[cherdano]

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.

Here is how Boris Johnson's own suggestion to avoid the backstop was described in foreignpolicy.com, on October 18, 2019:

Quote

As an Irish Times editorial on Thursday noted, “The price Johnson has paid for killing the backstop is his acceptance, as the default position, of the very thing—Northern Ireland in the EU customs union—that the backstop would, if activated, have produced. At the DUP conference last year, Johnson said no British prime minister could ever accept a customs and regulatory border in the Irish Sea. He just has.”

“Northern Ireland would remain technically in a U.K. customs union,” said Heather Conley, the Europe program director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “but in actuality it remains part of the EU customs union.”

Under the Johnson proposals, the Irish border would remain open to cross-border traffic and trade, and the new economic border between Britain and the EU would be placed squarely in the Irish Sea. To use an example, medical equipment produced in London could continue to be traded freely with Scottish companies in Edinburgh, but it would be subject to EU tariffs when it enters Belfast in Northern Ireland. Johnson has proposed a rebate system to help offset the costs British businesses will accrue trading with Northern Ireland, but that arrangement remains unclear.

Second, let me comment specifically again on:

Quote

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.

This is such blatant non-sense even by Cyberyeti's standards. Already the withdrawal agreement discusses this at length, including a description of a process that will decide such matters. Just google it if you don't believe me. Whoever you got this information from is taking you for a ride (and quite successfully, so).
It's been obvious to anyone following this process that no deal is getting more and more likely, and the non-sense CY fell for is just a game trying to shift the blame for that to the EU.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-September-12, 14:20, said:

This is such blatant non-sense even by Cyberyeti's standards. Already the withdrawal agreement discusses this at length, including a description of a process that will decide such matters. Just google it if you don't believe me. Whoever you got this information from is taking you for a ride (and quite successfully, so).
It's been obvious to anyone following this process that no deal is getting more and more likely, and the non-sense CY fell for is just a game trying to shift the blame for that to the EU.

I'm not shifting anything, I'm merely repeating what Boris is saying. He would know what he thought he'd negotiated. Tariffs can be dealt with by rebates, actually not being allowed to export food to NI cannot.

It's Boris's words not mine that he feels the EU is acting in bad faith atm, which meets the conditions required to break the treaty.

Yes there is dispute resolution around this, I believe through the ECJ although I'm not sure about this.

[cherdano]

Yeah, and the EU is planning to "carve up our country". Why repeat this BS?

Negotiations are partly in secret for a reason; the disadvantage is that one side can always stand up, work out of the room and lie about what happened.

But even BJ's own words are telling:

Quote

He said “in the last few weeks” he learned his negotiators had discovered there “may be a serious misunderstanding about the terms” of the Withdrawal Agreement he signed in October.

Johnson argued it was agreed during “torrid” days with the deadline for a deal fast approaching while “negotiating with one hand tied behind our back” because Parliament blocked a no-deal.

So in other words, even Johnson himself admits that the UK agreed to what he objects to now. If BJ doesn't understand that the withdrawal agreement would lead to tariffs of most good shipped from Britain to NI, then I know his Brexit deal better than he does. But of course he isn't that stupid, he just knows he can lie as much as he wants and still get amplified by the Brexit backbencher's, Brexit media and Cyberyetis of the world.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2020-September-12, 15:00, said:

But even BJ's own words are telling:
So in other words, even Johnson himself admits that the UK agreed to what he objects to now. If BJ doesn't understand that the withdrawal agreement would lead to tariffs of most good shipped from Britain to NI, then I know his Brexit deal better than he does. But of course he isn't that stupid, he just knows he can lie as much as he wants and still get amplified by the Brexit backbencher's, Brexit media and Cyberyetis of the world.

You are UTTERLY and probably wilfully misunderstanding what's being said.

Everybody understands that there will be tariffs on goods going in to NI.

The food situation appears to be different in that the EU is claiming some types (stuff of animal origin) simply cannot be imported into NI AT ALL. The misunderstanding is that the EU has a list of countries from where it accepts such imports, and it was assumed that GB would be on that list as it meets all the criteria to do so. Barnier is now blackmailing the UK, saying give us what we want in the rest of the negotiations or we don't put you on that list.

Edit - the republic of Ireland are now saying the prospect of the food banning is pretty much non existent, so I don't know who to believe at this stage

[Trinidad]

Is it so hard to understand? If there is no trade agreement, then the "default" WTO rules apply to the trade across the border... also if this border is in the Irish Sea. But in the UK there are politicians who keep uttering the absurd idea that it would be fantastic if there would not be a trade agreement... effectively blocking trade within their own country. This is what fact-free politics leads to.

Of course, no one in the EU wants to block trade between England and (Northern) Ireland, but there must be a trade agreement in place, or WTO rules are followed.

Rik

[cherdano]

At this point, Cyberyeti has become the Brexit-equivalent of the person saying "You know, I am not racist, but if we let too many new people move into our neighbourhood, many people will be concerned that crime will be rising. Of course, I don't believe that stuff, but we have to reassure people..."

[cherdano]

By the way, in any other country that I am familiar with it would be considered a major scandal if the head of government wrote an editorial justifying a key change in government policy - and publish it in a private newspaper hidden behind a paywall; meanwhile, the government does not publish a similarly exhaustive explanation anywhere else. Why isn't this a scandal in the UK?

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2020-September-14, 01:54, said:

Is it so hard to understand? If there is no trade agreement, then the "default" WTO rules apply to the trade across the border... also if this border is in the Irish Sea. But in the UK there are politicians who keep uttering the absurd idea that it would be fantastic if there would not be a trade agreement... effectively blocking trade within their own country. This is what fact-free politics leads to.

Of course, no one in the EU wants to block trade between England and (Northern) Ireland, but there must be a trade agreement in place, or WTO rules are followed.

Rik

The issue is I'm not sure these ARE default WTO rules. The EU appears to have an "unless you're on the list you're not coming in" policy for food products of animal origin (largely I suspect to keep the chlorinated chicken and hormone laden beef from the US out).

That the UK believes they might use this when our H&S and animal welfare standards are higher than many of the countries on the list shows how little we trust the EU at this point, whether they are actually going to do it or not. If I had to take a view, I feel they would not unless/until we signed the wrong trade deal with the US.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-14, 06:33, said:

The issue is I'm not sure these ARE default WTO rules. The EU appears to have an "unless you're on the list you're not coming in" policy for food products of animal origin (largely I suspect to keep the chlorinated chicken and hormone laden beef from the US out).

That the UK believes they might use this when our H&S and animal welfare standards are higher than many of the countries on the list shows how little we trust the EU at this point, whether they are actually going to do it or not. If I had to take a view, I feel they would not unless/until we signed the wrong trade deal with the US.

That is the entire point: There are no WTO rules with respect to standards. But the UK and the EU do have those rules. If there is no UK-EU trade agreement, trade between the EU and UK will default to standard rules. This means that for the UK the conditions to trade with the EU will be worse than for, say, Turkey.

The brilliance of the EU is that it enabled its member states to trade freely amongst each other, with well defined standards, so that an apple in Wales is also an apple in Poland. But if you are not a member state, this free trade is gone. You have the advantage of sovereignty. You have the freedom to call a pear "an apple" if you want to. But you cannot sell your pears, or your apples, to the other EU members.

Rik

[Elianna]

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

Where would you draw the border between the UK and the EU?

I suspect that Brexiters want the border to be drawn between (the Republic of) Ireland and the rest of the EU.

[Winstonm]

Elianna, on 2020-September-14, 13:10, said:

I suspect that Brexiters want the border to be drawn between (the Republic of) Ireland and the rest of the EU.

Isn't that the same thing as Fantasyland?

[Elianna]

Winstonm, on 2020-September-14, 14:45, said:

Isn't that the same thing as Fantasyland?

Them living in Fantasyland might well be the best answer for what's going on with all this, no?

[Winstonm]

Elianna, on 2020-September-16, 14:22, said:

Them living in Fantasyland might well be the best answer for what's going on with all this, no?

At this point it's more like Alice with the Cheshire cat:

Quote

"Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?"
"That depends a good deal on where you want to get to," said the Cat.
"I don't much care where—" said Alice.
"Then it doesn't matter which way you go," said the Cat.
"—so long as I get somewhere," Alice added as an explanation.
"Oh, you're sure to do that," said the Cat, "if you only walk long enough."

"In that direction," the Cat said, waving its right paw round, "lives a Hatter: and in that direction," waving the other paw, "lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad."
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you ca'n't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

[fromageGB]

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

Please answer the following questions: ...

And very reasonable questions too.
1) Yes I did and do want a brexit
2) Yes there should be a border between the EU and UK
3) I would draw the border between north and south Ireland.
The good friday agreement was made at the time when it was thought a reasonable thing to do. It has been repeatedly broken/violated and is no longer valid. Circumstances evolving over time cause agreements to be abandoned, and this one has had its day.

I would also draw a border down the channel, and not encourage hundreds of boats a day to pass one-way unimpeded, so my views are not those of the establishment. With regard to the withdrawal agreement, that too should be abandoned and we should ask for our money back.

[shyams]

Rejoice, everyone in the EU! It's the season of new beginnings.

Our great nation has deigned to agree to an "Australian-style" trade deal with the rest of the EU. Let us all remember the tremendous sacrifices made by our political overlords in order to confer this deal on the EU. Our dear leader even travelled all the way to Brussels during these Covid times, taking unimaginable health risks and suffering undeserved hardships just so that EU-27 can benefit from the Australian-style deal with us.

And if the Brits on this forum were hoping for a Canadian-style deal (whatever that means), allow me to quote to you from the EU website a statement that reads

Quote

"EU bilateral trade with Australia and New Zealand together is about roughly the same size as with Mexico or Canada." (link)

Consequently, it "logically" follows that an Australian-style deal is the same as a Canadian-style one. The EU agrees with our great leaders that they are "roughly the same".

[Lovera]

https://www.theguard...ve-news-updates

[cherdano]

And so it is done.

Looking forward to see how the UK will make use of its great new freedoms!! Must have tremendous benefits to make up for adding lots of friction to UK-EU trade...

What might be not so obvious for outside observers is that a small but crucial source of support for Brexit always came from elites who genuinely thought the UK would be better off if only they were more in charge, free from constraints put on them by Brussels. Now they can prove their point! (Kind of wish they had done so over the last 11 months by doing a great job containing covid-19.)

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2021-January-01, 03:46, said:

What might be not so obvious for outside observers is that a small but crucial source of support for Brexit always came from elites who genuinely thought the UK would be better off if only they were more in charge, free from constraints put on them by Brussels. Now they can prove their point! (Kind of wish they had done so over the last 11 months by doing a great job containing covid-19.)

I think the Covid issue is much more what you get when you put two journalists, one who studied classics, the other who studied English in charge of the pandemic response then have an economist as health secretary, rather than having anybody scientifically literate in at least one of those jobs.

[thepossum]

I don't know if this is the right time or place - but at least its a relevant thread.

Many years ago (before the wall came down) when young I was hitchhiking home from Berlin and a young German woman in the car with me said "what does England offer to Europe". I was actually unable to answer that question. Sad really

EDIT sorry - I corrected my quote to make it more accurate to what really happened I think. As I said - a very long time ago but it made an impression. Rather deflating

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-January-01, 04:41, said:

I think the Covid issue is much more what you get when you put two journalists, one who studied classics, the other who studied English in charge of the pandemic response then have an economist as health secretary, rather than having anybody scientifically literate in at least one of those jobs.

I dare say the issues are a little bit deeper than that. [Aside from that, I also don't understand how what you are saying is meant to contradict what I wrote.]
I don't have time to write a novel right now, and also it belongs to the other thread; so let me just say that I very much hope Rishi Sunak, Sunetra Gupta and Carl Henaghan will enjoy their well-earned special place in hell when they get there.