sheldrake wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:16 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:08 pm
Ahh the "we're special because we're British" argument.
That's kind of a mischarcterisation, but not completely. The reality is that the UK situation is different from the Swiss situation in several important ways.
OK, explain, in detail, these 'several important ways' that the UK situation is different to the Swiss situation. And the idea that the UK was in the EU and is trying to disentangle isn't an 'important way' in which the situation is different. That's history, rather than what the UK should be working towards.
sheldrake wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:16 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:08 pm
If NI is going to remain in the single market for goods, in order that the Good Friday Agreement is upheld and the NI protocol continues, then the rules governing it need to be enforced by someone. With the SM it's the ECJ. Who would you have instead?
I think UK courts should enforce agreements in UK territory.
It's good that you think. In this case, what you think is incorrect. You think that only UK courts should enforce agreements in UK territory? Do you think it reasonable that the EU would think that EU courts should enforce agreements in EU territory? But travel of goods between the UK and the EU isn't either solely in UK or EU territory. The travel of goods is governed by a trade deal, which is currently the Single Market, and the Single Market is overseen by the ECJ.
The UK was in the Single Market and is trying to disengage, and has signed an agreement that agrees that any half-way house of trade rules will also be overseen by the ECJ. To be honest, if there is an agreement worked out on the borders and both the UK generally and NI specifically can disengage with the Single Market but will then set up a trade deal with the EU there still needs to be an absolute arbiter to oversee any disputes within that trade deal. The EU will insist on it being the ECJ (one of their red lines) although they may agree to a Swiss-style panel to rule on disputes prior to the ECJ. The ECJ would still be the ultimate court, though. Why would the EU agree to a deal where the Single Market, or any other deal with the UK, has an ultimate arbiter and court which lies within the jurisdiction of the minor partner in the deal?
sheldrake wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:54 pm
Why do you think the EU is more worried about us breaching agreements on what can cross into the Republic of Ireland than we are about what can cross from the Republic into the North?
sheldrake wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:16 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:08 pm
1. It's the EU's job to be concerned about what is coming in to the EU. Kinda in their basic job description.
2. EU is a much bigger market than the UK. Therefore higher probability of flow going that way
Not really, the UK already has a trade deficit with the EU (net flow is our way), although that is shrinking.
This is missing the point. The EU generally has stricter rules on what can cross into their members than the UK does (especially as the UK has openly admitted that it will reduce the rules on imports). So of course the EU is more worried about what is travelling south across the RoI/NI border than the UK is worried about what's travelling north. There probably isn't a great deal of stuff for which if it meets EU rules and regulations it doesn't meet UK rules and regulations.
sheldrake wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:16 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:08 pm
3. UK business ARE worried. If the government isn't then it's probably part of the "F*ck business" strategy that was once just a Boris outburst and now seems to be official policy.
Well we can defuse that with our proposals too.
That proposal was the NI protocol, which the government has now admitted it wants to rip up. One thing which does worry business is uncertainty, and a government which openly claims to want to renegotiate an agreement it just signed creates uncertainty.
sheldrake wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:16 pm
Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:08 pm
Our government negotiated and signed the agreement, said it was wonderful, then a few months later started saying it was bad and overtly has tried to renege on promises they made in a legally binding international treaty, whilst simultaneously putting a second legally binding international treaty at risk, tried to insert clauses into legislation that would have actively broken international law...
You just keep ignoring those clauses where the EU signed up to make a sincere effort to protect the customs integrity of the UK, and then failed to.
You do realise that 'best endeavours' has no legally binding meaning? It's lawyer speak for crossing your fingers behind your back and hoping you don't have to do anything. Even so, the EU has made endeavours to sort out the issues around the NI protocol. You claimed:
sheldrake wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:22 pm
That only happened since we said we'd invoke article 16 unless they started showing enthusiasm.
Well, yes. Up until then the EU probably assumed that the UK would uphold their requirements under the NI protocol and so had no particular need to make any endeavours to help the UK out. In fact, any effort by the EU before the UK said that they'd invoke article 16 would be seen to be the EU trying to undermine a legally binding agreement, so they'd be quite careful about making no overt show of amending the NI protocol, even if it didn't seem to be working.
I'll try and post CF's image below, as I think it's rather good.
- brexit trilemma.png (95.77 KiB) Viewed 2492 times
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"