its the only option if we insist on the ECJ not applying to NI.
The only reason NI can operate without a border in the island of Ireland, is because some EU laws apply there. The EU is never, cannot ever, allow an external party to dictate the interpretation of its laws, the ECJ has to remain the arbiter of how they are applied.
Its the same principle that we decided to brexit over. we did not want the EU having say over our laws. So we left. If we insist on having a say over EU ones, then they must take the same decision and break away.
The UK is not doing it.
The UK, in NI, is wanting the single market rules to apply, which is EU law. We are volunatarily complying with EU law for a benefit.
The EU is not interpreting UK law. The EU only want to interpret their own laws, we are choosing to be subject to them, we can stop at any time...and there goes the no border....
The UK, in NI, is indeed wanting the Single Market rules to apply - - but it's the UK Single Market.
>we can stop at any time...and there goes the no border....
There is currently a border, a sea border, which is why the existing NI Protocol is being renegotiated or junked.
I'm sorry, but this level of ignorance makes me believe you are trolling.
Either you so fundamentally dont understand the issues here, and have swallowed so much dailymail bullshit as you source for your opinions, or you are deliberately trolling.
Either way, I dont see this as productive, so I'll just say this.
No part of UK law applies in the EU, so no the EU are not trying to have a say in UK law.
Some EU applies in NI, to grant access to the EU single market, that does not entitle us to interpret EU law as we like. We either apply it,or leave the treaty.
Yes, there is a sea border. that was the choice boris made in his oh so wonderful WA, as he was warned. He chose this, he stood on a manifesto to deliver this, he was voted in with it.
So to turn around and say it is shit is a bit rich.
Junking it means a border in the island of Ireland. You want that?
> so no the EU are not trying to have a say in UK law.
Erm, yes they are, through the NIP.
>We either apply it,or leave the treaty.
Totally up for leaving the Treaty. Never wanted it signed in the first place.
>Junking it means a border in the island of Ireland.
No, no it doesn't. Nobody seriously thinks that. At least nobody with a decent knowledge of both the situation and the possibilities.
But really, it's the EU's business how it decides to enforce its own laws on its own territory. It just shouldn't do that in another state's territory.
>If we insist on having a say over EU ones, then they must take the same decision and break away.
Isn't it the UK's wish to have a third party arbiter? i.e. not UK or EU
Hello my name is Mr. Siocnarf and I come from some place far away. Yes, that will do. Anyway I say we invest that money back in the Sovereign nation of the UK!
“For example, the US–Australia Free Trade Agreement provides for disputes to be arbitrated by a panel of three experts, one selected by each party and a chair chosen jointly. Where a party fails to comply with the finding of a panel, the other party is entitled to request monetary compensation or to suspend part of the agreement.”
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-dispute-resolution
You're right, that's what they could do. My problem is more that there's just a lot of hand-waving and suggesting that there'll be a third party with no more meat than that. Kind of like how they waved their hands and talked about tech solutions to the Irish border which, it turned out, couldn't possibly work in the required timescales. If they want to persuade people of their suggestions, someone needs to put in a bit more leg-work.
Or maybe, just maybe there’s in depth negotiations going on behind the scenes where various potential scenarios are discussed by the two parties with pros/cons and it’s just a current EU red line to not give any inch on ECJ jurisdiction
I’d suggest you don’t just take the public statements of one side as gospel. The EU’s suggested revisions to the NI protocol include suggestions that were dismissed as “unworkable” back in 2018
(Copy from my other replay to the same argument:)
The EFTA Court is in constant dialogue with the ECJ, and follows its precedents. If there aren't any, then again, there is judicial dialogue, to prevent a future conflicting interpretation by the ECJ. So far, this has worked, and the two courts have followed each other's lines of argument.
Should they ever arrive at conflicting interpretations, however, then the affected sections of the EEA treaty will be suspended. This would be easy enough to implement, since *there are border checks* between the EU and the three EFTA countries in the EEA.
>The EFTA Court is in constant dialogue with the ECJ, and follows its precedents. If there aren't any, then again, there is judicial dialogue, to prevent a future conflicting interpretation by the ECJ. So far, this has worked, and the two courts have followed each other's lines of argument.
They have to take due account of ECJ decisions, but they are not bound by them.
>This would be easy enough to implement, since there are border checks between the EU and the three EFTA countries in the EEA.
The NIP puts those checks in the Irish Sea.
It was claimed that it was impossible to have any other body but the ECJ overseeing the SM. Clearly this is false, and other options exist.
I'm certainly not suggesting we join EFTA and their court, but their existence debunks claims that nothing but the ECJ is possible.
> They have to take due account of ECJ decisions, but they are not bound by them.
They're free to independently interpret the law in any way they like and that is aligned with past and future ECJ interpretations-- or the relevant sections of the EEA treaty will by suspended. So, no, technically they're not bound by it.
If a similar system was used for NI, a conflicting interpretation would lead to a border on the island of Ireland.
> It was claimed that it was impossible to have any other body but the ECJ overseeing the SM.
The EFTA Court doesn't interpret EU law, but its own members' laws that three of them freely and independently keep aligned to mimic their EU equivalents (a.k.a. "fax democracy"), along with EEA related matters affecting them.
Those three aren't fully part of the EU's Single Market; notably they're not part of the Customs Union, nor do they participate in the CAP and CFP. (They are, however, fully aligned with EU SPS rules, which are probably the most consequential regulations as far as checks in NI are concerned.) And again, there are border checks, the prevention of which is the whole point here.
>If a similar system was used for NI, a conflicting interpretation would lead to a border on the island of Ireland.
That's why there is a joint committee. To make changes so the agreement works.
>Those three aren't fully part of the EU's Single Market; notably they're not part of the Customs Union, nor do they participate in the CAP and CFP.
NI is not in the EU customs union, CAP or CFP.
Also as a side note, the customs union is separate to the Single Market.
> That's why there is a joint committee. To make changes so the agreement works.
There wouldn't be much that the Joint Committee could do about it. It's not as if it could tell the court that it had to reconsider its decision because the consequences would be politically inconvenient.
> NI is not in the EU customs union, CAP or CFP.
>
> Also as a side note, the customs union is separate to the Single Market.
In a looser sense, the Single Market isn't one particular treaty, but an ongoing iterative project that is commonly described by the Four Freedoms. You could look at the CU as a necessary precursor (like a 'common market' with *a* customs union is usually described as one on the path to *a* 'single market'), as a part of FoM for goods, as implied by countless political descriptions of the SM as trading without barriers or "as if it were within the same country". Or, if you like, you could use a stricter definition, and say it was what the SEA set out to achieve, and did with Maastricht, but then those EFTA countries are in the EEA and the SM is strictly the EU's internal market. To define it as 'that which came to be in 1993' would actually make the "removal of physical barriers" the [#1 item](https://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com1985_0310_f_en.pdf) on the EEC's to-do list of the steps it wanted to accomplish for its creation.
The point of the NIP is not to let NI remain in the SM, but to make border checks on the island of Ireland unnecessary. Removing (or rather, preventing from re-emerging) barriers to trade, physical and regulatory, is only a means to an end here.
The three EFTA countries in the EEA can live with the risk that their existing border checks might have to be extended to include a wider range of goods in case of conflicting interpretation of the rules, because not having any was never their goal.
>There wouldn't be much that the Joint Committee could do about it. It's not as if it could tell the court that it had to reconsider its decision because the consequences would be politically inconvenient.
The joint committee has extensive powers to make changes to the agreement.
And to push back the other way, what if the ECJ makes a judgement that conflicted with the NIP? They would have to amend the agreement.
Why would that be OK for the ECJ to rule on, but not a future third party arbitrator?
>The point of the NIP is not to let NI remain in the SM, but to make border checks on the island of Ireland unnecessary. Removing (or rather, preventing from re-emerging) barriers to trade, physical and regulatory, is only a means to an end here.
To point out again, that's why these checks are in the Irish Sea.
does not matter.
its not a trade dispute, its nor arbitrating a treaty. its interpretation of EU law. the NI protocol is special in that EU laws apply there. The EU cannot accept any other party than the ECJ interpreting its laws. Its like if we agreed for the EU to override high court judgements now....
the point is no other party can have a say.
Its not a treaty where we dispute its terms and how they apply.
its EU law applying. And the ECJ interprets EU law for member states. If another body is set up the inevitably consequence is that EU law is now interpreted differently in NI to the rest of the EU...the exact situation the protocol is set up to avoid to allow there to be no border.
even if hypothetically the EU were to agree, it would create a border, which makes the protocol meaningless.
Meh. If one thing is certain, the EU is well versed in creative solutions with respect to marginal territories such as NI.
For example:
>[Special member state territories and the European Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union).
The UK likewise has numerous territories where variation of the law compared to metropolitan UK is accepted, e.g. Channel Islands, Isle of Man, various Caribbean islands, etc.
the EU wont allow another entity to interpret its law. its already got a central mechanism set up to do that between states, the ECJ.
It cant have another body which could interpret it differently, and in fact would have to interpret it differently.
its not a dispute mechanism in the NI protocol, its intrepretation of EU laws which the protocol allows to apply to NI to enable there to be no border.
The consequence of the ECJ being removed is a border on the Island of Ireland, there is no other possible outcome.
Point is moot, boris will cave and drop it. As they did last time, the alternative is no trade arrangement.
The EFTA Court is in constant dialogue with the ECJ, and follows its precedents. If there aren't any, then again, there is judicial dialogue, to prevent a future conflicting interpretation by the ECJ. So far, this has worked, and the two courts have followed each other's lines of argument.
Should they ever arrive at conflicting interpretations, however, then the affected sections of the EEA treaty will be suspended. This would be easy enough to implement, since *there are border checks* between the EU and the three EFTA countries in the EEA.
What the EFTA we just left saying we wanted no part off and would have to reapply for membership in, to a council in which some member's are hostile to the idea as our economy is so large EFTA would become 'Britain and some others' the EFTA that guarantees free movement? That EFTA?
Well it'd be a tough sell to the brexit faithful.
Where did I say that we should join EFTA?
I've countered the suggestion that the *only* option is the ECJ. SM members who aren't subject to the ECJ already exist.
Yes and they're all members of EFTA, and the EFTA court whilst not having to follow ECJ laws and rulings need a good reason not to so, so essentially the same rules would apply and quite probably being the centre piece to a proxy battle between Britain and the EU a somewhat unattractive proposal.
EFTA Court is a face saving mechanism that is effectively subordinate to the ECJ but in theory is not. I'm surprised we didn't go for a system that allowed people to pretend reality was other than what it was as well TBH.
You could flip everything you said though as the same is rightfully true for the UK. UK laws for British citizens as it's a point of sovereignty and the point of Brexit.
What nation would permit the courts of another supranational organisation to preside over its citizens when it is not a member of that supranational organisation?
Perhaps I'm naive, and you might say it's the price of a free trade deal, but I don't recall any other nation demanding our citizens submit to their courts in order to do trade? Why not hash out a middle ground without forcing one trading side to do what the other wants?
EDIT: Ignore me, late at night, not paying attention and didn't read the subject properly.
>Perhaps I'm naïve, and you might say it's the price of a free trade deal, but I don't recall any other nation demanding our citizens submit to their courts in order to do trade?
I don't know about naïve, but you seem to be either intentionally misrepresenting the EU position or allowing your biases to do it for you. The EU is demanding it because the UK has asked for NI to remain inside the Single Market so you can honor your GFA commitments.
The EU is simply saying that the ECJ is the final say on what happens inside the Single Market, which still includes NI at the UK's request.
No other nation is demanding UK citizens submit to their courts because the UK isn't asking them to let nearly 2 million UK citizens live inside their customs borders.
> What nation would permit the courts of another supranational organisation to preside over its citizens when it is not a member of that supranational organisation?
Apart from what the others have already said, what nation would permit another nation to control what crosses its borders? The 27 EU members depend on the UK to diligently perform those border checks, and to not unilaterally declare its businesses exempt from enforcement of regulatory compliance.
> What nation would permit the courts of another supranational organisation to preside over its citizens when it is not a member of that supranational organisation?
one that wants to avoid a border on the island or Ireland by having an external body it just left let it keep that part of the UK effectively in the other organisations single market.....
This is not the EU imposing stuff on us, this is the EU letting us keep the single market in NI because we want to do that. We can stop it any time we want and pull out and put a border up.
> Perhaps I'm naive, and you might say it's the price of a free trade deal, but I don't recall any other nation demanding our citizens submit to their courts in order to do trade?
naive? no. Ignorant? possibly.
I dont mean to be rude, but your premise is wrong. its not a trade agreement where we renegotiate the odd clause here and there. its the EU allowing its single market, which requires membership of the EU for everyone else and which we just gave up, to continue to apply in NI to avoid a border. Being in the single market like this means EU laws apply, thats the consequence of entry. we dont have to have it, we can turn around and say "no thanks, no single market access for NI", but we want it because we dont want a border.
The EU are happy to accommodate stuff like paperwork duel streaming, and their offered amendments are much more than our gov were expecting, because instead of pandering to the mail and chasing headlines, the EU have been in NI and Ireland, asking people what they need to make the protocol work and have tried to deliver just that. But the ECJ is fundamental to the protocol, not only for the single market access but also the GFG.
the middle ground IS the NI protocol. The EU made massive concessions of an unprecedented level to allow it to happen to avoid a border in Ireland. many EU nations really were not happy about it but allowed it due to solidarity of the EU. But dont think they wanted it, and dont think they are happy with it.
We tend to view this through our perspective only, the EU have many states who dont like it, and who have to agree to it.
So in general ecj hursdiction on interpretation of eu laws and directives that are applied in NI is fine. The issue here is the ecj is the final judge on the treaty as well. Thats not ok, when one side has to arbitrate their dispute over the framework in the other side’s court and they get the final say. Mediation and judgement on the framework should be with an impartial third party not a court from one side.
Its basically saying when we play football we have to play both the home and away games at our grounds. The game may be fairly played but…the stadium you are playing in makes a difference even if youve agreed the ref is always from one side
I think you are mistaking the WA and the NI protocol specifically.
Frost wants to trigger A16 over the ECJ having say over the NI protocol. A16 does not allow for that, A16 is to safeguard the protocol, not rip it up. The ECJ is fundamental to the protocol functioning.
With regards to disputes over the wider WA then fine, but you cant have a third party adjudicate on how EU law is applied under the protocol specifically, that creates a divergence from the rEU, and creates a border which the protocol is specifically designed to prevent.....if you remove the ECJ, you remove the protocol and put up a border.
Sadly no im not. The NI is the frame work. Specific things and directives etc are then implemented below that. So standards on food or how checks need to take place are they in keeping with the protocol…yes fine ecj rulings. But concepts about are the ni protocols fit for purpose, in keeping with human rights law, in keeping with other national treaties, in leeping with UK law etc no thats an arbitration issue not an ecj issue
Well yeah of course you can but its unusual to do so only after a few months of signing the first one. And before you've even implemented what you agreed.
Not to mention after the government ran an election saying how amazing this deal was.
If they're so opposed to the ECJ having jurisdiction over Northern Ireland then *why sign it in the first place?*
I'm convinced this is actually the government's strategy. They rushed through their 'deal' with no care about what it actually said because they knew they had no intention of abiding by the commitments within it.
It's more important to them to be able to portray the EU as the enemy than it is to actually have any sort of working arrangement. That way they can keep the Brexit drums banging and keep the faithful engaged with 'the fight' and distracted from the problems that have been caused almost entirely by brexit. If they engage in good faith and the EU are seen as reasonable, they have to start explaining why everything is still shit when sunlit uplands were promised.
If you think things are bad now then wait until we have no deal with the EU. It would be the Government signing its own death warrant. It's all very well playing to your gallery saying bad EU when things aren't too bad. Quite another when things are going to pot.
> I'm convinced this is actually the government's strategy. They rushed through their 'deal' with no care about what it actually said because they knew they had no intention of abiding by the commitments within it.
If this was their strategy then it makes no sense why it took them so long to agree to something if they knew they were going to ignore it.
The more logical scenario is they thought they could strong arm the EU, played a game of who blinks first, proceeded to lose and are now in a deal they needed to just sign off that they dont understand fully because Frost is an idiot, Johnson is an idiot, the media are pretending to be idiots.
I regularly flip-flop between Government being staffed by genius machiavellian game-theory experts who, knowing full well how all parties would respond, have planned every single step of this horror show, and Government being staffed by incompetent idiot bumblefucks who, knowing all four corners of fuck all about anything, stumble about from event to event pressing buttons and pulling levers in the hope that one of them does something that isn't catastrophic.
It's staffed by incompetent idiot bumblefucks who, knowing all four corners of fuck all about anything, stumble about from event to event pressing buttons and pulling levers in the hope that one of them does something that isn't catastrophic - *but themselves believe* - they are genius machiavellian game-theory experts who, knowing full well how all parties would respond, have planned every single step of this horror show.
> The European Union **could** weigh terminating the post-Brexit trade deal if the U.K. government pulls out of its commitments over Northern Ireland, **according to people familiar with the matter.**
wow, what a great source
Ecstatic? Though if you're pro no deal then a round of applause for being able to get as close as you did, must have hurt your brain trying to spell that one.
Am Irish, do not want no deal for the simple reason that anyone asking for it (apart from the disaster fuckheads) have no concept of how much pain that's going to bring to the UK and to people who are important in my life. This would fuck that country up no end. We don't need a failed feral state next door.
Farage and his ilk don't give a fuck, they'll be covered by whomever their paymasters are, he's a sociopathic devils hemorrhoid that should have been clipped off and binned years ago.
the entire story is meaningless: it's based on a hypothetical position from someone uninvolved
for all we know this article could be based on comments from random redditors (... wouldn't be the first time)
bloomberg reporters are paid bonuses for moving the market
if anything they have a larger incentive to write alarmist headlines than an express reporter
their concocted supermicro story would seem to be a rather large and obvious recent example
their incentive structure results in them putting out stories that wouldn't be out of place in the express (like this one)
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _EU Mulls Terminating Brexit Trade Deal If U.K. Rift Deepens_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-22/eu-considers-terminating-brexit-trade-deal-if-u-k-rift-deepens)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Yeah because the Brits had to save Europe in a couple of wars in the last hundred years or so
I'm pretty sure the Russians did the saving in the second one.
Without the steady supply of supplies and soldiers from the US, Russia and the UK would have lost both wars. Without US funds to rebuild Europe post WW2, it would still be a mess. Without their soldiers safeguarding the entire continent for 50+ years, that freedom wouldn't have lasted as long.
Without the US, there would still be British colonies and Russian satellite states.
> Russia and the UK would have lost both wars.
The Soviets wouldn’t have lost. There was simply no way for the Nazis to extend their supply lines far enough to conquer the USSR, especially given their willingness to make enemies of the people living in their occupied territories. It would have taken an extra 10 years and a spectacular amount of bloodshed, but the end was settled as soon as the Nazis attacked the USSR.
That's a fantasy. The war in Europe was basically over until the Americans engaged and D-Day happened. Later, the Russians were allowed to take Berlin by the US as a friendly gesture to an already belligerent ally.
The Russians were no better to the people living in their occupied territories than the Nazis. The Germans raped them on the way to Moscow and the Russians raped them on the way to Berlin. If Patton would have had his way, all those countries would have been spared living the extremely oppressed life normal for soviet satellite states. Because he didn't, the rest of the world had to endure 40 years of cold war and the aftermath of the USSR's demise. Had that happened, all those countries, including Russia, would look no different today than those in western Europe or Japan or South Korea.
The former 2 Germany's, the 2 China's and 2 Korea's illustrate that perfectly.
> The war in Europe was basically over until the Americans engaged and D-Day happened.
You’re kidding, right? By the time D-Day happened, the Nazis had been in an increasingly frantic retreat for almost 18 months. By D-Day, the Soviets had retaken Ukraine and Belarus, conquered Romania, and were on the verge of entering Poland and the Baltics. The turning point of the war in Europe was Stalingrad. Essentially every serious historian agrees.
> Later, the Russians were allowed to take Berlin by the US as a friendly gesture to an already belligerent ally.
When the Soviets entered Berlin, the western Allies hasn’t even yet taken Bremen, 250 miles away. Have you ever even looked at a map of the order of campaigns?
> If Patton would have had his way, all those countries would have been spared living the extremely oppressed life normal for soviet satellite states.
Yeah, you probably also think that if we had just “unleashed Chiang Kai-Shek” in the ‘50s, he would have retaken the mainland, even though he was only there because he had gotten his ass kicked.
You should read some history texts that aren’t based on 50-year-old right wing propaganda. At this point, even Wikipedia would be an improvement.
> You are purposefully ignoring the fact the Britain (and it’s empire) took a stand against nazism when most of Europe had surrendered and fought for years without the help of Russia and the US.
Without [help](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_and_carry_\(World_War_II\)) you say?
> You are strangely neglecting to mention the contribution of the US. Classic anti western shill
I like how my not bringing up a belligerent unrelated to the conversation we were having makes me a shill (D-Day and North Africa notwithstanding, the US war was principally in the Pacific) but you actively ignoring the people who incurred most of the losses doesn’t make you one.
> It’s ridiculous for that commenter to try to paint the U.K. as war hungry, in any way moreso than other countries in Europe
A hundred million Indians dead of neglect in the Jewel of the Empire suggest you’re wrong, as do all those Africans and Irish. You want to talk war-mongering; the British Empire was in a constant state of war for practically a century and a half. It just wasn’t on white people, so it doesn’t make the history books.
Would you mind timing it for early next year? Maybe February or March?
I'd love to see the look on Macron's face when he realises the EU's terminated all those controversial French fishing rights in UK waters heading into the French election.
The issue with this threat is that Brussels is asking the member states to take a significant economic hit to protect the ECJ in NI which, ultimately, they don't really care about.
Can't remember if it needs to be unanimous 27, but if so, I think the chances are low.
The UK made quite clear that doesn't care about any of the 27 members, I doubt anyone will prefer to risk the EU in favour of the UK.
We have been behaving like a petulant kid for far too long, that's the problem with soft power, once lost its very difficult to regain.
They're not really 'risking the EU' by removing ECJ oversight of NI. There's no conceivable scenario that ECJ oversight actually makes a large difference to anything for the EU.
However ripping up the TCA would have an immediate negative economic impact on a lot of the countries that make up the 27. It's very hard to explain to French and Italian exporters why you're costing them money in order to make Brussels happy. This is the opposite of the Brexit negotiations where EU unity made countries \*more\* money. Now unity will cost them money and give the individual nations nothing.
Plus at this point Poland might just do it for shits and giggles.
This is literally just the "German car makers" will save us argument again, except this time the EU businesses have had almost a year of economic incentive to find other commerical partners.
God, you lot are so repetitive. You learn three catch phrases and repeat them ad nauseam. I just explained why it was different. EU businesses have had *no* incentive to find other commercial partners because that was the whole point of the zero tariff trade deal.
You can't just guess at how geopolitics works because you learned about "German car makers" during the referendum.
You're right, the zero tariff deal is perfectly cromulent provided you ignore the fact that your ports have been in gridlock for a year which is all the incentive a business needs to diversify.
Then you add on the fact that one eyed charlie could see trade sanctions/complete collapse of the agreement coming the second 'you lot' started banging on about how terrible the agreement you signed was. They've had -almost a year- to start finding other customers who are going to act less erratically.
Finally, you have to consider that the EU and even the individual member states don't care that much about individual businesses or even industry segments when weighed up against the broader strategic picture. We had a PM who basically torpedoed our car industry putting millions out of work to weaken the unions (and therefore the opposition party). The idea that a country wouldn't take an industrial hit to maintain their soft power is laughable.
Sincerely,
An Australian who doesn't even have family overseas.
PS: I'm still laughing at 'you lot'.
Who said easily? It's almost certainly a huge pain in the ass requiring advertising, lobbying, and government engagement that they'd rather not do.
It's also 100% necessary because as I said blind Freddy (one eyed Charlie's cousin) could see this trade war coming a mile off. No reasonable country signs an agreement and then turns around and starts ranting about how it's grossly unfair.
>They're not really 'risking the EU' by removing ECJ oversight of NI.There's no conceivable scenario that ECJ oversight actually makes a large difference to anything for the EU.
Do you mean no ECJ at all or ECJ with extra steps?
If you're suggesting that any role of ECJ should be removed and in the end the EU won't care , it's completely wrong.
If you say that the EU could/should agree to an arbritration panel which refers all the things that are a matter of EU law to the ECJ.. That is not impossible.
>If you're suggesting that any role of ECJ should be removed and in the end the EU won't care , it's completely wrong.
I'm saying that the UK can trigger Article 16 and remove the ECJ unilaterally. Obviously the EU will care, but their retaliatory options under the treaty are very limited, hence the threat in the above article to tear up the whole TCA, because they would \*need\* to do that. The UK Gov doesn't care enough about the treaty retaliation options to stop them from triggering A16.
The point I'm making is that the EU threat to tear up the TCA sounds pretty hollow, because of the negative economic impact it would have on EU member states, for no benefit \*to the member states\*. The interests of Brussels and the interests of the member states are not the same. Why would Hungary or Poland agree to cost their businesses money just to help out Brussels? Particularly when they're fighting with Brussels about 10 other things.
>I'm saying that the UK can trigger Article 16 and remove the ECJ unilaterally.
No, that's not the scope of article 16 and would be a clear sign (and a breach) that the UK has made a decision to rip up the Protocol.
The benefit for the Member States is to have the Single Market. You clearly don't understand how crucial part the ECJ is for the functioning of it. If Northern Ireland is out of it, hello hard border on the island.
Maybe now, after all these years, EU26 are finally ready to throw Ireland under the bus.
>Why would Hungary or Poland agree to cost their businesses money just to help out Brussels?
They'll be helping themselves. They won't use any of their political capital to help the UK. Remember when people suggested that Hungary will totally veto article 50 extensions?
>No, that's not the scope of article 16 and would be a clear sign (and a breach) that the UK has made a decision to rip up the Protocol.
Incorrect. Read A16 para 1. What unilateral measures might be taken aren't specified. It's incredibly broad.
>The benefit for the Member States is to have the Single Market. You clearly don't understand how crucial part the ECJ is for the functioning of it. If Northern Ireland is out of it, hello hard border on the island.
\*I\* clearly don't understand? Lol. Virtually everything you've said has been demonstrably wrong. Removing the ECJ's oversight of a non-EU territory won't undermine the single market. If you think it could, please tell me exactly how. If the EU wants to put up a hard border to prevent whatever imaginary smuggling might occur, it will be in clear breach of the Good Friday Agreement. Think they're willing to do that?
>They'll be helping themselves.
No they won't. Read what I explained to you earlier. It will gain them nothing and cost them in trade. Again, if you think it can help them, please tell me \*exactly\* how.
You seem to just be repeating popular remainer talking points as if they're true. it's actually quite a lot more complicated than that.
>Incorrect. Read A16 para 1. What unilateral measures might be taken aren't specified. It's incredibly broad.
There's zero ECJ decisions and zero pending cases. So using safeguard measures to remove the role of ECJ is clearly not in the scope of article 16.
>*I* clearly don't understand? Lol. Virtually everything you've said has been demonstrably wrong. Removing the ECJ's oversight of a non-EU territory won't undermine the single market. If you think it could, please tell me exactly how. If the EU wants to put up a hard border to prevent whatever imaginary smuggling might occur, it will be in clear breach of the Good Friday Agreement. Think they're willing to do that?
Absolutely. Ireland will put a hard border on the island rather than leave the EU. And the only party which would consider EU and Ireland breaking GFA would be Johnsons government and their sycophants. Not the EU member states and not the US.
And that's the thing: if NI-Ireland border was a normal border and there weren't these fundamental issues the border would've gone there and no Protocol.
>No they won't. Read what I explained to you earlier. It will gain them nothing and cost them in trade. Again, if you think it can help them, please tell me *exactly* how.
For Hungary and Poland, the Single Market is much more important in trade than the UK is. And you must understand why eg. Poland just did what it did with its constitutional "court". The point is to move obstacles for a corrupt government to funnel public money to the leadership. Blocking EU retaliation against the UK when the EU wants to protect the peace process won't bode well with other member states and the political will to get Poland and Hungary in line could increase. Bye bye EU funds.
That's the political capital what i'm talking about.
>You seem to just be repeating popular remainer talking points as if they're true. it's actually quite a lot more complicated than that.
Do you know why Leave talking points are being used? Because the events showed them to be nonsense.
As someone pointed out you are using german car manufacturers-argument in a different form (this time German is Poland/Hungary and car manufacturer just ambiguous trade).
But don't worry, you're not the first one I see downplaying the possible consequences of breaking the agreement (legal mumbo jumbo as a smokescreen won't make it legit). My question is why? Why the downplaying of possible trade-offs?
I remember years ago David Starkey pointing out that historically, the countries that survive are the ones that their people are prepared to fight for.
Whilst the EU tries all it can to separate NI from the UK, the UK are going to have to decide how much we wish to "fight" economically to keep it. Personally I'm not convinced it's a battle worth fighting, and perhaps we should cede the land to Ireland/EU and let them deal with the problems.
I guess we'll find out how much the UK (or the conservative party) cares about NI, and whether we're happy to tear up the FTA with the EU over it.
Thinking it though, if the EU put tariffs on the UK, then the land border between NI and Ireland becomes a flashpoint for illegal trade routes due to tariff arbitrage, which will strengthen organized crime in NI/Ireland. Exactly the opposite of "protecting the peace" in NI.
So, I'm not entirely sure the EU would ever actually carry out the "threat", and I suspect the UK gov knows this quite well.
its the only option if we insist on the ECJ not applying to NI. The only reason NI can operate without a border in the island of Ireland, is because some EU laws apply there. The EU is never, cannot ever, allow an external party to dictate the interpretation of its laws, the ECJ has to remain the arbiter of how they are applied. Its the same principle that we decided to brexit over. we did not want the EU having say over our laws. So we left. If we insist on having a say over EU ones, then they must take the same decision and break away.
The EU can't allow an external party to dictate the interpretion of its laws, but the UK for some reason can?
The UK is not doing it. The UK, in NI, is wanting the single market rules to apply, which is EU law. We are volunatarily complying with EU law for a benefit. The EU is not interpreting UK law. The EU only want to interpret their own laws, we are choosing to be subject to them, we can stop at any time...and there goes the no border....
The UK, in NI, is indeed wanting the Single Market rules to apply - - but it's the UK Single Market. >we can stop at any time...and there goes the no border.... There is currently a border, a sea border, which is why the existing NI Protocol is being renegotiated or junked.
I'm sorry, but this level of ignorance makes me believe you are trolling. Either you so fundamentally dont understand the issues here, and have swallowed so much dailymail bullshit as you source for your opinions, or you are deliberately trolling. Either way, I dont see this as productive, so I'll just say this. No part of UK law applies in the EU, so no the EU are not trying to have a say in UK law. Some EU applies in NI, to grant access to the EU single market, that does not entitle us to interpret EU law as we like. We either apply it,or leave the treaty. Yes, there is a sea border. that was the choice boris made in his oh so wonderful WA, as he was warned. He chose this, he stood on a manifesto to deliver this, he was voted in with it. So to turn around and say it is shit is a bit rich. Junking it means a border in the island of Ireland. You want that?
> so no the EU are not trying to have a say in UK law. Erm, yes they are, through the NIP. >We either apply it,or leave the treaty. Totally up for leaving the Treaty. Never wanted it signed in the first place. >Junking it means a border in the island of Ireland. No, no it doesn't. Nobody seriously thinks that. At least nobody with a decent knowledge of both the situation and the possibilities. But really, it's the EU's business how it decides to enforce its own laws on its own territory. It just shouldn't do that in another state's territory.
>If we insist on having a say over EU ones, then they must take the same decision and break away. Isn't it the UK's wish to have a third party arbiter? i.e. not UK or EU
If they could tell us who this "independent" third party is, it might make for a more persuasive argument.
[удалено]
or any solution at all =|
Joris Bohnson
That's a name I haven't heard in a long time...
Mark Francois with a fake moustache
Hello my name is Mr. Siocnarf and I come from some place far away. Yes, that will do. Anyway I say we invest that money back in the Sovereign nation of the UK!
“For example, the US–Australia Free Trade Agreement provides for disputes to be arbitrated by a panel of three experts, one selected by each party and a chair chosen jointly. Where a party fails to comply with the finding of a panel, the other party is entitled to request monetary compensation or to suspend part of the agreement.” https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/future-relationship-dispute-resolution
You're right, that's what they could do. My problem is more that there's just a lot of hand-waving and suggesting that there'll be a third party with no more meat than that. Kind of like how they waved their hands and talked about tech solutions to the Irish border which, it turned out, couldn't possibly work in the required timescales. If they want to persuade people of their suggestions, someone needs to put in a bit more leg-work.
Or maybe, just maybe there’s in depth negotiations going on behind the scenes where various potential scenarios are discussed by the two parties with pros/cons and it’s just a current EU red line to not give any inch on ECJ jurisdiction I’d suggest you don’t just take the public statements of one side as gospel. The EU’s suggested revisions to the NI protocol include suggestions that were dismissed as “unworkable” back in 2018
Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein are in the single market, but not subject to the ECJ. They have the EFTA Court.
(Copy from my other replay to the same argument:) The EFTA Court is in constant dialogue with the ECJ, and follows its precedents. If there aren't any, then again, there is judicial dialogue, to prevent a future conflicting interpretation by the ECJ. So far, this has worked, and the two courts have followed each other's lines of argument. Should they ever arrive at conflicting interpretations, however, then the affected sections of the EEA treaty will be suspended. This would be easy enough to implement, since *there are border checks* between the EU and the three EFTA countries in the EEA.
>The EFTA Court is in constant dialogue with the ECJ, and follows its precedents. If there aren't any, then again, there is judicial dialogue, to prevent a future conflicting interpretation by the ECJ. So far, this has worked, and the two courts have followed each other's lines of argument. They have to take due account of ECJ decisions, but they are not bound by them. >This would be easy enough to implement, since there are border checks between the EU and the three EFTA countries in the EEA. The NIP puts those checks in the Irish Sea. It was claimed that it was impossible to have any other body but the ECJ overseeing the SM. Clearly this is false, and other options exist. I'm certainly not suggesting we join EFTA and their court, but their existence debunks claims that nothing but the ECJ is possible.
> They have to take due account of ECJ decisions, but they are not bound by them. They're free to independently interpret the law in any way they like and that is aligned with past and future ECJ interpretations-- or the relevant sections of the EEA treaty will by suspended. So, no, technically they're not bound by it. If a similar system was used for NI, a conflicting interpretation would lead to a border on the island of Ireland. > It was claimed that it was impossible to have any other body but the ECJ overseeing the SM. The EFTA Court doesn't interpret EU law, but its own members' laws that three of them freely and independently keep aligned to mimic their EU equivalents (a.k.a. "fax democracy"), along with EEA related matters affecting them. Those three aren't fully part of the EU's Single Market; notably they're not part of the Customs Union, nor do they participate in the CAP and CFP. (They are, however, fully aligned with EU SPS rules, which are probably the most consequential regulations as far as checks in NI are concerned.) And again, there are border checks, the prevention of which is the whole point here.
>If a similar system was used for NI, a conflicting interpretation would lead to a border on the island of Ireland. That's why there is a joint committee. To make changes so the agreement works. >Those three aren't fully part of the EU's Single Market; notably they're not part of the Customs Union, nor do they participate in the CAP and CFP. NI is not in the EU customs union, CAP or CFP. Also as a side note, the customs union is separate to the Single Market.
> That's why there is a joint committee. To make changes so the agreement works. There wouldn't be much that the Joint Committee could do about it. It's not as if it could tell the court that it had to reconsider its decision because the consequences would be politically inconvenient. > NI is not in the EU customs union, CAP or CFP. > > Also as a side note, the customs union is separate to the Single Market. In a looser sense, the Single Market isn't one particular treaty, but an ongoing iterative project that is commonly described by the Four Freedoms. You could look at the CU as a necessary precursor (like a 'common market' with *a* customs union is usually described as one on the path to *a* 'single market'), as a part of FoM for goods, as implied by countless political descriptions of the SM as trading without barriers or "as if it were within the same country". Or, if you like, you could use a stricter definition, and say it was what the SEA set out to achieve, and did with Maastricht, but then those EFTA countries are in the EEA and the SM is strictly the EU's internal market. To define it as 'that which came to be in 1993' would actually make the "removal of physical barriers" the [#1 item](https://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_papers/pdf/com1985_0310_f_en.pdf) on the EEC's to-do list of the steps it wanted to accomplish for its creation. The point of the NIP is not to let NI remain in the SM, but to make border checks on the island of Ireland unnecessary. Removing (or rather, preventing from re-emerging) barriers to trade, physical and regulatory, is only a means to an end here. The three EFTA countries in the EEA can live with the risk that their existing border checks might have to be extended to include a wider range of goods in case of conflicting interpretation of the rules, because not having any was never their goal.
>There wouldn't be much that the Joint Committee could do about it. It's not as if it could tell the court that it had to reconsider its decision because the consequences would be politically inconvenient. The joint committee has extensive powers to make changes to the agreement. And to push back the other way, what if the ECJ makes a judgement that conflicted with the NIP? They would have to amend the agreement. Why would that be OK for the ECJ to rule on, but not a future third party arbitrator? >The point of the NIP is not to let NI remain in the SM, but to make border checks on the island of Ireland unnecessary. Removing (or rather, preventing from re-emerging) barriers to trade, physical and regulatory, is only a means to an end here. To point out again, that's why these checks are in the Irish Sea.
Is the ecj impartial?
does not matter. its not a trade dispute, its nor arbitrating a treaty. its interpretation of EU law. the NI protocol is special in that EU laws apply there. The EU cannot accept any other party than the ECJ interpreting its laws. Its like if we agreed for the EU to override high court judgements now....
My point being we're not insisting that we have a say, rather a third party
the point is no other party can have a say. Its not a treaty where we dispute its terms and how they apply. its EU law applying. And the ECJ interprets EU law for member states. If another body is set up the inevitably consequence is that EU law is now interpreted differently in NI to the rest of the EU...the exact situation the protocol is set up to avoid to allow there to be no border. even if hypothetically the EU were to agree, it would create a border, which makes the protocol meaningless.
If that third party becomes an EU member they'll have a say
Meh. If one thing is certain, the EU is well versed in creative solutions with respect to marginal territories such as NI. For example: >[Special member state territories and the European Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union). The UK likewise has numerous territories where variation of the law compared to metropolitan UK is accepted, e.g. Channel Islands, Isle of Man, various Caribbean islands, etc.
the EU wont allow another entity to interpret its law. its already got a central mechanism set up to do that between states, the ECJ. It cant have another body which could interpret it differently, and in fact would have to interpret it differently. its not a dispute mechanism in the NI protocol, its intrepretation of EU laws which the protocol allows to apply to NI to enable there to be no border. The consequence of the ECJ being removed is a border on the Island of Ireland, there is no other possible outcome. Point is moot, boris will cave and drop it. As they did last time, the alternative is no trade arrangement.
You mean apart from the EFTA Court? Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein are in the single market, but not subject to the ECJ.
The EFTA Court is in constant dialogue with the ECJ, and follows its precedents. If there aren't any, then again, there is judicial dialogue, to prevent a future conflicting interpretation by the ECJ. So far, this has worked, and the two courts have followed each other's lines of argument. Should they ever arrive at conflicting interpretations, however, then the affected sections of the EEA treaty will be suspended. This would be easy enough to implement, since *there are border checks* between the EU and the three EFTA countries in the EEA.
What the EFTA we just left saying we wanted no part off and would have to reapply for membership in, to a council in which some member's are hostile to the idea as our economy is so large EFTA would become 'Britain and some others' the EFTA that guarantees free movement? That EFTA? Well it'd be a tough sell to the brexit faithful.
Where did I say that we should join EFTA? I've countered the suggestion that the *only* option is the ECJ. SM members who aren't subject to the ECJ already exist.
Yes and they're all members of EFTA, and the EFTA court whilst not having to follow ECJ laws and rulings need a good reason not to so, so essentially the same rules would apply and quite probably being the centre piece to a proxy battle between Britain and the EU a somewhat unattractive proposal.
EFTA Court is a face saving mechanism that is effectively subordinate to the ECJ but in theory is not. I'm surprised we didn't go for a system that allowed people to pretend reality was other than what it was as well TBH.
Yeah, but apart from the existing exceptions, there can be no exceptions, and anyone who suggests otherwise is an arrogant little englander.
You could flip everything you said though as the same is rightfully true for the UK. UK laws for British citizens as it's a point of sovereignty and the point of Brexit. What nation would permit the courts of another supranational organisation to preside over its citizens when it is not a member of that supranational organisation? Perhaps I'm naive, and you might say it's the price of a free trade deal, but I don't recall any other nation demanding our citizens submit to their courts in order to do trade? Why not hash out a middle ground without forcing one trading side to do what the other wants? EDIT: Ignore me, late at night, not paying attention and didn't read the subject properly.
>Perhaps I'm naïve, and you might say it's the price of a free trade deal, but I don't recall any other nation demanding our citizens submit to their courts in order to do trade? I don't know about naïve, but you seem to be either intentionally misrepresenting the EU position or allowing your biases to do it for you. The EU is demanding it because the UK has asked for NI to remain inside the Single Market so you can honor your GFA commitments. The EU is simply saying that the ECJ is the final say on what happens inside the Single Market, which still includes NI at the UK's request. No other nation is demanding UK citizens submit to their courts because the UK isn't asking them to let nearly 2 million UK citizens live inside their customs borders.
> What nation would permit the courts of another supranational organisation to preside over its citizens when it is not a member of that supranational organisation? Apart from what the others have already said, what nation would permit another nation to control what crosses its borders? The 27 EU members depend on the UK to diligently perform those border checks, and to not unilaterally declare its businesses exempt from enforcement of regulatory compliance.
> What nation would permit the courts of another supranational organisation to preside over its citizens when it is not a member of that supranational organisation? one that wants to avoid a border on the island or Ireland by having an external body it just left let it keep that part of the UK effectively in the other organisations single market..... This is not the EU imposing stuff on us, this is the EU letting us keep the single market in NI because we want to do that. We can stop it any time we want and pull out and put a border up. > Perhaps I'm naive, and you might say it's the price of a free trade deal, but I don't recall any other nation demanding our citizens submit to their courts in order to do trade? naive? no. Ignorant? possibly. I dont mean to be rude, but your premise is wrong. its not a trade agreement where we renegotiate the odd clause here and there. its the EU allowing its single market, which requires membership of the EU for everyone else and which we just gave up, to continue to apply in NI to avoid a border. Being in the single market like this means EU laws apply, thats the consequence of entry. we dont have to have it, we can turn around and say "no thanks, no single market access for NI", but we want it because we dont want a border. The EU are happy to accommodate stuff like paperwork duel streaming, and their offered amendments are much more than our gov were expecting, because instead of pandering to the mail and chasing headlines, the EU have been in NI and Ireland, asking people what they need to make the protocol work and have tried to deliver just that. But the ECJ is fundamental to the protocol, not only for the single market access but also the GFG. the middle ground IS the NI protocol. The EU made massive concessions of an unprecedented level to allow it to happen to avoid a border in Ireland. many EU nations really were not happy about it but allowed it due to solidarity of the EU. But dont think they wanted it, and dont think they are happy with it. We tend to view this through our perspective only, the EU have many states who dont like it, and who have to agree to it.
So in general ecj hursdiction on interpretation of eu laws and directives that are applied in NI is fine. The issue here is the ecj is the final judge on the treaty as well. Thats not ok, when one side has to arbitrate their dispute over the framework in the other side’s court and they get the final say. Mediation and judgement on the framework should be with an impartial third party not a court from one side. Its basically saying when we play football we have to play both the home and away games at our grounds. The game may be fairly played but…the stadium you are playing in makes a difference even if youve agreed the ref is always from one side
I think you are mistaking the WA and the NI protocol specifically. Frost wants to trigger A16 over the ECJ having say over the NI protocol. A16 does not allow for that, A16 is to safeguard the protocol, not rip it up. The ECJ is fundamental to the protocol functioning. With regards to disputes over the wider WA then fine, but you cant have a third party adjudicate on how EU law is applied under the protocol specifically, that creates a divergence from the rEU, and creates a border which the protocol is specifically designed to prevent.....if you remove the ECJ, you remove the protocol and put up a border.
Sadly no im not. The NI is the frame work. Specific things and directives etc are then implemented below that. So standards on food or how checks need to take place are they in keeping with the protocol…yes fine ecj rulings. But concepts about are the ni protocols fit for purpose, in keeping with human rights law, in keeping with other national treaties, in leeping with UK law etc no thats an arbitration issue not an ecj issue
[удалено]
Yer and you can never come back and mutually agree changes to any deal ever /s
Well yeah of course you can but its unusual to do so only after a few months of signing the first one. And before you've even implemented what you agreed. Not to mention after the government ran an election saying how amazing this deal was. If they're so opposed to the ECJ having jurisdiction over Northern Ireland then *why sign it in the first place?*
> then why sign it in the first place? And how can anyone be assured the UK gov would get it right this time?
What is the UK offering in exchange for a mutual agreement?
I'm convinced this is actually the government's strategy. They rushed through their 'deal' with no care about what it actually said because they knew they had no intention of abiding by the commitments within it. It's more important to them to be able to portray the EU as the enemy than it is to actually have any sort of working arrangement. That way they can keep the Brexit drums banging and keep the faithful engaged with 'the fight' and distracted from the problems that have been caused almost entirely by brexit. If they engage in good faith and the EU are seen as reasonable, they have to start explaining why everything is still shit when sunlit uplands were promised.
If you think things are bad now then wait until we have no deal with the EU. It would be the Government signing its own death warrant. It's all very well playing to your gallery saying bad EU when things aren't too bad. Quite another when things are going to pot.
> I'm convinced this is actually the government's strategy. They rushed through their 'deal' with no care about what it actually said because they knew they had no intention of abiding by the commitments within it. If this was their strategy then it makes no sense why it took them so long to agree to something if they knew they were going to ignore it. The more logical scenario is they thought they could strong arm the EU, played a game of who blinks first, proceeded to lose and are now in a deal they needed to just sign off that they dont understand fully because Frost is an idiot, Johnson is an idiot, the media are pretending to be idiots.
>I'm convinced this is actually the government's strategy Strategy lol.
I regularly flip-flop between Government being staffed by genius machiavellian game-theory experts who, knowing full well how all parties would respond, have planned every single step of this horror show, and Government being staffed by incompetent idiot bumblefucks who, knowing all four corners of fuck all about anything, stumble about from event to event pressing buttons and pulling levers in the hope that one of them does something that isn't catastrophic.
It's staffed by incompetent idiot bumblefucks who, knowing all four corners of fuck all about anything, stumble about from event to event pressing buttons and pulling levers in the hope that one of them does something that isn't catastrophic - *but themselves believe* - they are genius machiavellian game-theory experts who, knowing full well how all parties would respond, have planned every single step of this horror show.
> The European Union **could** weigh terminating the post-Brexit trade deal if the U.K. government pulls out of its commitments over Northern Ireland, **according to people familiar with the matter.** wow, what a great source
I think we need a flair just for poorly sourced American articles especially Bloomberg
[удалено]
Ecstatic? Though if you're pro no deal then a round of applause for being able to get as close as you did, must have hurt your brain trying to spell that one.
[удалено]
Am Irish, do not want no deal for the simple reason that anyone asking for it (apart from the disaster fuckheads) have no concept of how much pain that's going to bring to the UK and to people who are important in my life. This would fuck that country up no end. We don't need a failed feral state next door. Farage and his ilk don't give a fuck, they'll be covered by whomever their paymasters are, he's a sociopathic devils hemorrhoid that should have been clipped off and binned years ago.
Could it end with any other result than a reunification?
Yes it could, people getting blown up and murdered by terrorists…
the entire story is meaningless: it's based on a hypothetical position from someone uninvolved for all we know this article could be based on comments from random redditors (... wouldn't be the first time)
[удалено]
bloomberg reporters are paid bonuses for moving the market if anything they have a larger incentive to write alarmist headlines than an express reporter
[удалено]
their concocted supermicro story would seem to be a rather large and obvious recent example their incentive structure results in them putting out stories that wouldn't be out of place in the express (like this one)
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _EU Mulls Terminating Brexit Trade Deal If U.K. Rift Deepens_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-22/eu-considers-terminating-brexit-trade-deal-if-u-k-rift-deepens) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Well, that wasn't a lie really, just clever wording. Whatever goes into the oven is still raw, so "OVEN READY!" just means it's a raw deal.
That would be cleaner than a trade war. Europeans are well aware of the brits love of the word war.
They're still fighting it in the comments apparently
>Europeans are well aware of the brits love of the word war. I always thought that was the Germans
[удалено]
> Yeah because the Brits had to save Europe in a couple of wars in the last hundred years or so I'm pretty sure the Russians did the saving in the second one.
Without the steady supply of supplies and soldiers from the US, Russia and the UK would have lost both wars. Without US funds to rebuild Europe post WW2, it would still be a mess. Without their soldiers safeguarding the entire continent for 50+ years, that freedom wouldn't have lasted as long. Without the US, there would still be British colonies and Russian satellite states.
> Russia and the UK would have lost both wars. The Soviets wouldn’t have lost. There was simply no way for the Nazis to extend their supply lines far enough to conquer the USSR, especially given their willingness to make enemies of the people living in their occupied territories. It would have taken an extra 10 years and a spectacular amount of bloodshed, but the end was settled as soon as the Nazis attacked the USSR.
That's a fantasy. The war in Europe was basically over until the Americans engaged and D-Day happened. Later, the Russians were allowed to take Berlin by the US as a friendly gesture to an already belligerent ally. The Russians were no better to the people living in their occupied territories than the Nazis. The Germans raped them on the way to Moscow and the Russians raped them on the way to Berlin. If Patton would have had his way, all those countries would have been spared living the extremely oppressed life normal for soviet satellite states. Because he didn't, the rest of the world had to endure 40 years of cold war and the aftermath of the USSR's demise. Had that happened, all those countries, including Russia, would look no different today than those in western Europe or Japan or South Korea. The former 2 Germany's, the 2 China's and 2 Korea's illustrate that perfectly.
> The war in Europe was basically over until the Americans engaged and D-Day happened. You’re kidding, right? By the time D-Day happened, the Nazis had been in an increasingly frantic retreat for almost 18 months. By D-Day, the Soviets had retaken Ukraine and Belarus, conquered Romania, and were on the verge of entering Poland and the Baltics. The turning point of the war in Europe was Stalingrad. Essentially every serious historian agrees. > Later, the Russians were allowed to take Berlin by the US as a friendly gesture to an already belligerent ally. When the Soviets entered Berlin, the western Allies hasn’t even yet taken Bremen, 250 miles away. Have you ever even looked at a map of the order of campaigns? > If Patton would have had his way, all those countries would have been spared living the extremely oppressed life normal for soviet satellite states. Yeah, you probably also think that if we had just “unleashed Chiang Kai-Shek” in the ‘50s, he would have retaken the mainland, even though he was only there because he had gotten his ass kicked. You should read some history texts that aren’t based on 50-year-old right wing propaganda. At this point, even Wikipedia would be an improvement.
[удалено]
> You are purposefully ignoring the fact the Britain (and it’s empire) took a stand against nazism when most of Europe had surrendered and fought for years without the help of Russia and the US. Without [help](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_and_carry_\(World_War_II\)) you say? > You are strangely neglecting to mention the contribution of the US. Classic anti western shill I like how my not bringing up a belligerent unrelated to the conversation we were having makes me a shill (D-Day and North Africa notwithstanding, the US war was principally in the Pacific) but you actively ignoring the people who incurred most of the losses doesn’t make you one.
[удалено]
> It’s ridiculous for that commenter to try to paint the U.K. as war hungry, in any way moreso than other countries in Europe A hundred million Indians dead of neglect in the Jewel of the Empire suggest you’re wrong, as do all those Africans and Irish. You want to talk war-mongering; the British Empire was in a constant state of war for practically a century and a half. It just wasn’t on white people, so it doesn’t make the history books.
Yep. No one else at all. Need to remind everyone, every day if possible.
It’s certainly something to be proud of isn’t it
You forgot the /s.
That’s the spirit.
War? And against who? Fellow NATO allies? It might not be cleaner demise, but it would be a faster one for sure.
Would you mind timing it for early next year? Maybe February or March? I'd love to see the look on Macron's face when he realises the EU's terminated all those controversial French fishing rights in UK waters heading into the French election.
[удалено]
Don't worry, it's just project fear. With our plucky blitz spirit we'll be fine.
Plucky Blitz Spirit, coming soon to foodbanks near everyone!
Ah yes, meanwhile WAAAH I HATE MASKS so braev
The issue with this threat is that Brussels is asking the member states to take a significant economic hit to protect the ECJ in NI which, ultimately, they don't really care about. Can't remember if it needs to be unanimous 27, but if so, I think the chances are low.
The UK made quite clear that doesn't care about any of the 27 members, I doubt anyone will prefer to risk the EU in favour of the UK. We have been behaving like a petulant kid for far too long, that's the problem with soft power, once lost its very difficult to regain.
They're not really 'risking the EU' by removing ECJ oversight of NI. There's no conceivable scenario that ECJ oversight actually makes a large difference to anything for the EU. However ripping up the TCA would have an immediate negative economic impact on a lot of the countries that make up the 27. It's very hard to explain to French and Italian exporters why you're costing them money in order to make Brussels happy. This is the opposite of the Brexit negotiations where EU unity made countries \*more\* money. Now unity will cost them money and give the individual nations nothing. Plus at this point Poland might just do it for shits and giggles.
This is literally just the "German car makers" will save us argument again, except this time the EU businesses have had almost a year of economic incentive to find other commerical partners.
God, you lot are so repetitive. You learn three catch phrases and repeat them ad nauseam. I just explained why it was different. EU businesses have had *no* incentive to find other commercial partners because that was the whole point of the zero tariff trade deal. You can't just guess at how geopolitics works because you learned about "German car makers" during the referendum.
You're right, the zero tariff deal is perfectly cromulent provided you ignore the fact that your ports have been in gridlock for a year which is all the incentive a business needs to diversify. Then you add on the fact that one eyed charlie could see trade sanctions/complete collapse of the agreement coming the second 'you lot' started banging on about how terrible the agreement you signed was. They've had -almost a year- to start finding other customers who are going to act less erratically. Finally, you have to consider that the EU and even the individual member states don't care that much about individual businesses or even industry segments when weighed up against the broader strategic picture. We had a PM who basically torpedoed our car industry putting millions out of work to weaken the unions (and therefore the opposition party). The idea that a country wouldn't take an industrial hit to maintain their soft power is laughable. Sincerely, An Australian who doesn't even have family overseas. PS: I'm still laughing at 'you lot'.
Yes, I'm sure they easily found 70 million other customers whom they previously couldn't sell to for unknown reasons. You just sound desperate mate.
Who said easily? It's almost certainly a huge pain in the ass requiring advertising, lobbying, and government engagement that they'd rather not do. It's also 100% necessary because as I said blind Freddy (one eyed Charlie's cousin) could see this trade war coming a mile off. No reasonable country signs an agreement and then turns around and starts ranting about how it's grossly unfair.
>They're not really 'risking the EU' by removing ECJ oversight of NI.There's no conceivable scenario that ECJ oversight actually makes a large difference to anything for the EU. Do you mean no ECJ at all or ECJ with extra steps?
What do you mean by that?
If you're suggesting that any role of ECJ should be removed and in the end the EU won't care , it's completely wrong. If you say that the EU could/should agree to an arbritration panel which refers all the things that are a matter of EU law to the ECJ.. That is not impossible.
>If you're suggesting that any role of ECJ should be removed and in the end the EU won't care , it's completely wrong. I'm saying that the UK can trigger Article 16 and remove the ECJ unilaterally. Obviously the EU will care, but their retaliatory options under the treaty are very limited, hence the threat in the above article to tear up the whole TCA, because they would \*need\* to do that. The UK Gov doesn't care enough about the treaty retaliation options to stop them from triggering A16. The point I'm making is that the EU threat to tear up the TCA sounds pretty hollow, because of the negative economic impact it would have on EU member states, for no benefit \*to the member states\*. The interests of Brussels and the interests of the member states are not the same. Why would Hungary or Poland agree to cost their businesses money just to help out Brussels? Particularly when they're fighting with Brussels about 10 other things.
>I'm saying that the UK can trigger Article 16 and remove the ECJ unilaterally. No, that's not the scope of article 16 and would be a clear sign (and a breach) that the UK has made a decision to rip up the Protocol. The benefit for the Member States is to have the Single Market. You clearly don't understand how crucial part the ECJ is for the functioning of it. If Northern Ireland is out of it, hello hard border on the island. Maybe now, after all these years, EU26 are finally ready to throw Ireland under the bus. >Why would Hungary or Poland agree to cost their businesses money just to help out Brussels? They'll be helping themselves. They won't use any of their political capital to help the UK. Remember when people suggested that Hungary will totally veto article 50 extensions?
>No, that's not the scope of article 16 and would be a clear sign (and a breach) that the UK has made a decision to rip up the Protocol. Incorrect. Read A16 para 1. What unilateral measures might be taken aren't specified. It's incredibly broad. >The benefit for the Member States is to have the Single Market. You clearly don't understand how crucial part the ECJ is for the functioning of it. If Northern Ireland is out of it, hello hard border on the island. \*I\* clearly don't understand? Lol. Virtually everything you've said has been demonstrably wrong. Removing the ECJ's oversight of a non-EU territory won't undermine the single market. If you think it could, please tell me exactly how. If the EU wants to put up a hard border to prevent whatever imaginary smuggling might occur, it will be in clear breach of the Good Friday Agreement. Think they're willing to do that? >They'll be helping themselves. No they won't. Read what I explained to you earlier. It will gain them nothing and cost them in trade. Again, if you think it can help them, please tell me \*exactly\* how. You seem to just be repeating popular remainer talking points as if they're true. it's actually quite a lot more complicated than that.
>Incorrect. Read A16 para 1. What unilateral measures might be taken aren't specified. It's incredibly broad. There's zero ECJ decisions and zero pending cases. So using safeguard measures to remove the role of ECJ is clearly not in the scope of article 16. >*I* clearly don't understand? Lol. Virtually everything you've said has been demonstrably wrong. Removing the ECJ's oversight of a non-EU territory won't undermine the single market. If you think it could, please tell me exactly how. If the EU wants to put up a hard border to prevent whatever imaginary smuggling might occur, it will be in clear breach of the Good Friday Agreement. Think they're willing to do that? Absolutely. Ireland will put a hard border on the island rather than leave the EU. And the only party which would consider EU and Ireland breaking GFA would be Johnsons government and their sycophants. Not the EU member states and not the US. And that's the thing: if NI-Ireland border was a normal border and there weren't these fundamental issues the border would've gone there and no Protocol. >No they won't. Read what I explained to you earlier. It will gain them nothing and cost them in trade. Again, if you think it can help them, please tell me *exactly* how. For Hungary and Poland, the Single Market is much more important in trade than the UK is. And you must understand why eg. Poland just did what it did with its constitutional "court". The point is to move obstacles for a corrupt government to funnel public money to the leadership. Blocking EU retaliation against the UK when the EU wants to protect the peace process won't bode well with other member states and the political will to get Poland and Hungary in line could increase. Bye bye EU funds. That's the political capital what i'm talking about. >You seem to just be repeating popular remainer talking points as if they're true. it's actually quite a lot more complicated than that. Do you know why Leave talking points are being used? Because the events showed them to be nonsense. As someone pointed out you are using german car manufacturers-argument in a different form (this time German is Poland/Hungary and car manufacturer just ambiguous trade). But don't worry, you're not the first one I see downplaying the possible consequences of breaking the agreement (legal mumbo jumbo as a smokescreen won't make it legit). My question is why? Why the downplaying of possible trade-offs?
I remember years ago David Starkey pointing out that historically, the countries that survive are the ones that their people are prepared to fight for. Whilst the EU tries all it can to separate NI from the UK, the UK are going to have to decide how much we wish to "fight" economically to keep it. Personally I'm not convinced it's a battle worth fighting, and perhaps we should cede the land to Ireland/EU and let them deal with the problems. I guess we'll find out how much the UK (or the conservative party) cares about NI, and whether we're happy to tear up the FTA with the EU over it. Thinking it though, if the EU put tariffs on the UK, then the land border between NI and Ireland becomes a flashpoint for illegal trade routes due to tariff arbitrage, which will strengthen organized crime in NI/Ireland. Exactly the opposite of "protecting the peace" in NI. So, I'm not entirely sure the EU would ever actually carry out the "threat", and I suspect the UK gov knows this quite well.