Yes: BoJo effectively just retracted May's hard-won demand for an all-UK backstop and conceded to go back to the EU's original proposal of a border across the Irish Sea.
Geez that one demand really would have twisted the arm of the EU……. NOT
You guys really want to rewrite history don’t you, that’s what the EU wants in its entirety for the UK to continue in the EU customs territory and all the financial/regulatory burdens it entails.
The EU original draft said that” The territory of Northern Ireland shall be considered to be part of the customs territory of the Union” (in perpetuity) which is quite different from continuing in the UK customs territory, in that under the EU draft would have made the Irish sea the border for CCT and that was the impetus for Mays much maligned agreement to the Irish Backstop, And in realty was the Irish Backstop even worse in terms than the then UK’s existing membership.
There are some similarities but fundamentally works very differently to what the EU drafted
Just handing back to the EU what May had negotiated for the UK at great effort was what you're getting all starry-eyed about here.
Good grief no he hasn’t………Under the Irish Backstop in the old WA and EU original draft NI Protocol the UK was unable to sign any trade agreement outside of the EU. Under the current arrangements the UK can make trade agreement set tariff rates and have a sovereign independent parliamentary and judicial oversight. With goods moving to NI and those that pose no risk of being moved across the Irish border can do so without tariffs
Also within the Protocol is CONSENT this gives Northern Ireland the potential to exit from the protocol in four years’ time, and also the NI Assembly will periodically have a vote on whether the consent will continue in the future, something that could not be done in either EU draft or TM Irish Backstop.
The EU had always declared that they wouldn't change anything about the fundamentals of the deal and that was merely misreported in the UK media as refusing any change whatsoever, which was never the EU's position.
That your media contorted themselves to misreport that major concession as a great negotiation victory is actually Baghdad Bob-worthy in its almost hilariously fact-denying audacity.
All media from both the foreign and domestic in which I had access to must have reported it wrong then. Baghdad Bob must be doing a good impression of Juncker/Tusk then;
Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the EU’s executive Commission, said the bloc’s leaders were unanimous in the view that the Brexit deal, which has been rejected three times by the British parliament, should not be reopened.
“We repeated unanimously that there will be no renegotiating of the withdrawal agreement,” Juncker said in Brussels after a meeting of EU leaders excluding May.
Donald Tusk, who is the president of the European Council and chairs meetings of EU leaders, said there could be tweaks to the political declaration that accompanies the legally watertight withdrawal agreement. The declaration is vaguer
but deals with a range of other matters including the outlines of a future trade relationship between the EU and Britain.
Yes, this had been the EU's preferred solution from the start and only with great reluctance Barnier conceded the all-UK backstop to May; So we were pretty relieved when BoJo conceded that point back to us.
Barnier reluctantly conceded to May backstop; by crikey you make me laugh he must have thought all his Xmas came at once.
He clearly doesn't care about NI and he knew his domestic propaganda apparatus would protect him at home, and as we can observe it worked like a charm, if just there.
You know this for a fact and can prove it, does that also imply that I too do not care about NI since I would have preferred no deal than the WA in either form?
You're suffering from a massive misconception about the "non-binding" Political Declaration:
You and your government clearly think that just because they couldn't be sued in a court about it right now they could therefore treat it like a complete joke.
What you don't get is that the "non-binding" nature of the PD is actually completely meaningless, because it is all about a future agreement between the UK and the EU, and the EU absolutely considers it to be the relevant foundation for a new deal!
So while your leaders make a big show about how silly they find all that PD business and how "clever" they consider themselves to be for pulling the wool over the EU's eyes, Michel Barnier is fully determined to stick to the PD as negotiated with the UK government at the time, and the EU Parliament has just reinforced that position.
So, the EU can indeed not sue the UK about the PD.
So, in your own words the PD is useless but binding at the same time. In Donald Tusk own words on the difference between the WA and PD;
“The declaration is vaguer but deals with a range of other matters including the outlines of a future trade relationship between the EU and Britain.”
Vague meaning: of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning.
But since you are expecting the PD to be binding remember;
XIV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION says that and I’ll paraphrase
“The Parties should
in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels
provided by the existing common standard”
It says: "Should & Current High Level” so all the EU should be asking is a non-regression pact not demanding we follow into EU laws in perpetuity
But they (we) can and as you may be starting to realize will simply refuse to enter into a new deal with the UK unless it reflects the negotiated positions from the PD.
It's as simple as that.
Legally the PD is non-binding to the UK, at least until a new deal is closed.
By crikey we should realise someone can actually walk away without a deal; the thought never crossed our minds
But factually the PD is absolutely binding to the EU, and therefore a precondition for a deal.
But I’ll remember that as the PD also says;
“Where the Parties consider it to be in their mutual interest during the negotiations”
The EU is asking for more than the PD by demanding regulatory alignment and not asking for regulatory equivilance.