This is why we shouldn't rush things...

[GerryT]

There are lots of opinions.



For example, there is an opinion that those who decided to secede from the union of the United Kingdom and Ireland through violence when peaceful means seemed to get them nowhere should butt the f**k out of whingeing when those they seceded from through violence decide through peaceful ballot they want no more to do with a union that has mutated cancerously since we were dragged into it almost fifty years ago

I didn't think this warranted a reply but seen as though you bring it back up borchester. Lets take a little look at some corrections we can make to this.



To secede is to withdraw formally from membership of a federal union, an alliance, or a political or religious organization.

Now seen as Ireland was taken by force and had to fight to escape from the UK would render that statement factually incorrect at best. We neither joined or left the "union" through what would be classified as "secede".

They you think the UK was dragged in, let's just say the UK was refused entry but eventually got in by repeated request. And you want to leave and nobody is stopping you. We could rewrite the above to make it somewhat factual:

 

For example, there is an opinion that those who decided to seek freedom from the tyrannous union of the United Kingdom and Ireland through violence when peaceful means would have been futile, should stop pointing out the facts when those they escaped from through violence decide through peaceful ballot they want no more to do with a union that has not done everything the UK wanted since the UK begged to join it almost fifty years ago



There, fixed it for you.

[Borchester]

There are lots of opinions.



For example, there is an opinion that those who decided to secede from the union of the United Kingdom and Ireland through violence when peaceful means seemed to get them nowhere should butt the f**k out of whingeing when those they seceded from through violence decide through peaceful ballot they want no more to do with a union that has mutated cancerously since we were dragged into it almost fifty years ago

 :hattip  :hattip

[GerryT]

This is where the problem is, you can't understand the English language. Where did I say the SI is holding the UK to Ransome?

Your words Nick



"And you thinking that SI is some big hitter holding the UK to ransom is..."



Your trying to deflect again Nick, my original message was stating the fact that the UK has now two internationally recognised treaties, the GFA and the withdrawal agreement both of which say's there won't be a border in Ireland (in the case of GFA it say's no change to travel of people, goods or business on the Island). Since GB is leaving the SM/CU the only solution is a sea border.

The UK is not being held to ransom and it's not being bullied or told what to do or any other slogan you care to try pin on this. The UK is a sovereign state and as such has made it's own decisions, it should have thought about that before entering these agreements, especially as one was only agreed last November.

So yes it was you talking about SI holding the UK to ransom, nobody else.

[Barry]

There are lots of opinions.



For example, there is an opinion that those who decided to secede from the union of the United Kingdom and Ireland through violence when peaceful means seemed to get them nowhere should butt the f**k out of whingeing when those they seceded from through violence decide through peaceful ballot they want no more to do with a union that has mutated cancerously since we were dragged into it almost fifty years ago

Touché  :hattip

[johnofgwent]

But we love our bowler hats down south, with matching orange sash  

There is an opinion that once a product can move into NI then it can very easily move to Southern Ireland, this would mean it needs to meet all EU requirements. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

There are lots of opinions.



For example, there is an opinion that those who decided to secede from the union of the United Kingdom and Ireland through violence when peaceful means seemed to get them nowhere should butt the F@@@ out of whingeing when those they seceded from through violence decide through peaceful ballot they want no more to do with a union that has mutated cancerously since we were dragged into it almost fifty years ago

[Nick]

To get back on track, the average family spends 21% of its income on clothing and footwear, for the poorer families this is much higher.

Now, the average tariff on this coming into the EU is 11.5% plus the VAT, circa 14%. Tariffs on food are so high that there is very little imports from outside the EU, in fact only around 100 billion Euros, that's 25% of what the UK's total imports from the EU are.



There aren't any foods that the EU produce that we can't get from the rest of the world with no tariff, so Brexit will reduce the poor in societies shopping bill.



We don't need crap Spanish asparagus out of season. China and India grow a 150 million tons of potato's a year which can supplement our farmers out of season..... China, India and the USA account for 53% of the worlds fruit and veg production, any of those 3 not open for business?



Any one want to come up with a food item that the UK can't import from outside the EU at a cheaper rate? And don't give me this 40% WTO rubbish, the UK can import what ever it wants with no tariff from the rest of the world. No wonder the EU is so desperate for a fair play agreement so no let's get Brexit done ASAP.

[Nick]

Your memory is failing you Nick, what I said was Johnson made May's deal worse, by making the back-stop a front-stop. The Johnson deal pretty much  guaranteed a sea border and kept NI in the SM. He stabbed the Unionist in NI in the back as soon as he had a majority. Once there is no border in Ireland I'm a happy man, so no your wrong again Nick. I never though Johnson's withdrawal agreement was bad. I was surprised at how his deal was passed when May's wasn't, at least she had the backbone to try keep the UK united, Johnson seems happy to drive wedges down it's core. Of course you'll say NI isn't at the UK core, but it is one of four constituent parts, they should be equal parts but I'm sure you don't agree.



No you say SI is holding the UK to ransom, your words not mine, it's revealing as to how you feel.  Nobody is holding the UK to ransom, you want to leave, then leave, nobody is trying to stop you. But your still here, well past closing time and no sign of leaving. Is there another extension going to be requested, possibly, I wouldn't rule it out.

There is a difference between being held at ransom and getting your own way. When you leave and look for a trade deal, if the EU don't like your terms and say no, that's not being held to ransom, that's the UK as a sovereign country making it's own decisions and I'm sure you would agree the EU has the right to do the same. But the UK has made past decisions and agreements, such as the GFA, now it doesn't suit your agenda. Well that's just tough luck for the UK because this is not one deal you can just railroad through. And if you think Germany or France will side with the UK your mistaken, simply because the UK is no longer a EU member.

Look if the UK can't even agree a poxy office for EU officials to check the border imports from GB to NI how are they ever going to agree a FTA with the EU. Your 50,000 soon to be employed customs officials will need some oversight, this will be a border into the EU single market.

This is where the problem is, you can't understand the English language. Where did I say the SI is holding the UK to Ransome?

[GerryT]

So months ago on the other site where we were stating that the new backstop that Boris had brought in was great for NI, you just dismissed it as more failure. Now it's the best thing since sliced bread! Now you alter the polemic, you obviously don't  have a good memory Gerry.



Let's get this straight Gerry. I'm not concerned about the backstop in the slightest, it won't alter the UK's global economic standing. And you thinking that SI is some big hitter holding the UK to ransom is laughable.

Your memory is failing you Nick, what I said was Johnson made May's deal worse, by making the back-stop a front-stop. The Johnson deal pretty much  guaranteed a sea border and kept NI in the SM. He stabbed the Unionist in NI in the back as soon as he had a majority. Once there is no border in Ireland I'm a happy man, so no your wrong again Nick. I never though Johnson's withdrawal agreement was bad. I was surprised at how his deal was passed when May's wasn't, at least she had the backbone to try keep the UK united, Johnson seems happy to drive wedges down it's core. Of course you'll say NI isn't at the UK core, but it is one of four constituent parts, they should be equal parts but I'm sure you don't agree.



No you say SI is holding the UK to ransom, your words not mine, it's revealing as to how you feel.  Nobody is holding the UK to ransom, you want to leave, then leave, nobody is trying to stop you. But your still here, well past closing time and no sign of leaving. Is there another extension going to be requested, possibly, I wouldn't rule it out.

There is a difference between being held at ransom and getting your own way. When you leave and look for a trade deal, if the EU don't like your terms and say no, that's not being held to ransom, that's the UK as a sovereign country making it's own decisions and I'm sure you would agree the EU has the right to do the same. But the UK has made past decisions and agreements, such as the GFA, now it doesn't suit your agenda. Well that's just tough luck for the UK because this is not one deal you can just railroad through. And if you think Germany or France will side with the UK your mistaken, simply because the UK is no longer a EU member.

Look if the UK can't even agree a poxy office for EU officials to check the border imports from GB to NI how are they ever going to agree a FTA with the EU. Your 50,000 soon to be employed customs officials will need some oversight, this will be a border into the EU single market.

[Nick]

When you say we your talking of the people of NI, and remember they voted to remain in the EU. The NI protocol gives NI tge envious position of being in the UK customs union and at the same time being in the EU with regard to goods. NI coming out of this arrangement has nothing to do with Johnson and his merry band of clowns in Westminster.

Either way if this arrangement is voted against by the NI assembly, the UK still has the obligation to honour the GFA, that's not going anywhere. Johnson is prob praying that NI doesnt vote to remove this article as it would give home a real problem.

So months ago on the other site where we were stating that the new backstop that Boris had brought in was great for NI, you just dismissed it as more failure. Now it's the best thing since sliced bread! Now you alter the polemic, you obviously don't  have a good memory Gerry.



Let's get this straight Gerry. I'm not concerned about the backstop in the slightest, it won't alter the UK's global economic standing. And you thinking that SI is some big hitter holding the UK to ransom is laughable.

[GerryT]

The backstop is only persistent for 4 years. After that it no longer applies should we wish to to get rid of it, so Gerry's idea that we are stuck in something we can't get out of is wrong.

When you say we your talking of the people of NI, and remember they voted to remain in the EU. The NI protocol gives NI tge envious position of being in the UK customs union and at the same time being in the EU with regard to goods. NI coming out of this arrangement has nothing to do with Johnson and his merry band of clowns in Westminster.

Either way if this arrangement is voted against by the NI assembly, the UK still has the obligation to honour the GFA, that's not going anywhere. Johnson is prob praying that NI doesnt vote to remove this article as it would give home a real problem.

[BeElBeeBub]

The backstop is only persistent for 4 years. After that it no longer applies should we wish to to get rid of it, so Gerry's idea that we are stuck in something we can't get out of is wrong.

Not quite.



After 4 years (so end of 2024) the UK gov can hold a consent check in NI. They have laid out that this would be a simple vote in the assembly.



If consent is given, the protocol continues and another vote can be held in 4 years (end of 2028).  If the result is a cross community majority then it's 8 years until the next vote (end of 2032 and so on)



If consent is not given, then the protocol will cease to apply after 2 years (end of 2026).



Of course there is still the issue of how to avoid a hard border between NI and RoI.



So it is incorrect to say the protocol will not be an issue "come 2021".  The earliest it may cease to apply is end of 2026.



Which means there will be customs infrastructure between GB and NI for at least 5 years (unless there is an extension).

[Nick]

That is incorrect.



As has been pointed out, the NI protocol forms a legally binding part of the Withdrawal Agreement the UK agreed to in January.



It remains in force regardless of the ending or extension if the transition period.



On the second point.



It is correct to say that legislation forbids any minister of the crown form asking for or accepting an extension.



However, it is well within the power of a government with an 80 seat majority to simply change that legislation to allow it.



A "one line" bill could do it.  Probably be voted through in an afternoon.



Brexiters misunderstanding what they have agreed to is very on brand.

The backstop is only persistent for 4 years. After that it no longer applies should we wish to to get rid of it, so Gerry's idea that we are stuck in something we can't get out of is wrong.

[BeElBeeBub]

None of this applies come 2021.

That is incorrect.



As has been pointed out, the NI protocol forms a legally binding part of the Withdrawal Agreement the UK agreed to in January.



It remains in force regardless of the ending or extension if the transition period.



On the second point.



It is correct to say that legislation forbids any minister of the crown form asking for or accepting an extension.



However, it is well within the power of a government with an 80 seat majority to simply change that legislation to allow it.



A "one line" bill could do it.  Probably be voted through in an afternoon.



Brexiters misunderstanding what they have agreed to is very on brand.

[GerryT]

The key issues are: The UK is leaving and MP's cannot ask for another extension, this is now UK law. Secondly, ministers have the right to change any aspect of it through secondary legislation. MP's again have no say in this, so no we are not permanently bound to the EU.

The UK has left so you can't be bound. The Deal Johnson signed is that NI remains in the CU until alternative arrangements can be found. For that to change Johnson would need to break a internationally recognised Treaty, that's the Withdrawal agreement.

What happens domestically in the UK is not at question, what is at question is what will the UK Govt do externally.

The first hurdle seems to be this EU office for staff to oversee the sea border, this was discussed as far back as 2019, but now it's suddenly a big issue for the UK. Some have called it a embassy, but it's nothing of the sort, this could very easily halt any trade deal discussions. We will wait and see how this develops.

[Nick]

Firstly the withdrawal agreement is a legally binding agreement. Second Johnson changer May's document where the backstop was only in play if FTA talks failed, Johnson made it permanent from day 1, so NI stays in the CU until there is some other mechanism for taking it out. This was prob the biggest own goal by Johnson in a career of spectacular own goals, as there will most likely never be such a means to take NI out.

Yes the UK could break it's signed agreement, is that what your suggesting. Is it the wild west that you favour.

The key issues are: The UK is leaving and MP's cannot ask for another extension, this is now UK law. Secondly, ministers have the right to change any aspect of it through secondary legislation. MP's again have no say in this, so no we are not permanently bound to the EU.