I think the French are certainly saying it.
The EU didn’t want the Protocol, they wanted the Theresa May deal. It was the DUP who sank that.
I think the French are certainly saying it.I agree with Frostie that the EU did not want Brexit to work (neither do I). The EU had them over a barrel, they thought imposing ridiculous NI protocol requirements might reverse engines. Article 16 was built in as a clear sign that the Brits would renegotiate when they were not over that barrel.
Very much so. Is Italy saying you can't trust the Brits? Is Estonia? It's none of our business, except maybe to side with NI who we claim to want to join with us. It is cheap anti Brit rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience. Only good thing is they stole the ground from SF.
”think” and “certainly” in same sentence are a bit contradictory.I think the French are certainly saying it.
We know. Frostie was arguing that’s why they were playing such hard ball on it.The EU didn’t want the Protocol, they wanted the Theresa May deal. It was the DUP who sank that.
It makes perfect sense in French”think” and “certainly” in same sentence are a bit contradictory
Not quite. The Brexiteers thought they could enjoy the benefits of EU membership without the obligations - the cakeism option. But the EU can't (for obvious existential reasons) tolerate a situation whereby a non-member state has a more advantageous package of trading and other terms outside the bloc than within it. Otherwise, member states would depart to enjoy those terms and the EU breaks up. In their wildest fantasies, the hardcore Brexiteers really quite fancied this outcome and some even openly admitted it. But it was never an option. Nothing personal against the Brits - just business.I agree with Frostie that the EU did not want Brexit to work (neither do I).
But, but, but, what about the "easiest trade deal ever" that was going to be negotiated by a UK government that "held all the cards" post the Leave vote?! Surely you're not suggesting that the Brexiteers were spectacularly deluded?The EU had them over a barrel
Again, that's not a fair characterisation. If the UK is not in the Single Market, then there has to be a border somewhere along the route from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to 26 County Ireland to mainland Europe. There are only three options:they thought imposing ridiculous NI protocol requirements might reverse engines.
The main retailers of cheap rhetoric are the Brits who made cheap anti-EU jibes their main stock in trade and a potent political tool. One Boris Johnson being a leading historical exponent who rode the anti-EU train all the way to Number 10.It is cheap anti Brit rhetoric aimed at a domestic audience. Only good thing is they stole the ground from SF.
Gosh, I am not going to find myself supporting the Brexiteers. I think you are just reinforcing Frostie's point - the EU do not want Brexit to be a success.Not quite. The Brexiteers thought they could enjoy the benefits of EU membership without the obligations - the cakeism option. But the EU can't (for obvious existential reasons) tolerate a situation whereby a non-member state has a more advantageous package of trading and other terms outside the bloc than within it. Otherwise, member states would depart to enjoy those terms and the EU breaks up. In their wildest fantasies, the hardcore Brexiteers really quite fancied this outcome and some even openly admitted it. But it was never an option. Nothing personal against the Brits - just business.
They were spectacularly deluded. They thought that since they already had a FTA and alignment on regulations it would be a breeze. But they underestimated the above point of the EU's desire to see it fail. And they completely missed that Varadkar would play "the IRA will bomb your border posts" card.But, but, but, what about the "easiest trade deal ever" that was going to be negotiated by a UK government that "held all the cards" post the Leave vote?! Surely you're not suggesting that the Brexiteers were spectacularly deluded?
The EU claims to have announced an 80% relaxation in the Protocol. How is it that only a few months ago when Boris had his back to the wall the EU requirements were 5 times tougher than they now need? Who is being disingenuous here?Again, that's not a fair characterisation. If the UK is not in the Single Market, then there has to be a border somewhere along the route from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to 26 County Ireland to mainland Euro
No supporter of Bojo but it seems to me that Simon Varadkar are taking a leaf from his copy book and trying to out point SF with their cheap anti Brit rhetoric.The main retailers of cheap rhetoric are the Brits who made cheap anti-EU jibes their main stock in trade and a potent political tool. One Boris Johnson being a leading historical exponent who rode the anti-EU train all the way to Number 10.
After every atrocity by the IRA against the Brits/Protestants in the Troubles I assuaged any guilt I might feel by recalling the Betrayal of Clannabuidhe.
Wiki said:A massacre by Vikings, led by Godfrey of the Uí Ímair; recorded in the Annals of the Four Masters. A large quantity of human bones was found in the cave in 1869.
Similarly I don't touch anything Norwegian on principle after the appalling massacre of Dunmore Cave in 928 in which 1,000 innocent Irish people were slaughtered.
"....a success"? If you think about it, it's actually impossible for Brexit to be a success. At least in the sense of resulting in a more advantageous economic outcome for Britain than remaining an EU member state. Just about every economist in the world agrees that free trade agreements are a good thing for both sides. Britain had the ultimate, 100% frictionless, free trade agreement as part of its EU membership. Any replacement, by definition, had to be an inferior arrangement. That's down to the UK not the EU.I think you are just reinforcing Frostie's point - the EU do not want Brexit to be a success.
No, they completely underestimated the EU's aversion to throwing a small member state under the bus. They just didn't expect the EU to make the absence of an economic border on the island of Ireland a red line issue.They were spectacularly deluded. They thought that since they already had a FTA and alignment on regulations it would be a breeze. But they underestimated theabove bee point of the EU's desire to see it fail.
A contemptible distortion of a legitimate Irish concern.And they completely missed that Varadkar would play "the IRA will bomb your border posts" card.
The EU has a legitimate interest, a vital interest even, in protecting the single market of its 27 member states and ensuring no leakage into it from the UK/NI channel. It's entitled to take a hardball negotiating stance to do so. The Protocol, even as originally envisaged, was still a considerable concession to the UK, and was a brave venture into the unknown by the EU. I don't see any great problem in tweaking it in light of practical experience and offering further operational relief to the UK in return for the UK fully implementing its side of the bargain - which it has egregiously failed to do so far. That's the very essence of reasonableness and good faith by the EU. To paint it as disingenuous is, well, disingenuous!The EU claims to have announced an 80% relaxation in the Protocol. How is it that only a few months ago when Boris had his back to the wall the EU requirements were 5 times tougher than they now need? Who is being disingenuous here?
In contemplating a reply I find myself in the ridiculous position of almost defending Brexit. I was disgusted by the Brexit vote. I hope it goes wrong for them and best of all that they come back begging."....a success"? If you think about it, it's actually impossible for Brexit to be a success. At least in the sense of resulting in a more advantageous economic outcome for Britain than remaining an EU member state. Just about every economist in the world agrees that free trade agreements are a good thing for both sides. Britain had the ultimate, 100% frictionless, free trade agreement as part of its EU membership. Any replacement, by definition, had to be an inferior arrangement. That's down to the UK not the EU.
Of course, if you define Brexit "success" as reverting to Blue UK passports (manufactured in the EU!!) and the reintroduction of imperial weights and measures, then the EU has no problem with that kind of success.Likewise, eliminating freedom of movement for EU workers while unpicked crops rot, ports jam up and the financial services industry shrinks operations in the City of London. They've taken back control, after all.
No, they completely underestimated the EU's aversion to throwing a small member state under the bus. They just didn't expect the EU to make the absence of an economic border on the island of Ireland a red line issue.
A contemptible distortion of a legitimate Irish concern.
The EU has a legitimate interest, a vital interest even, in protecting the single market of its 27 member states and ensuring no leakage into it from the UK/NI channel. It's entitled to take a hardball negotiating stance to do so. The Protocol, even as originally envisaged, was still a considerable concession to the UK, and was a brave venture into the unknown by the EU. I don't see any great problem in tweaking it in light of practical experience and offering further operational relief to the UK in return for the UK fully implementing its side of the bargain - which it has egregiously failed to do so far. That's the very essence of reasonableness and good faith by the EU. To paint it as disingenuous is, well, disingenuous!
on Varadkar, he did show his EU colleagues footage of IRA destroying border posts.
Well given the winding up they were getting I guess they would feel they would have to deliver a violent response. I am old enough to recall pre Troubles a very physical border infrastructure, entirely implemented by the basket case Southern State. The locals did not then see it as a proportionate response to go bombing these Southern posts.And just on that. Considering the response of loyalists to an invisible sea border, what do you think yourself the reaction of Republican communities in border areas to any type of visible physical infrastructure?
I am old enough to recall pre Troubles a very physical border infrastructure, entirely implemented by the basket case Southern State. The locals did not then see it as a proportionate response to go bombing these Southern posts.
There was never going to be a need for physical infrastructure at the border.
Invisibly just as now. Possibly in a ship anchored 20 miles outside Dublin bay unseen by the citizenry.Perhaps you can reveal all now?
Apologies for the silly riposte, but can you please explain how the current sea border is invisible?
Apologies for the silly riposte, but can you please explain how the current sea border is invisible?
do you agree with me that the Tanaiste of this country warning future putative trade partners of the UK that you can’t trust them is childish and unhelpful
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?