The Positive Brexit Thread

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

No one who matters cares in the slightest about the Ulster Unionists, and even the UK government was forced to admit it hadn't solved the technological border problems. If it had done that then it could in part have applied the same technology to the Irish Sea border.

Technology based borders exist already : Norway and Sweden. The EU isn't interested in it for political reasons. 

As for nobody being interested in the ulster unionists, its them who are the foundation of the article 16 argument, so they are as much centre stage as the republican side of the argument. 

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Technology based borders exist already : Norway and Sweden. The EU isn't interested in it for political reasons. 

As for nobody being interested in the ulster unionists, its them who are the foundation of the article 16 argument, so they are as much centre stage as the republican side of the argument. 

The EU are not punishing us  - that was just a willful misinterpretation in that sadly much diminished comic Newspaper the Telegraph.

Of course if we just rescind A16 then they will respond and punish carefully selected targets - and we'll know it.

[Herman 9,837]

Sweden and Norway still have a hard border. The technology argument is a bit of a red herring. 

[1902 1,167]

14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Technology based borders exist already : Norway and Sweden. The EU isn't interested in it for political reasons. 

As for nobody being interested in the ulster unionists, its them who are the foundation of the article 16 argument, so they are as much centre stage as the republican side of the argument. 

The Norway- Sweden border has physical checks. The idea that it works on technology alone is a myth. 

Essentially you are peddling a load of Ill fleshed out half ideas which were proven not to work 3 years ago and which successive British governments admitted weren't ready.

You are doing that because the Irish border is an inconvenient fact that has thrown a spanner in the works of Brexit, which is more an article of faith than an actual sensible policy.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

9 minutes ago, 1902 said:

The Norway- Sweden border has physical checks. The idea that it works on technology alone is a myth. 

Essentially you are peddling a load of Ill fleshed out half ideas which were proven not to work 3 years ago and which successive British governments admitted weren't ready.

You are doing that because the Irish border is an inconvenient fact that has thrown a spanner in the works of Brexit, which is more an article of faith than an actual sensible policy.

I didn't say it didn't. It is very low friction compared to other methods though. 

None of them were proved not to work because the EU refused to engage with them in the first place for political reasons.

Also, those being trialed are even lower friction. 

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/feb/11/norway-customs-tests-seen-as-sign-of-ho/

Edited November 9, 2021 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

22 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The EU are not punishing us  - that was just a willful misinterpretation in that sadly much diminished comic Newspaper the Telegraph.

Of course if we just rescind A16 then they will respond and punish carefully selected targets - and we'll know it.

Oh of course they are. The French PM even sent a letter to Ursula von der Leyen expressing the importance of making sure the UK is seen to be worse off out of the EU than in. 

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

19 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I didn't say it didn't. It is very low friction compared to other methods though. 

None of them were proved not to work because the EU refused to engage with them in the first place for political reasons.

Also, those being trialed are even lower friction. 

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2019/feb/11/norway-customs-tests-seen-as-sign-of-ho/

You do know Norway is in effect in the single market?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

You do know Norway is in effect in the single market?

That is completely wrong. Norway is a member of EFTA, which is not part of the customs union, hence the exestence of border checks at all. 

Edit: sorry, you're right it's part of the single market, but is not part of the customs union, which is the important factor here. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by littleyellowbirdie

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That is completely wrong. Norway is a member of EFTA, which is not part of the customs union, hence the exestence of border checks at all. 

2. Who are members of the EEA?

The EEA consists of 31 countries: The 28 EU member states, plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. We refer to the latter three as the ‘EEA EFTA states’. (EFTA is the European Free Trade Association.) Switzerland is the fourth member of EFTA, but it is not an EEA member.

3. What exactly is the EEA?

Through the EEA Agreement, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are equal partners in the internal market, on the same terms as the EU member states. This includes having access to the internal market’s four freedoms, the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

2. Who are members of the EEA?

The EEA consists of 31 countries: The 28 EU member states, plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. We refer to the latter three as the ‘EEA EFTA states’. (EFTA is the European Free Trade Association.) Switzerland is the fourth member of EFTA, but it is not an EEA member.

3. What exactly is the EEA?

Through the EEA Agreement, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are equal partners in the internal market, on the same terms as the EU member states. This includes having access to the internal market’s four freedoms, the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture.

Critically not part of the Customs union, hence the presence of customs checks. 

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That is completely wrong. Norwich is a member of EFTA, which is not part of the customs union, hence the exestence of border checks at all. 

Duh, you need to stop reading the Torygraph and start reading a real newspaper - I'm afraid it is you who are completely wrong:

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is a regional trade organization and free trade area consisting of four European states: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.^[4] The organization operates in parallel with the European Union (EU), and all four member states participate in the European Single Market and are part of the Schengen Area.^[5] They are not, however, party to the European Union Customs Union.

The full article is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association  if you'd like to read a bit more in order to regain contact with the real world.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

Just now, Creative Midfielder said:

Duh, you need to stop reading the Torygraph and start reading a real newspaper - I'm afraid it is you who are completely wrong:

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is a regional trade organization and free trade area consisting of four European states: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.^[4] The organization operates in parallel with the European Union (EU), and all four member states participate in the European Single Market and are part of the Schengen Area.^[5]They are not, however, party to the European Union Customs Union.

The full article is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association  if you'd like to read a bit more in order to regain contact with the real world.

 

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's in the EU's interests to move past the desire to punish the UK and properly engage with finding a technology-based low friction border solution, but the sticking point is they don't want that implemented between the UK and France while they're in punishment mode. 

It's already been proven that the interpretation of the infamous letter claiming that the French were seeking to "punish" the UK was a straightforward lie. What is being required is for the UK to honour the agreement they freely signed and told us all was "fantastic". It has also been pointed out on many occasions that the putative technology you talk of simply doesn't exist. 

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Critically not part of the Customs union, hence the presence of customs checks. 

The checks are to ensure goods from outside the EEA don't enter the single market by the back door, which is analogous to the situation with the border in the Irish Sea. And as you have now admitted, that Scandi border does not work purely by tech checks. There have to be physical human checks as well, so your argument that the EU has somehow rejected purely tech checks for an Irish border falls down. I repeat, the UK government never came up with a tech-only solution. It gave up because it couldn't find one, not because the EU kept rejecting solutions that worked.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

It's already been proven that the interpretation of the infamous letter claiming that the French were seeking to "punish" the UK was a straightforward lie. What is being required is for the UK to honour the agreement they freely signed and told us all was "fantastic". It has also been pointed out on many occasions that the putative technology you talk of simply doesn't exist. 

It's not proven at all; it was a desperate attempt to provide a fig leaf for a statement in a context where the intent was fundamentally clear to mobilise the EU in France's favour and against the UK. 

[1902 1,167]

13 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Oh of course they are. The French PM even sent a letter to Ursula von der Leyen expressing the importance of making sure the UK is seen to be worse off out of the EU than in. 

Only if taken completely out of context and entirely from the perspective of someone determined to detest the EU.

14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

Macron said it was important the EU stood up for its member states interests and was seen to do so. Which would be no different from the Scottish executive sending a letter to the Prime Minister saying it was essential that the UK backed the Scottish position in a dispute to prove that it was adequately protected by the whole Union. Something I doubt many would begrudge.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

The checks are to ensure goods from outside the EEA don't enter the single market by the back door, which is analogous to the situation with the border in the Irish Sea. And as you have now admitted, that Scandi border does not work purely by tech checks. There have to be physical human checks as well, so your argument that the EU has somehow rejected purely tech checks for an Irish border falls down. I repeat, the UK government never came up with a tech-only solution. It gave up because it couldn't find one, not because the EU kept rejecting solutions that worked.

Where have I ever said 'purely' tech checks? Now you're putting words in my mouth. You're heading into straw man territory with the way you're twisting what I've said. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by littleyellowbirdie

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

The checks are to ensure goods from outside the EEA don't enter the single market by the back door, which is analogous to the situation with the border in the Irish Sea. And as you have now admitted, that Scandi border does not work purely by tech checks. There have to be physical human checks as well, so your argument that the EU has somehow rejected purely tech checks for an Irish border falls down. I repeat, the UK government never came up with a tech-only solution. It gave up because it couldn't find one, not because the EU kept rejecting solutions that worked.

That is exactly right, the 'closest' they ever came to a tech-only solution was the suggestion that one could be developed in few years time - a suggestion that wasn't viewed as likely or credible by anybody else for very obvious reasons.

[1902 1,167]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not proven at all; it was a desperate attempt to provide a fig leaf for a statement in a context where the intent was fundamentally clear to mobilise the EU in France's favour and against the UK. 

France is an EU member, France therefore has every reason and right to mobilise the EU. 

Thats literally the point of being in a multilateral institution. 

The fact we jacked in tha protection to go it alone because we apparently are so much stronger is our fault. Welcome to politics.

[dj11 378]

20 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Oh of course they are. The French PM even sent a letter to Ursula von der Leyen expressing the importance of making sure the UK is seen to be worse off out of the EU than in. 

If the fact is that we are worse off out than in, surely there is nothing wrong with the letter, which I hasten to add was mistranslated, but that’s another hornets nest. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

Just now, 1902 said:

France is an EU member, France therefore has every reason and right to mobilise the EU. 

Thats literally the point of being in a multilateral institution. 

The fact we jacked in tha protection to go it alone because we apparently are so much stronger is our fault. Welcome to politics.

I'm not disputing that. The statement absolutely demonstrated the thinking within the EU towards the UK though, and the thinking France, as a major player in the EU, is pushing. 

[1902 1,167]

8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Where have I ever said 'purely' tech checks? Now you're putting words in my mouth. You're heading into straw man territory with the way you're twisting what I've said. 

Ok, I haven't accused you of that, but then you haven't solved the problem of the British government committing to 'no hard border on the Island of Ireland' which the was the whole point of exploring a technological solution in the first place.

All youre saying is that not enough technology is being used, not that checks aren't going to happen. So your 'solution' will still be an issue for cross-border trade, community relations or the integrity of either the single market or the UKs internal market. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by 1902

[1902 1,167]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

I'm not disputing that. The statement absolutely demonstrated the thinking within the EU towards the UK though, and the thinking France, as a major player in the EU, is pushing. 

That France wants to protect its interests vis-a-vis the UK? So unless you expect the French President to put British interests above those of France, you surely have nothing to complain about?

[horsefly 4,318]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not proven at all; it was a desperate attempt to provide a fig leaf for a statement in a context where the intent was fundamentally clear to mobilise the EU in France's favour and against the UK. 

Yes it was proven to be an intentionally false interpretation. What is obviously true is that the EU would be insane if it were not to protect its interests against a country that is trying to exploit it.  What on earth would you expect them to do? Only the extraordinarily naive would think they are going to allow Johnson to have his cake and eat it (as he notoriously and stupidly wrote on his notes for the world to see). The Tory complaint is that the EU are attempting to enforce the agreement that the UK freely signed. In any sane world that's rather the point of an agreement. It's a bit late to say after you signed a "fantastic" agreement that you never really intended to abide by it and want it changed.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

Just now, 1902 said:

Ok, I haven't accused you of that, but then you haven't solved the problem of the British government committing to 'no hard border on the Island of Ireland' which the was the whole point of exploring a technological solution in the first place.

All your saying is that not enough technology is being used, not that checks aren't going to happen. So your 'solution' will still be an issue for cross-border trade, community relations or the integrity of either the single market or the UKs internal market. 

It's not incumbent on me to find a solution, any more than its incumbent on the Farke out brigade to appoint his successor or ensure Premier League survival for us. It is, however, my opinion, backed up with plenty of real world evidence (including the video of Barnier I posted earlier), that the EU pushed the NI protocol for political leverage elsewhere rather than genuine interest in the well-being of Northern Ireland, as illustrated very clearly by how quickly the EU moved to announce invoking article 16 itself over vaccines before the furious backlash against it. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Yes it was proven to be an intentionally false interpretation. What is obviously true is that the EU would be insane if it were not to protect its interests against a country that is trying to exploit it.  What on earth would you expect them to do? Only the extraordinarily naive would think they are going to allow Johnson to have his cake and eat it (as he notoriously and stupidly wrote on his notes for the world to see). The Tory complaint is that the EU are attempting to enforce the agreement that the UK freely signed. In any sane world that's rather the point of an agreement. It's a bit late to say after you signed a "fantastic" agreement that you never really intended to abide by it and want it changed.

That's fine. It would be equally insane for the UK not to protect its interests in response. We both know the NI protocol was never fantastic and the very presence of the article 16 clause underlined that both sides expected it to be problematic and wanted a safety valve to prevent it impacting the wider agreement. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,318]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's fine. It would be equally insane for the UK not to protect its interests in response. 

Absolutely! Precisely why signing up to this utterly crap deal is such a disaster, and was the very antithesis of protecting the UK's best interests. 

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

The whole premise that "the EU is punishing the UK" is absolutely hilarious. If you leave a club for dubious reasons, pushed by populists with no solutions and a litany of lies, what did the UK powers that be really think would happen?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

Just now, horsefly said:

Absolutely! Precisely why signing up to this utterly crap deal is such a disaster, and was the very antithesis of protecting the UK's best interests. 

Apart from the issues over NI, the trade agreement actually is about as good as it's possible to get outside of the EEA and the Customs Union, which was essential if we were ever going to have any serious possibilities independent of the EU. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,601]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The whole premise that "the EU is punishing the UK" is absolutely hilarious. If you leave a club for dubious reasons, pushed by populists with no solutions and a litany of lies, what did the UK powers that be really think would happen?

Seriously, believe me or don't believe me as you prefer, but I live up the road from a guy who was senior in the EU diplomatic service and a chap involved in French politics at a high level and  they are utterly toxic about the UK, up to and including telling me they want it to collapse entirely. You're kidding yourself if you don't believe that there is a strong desire to break the UK from the EU side. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by littleyellowbirdie