ever? He sounds off in order to make banner headlines in the Sun, Heil, Excess and Torygraph, not in order to be held account. The Tories are led by liars, cheats and vagabonds. There's not an ounce of honour or compassion on that front bench.
 
tommytwojags said:
There are relatively simple solutions to the NI problems which are eminently workable, which avoid a hard border in Ireland and which have no detriment to the EU. Apart from the Trusted Trader/Authorised Economic Operator schemes, there is Liz Truss's 'Green Lane' proposal for goods moving from GB to NI and remaining there. This removes the need for paperwork on goods not entering the EU and allows Customs to concentrate solely on goods destined for the EU, thereby streamlining that service and strengthening UK/EU border controls.

The problem is not the UK or Northern Ireland. It's the EU's refusal to agree a solution.
Click to expand...
Actually the real problem is that, even if the U.K. government persuaded the EU to agree to everything it asked for, it wouldn’t be enough for the DUP. Tweaking the protocol doesn’t work for them. For them a trade border in the Irish Sea is an existential threat and nothing short of its complete withdrawal will be acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that the EU has already made a lot of concessions along the lines Truss is asking for. But the government has to sound Bullish so as not to upset the DUP and their own Brexit headbangers. But of course they can’t sound too bullish as otherwise they’ll upset the Americans in general and the Americans who identify as Irish in particular.

It’s a fine line they are walking.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Actually the real problem is that, even if the U.K. government persuaded the EU to agree to everything it asked for, it wouldn’t be enough for the DUP. Tweaking the protocol doesn’t work for them. For them a trade border in the Irish Sea is an existential threat and nothing short of its complete withdrawal will be acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that the EU has already made a lot of concessions along the lines Truss is asking for. But the government has to sound Bullish so as not to upset the DUP and their own Brexit headbangers. But of course they can’t sound too bullish as otherwise they’ll upset the Americans in general and the Americans who identify as Irish in particular.

It’s a fine line they are walking.
Click to expand...
You're probably right about the DUP which effectively makes the Protocol redundant in it's current form.

We can argue about the rights and wrongs of claiming Brexit 'was done' but the reality is the GFA trumps the Protocol because, at the end of the day, serious civil unrest is more important than the theoretical threat to the Single Market and NI has a long history of civil unrest when either side of the community feels it's being ignored.

As far as I can see this situation was foreseen in the negotiations which is why Article 16 exists. The solution is straightforward and workable but is there the political will in Brussels?
 
Kip said:
You're probably right about the DUP which effectively makes the Protocol redundant in it's current form.

We can argue about the rights and wrongs of claiming Brexit 'was done' but the reality is the GFA trumps the Protocol because, at the end of the day, serious civil unrest is more important than the theoretical threat to the Single Market and NI has a long history of civil unrest when either side of the community feels it's being ignored.

As far as I can see this situation was foreseen in the negotiations which is why Article 16 exists. The solution is straightforward and workable but is there the political will in Brussels?
Click to expand...
Well Brussels has already made more concessions than you might think. It’s just that they don’t get mentioned very often so the EU gets painted as being the intransigent ones.

But for me the key fact is that most businesses in NI aren’t bothered about the protocol. Yes there’s hassle if they want to import from GB but that hassle is far outweighed by the fact they are part of the single market and have unfettered access the EU. And it’s not me who’s saying that. It’s the majority of business people in NI.

So pretending this has much to do with trade and economics is BS. It’s purely a political issue. Unionist power is built on two things.

1. Stormont and partition was meant to ensure a Protestant majority forever. That is no longer the case after Sinn Fein became the major party.

2. The fact NI was an integral part of the U.K. That ceased to be the case after Johnson agreed to the protocol. May said no British PM could agree to an internal border but Johnson did.

Take away those two platforms and you can see why the DUP sees this as an existential threat to the NI they believe in. And that’s why the talk about flexibility doesn’t make much sense. The DUP doesn’t want tweaks and accommodation. It wants the end of the protocol and the internal border.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
To suggest that NI is on the brink of civil war is more than a slight exaggeration.

There are certainly dissident Republican groups but they’ve been there since the GFA was signed. They are on the fringe and marginal. What we have at the moment is the DUP having a paddy (no pun intended) and grandstanding because they are now in a minority. Bearing in mind the calls to “respect the democratic outcome” we heard so often after the referendum I’m surprised not to hear the same calls being made by Johnson and the government of the DUP.

Grow up. Take your seats in Stormont and get on with the job of governing that you were elected to do.
Click to expand...
The DUP also have always refused to sign the GFA and are now saying the NIP is a threat to the GFA ! You really couldn't make this shit up.
 
bollieboy said:
The DUP also have always refused to sign the GFA and are now saying the NIP is a threat to the GFA ! You really couldn't make this shit up.
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s difficult to know what the DUP actually want. Which leads you to the suspicion a hard border on the island of Ireland would be their ideal outcome.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Well Brussels has already made more concessions than you might think. It’s just that they don’t get mentioned very often so the EU gets painted as being the intransigent ones.

But for me the key fact is that most businesses in NI aren’t bothered about the protocol. Yes there’s hassle if they want to import from GB but that hassle is far outweighed by the fact they are part of the single market and have unfettered access the EU. And it’s not me who’s saying that. It’s the majority of business people in NI.

So pretending this has much to do with trade and economics is BS. It’s purely a political issue. Unionist power is built on two things.

1. Stormont and partition was meant to ensure a Protestant majority forever. That is no longer the case after Sinn Fein became the major party.

2. The fact NI was an integral part of the U.K. That ceased to be the case after Johnson agreed to the protocol. May said no British PM could agree to an internal border but Johnson did.

Take away those two platforms and you can see why the DUP sees this as an existential threat to the NI they believe in. And that’s why the talk about flexibility doesn’t make much sense. The DUP doesn’t want tweaks and accommodation. It wants the end of the protocol and the internal border.
Click to expand...
I agree it's a purely political argument although today's comments from the boss of M&S suggest that the burden for business is extreme. That's a side issue to a certain extent although if something isn't working in practice then it seems reasonable to try change it so it does.

The GFA was designed to allow the Nationalist community a real say in running of the country. Now the situation is reversed but the principles remain. The Nationalists have their red lines over things like the Irish language and the Loyalists have theirs. It might be a ridiculous way to run a country but then they have 20 foot walls running through housing estates so what can you do?

If dogmatism takes precedent over pragmatism then civil unrest will almost certainly happen and that's why Article 16 exists. Both sides have to bite the bullet and find something that works.
 
Kip said:
I agree it's a purely political argument although today's comments from the boss of M&S suggest that the burden for business is extreme. That's a side issue to a certain extent although if something isn't working in practice then it seems reasonable to try change it so it does.

The GFA was designed to allow the Nationalist community a real say in running of the country. Now the situation is reversed but the principles remain. The Nationalists have their red lines over things like the Irish language and the Loyalists have theirs. It might be a ridiculous way to run a country but then they have 20 foot walls running through housing estates so what can you do?

If dogmatism takes precedent over pragmatism then civil unrest will almost certainly happen and that's why Article 16 exists. Both sides have to bite the bullet and find something that works.
Click to expand...
I’m all for compromise but if one side wants tweaks to make the protocol work and the other wants it scrapped entirely it’s difficult to see where the compromise lies.

By the way, despite the rhetoric, I’m not sure it’s the government who want to scrap the protocol. But that’s almost certainly the position of the DUP. They don’t want an internal border that works more efficiently. They don’t want an internal border at all.
 
A solution would be to plant the DUP and loyalists back in Scotland, leave Ireland to the Irish and they can be part of the EU. Easy!
 
Mexboroseasider said:
My understanding is that would breach the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. As EIRE honours its treaty obligations that was never really an option.

There were two choices open to the U.K. and the EU during the withdrawal negotiations. The U.K. as a whole could stay within the Customs Union until a way to resolve the problem was found OR we could put the trade border down the Irish Sea. May said no British PM could accept an internal trade barrier within the U.K. and so wanted the first option. She then went to great lengths to negotiate the fall back so that the U.K. didn’t find itself trapped in the customs union forever. Johnson, the current members of the government and the DUP objected to that and Johnson’s “oven ready” deal was basically the imposition of an internal barrier within the U.K.. That’s what we signed up to, what the DUP object to and what we now want to change.

Why did the U.K. sign up to it given the problems the protocol would cause with the Unionists? There only seem to be two explanations.

1. Johnson and his advisers didn’t understand the implications of what they were agreeing to. I don’t really find that credible.

2. They knew full well the problems the protocol would cause but signed up anyway so they could claim they’d “got Brexit done” and campaign on that platform in the general election. They thought they’d then be able to renegotiate the terms of the protocol at their leisure. Which is where we are now.

Whether the British threat to breach the treaty is real or just a negotiating ploy awaits to be seen. The US has made it clear if we breach the treaty then the chances of a U.K./US trade deal are zero. IMO arguments that the circumstances have changed which allow us to suspend the protocol are unlikely to convince either the EU or the US. The circumstances are the same as they ever were. It’s just that now the problems inherent in the protocol are much clearer for everyone to see and undeniable.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely spot on. Well done!
 
Mexboroseasider said:
Actually the real problem is that, even if the U.K. government persuaded the EU to agree to everything it asked for, it wouldn’t be enough for the DUP. Tweaking the protocol doesn’t work for them. For them a trade border in the Irish Sea is an existential threat and nothing short of its complete withdrawal will be acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that the EU has already made a lot of concessions along the lines Truss is asking for. But the government has to sound Bullish so as not to upset the DUP and their own Brexit headbangers. But of course they can’t sound too bullish as otherwise they’ll upset the Americans in general and the Americans who identify as Irish in particular.

It’s a fine line they are walking.
Click to expand...
More spot on comments. The DUP just cannot stomach the fact they've "lost" the last elections. Democratic my arris.
 
TSSeasider said:
You'd think with war on the Eastern Front, significantly funded by member states of the EU, they would be sufficiently able and willing to compromise on a few bureaucratic rules, to keep the peace on the far western front.

Are rules about the movement of food and carpets and door handles and toys amongst two islands (because there is no desire to move from NI, to RoI to rEU) so important as to risk bringing civil war back to the streets of NI.

Perhaps the EU believes it's a price worth paying for the "integrity of the market."
Click to expand...
First part of your post - correct.

As for the last bit, you're fingering the wrong protagonist.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
My understanding is that would breach the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. As EIRE honours its treaty obligations that was never really an option.

There were two choices open to the U.K. and the EU during the withdrawal negotiations. The U.K. as a whole could stay within the Customs Union until a way to resolve the problem was found OR we could put the trade border down the Irish Sea. May said no British PM could accept an internal trade barrier within the U.K. and so wanted the first option. She then went to great lengths to negotiate the fall back so that the U.K. didn’t find itself trapped in the customs union forever. Johnson, the current members of the government and the DUP objected to that and Johnson’s “oven ready” deal was basically the imposition of an internal barrier within the U.K.. That’s what we signed up to, what the DUP object to and what we now want to change.

Why did the U.K. sign up to it given the problems the protocol would cause with the Unionists? There only seem to be two explanations.

1. Johnson and his advisers didn’t understand the implications of what they were agreeing to. I don’t really find that credible.

2. They knew full well the problems the protocol would cause but signed up anyway so they could claim they’d “got Brexit done” and campaign on that platform in the general election. They thought they’d then be able to renegotiate the terms of the protocol at their leisure. Which is where we are now.

Whether the British threat to breach the treaty is real or just a negotiating ploy awaits to be seen. The US has made it clear if we breach the treaty then the chances of a U.K./US trade deal are zero. IMO arguments that the circumstances have changed which allow us to suspend the protocol are unlikely to convince either the EU or the US. The circumstances are the same as they ever were. It’s just that now the problems inherent in the protocol are much clearer for everyone to see and undeniable.
Click to expand...
Good analysis of the problem. Of course, we know that Johnson opposed every proposal that May put forward but that was in order to depose and replace her. He's only capable of thinking tactically, not strategically.
 
20togo said:
Sinn Fein … organisation founded upon religion. So yep a totally blinkered and biased post from Satsuma.
Click to expand...
come on, 20’s, you can do better than this

‘Sinn Féin was founded on 28 November 1905, when, at the first annual Convention of the National Council, Arthur Griffith outlined the Sinn Féin policy, "to establish in Ireland's capital a national legislature endowed with the moral authority of the Irish nation"
 
Recidivist3 said:
come on, 20’s, you can do better than this

‘Sinn Féin was founded on 28 November 1905, when, at the first annual Convention of the National Council, Arthur Griffith outlined the Sinn Féin policy, "to establish in Ireland's capital a national legislature endowed with the moral authority of the Irish nation"
Click to expand...
yes, you're right I probably shouldn't have used the word "founded" but the point remains the same in that pretty much your faith determined for many many years which way you voted..
But once agan biased moderation to delete a post of mine replying to shandypants comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top