Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Why on earth would they not allow an EU office in Belfast?

It’s almost like it’s just a political dick swinging game to some of them, not a solemn attempt to improve our trade income globally like wot they said.

I think the EU is also at the appendage swinging game here, on this specific issue - "We insist that we have a EU goods-policing office in your country, to inspect and rule upon whether you're behaving as we deem acceptable". It's red rag to a Bull stuff for the Brexit throbbers and probably unwise, in terms of negotiating. It's the sort of thing that should be kept much lower key in discussions. It probably/definitely is necessary from their EU standpoint, but it being raised/leaked is a bit inflammatory. Maybe the throbbers leaked it deliberately to "make the EU look heavy handed" or maybe the EU leaked it to make it look like they didn't trust the UK Gov't. I dunno, I think it makes both look bad.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/05/2020 at 13:51, blandy said:

I think the EU is also at the appendage swinging game here, on this specific issue - "We insist that we have a EU goods-policing office in your country, to inspect and rule upon whether you're behaving as we deem acceptable". It's red rag to a Bull stuff for the Brexit throbbers and probably unwise, in terms of negotiating. 

Then again, if it were going to be such a massive issue for those throbbers, maybe they shouldn't have signed a treaty agreeing that someone else would be setting the rules that applied. 

Once they agreed to that, what did they expect the consequence to be? A rule without an enforcement mechanism isn't really a rule. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, meregreen said:

The EU don’t trust Boris to deal straight, who would have thunk it. 

I don't think the person in charge really comes into it. Nasty, untrustworthy charlatan though he is, and those around him are. 

International agreements don't rely on trust, whatever the relationships between the parties are like. They rely on rules which both sides are expected to adhere to. That would be the same with this ring piece in charge, or someone they liked. Wouldn't make a difference. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve said it a few time’s before, the U.K. government has no intention of abiding by EU regulations in Northern Ireland. The government has been saying all along there will not be checks in the Irish Sea, the UK won’t be conducting any and they will not let the EU regulate anything on UK territory.

It’s going to be an issue for the EU as to how they respond to that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

It’s going to be an issue for the EU as to how they respond to that. 

One would imagine they'd take the UK to court and win.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

One would imagine they'd take the UK to court and win.

Maybe that.

Or maybe go with "alright, if you think that thrice-weekly processions from our permanent office in Dublin to judge and scrutinise how Belfast is working is better optics for you then fine, let's go with that".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Maybe that.

Or maybe go with "alright, if you think that thrice-weekly processions from our permanent office in Dublin to judge and scrutinise how Belfast is working is better optics for you then fine, let's go with that".

Why would the U.K. let the EU do that? I think it would be pretty easy to whip people up in opposition to the EU demanding they march into U.K. territory demanding the U.K. follow their rules.

I think you guys are missing how little regard your government has for institutions like the EU. If the last few years of Trump and Brexit has taught me anything it’s that what is ‘right’ or ‘proper’ matters jot if enough people are on your side anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

And what would winning mean? The UK are not going to comply regardless. 

Should the UK refuse to comply with a fine issued by the CJEU then further fines would probably be issued.

At some point, even with the 'bastard EU' rhetoric at home, it willl stop playing well for the UK (at least outside the UK and outside the mindset of the Sun/Mail/Express and so on) and there would be direct consequences probably both with the EU and also with other (potential) trade partners.

 

30 minutes ago, LondonLax said:
7 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Maybe that.

Or maybe go with "alright, if you think that thrice-weekly processions from our permanent office in Dublin to judge and scrutinise how Belfast is working is better optics for you then fine, let's go with that".

Why would the U.K. let the EU do that? I think it would be pretty easy to whip people up in opposition to the EU demanding they march into U.K. territory demanding the U.K. follow their rules.

I think you guys are missing how little regard your government has for institutions like the EU. If the last few years of Trump and Brexit has taught me anything it’s that what is ‘right’ or ‘proper’ matters jot if enough people are on your side anyway. 

Because the NI protocol of the 'deal' that helped Johnson to win the December election and to which the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 gave effect in UK law says so.

It's less about regard for an institution like the EU and more for regard for their own government, the deliterious results of effectively ripping up the 'deal' (even though it helped them win the election it didn't help them to anywhere near a majority of the electorate) and international obligations abouth which they might seem to be blasé but the binning of which would effectively say to any other people who wish to make any sort of international treaty with those specific people in charge that, if/when push comes to shove, they are never to be trusted. Would that stop others making bargains with them? Probably not but it would make it much more difficult and would lead to others making sure they extracted much more from those bargains if they thought that anything and everything could be reneged upon by the UK before the ink is dry.

This is all, obviously, without considering the direct impact on the island of Ireland in terms of economy, politics and security.

Fwiw, I don't think the UK government have the intention of not complying with the Protocol and hence the treaty which was signed (at least in the end), they are just trying to wing a lot of it and push it as far as they can before they have to accept that they should behave like adults and comply with the duties up to which they've signed themselves and the country. They may extract a bit more in terms of the practicalities that get decided upon within the Joint Committee than would have happened if they'd just gone in to it in good faith (and no doubt for some this will be a victory of sorts) but the level of brinkmanship required and the potential reputational damage of behaving like that right up to the last moment is still quite grave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Should the UK refuse to comply with a fine issued by the CJEU then further fines would probably be issued.

At some point, even with the 'bastard EU' rhetoric at home, it willl stop playing well for the UK (at least outside the UK and outside the mindset of the Sun/Mail/Express and so on) and there would be direct consequences probably both with the EU and also with other (potential) trade partners.

 

Because the NI protocol of the 'deal' that helped Johnson to win the December election and to which the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 gave effect in UK law says so.

It's less about regard for an institution like the EU and more for regard for their own government, the deliterious results of effectively ripping up the 'deal' (even though it helped them win the election it didn't help them to anywhere near a majority of the electorate) and international obligations abouth which they might seem to be blasé but the binning of which would effectively say to any other people who wish to make any sort of international treaty with those specific people in charge that, if/when push comes to shove, they are never to be trusted. Would that stop others making bargains with them? Probably not but it would make it much more difficult and would lead to others making sure they extracted much more from those bargains if they thought that anything and everything could be reneged upon by the UK before the ink is dry.

This is all, obviously, without considering the direct impact on the island of Ireland in terms of economy, politics and security.

 

I just don’t think the type of people in the UK government are the type would feel any particular worry or concern for any of these outcomes.  

Quote

Fwiw, I don't think the UK government have the intention of not complying with the Protocol and hence the treaty which was signed (at least in the end), they are just trying to wing a lot of it and push it as far as they can before they have to accept that they should behave like adults and comply with the duties up to which they've signed themselves and the country. They may extract a bit more in terms of the practicalities that get decided upon within the Joint Committee than would have happened if they'd just gone in to it in good faith (and no doubt for some this will be a victory of sorts) but the level of brinkmanship required and the potential reputational damage of behaving like that right up to the last moment is still quite grave.

To be charitable towards my thoughts on the UK government, it might not be that they have ‘no intention’ of complying, it could also be that their idea of compliance may be a token gesture to the regulations and fall well short of what the EU require.  

I believe they are going to make it a problem for the EU to have to rationalise and will take the ‘see you in court’ attitude towards any attempted pushback from the EU. I believe such a scenario would only strengthen their position in the UK court of public opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I just don’t think the type of people in the UK government are the type would feel any particular worry or concern for any of these outcomes. 

For a certain number of them, I think you're right.

The thing is that, whilst they may have a majority of 80 in the current parliament, that's only a huge prop for the current parliament (and even then it can start to fracture quite quickly if consequences do become severe and pressure is put on).

45 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

To be charitable towards my thoughts on the UK government, it might not be that they have ‘no intention’ of complying, it could also be that their idea of compliance may be a token gesture to the regulations and fall well short of what the EU require.

They aren't 'regulations'. It's an international treaty that has been given effect to in UK law.

You may be right that they don't intend to comply fully with what the treaty says or that they're playing a game to try and comply as little as possible but it's a bit like a child threatening to do serious harm to one of its limbs in order to get another jelly baby.

Edit: Thinking it through, I'm more coming down on the playing to the gallery line as explained below.

45 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I believe they are going to make it a problem for the EU to have to rationalise and will take the ‘see you in court’ attitude towards any attempted pushback from the EU. I believe such a scenario would only strengthen their position in the UK court of public opinion.

You may well be right that they're going to have to leave it to the other side to give some ground because the potential consequences of their behaviour are so substantial (if taken to these extremes) that ceding some ground is prefereable for everyone but there is a point at which the EU will surely be unable to do that?

As far as this whole 'court of public opinion'* in the UK is concerned, then it's a very, very fickle place. Woe betide anyone who would be so confident of a victory in that sphere (and just what that might mean - anything, really?) that they're willing to run the risks of becoming an international pariah (and/or fool) on the back of binning an agreement because they won't abide by the terms to which they signed up at the beginning of this year.

I think we ought to take notice of how quickly Johnson and gang pivoted on the NI issue. That the backstop became a (virtually permanent if complied with) state of affairs could also suggest that what they are doing currently isn't anything more than playing to the gallery and, in the joint committee, all of this will come to the kind of agreement actually pictured in the protocol and the lasting take will be for domestic (mainland) public consumption of 'look at what these nasty EU people made us do' without acknowledging that they 'made' them do nothing other than what they had already agreed to do.

I also think that we ought to pay more heed to what happened around last year's Supreme Court case - in the end, when a legal body told them to do something, they did it. It may well have set up a fight further down the line and this might well be part of it but they did comply, through gritted teeth and with all sorts of comments about how the judgment was wrong, &c. I'll admit I was skeptical about them complying but they did.

If the UK wish to push it with rejections of the request for the former and claims that the EU can only 'request to be present at customs and regulatory inspections' rather than having 'the right to be present' (so actually taking it to the extreme rather than just posturing), in terms of the practicalities of setting up an EU office in Belfast and conducting inspections as per the NI protocol, then I don't see why the EU shouldn't or wouldn't simply rent an office in Belfast and dispatch their offficials to the various inspection points. I'm not sure that barring people with the legal right to be present would look great and perhaps that may give the EU, by way of those individuals, a way through via UK courts (in that it may be contrary to the UK act referred to in my previous post).

* Edit 2: We also fall foul of regarding public opinion as a homogenous single thing. The influences on politicians rarely come simply from an overall take, even a majority view. When it is convenient, they'll obviously grasp at it as much as they can (see all the 'will of the people' crap) but vested interests will also begin to weigh heavily as well as local concerns, professional interests and, in only a few cases perhaps but some nonetheless, a personal ethical view on what is the right course of action cannot be discounted.

Edited by snowychap
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Why would the U.K. let the EU do that? I think it would be pretty easy to whip people up in opposition to the EU demanding they march into U.K. territory demanding the U.K. follow their rules.

They've already said that they will, as an alternative to a permanent presence. See Gove's letter to the leaders of the Stormont Assembly. Paragraph 3.

EXCbQ7IXgAEhtTv?format=jpg&name=medium

And I don't think you need to open our eyes about what a bunch of untrustworthy shits they are. We've lived through this. But as for "the court of public opinion", their MO is far more to meekly cave in and just shout loudly that they haven't.

They've rightly assumed that by the time it next matters, their potential voters either (a) didn't care anyway, (b) have forgotten or, the biggest group by miles (c) have never heard of any of this because they don't really care one way or the other. 

2 hours ago, snowychap said:

Should the UK refuse to comply with a fine issued by the CJEU then further fines would probably be issued.

Can't imagine they'd need to get CJEU involved. As you rightly say, the terms of the withdrawal have been written into UK law. Just pursue the matter through the British courts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

They've already said that they will, as an alternative to a permanent presence. See Gove's letter to the leaders of the Stormont Assembly. Paragraph 3.

EXCbQ7IXgAEhtTv?format=jpg&name=medium

And I don't think you need to open our eyes about what a bunch of untrustworthy shits they are. We've lived through this. But as for "the court of public opinion", their MO is far more to meekly cave in and just shout loudly that they haven't.

They've rightly assumed that by the time it next matters, their potential voters either (a) didn't care anyway, (b) have forgotten or, the biggest group by miles (c) have never heard of any of this because they don't really care one way or the other. 

Can't imagine they'd need to get CJEU involved. As you rightly say, the terms of the withdrawal have been written into UK law. Just pursue the matter through the British courts.

An ‘ad hoc’ visit conducted ‘as necessary’ can mean two very different things to the two sides. 

If I were the EU I would be assuming I was dealing with a bad faith negotiator every step of the way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

Can't imagine they'd need to get CJEU involved. As you rightly say, the terms of the withdrawal have been written into UK law. Just pursue the matter through the British courts.

It's from one of Steve Peers's blogs and I think it says that Article 12 is at least implicit in saying that the CJEU has jurisdiction in respect of EU Law matters relating to various parts of the treaty (there's even a specific provision in there to say that the UK may participate in proceedings before them as if it were a member state).

So whether it's through the arbitration mechanism or by reference to the CJEU, he seemed to suggest that this would be the first port of call for any legal action if required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the article:

Quote

The first meeting of the Specialised Committee on 30 April was soured by the controversy over the EU presence in Belfast.  However, there was a more constructive mood over what the UK has already put in place, and what it is planning to put in place.

"There was some concrete evidence of implementation on the UK side," says a senior EU source briefed on the meeting.  "Our initial concern was that this would turn into yet another stock-taking where everybody would recognise what needed to be done and go home.  But the UK went to some lengths to try and demonstrate that they were actually engaged at a practical level in implementation."

...

The grating tensions between the EU and UK on the Protocol remain, but the wheels are beginning to turn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â