Domestic politics and international politics does have an impact on how one can manoeuvre. I was pointing out the well known history on how the WA came about. Which is no different than what happens in the EU or any other Parliamentary body around the world via horse trading.
“Can” have an impact? Sure.
“Must” have an impact? Nope.
It’s well known that Johnson’s predecessor agreed to a bad deal with the EU which left very little room to move than which was compounded by a hostile Parliament and EU who thought Johnson could not work the problems
May’s Government, which technically was the UK Government, agreed to a deal.
Which is to say: Technically, this was always a negotiation between the EU and the UK Government. Not between the EU and May or the EU and Johnson.
Fundamental difference between May’s deal and Johnson was the May’s backstop provision in which we were never going to have independent parliamentary and judicial sovereignty with the UK tied to the EU/ECJ in perpetuity.
Whatever you said above doesn’t technically apply to the UK of GB and NI. It only applies to GB.
Johnson’s deal has given the NI Parliament the ability to consent which is an important element within the GFA, its ability for NI to consent whether or not to remain in lockstep with the EU or leave. And with the Johnsons revised agreement remaining parts of the UK will leaving EU rule. Very big difference
Or Johnson put a border between GB and NI, to the apparent displeasure of his erstwhile Unionist Allies, while May refused to. I think you’ll find many Northern Irelanders who think Johnson threw NI unionists under the bus to keep his English Brexiteers happy.
Remember no one gave him a chance in hell on renegotiating the WA. Only real problem it didn’t go far enough due to domestic shenanigans
Ah, yes, the lionization of Johnson. Which assumes - contradictorily - that only Johnson could sway the EU, and that the EU has no free agency.
Technically, Johnson only got what the EU was willing to give him - a border between NI and GB. And that too, only after RoI was satisfied.
This brexiteer habit of treating it as a “victory”, rather than EU flexibility, with the follow-on assumption that Johnson can bring the EU to heel whenever he wants, is the reason the talks have hit an impasse. Brexiteers appear to have mistaken EU flexibility for weakness.
He went down a different path due to circumstances, remember the bias speaker of the house gave every chance for pro remain to stop Brexit, which then passed the bill if no agreement is reached then parliament has to vote on a no deal withdrawal in which he knew that he did not have the numbers at that point in time
But I agree he could have stop the withdrawal agreement becoming law after he won his landslide majority. But he didn’t as it was his intention to negotiate a fair and equitable trade deal with the EU,but as we have seen from the negotiations both sides are far apart on where they want to be.
For Brexiteers, it’s always somebody else’s fault, isn’t it?
Of course it’s out of context for statistical purposes, the EU is a trading block and negotiates trade as a single block when it suits, but when it doesn’t you are each individual nations. What do you want to be individual’s or indivisible?
Yes, the benefits of being a fairly loose trading union. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance among Brexiteers right now. “What do you mean they all run their own embassies?” France is both an independent sovereign nation that exports to Germany, and a co-member in a larger union, along with Germany, that makes it easier for France to export to Germany. Not exactly rocket science, is it?
As an aside, a group of individuals can be indivisible. ‘Technically’, etc. The two are not, nor have they ever been, mutually exclusive. Examples abound. Like the UK - an indivisible union of four individual nations.
Negotiations are along the same line everywhere whether political or private treaty. Once again there is no backsliding as I pointed out it’s just Barnier interpretation. The EU wants to use its rule book going forward into the future and the UK just goes along with, no sane country in the world does that without opt outs even Norway has those available to use if needed. The disagreement in regards to sect 77 as M Barnier pointed out is regulatory alignment now and in the future.
The EU disagrees, and given that it’s one of the two parties in this negotiation, that’s a problem.
Want Norway-style opt outs? Sign up for a Norway-style deal.
Technically I am right in my interpretation.
technically: according to the facts or exact meaning of something; strictly.
Technically, you are correct.
Although, as demonstrated above, questions remain about how technically accurate the rest of your assumptions are.
The hypotheticals described have vastly different potential outcomes, if the UK adopted the EU rule book and any future rule into domestic law it can have negative consequences, the hypothetical that you brought would not breech the SM as the product is banned from the EU market it would not even reach continental EU or for that matter NI. The EU already deals with countries that have different stands in which the businesses importing into the EU have to be certified
Only if border checks are in place.
Regulatory alignment is aimed at reducing or eliminating border checks (see NI-RoI). If sub-standard goods (technically speaking) enter the UK and can benefit from the relatively less stringent border checks that the UK is seeking, then that is a problem for the EU.
The alternative is very careful scrutiny of everything entering the EU and NI, which is more painful for businesses, and more costly for both sides. Thats what we’re heading for if there isn’t a certain level of regulatory alignment.
That’s far from the case but we all know that EU rules/ regulations are not set and forget they are reviewed and updated from time to time.
My view is the same as yours as you described earlier no one knows what’s going to happen in the future and if we signed up to a regulatory alignment to maintain standards the UK cannot move its own rules unilaterally as it sees fit nor hypothetically if we wanted to increase those standards to a higher level than the EU because regulatory alignment will put a stop to it.
Our view only differs insofar as Brexiteers think the EU will be driven by malice going forward, while I think it will be driven by pragmatism. The corresponding implication is that brexiteers think the EU will act irrationally with respect to economics and trade, while I think they will act rationally, which will - on balance - be good for everyone in the EU, and those with close relationships with it - Switzerland, Norway etc. Even the UK, if it so chooses.
Obviously I’m not alone here. Technically almost half the UK agrees with this view.
It’s not ignoring the fact at all you seem to think that the UK must enter into vassalage state with the EU when we also are an independent nation. Brexit is about being in control of our own judicial and regulatory system not tying it up again with the EU. The EU is free to change its laws just like the UK, under regulatory alignment we will not have that option.
Technically, that’s not accurate. The UK was an independent nation and an equal member of the EU while it was in the EU. It walked away.
Now it’s an independent nation that is not a member of the EU. However, it wants to benefit (to some degree) from easy access to the biggest asset of the EU - the single market. But, given that the UK is not a member, the EU is putting conditions for that access.
Worth noting that the EU does not propose taking control of all of the UK’s laws as your technically imprecise language suggests (technically speaking - or otherwise - it never has). It’s proposing regulatory alignment on specific areas that it views as being critical to the integrity of its biggest asset. - the single market (ie maintain labour standards, environmental standards, state aid rules). It is not, for example, seeking to dictate UK criminal or education or defence law.
My concerns are 100% justifiable, and so far you or anyone else on the forum has convinced me otherwise.
In fairness to us all, mankind has long struggled to convince dogmatists, religious or otherwise, that their technically irrational articles of faith are, well, technically irrational. Some people continue to believe the world is flat. Others believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. This is less a reflection of ones ability to convince another, than it is a reflection of the inherent dangers of ideology and dogmatism.
That said, you haven’t, technically, demonstrated that EU behaviour - on balance - is damaging to those closest to it (Norway, Switzerland etc). Unless you believe Switzerland and Norway are thoroughly irrational actors (notwithstanding the fact they technically have higher quality of life indicators than the UK), their experience contradicts your assertions.
Well let me put it this way: those on this forum say because the EU is larger because of its population and economic size as a whole than the UK that the UK has no options but follow and fall into regulatory alignment.
China has a both larger economy and population than the EU, would you be willing to incorporate Chinese law as domestic EU law via regulatory alignment just to secure a trade deal with China ?
That line of argument doesn’t - technically - work.
As a general rule, the party with the highest standard doesn’t have to adjust to the lower standard for the simple reason that - technically - it already meets the lower standards by virtue of being, well, a higher standard.
But that aside, it depends on how much ease of access one party is seeking - or willing to provide - to the other party.
If the UK wants to go to lower standards, it loses some ease of access. If it intends to go for higher standards, it might as well go into full alignment because then the EU regulations have no bearing - they will be met anyway.
Therein lies the crux: if the UK isn’t going to adopt lower standards - that is to say - if it intends to maintain the same or higher standards, then why the fuss about regulatory alignment when it will align by default anyway?
The only logical answer is that it intends to undercut EU standards, as a result of which the EU is seeking guarantees.
This has always been a very simple and straightforward issue.
As I said before EU protectionism has been talked about long before Brexit really gather steam, it’s nothing new.
Funny how you’re facts haven’t countered any argument about protectionism and as pointed out Cecilia Malmström agrees that the EU is protectionist, can’t get more damming evidence than from EU’s own trade commissioner from 2014 to 2019.
None of that - technically - changes the fact that any EU trade protectionism that the UK will face after leaving the EU is a direct consequence of Brexiteer labour protectionism. If the latter protectionists hadn’t prevailed, the former would not happen. That is to say, the UK would still have had full access to the single market - no scope for EU protectionism.
Which makes the sight of Brexiteers criticizing anybody else’s protectionism seem farcical - you know, “protectionist angry at other protectionists for being equally protectionist.” Glass houses etc.
As an aside, I’ve never denied that the EU is protectionist. Literally every country is. This is just a fact. That’s why countries spend years negotiating trade deals. That’s why EU nations created a trading bloc.
Obviously you didn’t read the post in full yesterday, nor the link to an article titled “Six reasons why ‘Norway Plus’ is an unlikely Brexit outcome”
Why should I rely on somebody not involved in the negotiations speculating, rather than any official communication from one party or the other? If it’s true, surely it must be out there.
As I recall, all options were on the table at the beginning. Probably still are. I can’t imagine the EU refusing to discuss a Norway type deal even now. Can you?