[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-10, 12:13, said:

I think Johnson's in a really difficult place. There's a feeling that May never wanted to leave the EU in the first place so basically gave up everything she could to the EU as early as possible to get as bad a deal as she could to try to scupper Brexit. Boris is left with the wreckage.

EU state aid rules to apply to NI and the EU to have ANY rights to UK fishing waters are red lines and going to be very difficult from here because NI is basically not viable with the trade barriers down the Irish sea without considerable state aid.

When looking to place blame, one should first check in a mirror.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-10, 12:13, said:

I think Johnson's in a really difficult place. There's a feeling that May never wanted to leave the EU in the first place so basically gave up everything she could to the EU as early as possible to get as bad a deal as she could to try to scupper Brexit. Boris is left with the wreckage.

Wait a second, I thought Boris Johnson negotiated the deal that was agreed in the end of 2019?

Quote

EU state aid rules to apply to NI and the EU to have ANY rights to UK fishing waters are red lines and going to be very difficult from here because NI is basically not viable with the trade barriers down the Irish sea without considerable state aid.

Wait a second - NOW Brexiters are saying that Brexit is so harmful for Northern Ireland that it won't be viable without considerable state aid? Maybe it would have been worth bringing this up in, I don't know...how about May 2016?

Or are you seriously claiming that a trade barrier between NI and GB is MORE harmful for NI than a trade barrier between NI and Ireland??

You live in a strange world Cyberyeti.

[cherdano]

I guess at this point Brexiters have become the toddler who complained that he didn't get to play with the water colours. And then complains that he got dirty from playing with the water colours after the parent gave in.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-September-10, 16:47, said:

Wait a second, I thought Boris Johnson negotiated the deal that was agreed in the end of 2019?

Yes but the EU wouldn't let him go back on most of what May conceded.

Having listened to conservative MPs on the radio this evening, their argument seems to be that:

The way the EU is interpreting the agreement, this would stop the mainland exporting basic foodstuffs to NI, This was not as we understood it how the agreement would work, and it looks like bad faith from the EU side which allows us to break it. They seemed particularly peeved because in their view our food standards were higher than the rest of the EU, and the reason for stopping the export related to food standards.

Also this all falls if there's a no deal, so the bill is a preparation for that, and aiming to cajole the EU into some negotiation.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-10, 17:28, said:

Yes but the EU wouldn't let him go back on most of what May conceded.

So if that deal was so terrible, maybe he shouldn't have campaigned on it in 2019??

Yup, none of what went wrong with Brexit is the Brexiters fault.

I thought Brexiters would at least be honest enough that it'd be inevitable that some things would break. Maybe it's better to break stuff than to be forced to follow European environmental regulations? I don't know, but at least have the sense to admit that you are breaking stuff.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-September-11, 03:17, said:

So if that deal was so terrible, maybe he shouldn't have campaigned on it in 2019??

Yup, none of what went wrong with Brexit is the Brexiters fault.

I thought Brexiters would at least be honest enough that it'd be inevitable that some things would break.

In his view even that deal was better than staying in.

I agree with that last bit.

Quote

Maybe it's better to break stuff than to be forced to follow European environmental regulations? I don't know, but at least have the sense to admit that you are breaking stuff.

Atm we ARE following EU environmental regs and food standards, I view the EU's position as a shot across the bows to do with a potential US trade deal. "We don't want US chlorinated chicken and hormone laden beef by the back door" and I understand that, but until the UK seriously waters down its rules, that should not be the case.

There is a lot of political sensitivity here, it looks to the Tories like the EU trying to force a united Ireland by making NI ungovernable by interpreting the treaty in ways that GB thinks are perverse.

[cherdano]

So, do you actually have a first-hand account of that alleged EU position making NI ungovernable, or are you just parroting back what some Brexiter backbenchers talked about on radio?

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-11, 03:27, said:

In his view even that deal was better than staying in.

Right, "A terrible deal, but better than staying" in was the campaign slogan. Now I remember!

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-September-11, 03:35, said:

Right, "A terrible deal, but better than staying" in was the campaign slogan. Now I remember!

I don't know whether he thought he'd be able to renegotiate more of it than he actually managed.

Quote

So, do you actually have a first-hand account of that alleged EU position making NI ungovernable, or are you just parroting back what some Brexiter backbenchers talked about on radio?

No, that's why I said "it looks to the Tories like ..."

You seem to be pigeonholing me in the wrong place, I don't think Boris is fit to run a bath let alone the country (but I viewed him as less dangerous than Corbyn), I'm just explaining the views I'm hearing expressed as the counter view. I was also not a committed Brexiteer at the time of the referendum, the country voted for it in a horrible campaign where neither side covered themselves in glory, and I (being somebody who could live with either result, nobody knows how I voted) resolved to go with the result.

[cherdano]

I know that's how you think of yourself Cyberyeti. It's frankly hard to square with your BBF persona.

Here, we have a "he said she said" situation. As in, he (the EU) says this is an egregious breach of international law. Whereas she (the UK government's top lawyer) says this is an egregious breach of international law.
If the EU and the UK government's lawyer completely agree, I think it would be possible even for you to realise it doesn't matter ***** what some Brexit backbencher thinks. Unless, of course, you come to this question with some preconceived bias...

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-September-11, 14:59, said:

I know that's how you think of yourself Cyberyeti. It's frankly hard to square with your BBF persona.

Here, we have a "he said she said" situation. As in, he (the EU) says this is an egregious breach of international law. Whereas she (the UK government's top lawyer) says this is an egregious breach of international law.
If the EU and the UK government's lawyer completely agree, I think it would be possible even for you to realise it doesn't matter ***** what some Brexit backbencher thinks. Unless, of course, you come to this question with some preconceived bias...

It is also what Boris Johnson thinks as he's reiterated tonight which is why it matters, as it's why this fight is being picked in the first place. That the mouthpiece was a Tory backbencher doesn't matter, it clearly came straight from number 10/central office.

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-11, 16:47, said:

It is also what Boris Johnson thinks as he's reiterated tonight which is why it matters, as it's why this fight is being picked in the first place. That the mouthpiece was a Tory backbencher doesn't matter, it clearly came straight from number 10/central office.

How do you know what Johnson thinks?

He has been repeatedly fired for lying, he was ruled by the court to have lied to the queen.

Maybe he knows that what he's doing is illegal but just doesn't care. Maybe he's too clueless about international law to know whether it's legal or not (he was a useless foreign secretary so that seems reasonable).

I wouldn't use Number 10 as a source for anything other than for what Johnson wants naive Britons to think they think.

[thepossum]

Winstonm, on 2020-September-10, 15:03, said:

When looking to place blame, one should first check in a mirror.

I think that is definitely true in Boris Johnson's case. Its a bit rough blaming anything to do with Brexit on Theresa May IMHO

I do wonder though. The world in so many ways seems perpetually divided into impossible to reconcile camps now

Maybe any blame needs to go back prior to the refeendum though. Who knows how far back

Its strange having a thread like this resurrected all of a sudden. How time flies or not

[Winstonm]

thepossum, on 2020-September-11, 19:50, said:

I think that is definitely true in Boris Johnson's case. Its a bit rough blaming anything to do with Brexit on Theresa May IMHO

I do wonder though. The world in so many ways seems perpetually divided into impossible to reconcile camps now

Maybe any blame needs to go back prior to the refeendum though. Who knows how far back

Its strange having a thread like this resurrected all of a sudden. How time flies or not

There's nothing wrong with saying you don't want to be in a group; it is ludicrous, afterwards, though, to look for excuses for bad consequences of that decision.

[johnu]

I envy the UK for having Johnson as your leader. He may be an incompetent clown, but at least he is no Manchurian President. I don't think the UK has to worry that their leader is a Russian mole.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2020-September-11, 18:47, said:

How do you know what Johnson thinks?

He has been repeatedly fired for lying, he was ruled by the court to have lied to the queen.

Maybe he knows that what he's doing is illegal but just doesn't care. Maybe he's too clueless about international law to know whether it's legal or not (he was a useless foreign secretary so that seems reasonable).

I wouldn't use Number 10 as a source for anything other than for what Johnson wants naive Britons to think they think.

Because he explicitly said this.

Quote

Serious misunderstanding

In a column in the Daily Telegraph, Mr Johnson defended the government's plans to override parts of the Withdrawal Agreement.

He accused the EU of adopting an "extreme" interpretation of the Northern Ireland Protocol to impose "a full-scale trade border down the Irish Sea" that could stop the transport of food from Britain to Northern Ireland.

"I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off," he said.

The PM said it had become clear that there might be a "serious misunderstanding" between the UK and EU over the Withdrawal Agreement.

He said the UK must be protected from what he called a "disaster" of the EU being able to "carve up our country" and "endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland".

Source https://www.bbc.co.u...litics-54127214

[Trinidad]

You do know what a border is, right? It is a line, normally between two countries, where the passage of goods and people is restricted.

When you voted leave, that meant that you wanted a border between the UK and the EU. That means "restricted passage of goods and people" from the UK to the EU and back. Then there was this little problem. It had been mentioned by the EU side long before the Brexit referendum, but was completely ignored in England: Leaving the EU would mean a violation of the Good Friday agreements, since a Brexit would put a border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

This is not an EU problem. It is a British problem. People in Italy or Poland really do not care whether there is a border on the Irish Island. But if the Brits want a border, then there will be a border, with all the advantages and drawbacks.

Of course, the normal thing would be to indeed draw that border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. And while the UK politicians did not do a thing to solve the problem that they create with the Brexit (since that would be political suicide nationally), the EU has been really flexible in this: It suggested to the U.K. to opt for the border in the Irish Sea. After all, Poles and Italians do not really care where this border will be exactly. And then the EU did their best to wrap this in such a way that British politicians would not be lynched by Protestants in Northern Ireland.

But no good deed will go unpunished. Now, the Brits do not want to live up to their side of this agreement. The consequence will be simple: If there is no strict border in the Irish Sea, there will be a border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, because a border there will be, that is what Brexit means and that is what the British have voted for.

Any consequences in Northern Ireland for breaking the Good Friday agreements are for the Brits to deal with. They are not the problems of the EU.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2020-September-12, 06:21, said:

You do know what a border is, right? It is a line, normally between two countries, where the passage of goods and people is restricted.

When you voted leave, that meant that you wanted a border between the UK and the EU. That means "restricted passage of goods and people" from the UK to the EU and back. Then there was this little problem. It had been mentioned by the EU side long before the Brexit referendum, but was completely ignored in England: Leaving the EU would mean a violation of the Good Friday agreements, since a Brexit would put a border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

This is not an EU problem. It is a British problem. People in Italy or Poland really do not care whether there is a border on the Irish Island. But if the Brits want a border, then there will be a border, with all the advantages and drawbacks.

Of course, the normal thing would be to indeed draw that border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. And while the UK politicians did not do a thing to solve the problem that they create with the Brexit (since that would be political suicide nationally), the EU has been really flexible in this: It suggested to the U.K. to opt for the border in the Irish Sea. After all, Poles and Italians do not really care where this border will be exactly. And then the EU did their best to wrap this in such a way that British politicians would not be lynched by Protestants in Northern Ireland.

But no good deed will go unpunished. Now, the Brits do not want to live up to their side of this agreement. The consequence will be simple: If there is no strict border in the Irish Sea, there will be a border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, because a border there will be, that is what Brexit means and that is what the British have voted for.

Any consequences in Northern Ireland for breaking the Good Friday agreements are for the Brits to deal with. They are not the problems of the EU.

Rik

This is a VERY one eyed view of it. What was needed was a border to prevent stuff getting into NI that was going to then get into the EU, not to prevent NI receiving much of its basic food from the UK. There are various solutions to this, but the EU does not seem interested in even thinking about any of them. There is currently theoretically a border between NI and the republic, in practice it restricts almost nothing.

"Any consequences in Northern Ireland for breaking the Good Friday agreements are for the Brits to deal with. They are not the problems of the EU." it's a massive problem for Ireland and thus the EU if terrorists start operating in larger numbers from their territory due to a breakdown of the agreement.

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-12, 07:22, said:

This is a VERY one eyed view of it. What was needed was a border to prevent stuff getting into NI that was going to then get into the EU, not to prevent NI receiving much of its basic food from the UK. There are various solutions to this, but the EU does not seem interested in even thinking about any of them. There is currently theoretically a border between NI and the republic, in practice it restricts almost nothing.

"Any consequences in Northern Ireland for breaking the Good Friday agreements are for the Brits to deal with. They are not the problems of the EU." it's a massive problem for Ireland and thus the EU if terrorists start operating in larger numbers from their territory due to a breakdown of the agreement.

I seem to recall these weren't issues when the UK was part of the EU, and if memory serves, it was the decision of the UK to abandon the EU. Therefore, it would seem to me this is a UK problem, not an EU problem. Our previous president, Obama, said, "Elections matter." I will go one step further: all choices matter and all choices have consequences.

Once you have made a choice, you have to live with those consequences, good, bad, or neutral.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-12, 07:22, said:

This is a VERY one eyed view of it. What was needed was a border to prevent stuff getting into NI that was going to then get into the EU, not to prevent NI receiving much of its basic food from the UK. There are various solutions to this, but the EU does not seem interested in even thinking about any of them. There is currently theoretically a border between NI and the republic, in practice it restricts almost nothing.

"Any consequences in Northern Ireland for breaking the Good Friday agreements are for the Brits to deal with. They are not the problems of the EU." it's a massive problem for Ireland and thus the EU if terrorists start operating in larger numbers from their territory due to a breakdown of the agreement.

Please answer the following questions:

1. Did you want a Brexit?
If No, you have my sympathy, you didn't create this mess. Skip the rest.

2. Do you understand that a Brexit means that there is a border between the EU and the UK?
If No, I am flabbergasted. Discussion seems meaningless. Skip the rest.

3. Ok. So you wanted a Brexit and you understand what it means.
Where would you draw the border between the UK and the EU?

• If between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic: You do understand that this is a breach of the Good Friday agreements and you are willing to deal with the consequences, don't you? And you do realize that it wasn't the EU that put that border there, the UK voters did?
  
  
  
• If somewhere else: You do realize that the piece of the UK that will be on the other side, will effectively be part of the EU trade zone and that this has consequences for trade with the rest of the UK. This effect will be stronger if there is no decent trade treaty between the UK and the EU (a hard Brexit)?

The problem is clear, but it is difficult to solve. British Tory politicians have acted as if the problem was vague and easy to solve. I would call that irresponsible behavior.

Rik