May be a silly question but what stops UK and, say, Egypt agreeing on 1st Jan that UK will place no tariffs on Egyptian widgets if Egypt places no tariffs on British thingamybobs?

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

If you had read my posts upthread you will have noticed that i expect the EU to use the dispute settlement mechanism within the WA, I could not have made myself any more clearer

That disupte settlement mechanism ultimately leads to the ECJ: would you agree to the UK going before the European Union's Court of Justice and accept its ruling? Or are you going to be back here in say 14 months, arguing that Brexit was about no longer being bound by the ECJ and thus the UK not having to accept the rulings of it, is now perfectly logical? Just asking so we can already let you dig the hole for your constantly moving goalposts to be put in...

Well no it actually doesn’t, the only role the ECJ has is to interpret EU law if the independent panel is dealing with issue of EU law, in other words the independent panel asks the ECJ for its interpretation only, not that the dispute is dealt with by the ECJ.

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

from what has been posted so far, it seems to be what the UK deems to be an at risk product, if said product is not crossing the NI/ROI border it is not an at risk product under the WA

The WA is perfectly clear on the fact that all goods going into NI from the rest of the UK are initially to be dealt with as 'at risk' products, unless they are declared not to be so by the joint committee (i.e. the UK and the EU), not by the UK government and certainly not its own unilateral intitiative.

An item is declared at risk if the importer has a chance of onselling the product/s into the EU. If it can be shown the item will not go any further than NI than it’s no longer an at risk product before entering NI. If the products from the importer has paid duties on the item it can get a rebate on the item if duties have already been paid.

A101 wrote:

An item is declared at risk if the importer has a chance of onselling the product/s into the EU. If it can be shown the item will not go any further than NI than it’s no longer an at risk product before entering NI. If the products from the importer has paid duties on the item it can get a rebate on the item if duties have already been paid.

Meaning every physical good that's not immediately consumed (things like gasoline, etc.) is 'at risk'.

A101 wrote:

If you had read my posts upthread you will have noticed that I expect the EU to use the dispute settlement mechanism within the WA, I could not have made myself any more clearer

If you've read the article, you would have noticed that that the proposal apparently is:

If no mutual agreement can be reached by the joint committee with the EU, then ministers are likely to define those terms very narrowly, in the UK’s interests.

The withdrawal agreement currently stipulates, in contrast, that all goods should be deemed at risk of tariffs in the event of a lack of agreement within the committee.

And there you have the problem, wouldn't you say?

art wrote:

May be a silly question but what stops UK and, say, Egypt agreeing on 1st Jan that UK will place no tariffs on Egyptian widgets if Egypt places no tariffs on British thingamybobs?

WTO terms? Look at what that actually entitles.

Dutchy wrote:

art wrote:

May be a silly question but what stops UK and, say, Egypt agreeing on 1st Jan that UK will place no tariffs on Egyptian widgets if Egypt places no tariffs on British thingamybobs?

WTO terms? Look at what that actually entitles.

What obliges countries to trade under WTO terms? Will the UN Security Council sanction invasion of the UK to topple the government if the UK and another country choose to trade as they wish with each other?

Dutchy wrote:

art wrote:

May be a silly question but what stops UK and, say, Egypt agreeing on 1st Jan that UK will place no tariffs on Egyptian widgets if Egypt places no tariffs on British thingamybobs?

WTO terms? Look at what that actually entitles.

What obliges countries to trade under WTO terms? Will the UN Security Council sanction invasion of the UK to topple the government if the UK and another country choose to trade as they wish with each other? Oh, yes, and invade the other country concerned, too.

Boris is losing another top civil servant today. Though reason unknown, it looks like the head of the legal department doesn't like eh way Boris and his team are doing things.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/uks-top-legal-civil-servant-quits-over-brexit-deal-changes-jonathan-jones

Boris and his team will probably welcome the news (one civil servant more who can be replaced by a friend)

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

from what has been posted so far, it seems to be what the UK deems to be an at risk product, if said product is not crossing the NI/ROI border it is not an at risk product under the WA

The WA is perfectly clear on the fact that all goods going into NI from the rest of the UK are initially to be dealt with as 'at risk' products, unless they are declared not to be so by the joint committee (i.e. the UK and the EU), not by the UK government and certainly not its own unilateral intitiative.

An item is declared at risk if the importer has a chance of onselling the product/s into the EU. If it can be shown the item will not go any further than NI than it’s no longer an at risk product before entering NI. If the products from the importer has paid duties on the item it can get a rebate on the item if duties have already been paid.

As has been pointed out, the default position in the WA is that all imported products are at risk unless a product has been commercially processed in NI (meaning sold in a shop etc); it's up to the joint committee to decide on the list of imported products which are not at risk (if any), not the British government and certainly not unilaterally like it intends to do: there's no legal ground for that in the WA, quite on the contrary even.

At least there is no an admission that the changes will break international law.

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/brexit-news-latest-boris-johnson-eu-deal-update-124433520.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKzdHW6ViH7LodfuuLeNxsHybfaEWVz88vBF-XIvqG2dR0MLQNqTHwudZKcfE-RXXaXo5ViUfAJZmWstU9TrsJ8bQ31U0lKmBYRRPCO2gQnc42-Aihv--dY6nz0vQeuOhUDead_niXpOKcnXlDu0IT8nRvB429tyOouo3WptBYXb

A central principle in the WA which Boris Johnson had signed and the respective parliaments had officially ratified and registered as an international treaty is that the UK respects the integrity of the EU Single Market.

The proposed stipulations are a stick of dynamite to that agreement, because these stipulations explicitly disrespect the integrity of the EU Single Market by unilaterally usurping control of EU rules and regulations without even so much as a consultation.

The primary damage is that the UK government completely obliterates any trust in its good faith in this or any future agreement, and not just with the EU.

Thinking that they're oh so clever weaseling their way through the rock-bottom conflict resolution mechanism means to be missing the point completely: When you're already down to that level on such a fundamental issue of trust, there simply isn't a basis for any significant agreement any more – that's barely half a step above actual rogue state status.

LJ wrote:

At least there is no an admission that the changes will break international law.

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/brexit-news-latest-boris-johnson-eu-deal-update-124433520.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKzdHW6ViH7LodfuuLeNxsHybfaEWVz88vBF-XIvqG2dR0MLQNqTHwudZKcfE-RXXaXo5ViUfAJZmWstU9TrsJ8bQ31U0lKmBYRRPCO2gQnc42-Aihv--dY6nz0vQeuOhUDead_niXpOKcnXlDu0IT8nRvB429tyOouo3WptBYXb

"We're just a little criminal here, nobody should make a fuss about it, right?"

Klaus wrote:

The proposed stipulations are a stick of dynamite to that agreement, because these stipulations explicitly disrespect the integrity of the EU Single Market by unilaterally usurping control of EU rules and regulations without even so much as a consultation.

The primary damage is that the UK government completely obliterates any trust in its good faith in this or any future agreement, and not just with the EU.

Vvery, very stupid of the UK government to act in this manner IMO.

Art, Most current agreements (or understandings, I don't follow these things closely) require that other countries get the same tariffs as the best other countries are granted. So if Egypt is zero they get zero too. Perhaps someone who knows better will explain it.

UK NI Secretary:

"Yes. This does break international law in a very specific and limited way."

Source: Telegraph, Guardian, BBC - take your pick of front page.

But, you know, “negotiating in good faith” etc. Sign an agreement when it’s politically expedient, make promises to others, and then renege after it’s served it’s purpose.

Sound familiar?

The international standing, credibiity and reputation of the United Kindom of Great Britain (and for the moment still) Northern Ireland sinks to a new low today...

Incredible to see HM's Government will have to be told by the ECJ that an international treaty signed only a couple of months ago must be upheld.

Wonder if the French will draw some inspiration from it regarding the border treaty of Calais at a convenient moment in future.

Maybe some Tory MPs should get some (legal) advise before they vote for an agreement. Basic rule, never agree to something you don't understand or have seen it worked. If I would agree to something (or accept an application) and it turns out that I haven't read or tested it, I would have to fear for my job. Then again, MPs are elected and cannot be fired for incompetence.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/brexiter-tory-mps-urge-pm-to-ditch-withdrawal-agreement-if-no-deal

sabenapilot wrote:

The international standing, credibiity and reputation of the United Kindom of Great Britain (and for the moment still) Northern Ireland sinks to a new low today...

Incredible to see HM's Government will have to be told by the ECJ that an international treaty signed only a couple of months ago must be upheld.

Wonder if the French will draw some inspiration from it regarding the border treaty of Calais at a convenient moment in future.

They could say : "We're breaking Le Touquet Treaty in a specific and limited way."

Then Spain : "We're breaking the Utrecht Treaty in a specific and limited way"
China : "We're breaking 'one contry, two systems' in a specific and limited way"
Trump : "We're breaking NHS protections in the trade deal in a specific and limited way".

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

If you had read my posts upthread you will have noticed that i expect the EU to use the dispute settlement mechanism within the WA, I could not have made myself any more clearer

That disupte settlement mechanism ultimately leads to the ECJ: would you agree to the UK going before the European Union's Court of Justice and accept its ruling? Or are you going to be back here in say 14 months, arguing that Brexit was about no longer being bound by the ECJ and thus the UK not having to accept the rulings of it, is now perfectly logical? Just asking so we can already let you dig the hole for your constantly moving goalposts to be put in...

Well no it actually doesn’t, the only role the ECJ has is to interpret EU law if the independent panel is dealing with issue of EU law, in other words the independent panel asks the ECJ for its interpretation only, not that the dispute is dealt with by the ECJ.

I'm not a lawyer, nor english my native language but I think the ECJ ruling is not, as you claim, only for interpretation of the EU law.

Article 174 of the Withdrawal Agreement
Disputes raising questions of Union law
1. Where a dispute submitted to arbitration in accordance with this Title raises a question of interpretation of a concept of Union law, a question of interpretation of a provision of Union law referred to in this Agreement or a question of whether the United Kingdom has complied with its obligations under Article 89(2), the arbitration panel shall not decide on any such question. In such case, it shall request the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a ruling on the question. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give such a ruling which shall be binding on the arbitration panel.
The arbitration panel shall make the request referred to in the first subparagraph after having heard the parties.

I'm not saying that it's the case with the recent events as I didn't read what was "specific and limited way" of supposed breach and the dispute resolution process can vary in function of the article in breach (in relation to the Northern Ireland Protocol implementation in particular it's directly EU law which applies, therefore a dispute goes directly to the ECJ).

A101 wrote:

Well placing Tariffs on goods entering NI is a huge fundamental change under the UK constitution


Act of Union (Ireland) 1800

That all articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country, (not herein-after enumerated as subject to specific duties) shall from thenceforth be imported into each country from the other free from duty,

& as previously quoted

be entitled to the same privileges, and be on the same footing as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles,

It is certainly a big change, but the parliament decided to change that when they approved the WA. If they had the right to change that is an interesting question and to me that sounds like a good argument for a written constitution so that it is clear what the parliament can and can not do.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

That disupte settlement mechanism ultimately leads to the ECJ: would you agree to the UK going before the European Union's Court of Justice and accept its ruling? Or are you going to be back here in say 14 months, arguing that Brexit was about no longer being bound by the ECJ and thus the UK not having to accept the rulings of it, is now perfectly logical? Just asking so we can already let you dig the hole for your constantly moving goalposts to be put in...

Well no it actually doesn’t, the only role the ECJ has is to interpret EU law if the independent panel is dealing with issue of EU law, in other words the independent panel asks the ECJ for its interpretation only, not that the dispute is dealt with by the ECJ.

I'm not a lawyer, nor english my native language but I think the ECJ ruling is not, as you claim, only for interpretation of the EU law.

Article 174 of the Withdrawal Agreement
Disputes raising questions of Union law
1. Where a dispute submitted to arbitration in accordance with this Title raises a question of interpretation of a concept of Union law, a question of interpretation of a provision of Union law referred to in this Agreement or a question of whether the United Kingdom has complied with its obligations under Article 89(2), the arbitration panel shall not decide on any such question. In such case, it shall request the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a ruling on the question. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give such a ruling which shall be binding on the arbitration panel.
The arbitration panel shall make the request referred to in the first subparagraph after having heard the parties.

I'm not saying that it's the case with the recent events as I didn't read what was "specific and limited way" of supposed breach and the dispute resolution process can vary in function of the article in breach (in relation to the Northern Ireland Protocol implementation in particular it's directly EU law which applies, therefore a dispute goes directly to the ECJ).

I stand corrected if that is the case, my understanding is that an independent panel convenes if the joint committee cannot come to a resolution, the ECJ part comes when it has to interpret EU law in that the independent panel can’t overrule the finding of the ECJ. That’s my interpretation. How this new legislation is drawn up will be the deciding factor if it passes Parliament

Bostrom wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well placing Tariffs on goods entering NI is a huge fundamental change under the UK constitution


Act of Union (Ireland) 1800

That all articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country, (not herein-after enumerated as subject to specific duties) shall from thenceforth be imported into each country from the other free from duty,

& as previously quoted

be entitled to the same privileges, and be on the same footing as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles,

It is certainly a big change, but the parliament decided to change that when they approved the WA. If they had the right to change that is an interesting question and to me that sounds like a good argument for a written constitution so that it is clear what the parliament can and can not do.

Yeah that’s why I’m surprised the DUP hasn’t taken it up before the courts, I guess it all comes down to ££. If what I suspect is true then they would have to scrap the WA as it violates the very existence of the UK

I think we may finally be hitting a watershed moment... I was reading the BBC article about the UK admitting this will break international law and then scrolled through about six pages of the highest-rated comments - they were *ALL* saying how disgraceful the government was behaving and that it's time to put a stop to it.

At the time of writing, all those comments were upvoted in the several hundreds to a handful of downvotes - feels like a sea-change of opinion to me!

Bostrom wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well placing Tariffs on goods entering NI is a huge fundamental change under the UK constitution


Act of Union (Ireland) 1800

That all articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country, (not herein-after enumerated as subject to specific duties) shall from thenceforth be imported into each country from the other free from duty,

& as previously quoted

be entitled to the same privileges, and be on the same footing as to encouragements and bounties on the like articles,

It is certainly a big change, but the parliament decided to change that when they approved the WA. If they had the right to change that is an interesting question and to me that sounds like a good argument for a written constitution so that it is clear what the parliament can and can not do.

Technically we do have a written constitution and goes back at far as Magna Carta of 1215 , just not codified as such

I've read an article about Brexit on BBC this morning. As usual I skimmed the first paragraph, but this time it felt like something is wrong. I've read it again, and then I've realized what it was: the first three words were "Lord Frost says..". Lol, I guess Batman was not available, so they had to move to the next available comics superhero to lead the UK negotiation team.

sabenapilot wrote:

Wonder if the French will draw some inspiration from it regarding the border treaty of Calais at a convenient moment in future.

Yeah if they want to shut down Eurotunnel, one of the largest employers in Northern France. There is no room in Folkstone to presently set up Immigration and Customs checks, but I am sure France would happily make thousands of French nationals unemployed who are employed by Eurotunnel. What a clever thought you have come up with.

This could explain the reasoning behind the new legislation

Brussels threatened to block British food exports to Northern Ireland in Brexit power play

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12618129/ ... eland/amp/

A101 wrote:

This could explain the reasoning behind the new legislation

Brussels threatened to block British food exports to Northern Ireland in Brexit power play

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12618129/ ... eland/amp/

That's a very weak attempt of the Sun to deflect the firestorm caused by the UK government's misconceived announcement to deliberately breach international law.

What they're presenting as a pretense there is nothing outrageous at all but merely the fully known and automatic consequence of the Withdrawal Agreement as chosen by Boris Johnson.

This was exactly why Theresa May had rejected this particular deal and agreed to the UK-wide backstop instead.

Rejecting that backstop again and instead conceding the deal with the border across the Irish Sea as the EU had proposed long before does of course have exactly that consequence: That products coming from Britain to Northern Ireland would then effectively enter the EU Single Market and thus will need to be compliant with all applicable EU rules and regulations.

None of that is new, surprising or outrageous. It has always been the specific compromise in that particular kind of deal where Britain would have maximum flexibility to diverge from EU rules and regulations but Northern Ireland would remain aligned with EU rules and regulations in order to preserve the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

What the Sun is doing there is a desperate, last-ditch attempt to assuage at least some of the pain of the Brexit followers they themselves had led exactly to this part of the desert with no unicorns in sight anywhere, trying to tell them that this plan of the Johnson government was not really as disreputable and shameful as it actually is.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

This could explain the reasoning behind the new legislation

Brussels threatened to block British food exports to Northern Ireland in Brexit power play

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12618129/ ... eland/amp/

That's a very weak attempt of the Sun to deflect the firestorm caused by the UK government's misconceived announcement to deliberately breach international law.

What they're presenting as a pretense there is nothing outrageous at all but merely the fully known and automatic consequence of the Withdrawal Agreement as chosen by Boris Johnson.

This was exactly why Theresa May had rejected this particular deal and agreed to the UK-wide backstop instead.

Rejecting that backstop again and instead conceding the deal with the border across the Irish Sea as the EU had proposed long before does of course have exactly that consequence: That products coming from Britain to Northern Ireland would then effectively enter the EU Single Market and thus will need to be compliant with all applicable EU rules and regulations.

None of that is new, surprising or outrageous. It has always been the specific compromise in that particular kind of deal where Britain would have maximum flexibility to diverge from EU rules and regulations but Northern Ireland would remain aligned with EU rules and regulations in order to preserve the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

What the Sun is doing there is a desperate, last-ditch attempt to assuage at least some of the pain of the Brexit followers they themselves had led exactly to this part of the desert with no unicorns in sight anywhere, trying to tell them that this plan of the Johnson government was not really as disreputable and shameful as it actually is.

He’s talking about food stuff destined for NI which meets EU standards, just another attempt by the EU to force the UK into a vassal state.

Ditch the WA in its entirety under the Vienna Convention I say and trade without a deal.

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

This could explain the reasoning behind the new legislation

Brussels threatened to block British food exports to Northern Ireland in Brexit power play

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12618129/ ... eland/amp/

That's a very weak attempt of the Sun to deflect the firestorm caused by the UK government's misconceived announcement to deliberately breach international law.

What they're presenting as a pretense there is nothing outrageous at all but merely the fully known and automatic consequence of the Withdrawal Agreement as chosen by Boris Johnson.

This was exactly why Theresa May had rejected this particular deal and agreed to the UK-wide backstop instead.

Rejecting that backstop again and instead conceding the deal with the border across the Irish Sea as the EU had proposed long before does of course have exactly that consequence: That products coming from Britain to Northern Ireland would then effectively enter the EU Single Market and thus will need to be compliant with all applicable EU rules and regulations.

None of that is new, surprising or outrageous. It has always been the specific compromise in that particular kind of deal where Britain would have maximum flexibility to diverge from EU rules and regulations but Northern Ireland would remain aligned with EU rules and regulations in order to preserve the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.

What the Sun is doing there is a desperate, last-ditch attempt to assuage at least some of the pain of the Brexit followers they themselves had led exactly to this part of the desert with no unicorns in sight anywhere, trying to tell them that this plan of the Johnson government was not really as disreputable and shameful as it actually is.

He’s talking about food stuff destined for NI which meets EU standards, just another attempt by the EU to force the UK into a vassal state.

Ditch the WA in its entirety under the Vienna Convention I say and trade without a deal.

What UK are saying is that US Chlorinated chicken can be re branded, moved to NI and viola free to enter SM.

I remembe in 2016 we had description of possible solutions or description why ROI / NI was close impossible with GFA to solve with UK outside EU.

GFA and SM is red lines for a sovereign EU. UK knows it very well. UK government plays this card to make EU walk away.

But breaking GFA will make any attemt with FTA USA UK impossible.

A101 wrote:

Ditch the WA in its entirety under the Vienna Convention I say and trade without a deal.

So you say: screw Northern Ireland, ditch the Good Friday Agreement (hard border because of your stand here), screw the reputation of the UK (as far as it is), screw the UK economy (maximum damage because of trading on the worst possible terms).

Very good plan, good inside, especially from someone fond of quoting legal texts. Thanks for that.

It is so fascinating that the WA is now under "attack" from the same people who negotiated it only a few months. It was a requirement for Torrie MP's to stand for election to vote for the deal. And some say, yeah this is a good idea. We live in a strange world.

A101 wrote:

This could explain the reasoning behind the new legislation

Brussels threatened to block British food exports to Northern Ireland in Brexit power play

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12618129/ ... eland/amp/

From the newspaper article:

In the Commons, former Prime Minister Theresa May warned the Government was in danger of losing the trust of other countries that it would honour its international agreements...

Anyone care to dispute that view?

A101 wrote:

Ditch the WA in its entirety under the Vienna Convention I say and trade without a deal.

This is a bit like saying that any contract you make should be ditchable if you realise you should not have signed it. I buy and sell shares. Should there be a facility whereby I can retrospectively cancel any deal on which I lost money and if I make money the seller should be able to cancel the contract?

Dutchy wrote:

It is so fascinating that the WA is now under "attack" from the same people who negotiated it only a few months. It was a requirement for Torrie MP's to stand for election to vote for the deal. And some say, yeah this is a good idea. We live in a strange world.

In their defense, they didn't read it and/or couldn't comprehend the legal consequences. They just voted for it.

Is that a defense?.

That is gross negligence and incompetence.

(which is actually the perfect description for Brexit)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... trade-deal

The second time they've said it. If you want a trade deal with the US, good luck if you're screwing around with the Irish border + Good Friday Agreement. Not that that needs saying to anyone with half a brain, but half the Tory MPs don't since they clearly didn't read the WA they are now so all against, yet all voted for and wanted to shut down all debate about it at the time.

Reinhardt wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/brexit-northern-ireland-us-uk-trade-deal

The second time they've said it. If you want a trade deal with the US, good luck if you're screwing around with the Irish border + Good Friday Agreement. Not that that needs saying to anyone with half a brain, but half the Tory MPs don't since they clearly didn't read the WA they are now so all against, yet all voted for and wanted to shut down all debate about it at the time.

I would say alienating your own citizens and actually threatening their safety by the government's actions is by far worse than the effect of not getting a trade deal with the US, but surely we all know that that is also a consequence by now.

Dutchy wrote:

That is gross negligence and incompetence.

True. It is one thing to choose a course of action based on incomplete information. It is quite another thing to choose a course of action based on incomplete information because you chose not to exercise due diligence and fully inform yourself when all the information was available.

Dutchy wrote:

That is gross negligence and incompetence.

(which is actually the perfect description for Brexit)

Is it anything different in any other corporation? I work for a very large financial institution, and the number of people who actually read the legal text on what we need to do is very limited. To be honest I can and do read the legal text associated with my work, but I'm some sort of a nerd. Most people rely completely on the advice they've been given. Unfortunately many of the persons will also not acknowledge they haven't read it or didn't understood what's written. That's real incompetence.

Reinhardt wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/brexit-northern-ireland-us-uk-trade-deal

The second time they've said it. If you want a trade deal with the US, good luck if you're screwing around with the Irish border + Good Friday Agreement. Not that that needs saying to anyone with half a brain, but half the Tory MPs don't since they clearly didn't read the WA they are now so all against, yet all voted for and wanted to shut down all debate about it at the time.

In this light I start to consider that Brexit makes a real turn to the worse.

I thought until now that Brexit was to make some very rich people more rich and they have succeded to make the rest of the UK follow suit on ideas of sovereign, empire II and rule Britannia.

Now Brexit is getting closer to a suicide sect that plan that the world as we know it will end in the end of the year and all of UK shall go down with it.

Brexiteers seems to accept behavior that normally is connected with Pakistan, North Korea etc is something that shall be connected with UK. My memeory cannot even make me remember Mr Trump USA try something similar.

Tory MPs must by the way be the most incompetent crowd we ever seen in any European parliament.

olle wrote:

What UK are saying is that US Chlorinated chicken can be re branded, moved to NI and viola free to enter SM.

You are suggesting we are going to import chickens from the US to sell in the EU..... I’ve heard some whopper’s in my time but geez thats getting up there

art wrote:

This is a bit like saying that any contract you make should be ditchable if you realise you should not have signed it. I buy and sell shares. Should there be a facility whereby I can retrospectively cancel any deal on which I lost money and if I make money the seller should be able to cancel the contract?

Hardly the same thing, as the agreement between the UK-EU is not buying or selling a commodity, a FTA treaty function is to set the parameters between the two nations so those that do buy and sell commodities can do so without too much restrictions. If the treaty is no longer fit for purpose to one of the parties you withdraw from the treaty

A101 wrote:

He’s talking about food stuff destined for NI which meets EU standards,

And if the food is properly qualified and validated like any other 3rd country import into the EU there won't be a problem.

just another attempt by the EU to force the UK into a vassal state.

You guys have chosen, nay insisted, to become a third country to the European Union. It is a bit pathetic to now whine and and moan about that third country status having the usual consequences as it does for everybody else.

I know that BoJo and his merry folk had told you that the UK could have all the cake eat it too, with all the benefits but none of the obligations of EU membership, but you really couldn't claim that nobody around here or pretty much everywhere else hadn't warned you that this could never actually be the case.

Ditch the WA in its entirety under the Vienna Convention I say and trade without a deal.

Sure, the UK could do that, if total international isolation and global pariah status is the desired outcome, as it seems to be for some people.

A101 wrote:

art wrote:

This is a bit like saying that any contract you make should be ditchable if you realise you should not have signed it. I buy and sell shares. Should there be a facility whereby I can retrospectively cancel any deal on which I lost money and if I make money the seller should be able to cancel the contract?

Hardly the same thing, as the agreement between the UK-EU is not buying or selling a commodity, a FTA treaty function is to set the parameters between the two nations so those that do buy and sell commodities can do so without too much restrictions. If the treaty is no longer fit for purpose to one of the parties you withdraw from the treaty

No, you renegotiate it with your partner, usually in bilateral agreement.

Just unilaterally withdrawing from existing treaties generally does damage to that country's international standing and credibility, and the UK has taken a severe beating on that since the whole Brexit debacle started.

And any treaty is based on some give and take, just that the current bunch in Westminster are very much intent on the take but can't comprehend what that give is even about.

Dutchy wrote:

So you say: screw Northern Ireland,

Nope didn’t say that

Dutchy wrote:

ditch the Good Friday Agreement

I didn’t say that either

Dutchy wrote:

screw the UK economy (maximum damage because of trading on the worst possible terms).

You keep saying the UK economy is screwed, cant be much worse than we are now under a covid- induced economic coma

art wrote:

This is a bit like saying that any contract you make should be ditchable if you realise you should not have signed it. I buy and sell shares. Should there be a facility whereby I can retrospectively cancel any deal on which I lost money and if I make money the seller should be able to cancel the contract?

To be honest, those contracts did exist a few years ago. Needless to say, when management at head office discovered this they killed that product instantly (was very popular).

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

art wrote:

This is a bit like saying that any contract you make should be ditchable if you realise you should not have signed it. I buy and sell shares. Should there be a facility whereby I can retrospectively cancel any deal on which I lost money and if I make money the seller should be able to cancel the contract?

Hardly the same thing, as the agreement between the UK-EU is not buying or selling a commodity, a FTA treaty function is to set the parameters between the two nations so those that do buy and sell commodities can do so without too much restrictions. If the treaty is no longer fit for purpose to one of the parties you withdraw from the treaty

No, you renegotiate it with your partner, usually in bilateral agreement.

Just unilaterally withdrawing from existing treaties generally does damage to that country's international standing and credibility, and the UK has taken a severe beating on that since the whole Brexit debacle started.

And any treaty is based on some give and take, just that the current bunch in Westminster are very much intent on the take but can't comprehend what that give is even about.

That only works if both sides want to modify the agreement, in this case only one side wants to (UK)

I haven’t read or seen the new legislation as yet on what is proposed, but agree it’s not a good look.

Not sure why Boris has gone down that path when it’s easier to just withdraw from the WA if the trade agreement become no agreement as it’s then justified that the WA is incompatible with UK law governing the sovereign territory of the UK

It seems the UK has some money left as it's going to spend GBP 120mn on a "Festival of Brexit". I've to say, the timing is perfect.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/09/festival-of-brexit-organisers-launch-application-process

A101 wrote:

You keep saying the UK economy is screwed, cant be much worse than we are now under a covid- induced economic coma

No, the hard Brexit your government is letting your country drift towards will be on top of the COVID consequences, and while all the other countries will climb out of that again, the UK will hit itself in the face with that extra hammer (including losing almost all of its trade deals which the EU will keep).

It is strange that you lack the imagination for things getting even worse than this, but maybe that lack of imagination was exactly what let you vote for Brexit in the first place.

UK Businesses and the state have mostly used up all their contingencies already so there is no headroom left for dealing with Brexit any more, and the UK state hasn't made any real effort to prepare for the no-deal outcome the government still seems to be pushing for at the same time.

'The festival will open applications on Wednesday for individuals and organisations to create teams which will then be commissioned to come up with ideas for the event. Thirty teams, each receiving £100,000, will be chosen'.

So they are going to have a festival in 2022, but are looking for people to come up with ideas of what the festival should consist of.

Surely this is completely back to front.