The Post-Brexit Thread

Mugshot

Cracking a solo.
This is the only thing I can find that is similar to the point claimed in the FT

https://twitter.com/Ja.../1305821897343602688

It would appear that a lethargy to supply documentation is behind the spin.

Personally, I can't believe the EU would blockade food to Northern Ireland; It's just not the way they operate, they'd be hurting their own citizens and providing one hell of a PR victory to Brexiteers.
And oh, a food blockade on Northern Ireland would not go down well on the whole island of Ireland.

However, I can see them protecting the integrity of their market. I can't help but feel that an attempt is being made to back them into a corner.

I just wish they would clearly deny the "blockade" situation and explain the (apparently simple) reality.

I'd imagine that anyone remotely familiar with the history, politics and use of language in Northern Ireland is beyond appalled at this latest play.

From my vantage point far, far away, I detect a significant shock in Ireland not so much at what is happening, moreso in the way it is happening. It has been mentioned several times that for previous "shocks" back channels had been used to inform in advance. Not this time.
It's not just the rules of the game that are up in the air, it's the very way of playing the game.
Blockade is of course deliberately inflammatory language, isn't blockading another nation an act of war?
 

newfhouse

Regressive elitist lefty
Also, I don't think it threatened a peace treaty.
They really don’t care. Expediency is all that matters.
 

stowie

Legendary Member
in the interests of balance, this situation only arose because Barnier at first hinted in negotiations with Frost, and then outright said, that in the event of a no deal the EU would consider banning food imports from the UK.

It seems to have escaped most commentators - some in their excitement, and to some on the left because overlooking it was so convenient to their view on the world - that this would be a breach of the EU's exit treaty with the UK, and itself a breach of...wait for it...

International law!

Shock horror, those words again!

So Boris responds with his own counter-threat to break international law and the media is in uproar. Barnier threatens to do so (and threatened it first) and no one seems to give much of a sheet about it. This has been commented upon quite extensively in the foreign media, but barely mentioned at all here.

And this is why I subscribe the the New York Times website - they largely report the news as outside observers, ambivalent to any UK political position. As someone with no party political affiliations or leanings of my own it's about the only way to see the news, instead of someones mere opinion of events selectively presented as news.
To my understanding...

1) Barnier was hinting that the UK making it onto the third country listing for animal product import to the EU wasn't a slam dunk. This was expected to be a formality only. This relates to UK -> EU trade and so I am unsure how it would be a breach of the WA. In fact, if I am reading it correctly, the WA specifically excludes animal product from article 41 which extends the right for goods placed in each market before the end of the transition period to continue being able to be placed (with what seems to be some get out clauses anyway).

2) Even if the action would be a breach of the WA, then this is simply a comment wrapped in diplomatic speak. In no way equivalent to the government proposing and enacting legislation that breaks international law (even if only " in specific and limited ways"!).

3) The government have made a big play of "sovereignty" and "blockades" within the Union. The Internal Markets Bill actually doesn't address the stated issue at all. Clause 42 allows UK government the possibility to disregard international law for NI -> GB trade (not the other way around). Clause 45 allows UK government the possibility to disregard international law for regulations around our old favourite - state aid.

4) The Internal Markets Bill contents were made known before Barnier made his comments. Not the other way around. Boris is not (yet) claiming he can time travel.

My opinion as an EU-loving, unpatriotic UK Remoaner traitor (tm) :

Johnson renegotiated the WA during 2019 and campaigned on it during the 2019 GE as an "oven-ready deal". In 2020, when the WA was passed, he said "The signing is a fantastic moment, which finally delivers the result of the 2016 referendum and brings to an end far too many years of argument and division".

Now only months later he has appeared to change his mind. It is almost as if he hadn't read what he signed. Brexity Tories such as IDS certainly don't seem to have read it, despite him being rather smug about the bill not needing any more scrutiny at the time.

Boris knew what was in the WA but signed it off to campaign on his "oven ready deal" whilst nodding and winking to the Brexiteers in his party that he had signed it whilst crossing his fingers. It was a lovely campaign slogan and kicked the problems down the road. But now the end of the road is in sight and the problems haven't magically disappeared. So he is slowly unpicking the WA to appease his own party and hope that the general public are too stupid or bored or both to realise that he is undoing his own bigly deal made only months ago whilst calling it ambiguous.

What is extra-ordinary is that a Conservative government appears to be utterly obsessed by being able to offer state-aid. State-aid, since Thatcher, has been shunned as being wildly inefficient and skewing markets. It is as if Johnson and the Tory party have been taken over by the ghost of Corbyn past. And even more extra-ordinary is that we have absolutely no idea why Johnson is going to the wall on this topic, or what he intends to do that requires lower state-aid restrictions.

And the final Alice-In-Wonderland part of all of this, is that generally governments will use their majority to implement their manifesto. Johnson is using his majority to unpick the foundations of his manifesto to the extent that it is debated whether the Lords could reject the bill based upon the convention that they do not use their powers to block manifesto commitments!
 
Two hours to go and no-one has yet mentioned it is Battle of Britain day!
The irony is that many of the the people going on the most about respecting the people who fought are also trying to destroy the system that brought peace to Europe for the longest time in its history.
 

johnblack

Senior Member

raleighnut

Legendary Member
Location
On 3 Wheels
Three of those four congressmen are "very" pro Ireland, historically in quite an anti British way, so as balance that should be taken in to account when viewing their statement.
Yeah it's funny that one country that rebelled against British rule would support another country that rebelled, maybe they have something in common. :whistle:

Not forgetting that there are a lot of Americans with Irish roots too.
 

johnblack

Senior Member
Yeah it's funny that one country that rebelled against British rule would support another country that rebelled, maybe they have something in common. :whistle:

Not forgetting that there are a lot of Americans with Irish roots too.
They have a specific outlook, that's their belief, not all congressmen will hold the same belief or view things as they do. As with all stories the context with which they made their statement should be highlighted.
 
Top Bottom