Pressured by Biden, Johnson may finally face reality on Northern Ireland
This week’s planned G7 chat on Northern Ireland between the US president, Joe Biden, and British prime minister, Boris Johnson, can be brief. Biden should tell Johnson to stop being an idiot and honour the protocol.
Everyone knows there can be no erecting of a border across the fields of Ireland. Johnson knew that when he campaigned for Brexit. He knew it when he decided to leave the single market. If he promised Northern Ireland’s unionists something else, he was lying. He should get busy preparing EU-compatible customs barriers in Belfast, as required by the protocol. Biden might add that Johnson can forget any US/UK trade deal if he refuses, not that any deal agreed by Congress is ever likely to be in Britain’s interest.
Johnson’s entire approach to the Northern Ireland protocol has been to procrastinate. The reason is plain. He cannot both sustain Brexit and honour his pledge to keep trade open across the Irish Sea. Ever since partition, it’s been the case that if Ireland and Britain were no longer to trade freely with each other, the north would have to remain in one Irish market.
There are various can-kicking proposals on the table. Johnson could sign a temporary adherence to the EU’s regulatory regime to allow time for more talks. Equally, the EU could stop being so fastidious about checks, especially those due to start this year on agricultural products. But both are just buying time, and either would kill any deal with US farmers.
Ultimately, there are only two options. One is that the protocol becomes permanent and Northern Ireland does indeed become part of an all-Ireland integrated economy. For that there are any number of sound arguments, which Johnson is probably too gutless to grasp. The other is that Britain extends the Northern Ireland deal to the whole of the UK. In effect, it signs itself up to EU regulatory standards across the whole range of goods covered by last year’s “no tariff” deal. In other words, Johnson eats humble pie and negotiates a return, not to the EU but to some version of Europe’s common economic area.
We have learned much in the past year. Brexit is not a disaster but nor is it a bonanza. There are no “great deals” to be done with the rest of the world. There is no such thing as trade sovereignty. The EU remains Britain’s biggest trading partner and trade with it has not been freed of bureaucracy by Brexit, but swamped and damaged by it. The EU may be partly to blame, but it has never had an interest in making Brexit easy. The naivety of Britain’s chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost knew no bounds.
Biden should tell Johnson to get the Northern Irish tail to wag the dog. End the absurd battle of wits with the EU. London has already signed up Northern Ireland to Europe’s trading standards regime. Now join it. This has nothing to do with Brexit but with commercial common sense. Britain can resolve the Northern Ireland impasse at a stroke, and in its own best interest, by negotiating a resumed close relationship with Europe’s single market.
Serious economists know this will happen one day. Northern Ireland might cease to be viewed by London as a “problem”, and become a solution.
The only thing driving the "average" price up is the rip off £1.39 -£1.45 per litre charged by motorway and other self styled service stations.
Keep it real, better out.
Outrage as petrol prices rise by 22p during pandemic
Petrol prices are 22p per litre more expensive than a year ago, but in 2020 the fuel supply chain took advantage of falling prices and “ripped off the UK’s 37 million drivers”, FairFuelUK has said.
It explained that last year when oil prices fell 37.39% in sterling compared to the 12 months prior, wholesale petrol price fell by 14.29% and pump prices fell by just 9.68%.
This meant a "staggering 48.4% increase in fuel supply chain profits” as average filling up profits for petrol rose from 9.3p ($0.13) per litre to 13.8p, it found.
Similarly, wholesale diesel price fell by 13.7% but pump prices fell by just 10.06%, which the organisation said increased supply chain profits by 25.71%.
It estimates average filling up profits for diesel rose from 12.2p per litre to 15.3p.
“It is worse than stomach-churning that the fuel supply chain has knowingly used COVID to rip off UK’s 37 million drivers,” said Howard Cox, founder of FairFuelUK.
“To exploit a national crisis and screw the world's highest taxed drivers, to line their pockets is scandalous. For decades, wholesalers have ripped off drivers at will, but this time they have reached a new low.”
UK car insurance provider RAC said May was the seventh consecutive month to experience a rise in the price of petrol – which is now 22p per litre more expensive than a year ago. This was the biggest 12-month increase seen in 11 years, the company said.
Boris Johnson’s trade yacht plan could break World Trade Organisation rules
Boris Johnson's trade yacht plan could break World trade Organisation rules, experts have warned.
In May the prime minister said he wanted a domestic shipyard to build the £200 million vessel to promote British trade and industry around the world.
But under the WTO's government procurement agreement signed by trade secretary Liz Truss just eight months ago the ship must be open to global competition.
Ms Truss says she signed up to the agreement to UK companies could keep bidding for contracts around the world, which might help offset trade lost from leaving the EU.
But it also requires British public contracts to be offered to global companies in a fair contest.
The UK's schedule to the GPA explicitly says “ships, boats and floating structures, except warships” must be advertised internationally and awarded without discrimination, the Financial Times first reported.
Brexit: UK government knew NI Protocol 'was a bad deal'
Theresa May's former chief of staff is "pretty sure it's not true" that the government underestimated the impact of the NI Protocol when it agreed to it.
The protocol is the part of the Brexit deal that creates a trade border between Northern Ireland and GB.
Brexit Minister Lord Frost wrote at the weekend that the UK had "underestimated the effect of the protocol on goods movements to Northern Ireland".
But Lord Barwell said Boris Johnson's government "knew it was a bad deal".
They "agreed it to get Brexit done", he argued.
Gavin Barwell @GavinBarwell · 7 Jun It's tempting to believe that - despite all the warnings - the government "underestimated the effect of the protocol", but I'm pretty sure it's not true. They knew it was a bad deal but agreed it to get Brexit done, intending to wriggle out of it later
Lord Barwell was Mrs May's senior advisor from 2017 until 2019 and was heavily involved in her Brexit policy.
He added that, in his view, Mr Johnson's government had intended "to wriggle out of" the protocol later.
A UK government impact assessment published shortly after the protocol was agreed in 2019 did say that businesses could expect additional cost and complexity when moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Lord Frost, who negotiated the protocol, wrote in the Financial Times that the UK was implementing it but that the EU needed to show less "legal purism".
He said that in the past week, the UK had sent a "detailed proposal" for a veterinary agreement, based on equivalence, and for an authorised trader scheme to reduce paperwork and checks.
But, he said, "we have had very little back" from the EU.
He added: "The EU needs a new playbook for dealing with neighbours, one that involves pragmatic solutions between friends, not the imposition of one side's rules on the other and legal purism."
Lord Frost is due to meet European Commission Vice-President Maros Sefcovic in London on Wednesday.
The men are due to assess what progress has been made in technical talks aimed at simplifying the operation of the protocol.
Those talks are covering around 30 issues ranging from VAT on used cars, to pet travel and the movement of food products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
UK officials believe that viable solutions are in sight for perhaps two issues, with partial solutions possible in maybe half a dozen other areas.
But the two sides are still far apart on the majority of issues, particularly the possibility of an agri-food agreement.
Simon Coveney @simoncoveney Lord Frost continues to lay blame for difficulty with Protocol at EU inflexibility. This is simply not the case. @MarosSefcovic &EU have consistently proposed new solutions. Is this about media messaging in UK or really solving problems together?
Ireland's Foreign Minister Simon Coveney tweeted that Lord Frost had continued to "lay blame for difficulty" with the protocol on EU inflexibility, but that "this is simply not the case".
"Maros Sefcovic & EU have consistently proposed new solutions," he added. "Is this about media messaging in UK or really solving problems together?"
In response to that Northern Ireland First Minister Arlene Foster, the former leader of the DUP, tweeted that Mr Coveney was "just parroting EU commission briefings" which suggested he was "not so interested" in attempts to find solutions.
The only thing driving the "average" price up is the rip off £1.39 -£1.45 per litre charged by motorway and other self styled service stations.
Keep it real, better out.
Outrage as petrol prices rise by 22p during pandemic
Petrol prices are 22p per litre more expensive than a year ago, but in 2020 the fuel supply chain took advantage of falling prices and “ripped off the UK’s 37 million drivers”, FairFuelUK has said.
It explained that last year when oil prices fell 37.39% in sterling compared to the 12 months prior, wholesale petrol price fell by 14.29% and pump prices fell by just 9.68%.
This meant a "staggering 48.4% increase in fuel supply chain profits” as average filling up profits for petrol rose from 9.3p ($0.13) per litre to 13.8p, it found.
Similarly, wholesale diesel price fell by 13.7% but pump prices fell by just 10.06%, which the organisation said increased supply chain profits by 25.71%.
It estimates average filling up profits for diesel rose from 12.2p per litre to 15.3p.
“It is worse than stomach-churning that the fuel supply chain has knowingly used COVID to rip off UK’s 37 million drivers,” said Howard Cox, founder of FairFuelUK.
“To exploit a national crisis and screw the world's highest taxed drivers, to line their pockets is scandalous. For decades, wholesalers have ripped off drivers at will, but this time they have reached a new low.”
UK car insurance provider RAC said May was the seventh consecutive month to experience a rise in the price of petrol – which is now 22p per litre more expensive than a year ago. This was the biggest 12-month increase seen in 11 years, the company said.
The only thing driving the "average" price up is the rip off £1.39 -£1.45 per litre charged by motorway and other self styled service stations.
Keep it real, better out.
Outrage as petrol prices rise by 22p during pandemic
Petrol prices are 22p per litre more expensive than a year ago, but in 2020 the fuel supply chain took advantage of falling prices and “ripped off the UK’s 37 million drivers”, FairFuelUK has said.
It explained that last year when oil prices fell 37.39% in sterling compared to the 12 months prior, wholesale petrol price fell by 14.29% and pump prices fell by just 9.68%.
This meant a "staggering 48.4% increase in fuel supply chain profits” as average filling up profits for petrol rose from 9.3p ($0.13) per litre to 13.8p, it found.
Similarly, wholesale diesel price fell by 13.7% but pump prices fell by just 10.06%, which the organisation said increased supply chain profits by 25.71%.
It estimates average filling up profits for diesel rose from 12.2p per litre to 15.3p.
“It is worse than stomach-churning that the fuel supply chain has knowingly used COVID to rip off UK’s 37 million drivers,” said Howard Cox, founder of FairFuelUK.
“To exploit a national crisis and screw the world's highest taxed drivers, to line their pockets is scandalous. For decades, wholesalers have ripped off drivers at will, but this time they have reached a new low.”
UK car insurance provider RAC said May was the seventh consecutive month to experience a rise in the price of petrol – which is now 22p per litre more expensive than a year ago. This was the biggest 12-month increase seen in 11 years, the company said.
Australian government prepared to walk away from UK free trade deal over agricultural access
Australia’s trade minister has signalled he is prepared to walk away from a free trade agreement with the UK if Australian agricultural exporters are not granted sufficient access to the British market.
Dan Tehan is in daily talks with his British counterpart, Liz Truss, in the race to reach the outlines of a deal by early next week, but the farming sector in the UK has been pushing back at the possibility of quickly granting tariff-free access for Australian red meat.
Boris Johnson falsely claiming not to have realised Brexit damage to Northern Ireland, senior Tory says
Boris Johnson is falsely claiming not to have realised the damage his Brexit deal would inflict on Northern Ireland, a senior Tory says.
Gavin Barwell, Theresa May’s chief of staff, said the prime minister had “perfectly well understood” the impact of trade checks in the Irish Sea – and the EU would not believe the claim now that it was “underestimated”.
“He and David Frost [the chief negotiator] are intelligent people,” Lord Barwell said, ahead of crisis talks with the EU.
“I find it inconceivable that they didn’t understand what they were signing up to. They would have been advised very clearly by the civil service about that.”
The attack came after Lord Frost backtracked on past claims that the Northern Ireland Protocol – which introduced a customs border on imports from Great Britain – had been “a great deal”.
1. Why does the EU have to make things so difficult for the British Isles (for want of a better term) in relation to Northern Ireland? When we were in the EU, there were no similar restrictions imposed to the parts of the British Isles that were not in the EU, such as The Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. Similarly, the Canary Islands seem to have all sorts of exemptions, allowing them to be in or out of the EU whenever it suits. It's almost as though the EU is being sulky and vindictive.
2. The various bits about petrol prices in this thread. There are only 3 significant oil exporters/producers in the Continent of Europe. Russia, Norway, and the UK. None of which are in the EU. Being in or out of the EU is irrelevant to pricing. The simple reasons why petrol is expensive in this country are because of the taxes we impose and the pandemic.
1. Why does the EU have to make things so difficult for the British Isles (for want of a better term) in relation to Northern Ireland? When we were in the EU, there were no similar restrictions imposed to the parts of the British Isles that were not in the EU, such as The Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. Similarly, the Canary Islands seem to have all sorts of exemptions, allowing them to be in or out of the EU whenever it suits. It's almost as though the EU is being sulky and vindictive.
2. The various bits about petrol prices in this thread. There are only 3 significant oil exporters/producers in the Continent of Europe. Russia, Norway, and the UK. None of which are in the EU. Being in or out of the EU is irrelevant to pricing. The simple reasons why petrol is expensive in this country are because of the taxes we impose and the pandemic.
On the second point, @TheEdge949 was claiming that cheaper petrol was a Brexit benefit. Yet according to the RAC that is not the case, and as you quite rightly say, it is irrelevant anyway.
On the first point people in this country never seem to tire of blaming the EU for anything that is bad or goes wrong.
The NI problems are created by Brexit, rather than the protocol. Although the protocol is an agreement that we signed only a matter of months ago. Yet here you are criticising the EU for insisting that we implement the rules that have been agreed. Boris wants the penny and the bun. We had a very clear choice of close alignment, or new rules. We chose the new rules, but now we dont like them. The EU have offered to eliminate 80% of the border checks if we were prepared to align more closely. We didnt want that, and we dont like the rules that we have agreed to either.
It is unfortunate that we have a PM that lives in cloud cuckoo land.
Boris invented the NI protocol when he binned the backstop. We havent even implemented all the rules yet, as we are still in the grace period. The number of problems are likely to increase as we diverge from EU rules, and the grace periods end.
Boris billed the situation in NI as the best of both worlds.
We created a customs border in the Irish Sea. A customs border is usually somewhere where checks are carried out. In fact what would be the point of having a customs border if no checks were carried out.
We seem to be trivialising the debate by saying it is about sausages, when really it isnt.
How can you just blame one side, when there was an agreement? All the EU seem to want is for us to implement the rules that we have agreed to.
1. Why does the EU have to make things so difficult for the British Isles (for want of a better term) in relation to Northern Ireland? When we were in the EU, there were no similar restrictions imposed to the parts of the British Isles that were not in the EU, such as The Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. Similarly, the Canary Islands seem to have all sorts of exemptions, allowing them to be in or out of the EU whenever it suits. It's almost as though the EU is being sulky and vindictive.
2. The various bits about petrol prices in this thread. There are only 3 significant oil exporters/producers in the Continent of Europe. Russia, Norway, and the UK. None of which are in the EU. Being in or out of the EU is irrelevant to pricing. The simple reasons why petrol is expensive in this country are because of the taxes we impose and the pandemic.
On the second point, @TheEdge949 was claiming that cheaper petrol was a Brexit benefit. Yet according to the RAC that is not the case, and as you quite rightly say, it is irrelevant anyway.
On the first point people in this country never seem to tire of blaming the EU for anything that is bad or goes wrong.
The NI problems are created by Brexit, rather than the protocol. Although the protocol is an agreement that we signed only a matter of months ago. Yet here you are criticising the EU for insisting that we implement the rules that have been agreed. Boris wants the penny and the bun. We had a very clear choice of close alignment, or new rules. We chose the new rules, but now we dont like them. The EU have offered to eliminate 80% of the border checks if we were prepared to align more closely. We didnt want that, and we dont like the rules that we have agreed to either.
It is unfortunate that we have a PM that lives in cloud cuckoo land.
Boris invented the NI protocol when he binned the backstop. We havent even implemented all the rules yet, as we are still in the grace period. The number of problems are likely to increase as we diverge from EU rules, and the grace periods end.
Boris billed the situation in NI as the best of both worlds.
We created a customs border in the Irish Sea. A customs border is usually somewhere where checks are carried out. In fact what would be the point of having a customs border if no checks were carried out.
We seem to be trivialising the debate by saying it is about sausages, when really it isnt.
How can you just blame one side, when there was an agreement? All the EU seem to want is for us to implement the rules that we have agreed to.
It is not as simple as you would wish.
I agree that Boris knew fine well that his "solution" for Northern Ireland was little different from May's deal. Better polished, better packaged to fool from afar, but still a ****.
Thing is-what option did he have? The UK population voted to leave, and then voted Boris in big time to affirm rejection of the Customs Union. Politically, given the options open to him, he had no realistic alternative.
Whereas the EU had far more options. They could have shown the flexibility shown to the Canary Islands, to Liechtenstein, to Scandinavia, to Monaco. They could have come up with a solution that helped Ireland and Northern Ireland. One that suited its Members. Instead of what they did choose-the option that suited the institution of the EU.
The Irish Sea border was created by BOTH the EU and the UK. And demonstrates why, politically, I trust the EU exactly as much as this Government.
1. Why does the EU have to make things so difficult for the British Isles (for want of a better term) in relation to Northern Ireland? When we were in the EU, there were no similar restrictions imposed to the parts of the British Isles that were not in the EU, such as The Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. Similarly, the Canary Islands seem to have all sorts of exemptions, allowing them to be in or out of the EU whenever it suits. It's almost as though the EU is being sulky and vindictive.
2. The various bits about petrol prices in this thread. There are only 3 significant oil exporters/producers in the Continent of Europe. Russia, Norway, and the UK. None of which are in the EU. Being in or out of the EU is irrelevant to pricing. The simple reasons why petrol is expensive in this country are because of the taxes we impose and the pandemic.
On the second point, @TheEdge949 was claiming that cheaper petrol was a Brexit benefit. Yet according to the RAC that is not the case, and as you quite rightly say, it is irrelevant anyway.
On the first point people in this country never seem to tire of blaming the EU for anything that is bad or goes wrong.
The NI problems are created by Brexit, rather than the protocol. Although the protocol is an agreement that we signed only a matter of months ago. Yet here you are criticising the EU for insisting that we implement the rules that have been agreed. Boris wants the penny and the bun. We had a very clear choice of close alignment, or new rules. We chose the new rules, but now we dont like them. The EU have offered to eliminate 80% of the border checks if we were prepared to align more closely. We didnt want that, and we dont like the rules that we have agreed to either.
It is unfortunate that we have a PM that lives in cloud cuckoo land.
Boris invented the NI protocol when he binned the backstop. We havent even implemented all the rules yet, as we are still in the grace period. The number of problems are likely to increase as we diverge from EU rules, and the grace periods end.
Boris billed the situation in NI as the best of both worlds.
We created a customs border in the Irish Sea. A customs border is usually somewhere where checks are carried out. In fact what would be the point of having a customs border if no checks were carried out.
We seem to be trivialising the debate by saying it is about sausages, when really it isnt.
How can you just blame one side, when there was an agreement? All the EU seem to want is for us to implement the rules that we have agreed to.
It is not as simple as you would wish.
I agree that Boris knew fine well that his "solution" for Northern Ireland was little different from May's deal. Better polished, better packaged to fool from afar, but still a ****.
Thing is-what option did he have? The UK population voted to leave, and then voted Boris in big time to affirm rejection of the Customs Union. Politically, given the options open to him, he had no realistic alternative.
Whereas the EU had far more options. They could have shown the flexibility shown to the Canary Islands, to Liechtenstein, to Scandinavia, to Monaco. They could have come up with a solution that helped Ireland and Northern Ireland. One that suited its Members. Instead of what they did choose-the option that suited the institution of the EU.
The Irish Sea border was created by BOTH the EU and the UK. And demonstrates why, politically, I trust the EU exactly as much as this Government.
There are so many contradictions in this argument, and Boris has been very slippery.
If we go back to the beginning, there was never a plan for the border, the best the Brexit supporters could come up with, was a technological border, using technology that still doesnt exist.
There has to be a border.
I think everyone in the world agrees that it cant be a land border in Ireland.
So the options are limited.
If we removed the EU from the argument, there would still have to be a border.
WTO rules state that where two different customs territories meet there has to be a customs border.
There is not an example anywhere in the world where this is not the case.
So if we left the EU without a deal, or ripped up the current deal, we would still require a border, and the same problems would arise.
Boris had a clear choice of remaining closely aligned, or dramatically increasing the number of border checks, and increased levels of paperwork.
He chose the latter, but is unhappy with the result.
Why is anyone surprised by more border checks now that we have left?
Boris said that NI was getting the best of both worlds, as they continued to access to the single market, remained members of the EU customs union, and continued to have unfettered access to the UK internal market.
Why didnt he want the best of both worlds for the whole of the UK?
Theresa Mays backstop seemed to be a better solution.
They are able to vote down the protocol in 4 years time,
What would happen then?
The EU will still be demanding protection of the single market, and we will still be insisting on sovereignty.
In 4 years time it is likely to be a more difficult problem to solve as I think that we will have spent this time diverging from EU rules.
We will still require a border irrespective of our arrangements with the EU.
I am not sure that you are being fair to the EU, what real options they had, or that the examples of other countries that you quote are suitable comparisons.
Relations between the Principality of Monaco and the European Union (EU) are primarily conducted through France. Through that relationship Monaco directly participates in certain EU policies. Monaco is an integral part of the EU customs territory and VAT area, and therefore applies most measures on excise duties and VAT.[1] Monaco is a de facto member of the Schengen area (its borders and customs territory are treated as part of France) and it officially uses the euro as its sole currency. In November 2012, after the Council of the European Union had called for an evaluation of the EU's relations with the sovereign European microstates of Andorra, Monaco and San Marino, which they described as "fragmented",[4] the European Commission published a report outlining options for their further integration into the EU.[5] Unlike Liechtenstein, which is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) via the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the Schengen Agreement, relations with these three states are based on a collection of agreements covering specific issues.
As I said earlier, had we remained closely aligned we could have reduced border checks and paperwork by 80%.
Had we left, but remained in the single market/customs union we wouldnt have a problem.
As we tie up trade deals with other countries we will move further away from EU rules, and increase the number of border checks required, the amount of paperwork, which will increase the cost.
It was obvious early on that alignment would make trading very easy, bur divergence would cause difficulties.
We chose to diverge but we arent happy with the predictable difficulties.
I am not sure that you can blame the EU for the border. We chose to leave. The act of leaving creates a need for a border. Where else could it go?
There's advice for the prime minister in the Daily Mirror, which urges him to "listen to Joe" when it comes to the standoff with Brussels about the checks on some items of British produce arriving in Northern Ireland.
The Mirror believes President Biden's warning - that the impasse could harm the Good Friday Agreement - is correct, and it calls on Boris Johnson to heed it, and stop what it calls his "dangerous grandstanding".
According to the i newspaper, "a Brexit-shaped cloud hangs over Cornwall". The paper believes that the ongoing row with Brussels will overshadow the G7 summit.
It argues that while Boris Johnson may press for greater international collaboration on issues like climate change, and Russian and Chinese aggression, "there is a real danger of the ongoing effects of Brexit seeping into all parts of Britain's diplomacy".
Under the headline "from fry-up to foul-up", the Daily Mail describes the idea of the European Commission in effect banning the sale of British sausages in Northern Ireland as "absurd".
It thinks a "pragmatic compromise" must be found - and suggests "Joe Biden may act as peacemaker at the G7 summit".
But it concludes that "bangers should be on the breakfast table, not the international agenda".
Joe Biden delivers official rebuke to Boris Johnson for 'inflaming tensions' in Northern Ireland and risking the peace process with stance on EU 'sausage war' as he lands in Britain for G7 summit
Joe Biden has issued a stern rebuke to Boris Johnson for 'inflaming tensions' in Northern Ireland over Britain's EU sausage war. Mr Biden and his wife last night arrived in Britain (pictured) to begin his first foreign trip as president, consisting of eight days in Europe where he will meet Boris Johnson and his new wife Carrie, the rest of the G7 leaders, the Queen, NATO officials and finally Russian Premier Vladimir Putin on June 16 in Geneva. It emerged last night he had ordered his officials to issue a rare diplomatic rebuke to the British Government for its continued opposition to checks at Northern Irish ports. Yael Lempert, charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in London, told Brexit Minister Lord Frost the UK's stance was imperilling the peace process. She had been ordered to issue the diplomatic rebuke, known as a demarche, a step rarely taken between allies. Government minutes from June 3 reveal Lord Frost was told of President Biden's 'great concern' in a tense encounter in which Ms Lempert is said to have 'slowly and gravely read her instructions aloud'. She is said to have implied the UK had been 'inflaming the rhetoric' and asked if the Government would 'keep it cool'. She also warned the dispute between Britain and the EU was 'commanding the attention' of Mr Biden ahead of his meeting with the PM in Cornwall today. The memo said the US 'strongly urged' Britain to come to a 'negotiated settlement' even if it meant 'unpopular compromises'. But Ms Lempert, who is America's most senior diplomat in Britain, said that if the UK could accept demands to follow EU rules on agricultural standards, Mr Biden would ensure the matter 'wouldn't negatively affect the chances of reaching a US/UK free trade deal.'
Comments
This week’s planned G7 chat on Northern Ireland between the US president, Joe Biden, and British prime minister, Boris Johnson, can be brief. Biden should tell Johnson to stop being an idiot and honour the protocol.
Everyone knows there can be no erecting of a border across the fields of Ireland. Johnson knew that when he campaigned for Brexit. He knew it when he decided to leave the single market. If he promised Northern Ireland’s unionists something else, he was lying. He should get busy preparing EU-compatible customs barriers in Belfast, as required by the protocol. Biden might add that Johnson can forget any US/UK trade deal if he refuses, not that any deal agreed by Congress is ever likely to be in Britain’s interest.
Johnson’s entire approach to the Northern Ireland protocol has been to procrastinate. The reason is plain. He cannot both sustain Brexit and honour his pledge to keep trade open across the Irish Sea. Ever since partition, it’s been the case that if Ireland and Britain were no longer to trade freely with each other, the north would have to remain in one Irish market.
There are various can-kicking proposals on the table. Johnson could sign a temporary adherence to the EU’s regulatory regime to allow time for more talks. Equally, the EU could stop being so fastidious about checks, especially those due to start this year on agricultural products. But both are just buying time, and either would kill any deal with US farmers.
Ultimately, there are only two options. One is that the protocol becomes permanent and Northern Ireland does indeed become part of an all-Ireland integrated economy. For that there are any number of sound arguments, which Johnson is probably too gutless to grasp. The other is that Britain extends the Northern Ireland deal to the whole of the UK. In effect, it signs itself up to EU regulatory standards across the whole range of goods covered by last year’s “no tariff” deal. In other words, Johnson eats humble pie and negotiates a return, not to the EU but to some version of Europe’s common economic area.
We have learned much in the past year. Brexit is not a disaster but nor is it a bonanza. There are no “great deals” to be done with the rest of the world. There is no such thing as trade sovereignty. The EU remains Britain’s biggest trading partner and trade with it has not been freed of bureaucracy by Brexit, but swamped and damaged by it. The EU may be partly to blame, but it has never had an interest in making Brexit easy. The naivety of Britain’s chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost knew no bounds.
Biden should tell Johnson to get the Northern Irish tail to wag the dog. End the absurd battle of wits with the EU. London has already signed up Northern Ireland to Europe’s trading standards regime. Now join it. This has nothing to do with Brexit but with commercial common sense. Britain can resolve the Northern Ireland impasse at a stroke, and in its own best interest, by negotiating a resumed close relationship with Europe’s single market.
Serious economists know this will happen one day. Northern Ireland might cease to be viewed by London as a “problem”, and become a solution.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/pressured-by-biden-johnson-may-finally-face-reality-on-northern-ireland/ar-AAKNaEl?ocid=msedgdhp
Petrol prices are 22p per litre more expensive than a year ago, but in 2020 the fuel supply chain took advantage of falling prices and “ripped off the UK’s 37 million drivers”, FairFuelUK has said.
It explained that last year when oil prices fell 37.39% in sterling compared to the 12 months prior, wholesale petrol price fell by 14.29% and pump prices fell by just 9.68%.
This meant a "staggering 48.4% increase in fuel supply chain profits” as average filling up profits for petrol rose from 9.3p ($0.13) per litre to 13.8p, it found.
Similarly, wholesale diesel price fell by 13.7% but pump prices fell by just 10.06%, which the organisation said increased supply chain profits by 25.71%.
It estimates average filling up profits for diesel rose from 12.2p per litre to 15.3p.
“It is worse than stomach-churning that the fuel supply chain has knowingly used COVID to rip off UK’s 37 million drivers,” said Howard Cox, founder of FairFuelUK.
“To exploit a national crisis and screw the world's highest taxed drivers, to line their pockets is scandalous. For decades, wholesalers have ripped off drivers at will, but this time they have reached a new low.”
UK car insurance provider RAC said May was the seventh consecutive month to experience a rise in the price of petrol – which is now 22p per litre more expensive than a year ago. This was the biggest 12-month increase seen in 11 years, the company said.
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/uk-petrol-prices-rise-during-pandemic-132206115.html
Boris Johnson's trade yacht plan could break World trade Organisation rules, experts have warned.
In May the prime minister said he wanted a domestic shipyard to build the £200 million vessel to promote British trade and industry around the world.
But under the WTO's government procurement agreement signed by trade secretary Liz Truss just eight months ago the ship must be open to global competition.
Ms Truss says she signed up to the agreement to UK companies could keep bidding for contracts around the world, which might help offset trade lost from leaving the EU.
But it also requires British public contracts to be offered to global companies in a fair contest.
The UK's schedule to the GPA explicitly says “ships, boats and floating structures, except warships” must be advertised internationally and awarded without discrimination, the Financial Times first reported.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-trade-yacht-plan-155624028.html
Theresa May's former chief of staff is "pretty sure it's not true" that the government underestimated the impact of the NI Protocol when it agreed to it.
The protocol is the part of the Brexit deal that creates a trade border between Northern Ireland and GB.
Brexit Minister Lord Frost wrote at the weekend that the UK had "underestimated the effect of the protocol on goods movements to Northern Ireland".
But Lord Barwell said Boris Johnson's government "knew it was a bad deal".
They "agreed it to get Brexit done", he argued.
Gavin Barwell
@GavinBarwell
·
7 Jun
It's tempting to believe that - despite all the warnings - the government "underestimated the effect of the protocol", but I'm pretty sure it's not true. They knew it was a bad deal but agreed it to get Brexit done, intending to wriggle out of it later
Lord Barwell was Mrs May's senior advisor from 2017 until 2019 and was heavily involved in her Brexit policy.
He added that, in his view, Mr Johnson's government had intended "to wriggle out of" the protocol later.
A UK government impact assessment published shortly after the protocol was agreed in 2019 did say that businesses could expect additional cost and complexity when moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Lord Frost, who negotiated the protocol, wrote in the Financial Times that the UK was implementing it but that the EU needed to show less "legal purism".
He said that in the past week, the UK had sent a "detailed proposal" for a veterinary agreement, based on equivalence, and for an authorised trader scheme to reduce paperwork and checks.
But, he said, "we have had very little back" from the EU.
He added: "The EU needs a new playbook for dealing with neighbours, one that involves pragmatic solutions between friends, not the imposition of one side's rules on the other and legal purism."
Lord Frost is due to meet European Commission Vice-President Maros Sefcovic in London on Wednesday.
The men are due to assess what progress has been made in technical talks aimed at simplifying the operation of the protocol.
Those talks are covering around 30 issues ranging from VAT on used cars, to pet travel and the movement of food products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
UK officials believe that viable solutions are in sight for perhaps two issues, with partial solutions possible in maybe half a dozen other areas.
But the two sides are still far apart on the majority of issues, particularly the possibility of an agri-food agreement.
Simon Coveney
@simoncoveney
Lord Frost continues to lay blame for difficulty with Protocol at EU inflexibility. This is simply not the case. @MarosSefcovic &EU have consistently proposed new solutions.
Is this about media messaging in UK or really solving problems together?
Ireland's Foreign Minister Simon Coveney tweeted that Lord Frost had continued to "lay blame for difficulty" with the protocol on EU inflexibility, but that "this is simply not the case".
"Maros Sefcovic & EU have consistently proposed new solutions," he added. "Is this about media messaging in UK or really solving problems together?"
In response to that Northern Ireland First Minister Arlene Foster, the former leader of the DUP, tweeted that Mr Coveney was "just parroting EU commission briefings" which suggested he was "not so interested" in attempts to find solutions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57382239
£1.22 at Asda Wolstanton
£1.23 at Tesco Longton
£1.23 Morrisons Festival Park
Australia’s trade minister has signalled he is prepared to walk away from a free trade agreement with the UK if Australian agricultural exporters are not granted sufficient access to the British market.
Dan Tehan is in daily talks with his British counterpart, Liz Truss, in the race to reach the outlines of a deal by early next week, but the farming sector in the UK has been pushing back at the possibility of quickly granting tariff-free access for Australian red meat.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/australian-government-prepared-walk-away-082138281.html
Boris Johnson is falsely claiming not to have realised the damage his Brexit deal would inflict on Northern Ireland, a senior Tory says.
Gavin Barwell, Theresa May’s chief of staff, said the prime minister had “perfectly well understood” the impact of trade checks in the Irish Sea – and the EU would not believe the claim now that it was “underestimated”.
“He and David Frost [the chief negotiator] are intelligent people,” Lord Barwell said, ahead of crisis talks with the EU.
“I find it inconceivable that they didn’t understand what they were signing up to. They would have been advised very clearly by the civil service about that.”
The attack came after Lord Frost backtracked on past claims that the Northern Ireland Protocol – which introduced a customs border on imports from Great Britain – had been “a great deal”.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-falsely-claiming-not-to-have-realised-brexit-damage-to-northern-ireland-senior-tory-says/ar-AAKRuT6?ocid=msedgntp
1. Why does the EU have to make things so difficult for the British Isles (for want of a better term) in relation to Northern Ireland? When we were in the EU, there were no similar restrictions imposed to the parts of the British Isles that were not in the EU, such as The Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. Similarly, the Canary Islands seem to have all sorts of exemptions, allowing them to be in or out of the EU whenever it suits. It's almost as though the EU is being sulky and vindictive.
2. The various bits about petrol prices in this thread. There are only 3 significant oil exporters/producers in the Continent of Europe. Russia, Norway, and the UK. None of which are in the EU. Being in or out of the EU is irrelevant to pricing. The simple reasons why petrol is expensive in this country are because of the taxes we impose and the pandemic.
Yet according to the RAC that is not the case, and as you quite rightly say, it is irrelevant anyway.
On the first point people in this country never seem to tire of blaming the EU for anything that is bad or goes wrong.
The NI problems are created by Brexit, rather than the protocol.
Although the protocol is an agreement that we signed only a matter of months ago.
Yet here you are criticising the EU for insisting that we implement the rules that have been agreed.
Boris wants the penny and the bun.
We had a very clear choice of close alignment, or new rules.
We chose the new rules, but now we dont like them.
The EU have offered to eliminate 80% of the border checks if we were prepared to align more closely.
We didnt want that, and we dont like the rules that we have agreed to either.
It is unfortunate that we have a PM that lives in cloud cuckoo land.
Boris invented the NI protocol when he binned the backstop.
We havent even implemented all the rules yet, as we are still in the grace period.
The number of problems are likely to increase as we diverge from EU rules, and the grace periods end.
Boris billed the situation in NI as the best of both worlds.
We created a customs border in the Irish Sea.
A customs border is usually somewhere where checks are carried out.
In fact what would be the point of having a customs border if no checks were carried out.
We seem to be trivialising the debate by saying it is about sausages, when really it isnt.
How can you just blame one side, when there was an agreement?
All the EU seem to want is for us to implement the rules that we have agreed to.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/lamb-to-slaughter-eu-poised-to-throw-ireland-under-bus-by-triggering-no-deal-brexit-plans/ar-AAKRpXg?ocid=msedgntp
I agree that Boris knew fine well that his "solution" for Northern Ireland was little different from May's deal. Better polished, better packaged to fool from afar, but still a ****.
Thing is-what option did he have? The UK population voted to leave, and then voted Boris in big time to affirm rejection of the Customs Union. Politically, given the options open to him, he had no realistic alternative.
Whereas the EU had far more options. They could have shown the flexibility shown to the Canary Islands, to Liechtenstein, to Scandinavia, to Monaco. They could have come up with a solution that helped Ireland and Northern Ireland. One that suited its Members. Instead of what they did choose-the option that suited the institution of the EU.
The Irish Sea border was created by BOTH the EU and the UK. And demonstrates why, politically, I trust the EU exactly as much as this Government.
If we go back to the beginning, there was never a plan for the border, the best the Brexit supporters could come up with, was a technological border, using technology that still doesnt exist.
There has to be a border.
I think everyone in the world agrees that it cant be a land border in Ireland.
So the options are limited.
If we removed the EU from the argument, there would still have to be a border.
WTO rules state that where two different customs territories meet there has to be a customs border.
There is not an example anywhere in the world where this is not the case.
So if we left the EU without a deal, or ripped up the current deal, we would still require a border, and the same problems would arise.
Boris had a clear choice of remaining closely aligned, or dramatically increasing the number of border checks, and increased levels of paperwork.
He chose the latter, but is unhappy with the result.
Why is anyone surprised by more border checks now that we have left?
Boris said that NI was getting the best of both worlds, as they continued to access to the single market, remained members of the EU customs union, and continued to have unfettered access to the UK internal market.
Why didnt he want the best of both worlds for the whole of the UK?
Theresa Mays backstop seemed to be a better solution.
They are able to vote down the protocol in 4 years time,
What would happen then?
The EU will still be demanding protection of the single market, and we will still be insisting on sovereignty.
In 4 years time it is likely to be a more difficult problem to solve as I think that we will have spent this time diverging from EU rules.
We will still require a border irrespective of our arrangements with the EU.
I am not sure that you are being fair to the EU, what real options they had, or that the examples of other countries that you quote are suitable comparisons.
Relations between the Principality of Monaco and the European Union (EU) are primarily conducted through France. Through that relationship Monaco directly participates in certain EU policies. Monaco is an integral part of the EU customs territory and VAT area, and therefore applies most measures on excise duties and VAT.[1]
Monaco is a de facto member of the Schengen area (its borders and customs territory are treated as part of France) and it officially uses the euro as its sole currency.
In November 2012, after the Council of the European Union had called for an evaluation of the EU's relations with the sovereign European microstates of Andorra, Monaco and San Marino, which they described as "fragmented",[4] the European Commission published a report outlining options for their further integration into the EU.[5] Unlike Liechtenstein, which is a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) via the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the Schengen Agreement, relations with these three states are based on a collection of agreements covering specific issues.
As I said earlier, had we remained closely aligned we could have reduced border checks and paperwork by 80%.
Had we left, but remained in the single market/customs union we wouldnt have a problem.
As we tie up trade deals with other countries we will move further away from EU rules, and increase the number of border checks required, the amount of paperwork, which will increase the cost.
It was obvious early on that alignment would make trading very easy, bur divergence would cause difficulties.
We chose to diverge but we arent happy with the predictable difficulties.
I am not sure that you can blame the EU for the border.
We chose to leave.
The act of leaving creates a need for a border.
Where else could it go?
https://mail.yahoo.com/d/compose/3358862746?.intl=uk&.lang=en-GB&.partner=none&.src=fp&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9sb2dpbi55YWhvby5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMWR_Rek8DruCB8GAA0mjGHMLh4HI1OAqME5fGK68H-BDjJZKFpfPs-NUFpFen8uLili6oAxIo3suy45rKlNUAC4mh3rV1h9vB0HULSnmvZISXFSTpX9OfneZ_90OuuHjDIAm96i1lp3lZJ-p59_lCP9xlHwQ9ef3RSy4XPdsJgN
There's advice for the prime minister in the Daily Mirror, which urges him to "listen to Joe" when it comes to the standoff with Brussels about the checks on some items of British produce arriving in Northern Ireland.
The Mirror believes President Biden's warning - that the impasse could harm the Good Friday Agreement - is correct, and it calls on Boris Johnson to heed it, and stop what it calls his "dangerous grandstanding".
According to the i newspaper, "a Brexit-shaped cloud hangs over Cornwall". The paper believes that the ongoing row with Brussels will overshadow the G7 summit.
It argues that while Boris Johnson may press for greater international collaboration on issues like climate change, and Russian and Chinese aggression, "there is a real danger of the ongoing effects of Brexit seeping into all parts of Britain's diplomacy".
Under the headline "from fry-up to foul-up", the Daily Mail describes the idea of the European Commission in effect banning the sale of British sausages in Northern Ireland as "absurd".
It thinks a "pragmatic compromise" must be found - and suggests "Joe Biden may act as peacemaker at the G7 summit".
But it concludes that "bangers should be on the breakfast table, not the international agenda".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-57422046
Joe Biden has issued a stern rebuke to Boris Johnson for 'inflaming tensions' in Northern Ireland over Britain's EU sausage war. Mr Biden and his wife last night arrived in Britain (pictured) to begin his first foreign trip as president, consisting of eight days in Europe where he will meet Boris Johnson and his new wife Carrie, the rest of the G7 leaders, the Queen, NATO officials and finally Russian Premier Vladimir Putin on June 16 in Geneva. It emerged last night he had ordered his officials to issue a rare diplomatic rebuke to the British Government for its continued opposition to checks at Northern Irish ports. Yael Lempert, charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in London, told Brexit Minister Lord Frost the UK's stance was imperilling the peace process. She had been ordered to issue the diplomatic rebuke, known as a demarche, a step rarely taken between allies. Government minutes from June 3 reveal Lord Frost was told of President Biden's 'great concern' in a tense encounter in which Ms Lempert is said to have 'slowly and gravely read her instructions aloud'. She is said to have implied the UK had been 'inflaming the rhetoric' and asked if the Government would 'keep it cool'. She also warned the dispute between Britain and the EU was 'commanding the attention' of Mr Biden ahead of his meeting with the PM in Cornwall today. The memo said the US 'strongly urged' Britain to come to a 'negotiated settlement' even if it meant 'unpopular compromises'. But Ms Lempert, who is America's most senior diplomat in Britain, said that if the UK could accept demands to follow EU rules on agricultural standards, Mr Biden would ensure the matter 'wouldn't negatively affect the chances of reaching a US/UK free trade deal.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9670677/Joe-Biden-delivers-astonishing-rebuke-Boris-Johnson-accusing-UK-inflaming-tensions.html