Trying to avoid the same old ground, I am not sure how much the above will help. Some checks were conducted while we were members, but these were unobtrusively carried out on ferries. However there seems to be a backlash against the existence of the border. Any border, and on principle. The threats made against border staff had nothing to with the number of checks, or which products needed to be checked. I would guess that it is in the interests of some politicians, as well as other interested parties to sew the seeds of unrest due to the fact a border exists. The current situation will be exacerbated next year. If you pull NI out of the SM, the border will still exist If the whole of the UK became a third country more checks would surely be required rather than less. Checks would also be required between NI and Ireland going both ways.
I think that avoiding unrest means doing away with the border. No border would be needed if the whole of the UK was in the SM/CU. Although this would seem extremely unlikely. A point made in a couple of the articles above is one I have made a number of times, which is that Brexit is the problem, and the protocol is the solution. Boris chose the solution.
"At the end of it, are we still left in a foreign single market for goods, subject to a foreign customs code, overseen by a foreign laws that we don't make and can't change, and adjudicated upon by a foreign court?.
We have had 5 years since the referendum to get ready for this, and we are still nowhere near. There dont seem to be complaints on the EU side.
You do not believe that compromise is the best way forward.
I do. I believe that compromises should have been negotiated before the agreement was signed.
You persist in believing that the only "solution" is for the UK to capitulate, and bow down to the Single Market. Disregarding that that would be impossible to achieve.
Describing this as bowing down to the single market is a giveaway. Boris Johnson described staying in the SM/CU as the best of both worlds, in respect of NI. It is therefore difficult to explain why he would not want the best of both worlds for the whole of the UK. However I do accept that this will not happen under this Tory government. I believe that we should stick to our agreement, or negotiate an improvement if possible. The EU are expected to include radical changes to the licensing and distribution of medicines in the region, which involve the bloc changing its own laws. You are ignoring the fact that the border seems to be causing unrest, and that a reduction in checks may not be a solution. The only Boris recourse seems to be that we should pretend to be still members, and put off indefinitely the implementation of the rules and regulations that define our leaving, that he agreed to.
That everything done in the EU is the right way forward. And that everything that the UK does is wrong.
I didnt start off with that view, although it is one that is difficult to argue with at present. Particularly when you base your argument on facts. Both sides signed the agreement, yet our side seem to have all the problems.
Like someone else used to do. In the 1940s. Forget his name. Was it Lord Hay Hay?
It is not "extremely unlikely" that the whole of the UK joins the SM. It is politically impossible.
I wouldnt disagree. We want the penny and the bun. All the rights, but none of the obligations.
In the 5 years since we voted to leave, precisely no party has stood on a campaign ticket of "Leave plus Single Market". There have, as a result, been precisely no votes cast in favour of it. You could certainly argue that Labour should have adopted this position in the 2017/19 elections. But they did not. And we can't turn back time. Next time anyone could even begin that process would be 2024.
Leaving the EU was clear after the referendum. The terms under which we left werent.
The Conservatives stand firmly against the SM. They have won the last 2 elections on that very platform. In 2019, by a country mile. Any leader who reneged on that would be up before the 1922 Committee and asked to resign in 5 minutes flat. It will not happen.
The customs union vote in parliament only failed by 8 votes. Nothing concrete was decided until after the second of these elections. No precise details on Brexit featured in either campaign.
You quote the TUV as though they support your side. The Party of Ian Paisley of the 1970s. Not the later, improved version. That are the Party in NI supported by Nigel Farage. That are making the case for tearing up the Good Friday Agreement. That want to ban Sinn Fein as a political party. And move further away from Europe than almost everybody would wish.
I merely quoted them as one of the parties that are in principle against the imposition of any border.
Brexit is more than a "problem". It is a choice. And a choice that has been made. The protocol is not "the solution"-it is an attempt to provide a compromise, and provide a solution. That is not working. Because of the intransigence and flag waving of BOTH sides. Unless progress is made, there will have to be a Plan B.
I believe that the choice was to leave, or remain in the EU. The protocol is the solution that Boris chose to offset the difficulties created by choosing to leave. He didnt like the backstop which was clearly a better solution. I dont think the EU have been intransigent. We have left, that is except for NI, yet we still wish to tell them which checks are acceptable on their side. How would we respond to them telling us which checks are acceptable on our side?
There is no need for border checks on both sides of the border in Ireland. We, unlike the EU, do not adopt a slavish adherence to the protectionist mantra of a Single Market. We are free to allow the people of Ireland to do what they want in relation to trade with the UK in general, and NI in particular. It is open to us to withdraw from the SM in NI, give the Irish Free Trade on our side, and leave it to them what will be the best way forward in relation to the Good Friday Agreement and border checks. While we have none. That is the sort of thing that countries that are not beholdent on other nations can do.
No you cant. WTO rules dictate that there is a border, between different customs territories. Can we really expect to tell the EU that they have no right to protect their single market? We have rubbed their noses in it, with our intention to diverge, and have done trade deals with countries that produce products that dont comply with EU standards, and will do others. Any protection of the single market is likely to become more valid as time goes on. Ireland is in the EU, and I am sure will continue to follow their rules. They have benefitted from companies from the UK relocating
There are lots of complaints on the EU side. Just not from the current ruling political parties. Do you really think that every person in the EU believes that the EU has their interests at heart? Or that the EU is better than their own country? Or that businesses that rely on UK trade do not wish that barriers were removed?
Must be my imagination then. Estonia are complaining about too many British companies setting up over there.
Trying to avoid the same old ground, I am not sure how much the above will help. Some checks were conducted while we were members, but these were unobtrusively carried out on ferries. However there seems to be a backlash against the existence of the border. Any border, and on principle. The threats made against border staff had nothing to with the number of checks, or which products needed to be checked. I would guess that it is in the interests of some politicians, as well as other interested parties to sew the seeds of unrest due to the fact a border exists. The current situation will be exacerbated next year. If you pull NI out of the SM, the border will still exist If the whole of the UK became a third country more checks would surely be required rather than less. Checks would also be required between NI and Ireland going both ways.
I think that avoiding unrest means doing away with the border. No border would be needed if the whole of the UK was in the SM/CU. Although this would seem extremely unlikely. A point made in a couple of the articles above is one I have made a number of times, which is that Brexit is the problem, and the protocol is the solution. Boris chose the solution.
"At the end of it, are we still left in a foreign single market for goods, subject to a foreign customs code, overseen by a foreign laws that we don't make and can't change, and adjudicated upon by a foreign court?.
We have had 5 years since the referendum to get ready for this, and we are still nowhere near. There dont seem to be complaints on the EU side.
You do not believe that compromise is the best way forward.
I do. I believe that compromises should have been negotiated before the agreement was signed.
You persist in believing that the only "solution" is for the UK to capitulate, and bow down to the Single Market. Disregarding that that would be impossible to achieve.
Describing this as bowing down to the single market is a giveaway. Boris Johnson described staying in the SM/CU as the best of both worlds, in respect of NI. It is therefore difficult to explain why he would not want the best of both worlds for the whole of the UK. However I do accept that this will not happen under this Tory government. I believe that we should stick to our agreement, or negotiate an improvement if possible. The EU are expected to include radical changes to the licensing and distribution of medicines in the region, which involve the bloc changing its own laws. You are ignoring the fact that the border seems to be causing unrest, and that a reduction in checks may not be a solution. The only Boris recourse seems to be that we should pretend to be still members, and put off indefinitely the implementation of the rules and regulations that define our leaving, that he agreed to.
That everything done in the EU is the right way forward. And that everything that the UK does is wrong.
I didnt start off with that view, although it is one that is difficult to argue with at present. Particularly when you base your argument on facts. Both sides signed the agreement, yet our side seem to have all the problems.
Like someone else used to do. In the 1940s. Forget his name. Was it Lord Hay Hay?
It is not "extremely unlikely" that the whole of the UK joins the SM. It is politically impossible.
I wouldnt disagree. We want the penny and the bun. All the rights, but none of the obligations.
In the 5 years since we voted to leave, precisely no party has stood on a campaign ticket of "Leave plus Single Market". There have, as a result, been precisely no votes cast in favour of it. You could certainly argue that Labour should have adopted this position in the 2017/19 elections. But they did not. And we can't turn back time. Next time anyone could even begin that process would be 2024.
Leaving the EU was clear after the referendum. The terms under which we left wasnt.
The Conservatives stand firmly against the SM. They have won the last 2 elections on that very platform. In 2019, by a country mile. Any leader who reneged on that would be up before the 1922 Committee and asked to resign in 5 minutes flat. It will not happen.
The customs union vote in parliament only failed by 8 votes. Nothing concrete was decided until after the second of these elections. No precise details on Brexit featured in either campaign.
You quote the TUV as though they support your side. The Party of Ian Paisley of the 1970s. Not the later, improved version. That are the Party in NI supported by Nigel Farage. That are making the case for tearing up the Good Friday Agreement. That want to ban Sinn Fein as a political party. And move further away from Europe than almost everybody would wish.
I merely quoted them as one of the parties that are in principle against the imposition of any border.
Brexit is more than a "problem". It is a choice. And a choice that has been made. The protocol is not "the solution"-it is an attempt to provide a compromise, and provide a solution. That is not working. Because of the intransigence and flag waving of BOTH sides. Unless progress is made, there will have to be a Plan B.
I believe that the choice was to leave, or remain in the EU. The protocol is the solution that Boris chose to offset the difficulties created by choosing to leave. He didnt like the backstop which was clearly a better solution. I dont think the EU have been intransigent. We have left, that is except for NI, yet we still wish to tell them which checks are acceptable on their side. How would we respond to them telling us which checks are acceptable on our side?
There is no need for border checks on both sides of the border in Ireland. We, unlike the EU, do not adopt a slavish adherence to the protectionist mantra of a Single Market. We are free to allow the people of Ireland to do what they want in relation to trade with the UK in general, and NI in particular. It is open to us to withdraw from the SM in NI, give the Irish Free Trade on our side, and leave it to them what will be the best way forward in relation to the Good Friday Agreement and border checks. While we have none. That is the sort of thing that countries that are not beholdent on other nations can do.
No you cant. WTO rules dictate that there is a border, between different customs territories. Can we really expect to tell the EU that they have no right to protect their single market? We have rubbed their noses in it, with our intention to diverge, and have done trade deals with countries that produce products that dont comply with EU standards, and will do others. Any protection of the single market is likely to become more valid as time goes on. Ireland is in the EU, and I am sure will continue to follow their rules. They have benefitted from companies from the UK relocating
There are lots of complaints on the EU side. Just not from the current ruling political parties. Do you really think that every person in the EU believes that the EU has their interests at heart? Or that the EU is better than their own country? Or that businesses that rely on UK trade do not wish that barriers were removed?
Must be my imagination then. Estonia are complaining about too many British companies setting up over there.
I think that some may consider that taking the below into account in respect of NI, the feeling that they are no longer part of the UK, as being reasonable. "At the end of it, are we still left in a foreign single market for goods, subject to a foreign customs code, overseen by a foreign laws that we don't make and can't change, and adjudicated upon by a foreign court?.
Trying to avoid the same old ground, I am not sure how much the above will help. Some checks were conducted while we were members, but these were unobtrusively carried out on ferries. However there seems to be a backlash against the existence of the border. Any border, and on principle. The threats made against border staff had nothing to with the number of checks, or which products needed to be checked. I would guess that it is in the interests of some politicians, as well as other interested parties to sew the seeds of unrest due to the fact a border exists. The current situation will be exacerbated next year. If you pull NI out of the SM, the border will still exist If the whole of the UK became a third country more checks would surely be required rather than less. Checks would also be required between NI and Ireland going both ways.
I think that avoiding unrest means doing away with the border. No border would be needed if the whole of the UK was in the SM/CU. Although this would seem extremely unlikely. A point made in a couple of the articles above is one I have made a number of times, which is that Brexit is the problem, and the protocol is the solution. Boris chose the solution.
"At the end of it, are we still left in a foreign single market for goods, subject to a foreign customs code, overseen by a foreign laws that we don't make and can't change, and adjudicated upon by a foreign court?.
We have had 5 years since the referendum to get ready for this, and we are still nowhere near. There dont seem to be complaints on the EU side.
You do not believe that compromise is the best way forward.
I do. I believe that compromises should have been negotiated before the agreement was signed.
You persist in believing that the only "solution" is for the UK to capitulate, and bow down to the Single Market. Disregarding that that would be impossible to achieve.
Describing this as bowing down to the single market is a giveaway. Boris Johnson described staying in the SM/CU as the best of both worlds, in respect of NI. It is therefore difficult to explain why he would not want the best of both worlds for the whole of the UK. However I do accept that this will not happen under this Tory government. I believe that we should stick to our agreement, or negotiate an improvement if possible. The EU are expected to include radical changes to the licensing and distribution of medicines in the region, which involve the bloc changing its own laws. You are ignoring the fact that the border seems to be causing unrest, and that a reduction in checks may not be a solution. The only Boris recourse seems to be that we should pretend to be still members, and put off indefinitely the implementation of the rules and regulations that define our leaving, that he agreed to.
That everything done in the EU is the right way forward. And that everything that the UK does is wrong.
I didnt start off with that view, although it is one that is difficult to argue with at present. Particularly when you base your argument on facts. Both sides signed the agreement, yet our side seem to have all the problems.
Like someone else used to do. In the 1940s. Forget his name. Was it Lord Hay Hay?
It is not "extremely unlikely" that the whole of the UK joins the SM. It is politically impossible.
I wouldnt disagree. We want the penny and the bun. All the rights, but none of the obligations.
In the 5 years since we voted to leave, precisely no party has stood on a campaign ticket of "Leave plus Single Market". There have, as a result, been precisely no votes cast in favour of it. You could certainly argue that Labour should have adopted this position in the 2017/19 elections. But they did not. And we can't turn back time. Next time anyone could even begin that process would be 2024.
Leaving the EU was clear after the referendum. The terms under which we left werent.
The Conservatives stand firmly against the SM. They have won the last 2 elections on that very platform. In 2019, by a country mile. Any leader who reneged on that would be up before the 1922 Committee and asked to resign in 5 minutes flat. It will not happen.
The customs union vote in parliament only failed by 8 votes. Nothing concrete was decided until after the second of these elections. No precise details on Brexit featured in either campaign.
You quote the TUV as though they support your side. The Party of Ian Paisley of the 1970s. Not the later, improved version. That are the Party in NI supported by Nigel Farage. That are making the case for tearing up the Good Friday Agreement. That want to ban Sinn Fein as a political party. And move further away from Europe than almost everybody would wish.
I merely quoted them as one of the parties that are in principle against the imposition of any border.
Brexit is more than a "problem". It is a choice. And a choice that has been made. The protocol is not "the solution"-it is an attempt to provide a compromise, and provide a solution. That is not working. Because of the intransigence and flag waving of BOTH sides. Unless progress is made, there will have to be a Plan B.
I believe that the choice was to leave, or remain in the EU. The protocol is the solution that Boris chose to offset the difficulties created by choosing to leave. He didnt like the backstop which was clearly a better solution. I dont think the EU have been intransigent. We have left, that is except for NI, yet we still wish to tell them which checks are acceptable on their side. How would we respond to them telling us which checks are acceptable on our side?
There is no need for border checks on both sides of the border in Ireland. We, unlike the EU, do not adopt a slavish adherence to the protectionist mantra of a Single Market. We are free to allow the people of Ireland to do what they want in relation to trade with the UK in general, and NI in particular. It is open to us to withdraw from the SM in NI, give the Irish Free Trade on our side, and leave it to them what will be the best way forward in relation to the Good Friday Agreement and border checks. While we have none. That is the sort of thing that countries that are not beholdent on other nations can do.
No you cant. WTO rules dictate that there is a border, between different customs territories. Can we really expect to tell the EU that they have no right to protect their single market? We have rubbed their noses in it, with our intention to diverge, and have done trade deals with countries that produce products that dont comply with EU standards, and will do others. Any protection of the single market is likely to become more valid as time goes on. Ireland is in the EU, and I am sure will continue to follow their rules. They have benefitted from companies from the UK relocating
There are lots of complaints on the EU side. Just not from the current ruling political parties. Do you really think that every person in the EU believes that the EU has their interests at heart? Or that the EU is better than their own country? Or that businesses that rely on UK trade do not wish that barriers were removed?
Must be my imagination then. Estonia are complaining about too many British companies setting up over there.
Labour expects Boris Johnson to suspend Northern Ireland Protocol to distract from fuel crisis
Labour is braced for Boris Johnson to suspend the Northern Ireland Protocol at next week’s Tory conference, to milk the “drama” and distract attention from the fuel crisis.
Speaking at Labour’s conference, Baroness Chapman said the prime minister was “not enjoying the headlines or the sight of people queuing up petrol stations”.
“I’m ashamed to say this about our government, but I think that makes it more likely that they will want to trigger Article 16,” she told a fringe meeting on the future relationship with the EU.
“They will like the drama of it and they will seek to use that to further their own party political advantage. And that should shock nobody in this room.”
Asked about rumours that the button will be pressed as early as next week, the Brexit spokeswoman replied: “I would not be surprised if what is predicted actually happens.”
Labour Brexit chief urges party’s Remainers to ‘get over it and move on’ in conference speech
Meanwhile, Lady Chapman said she suspected Mr Johnson could use next week’s Conservative Party conference to unilaterally suspend the vexed Northern Ireland Protocol, which the UK is trying to renegotiate, to distract from the crisis at petrol pumps.
“They are not enjoying the headlines or the sight of people queuing at petrol stations, they will not enjoy the fact that the Labour Party, against everyone’s predictions, is actually having quite a good conference,” she said.
“The polls are tightening as a result and I’m ashamed to say this about our Government but I think it makes it more likely that they would trigger Article 16 (to suspend the Protocol), when actually they could take other routes.
“The British Government tore up the Act of Union and also the Belfast Agreement. In doing this they diluted our Britishness.
“Today we stand strong against the protocol and we call on the British Government to remove the protocol.”
Earlier this month, the DUP threatened to collapse powersharing at Stormont unless their demands on the protocol were met.
Fine Gael TD Neale Richmond, who questioned Mr Martin in the Dail on the Northern Ireland Protocol, was critical of the declaration.
“I note the lack of reference to any realistic alternatives or to how Northern Ireland isn’t suffering the same issues that England currently is,” he tweeted on Tuesday.
In shock news, 1 side says it's all the other side's fault when 2 sides agree to a bad deal.
In less shocking news, some people are too busy shouting from their Remain/Leave trenches to accept this.
The EU need to realise that the UK are between a rock and a hard place. All fine and well finger-pointing-rather nastier things than fingers are becoming increasingly likely to be pointed soon.
As things stand, unless the EU/UK come to a pragmatic deal in relation to NI, the future is looking bleak.
There needs to be a compromise whereby:-
1. Some goods need to be agreed to be checked before going to NI; 2. Some goods need to be agreed to be checked before going to Ireland; 3. Some goods should not need to be checked unless leaving the island of Ireland 4. Ireland needs financial assistance from both the EU and the UK in relation to 2/3
If that does not happen, the UK looks like it has 2 bad choices-
(1) Pull NI out of the Single Market; or (2) Hope and Pray that the more moderate parties in NI hold sway going forward
UK facing 90% raid on key medicine supplies over hated Brexit deal - Frost urged to act
According to analysis from Informa Pharma Intelligence, the additional costs of implementing new regulatory procedures could threaten manufacturer's ability to export low-cost generic drugs to Northern Ireland from within the UK.
The Brexit grace period is set to end at the start of 2022 and pharmaceutical companies have raised concerns due to the lack of a clear political solution.
Ian Schofield, executive editor of Pharma Insights at Informa, said: "The Brexit vote, and the UK's stance on leaving the single market, forced a separation between the UK's MHRA and the EMA.
"Whilst the separation itself is a lengthy process that requires a re-evaluation of each detail of the UK's drug approval processes, the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol remains an ongoing area of tension with potentially significant impacts on the availability of generic drugs to Northern Irish citizens.
"Worryingly, an easy solution to this is not forthcoming even with the deadline fast approaching."
Brexit 'a factor' in fuel crisis Shapps admits in major U-turn 'Worked both ways!'
Grant Shapps had previously dismissed attempts to find a link between Britain quitting the European Union and the disruption motorists and consumers have been experiencing in recent weeks. But on the fifth day of Britons queueing en masse outside petrol stations to secure fuel amid fears of a shortage due to HGV drivers unavailability, the Transport Secretary was forced to backtrack on his comment. Speaking to the BBC, Mr Shapps said: "Brexit I hear mentioned a lot, and it no doubt will have been a factor.
In shock news, 1 side says it's all the other side's fault when 2 sides agree to a bad deal.
In less shocking news, some people are too busy shouting from their Remain/Leave trenches to accept this.
The EU need to realise that the UK are between a rock and a hard place. All fine and well finger-pointing-rather nastier things than fingers are becoming increasingly likely to be pointed soon.
As things stand, unless the EU/UK come to a pragmatic deal in relation to NI, the future is looking bleak.
There needs to be a compromise whereby:-
1. Some goods need to be agreed to be checked before going to NI; 2. Some goods need to be agreed to be checked before going to Ireland; 3. Some goods should not need to be checked unless leaving the island of Ireland 4. Ireland needs financial assistance from both the EU and the UK in relation to 2/3
If that does not happen, the UK looks like it has 2 bad choices-
(1) Pull NI out of the Single Market; or (2) Hope and Pray that the more moderate parties in NI hold sway going forward
Having watched the FT video below, the protocol refers to the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, requiring a unique solution, this is something you have previously disputed.
The document affirms that The Good Friday Agreement must be protected in all its parts, and recalls the UKs commitment to guarantee no hard border on the island of Ireland etc.
Unlike you, I cant claim to be a legal expert. Although I do think that some of the measures you suggest would not be possible. I think that it would be straightforward to prove that the UK Government have taken some measures, the only purpose of which were to protect The Good Friday Agreement. 1 An Irish Sea border was the only means of avoiding a land border. 2 The sea border would be of no use, unless NI remained in the SM/CU.
I therefore think that going back on either of the above, as you have suggested, would be extremely difficult, without it being deemed as a failure to protect the GFA.
I think it would be beyond even Boris Johnson to come up with a believable excuse for leaving NI in the SM/CU, and pulling the rest of the UK out, while imposing an Irish Sea border, and splitting up the UK, for any other reason.
I firmly believe that it is the border rather than the number of checks, that is the root of the problem. UK politicians have a completely different view from those in NI.
I also listened to a report which pointed out that the 2021 census will, for the first time show that there is now a majority of Catholics in NI. This will surely mean a United Ireland is a step closer?
So long, and merci for all the fish: New 'Cod War' brews as three in four small French boats are turned down for post-Brexit fishing licences
Just 12 of the 47 EU small vessels that applied have been granted permission for post-Brexit fishing rights in UK waters, it emerged, which provoked threats of reprisals from the French government
Trying to avoid the same old ground, I am not sure how much the above will help. Some checks were conducted while we were members, but these were unobtrusively carried out on ferries. However there seems to be a backlash against the existence of the border. Any border, and on principle. The threats made against border staff had nothing to with the number of checks, or which products needed to be checked. I would guess that it is in the interests of some politicians, as well as other interested parties to sew the seeds of unrest due to the fact a border exists. The current situation will be exacerbated next year. If you pull NI out of the SM, the border will still exist If the whole of the UK became a third country more checks would surely be required rather than less. Checks would also be required between NI and Ireland going both ways.
I think that avoiding unrest means doing away with the border. No border would be needed if the whole of the UK was in the SM/CU. Although this would seem extremely unlikely. A point made in a couple of the articles above is one I have made a number of times, which is that Brexit is the problem, and the protocol is the solution. Boris chose the solution.
"At the end of it, are we still left in a foreign single market for goods, subject to a foreign customs code, overseen by a foreign laws that we don't make and can't change, and adjudicated upon by a foreign court?.
We have had 5 years since the referendum to get ready for this, and we are still nowhere near. There dont seem to be complaints on the EU side.
You do not believe that compromise is the best way forward.
I do. I believe that compromises should have been negotiated before the agreement was signed.
You persist in believing that the only "solution" is for the UK to capitulate, and bow down to the Single Market. Disregarding that that would be impossible to achieve.
Describing this as bowing down to the single market is a giveaway. Boris Johnson described staying in the SM/CU as the best of both worlds, in respect of NI. It is therefore difficult to explain why he would not want the best of both worlds for the whole of the UK. However I do accept that this will not happen under this Tory government. I believe that we should stick to our agreement, or negotiate an improvement if possible. The EU are expected to include radical changes to the licensing and distribution of medicines in the region, which involve the bloc changing its own laws. You are ignoring the fact that the border seems to be causing unrest, and that a reduction in checks may not be a solution. The only Boris recourse seems to be that we should pretend to be still members, and put off indefinitely the implementation of the rules and regulations that define our leaving, that he agreed to.
That everything done in the EU is the right way forward. And that everything that the UK does is wrong.
I didnt start off with that view, although it is one that is difficult to argue with at present. Particularly when you base your argument on facts. Both sides signed the agreement, yet our side seem to have all the problems.
Like someone else used to do. In the 1940s. Forget his name. Was it Lord Hay Hay?
It is not "extremely unlikely" that the whole of the UK joins the SM. It is politically impossible.
I wouldnt disagree. We want the penny and the bun. All the rights, but none of the obligations.
In the 5 years since we voted to leave, precisely no party has stood on a campaign ticket of "Leave plus Single Market". There have, as a result, been precisely no votes cast in favour of it. You could certainly argue that Labour should have adopted this position in the 2017/19 elections. But they did not. And we can't turn back time. Next time anyone could even begin that process would be 2024.
Leaving the EU was clear after the referendum. The terms under which we left werent.
The Conservatives stand firmly against the SM. They have won the last 2 elections on that very platform. In 2019, by a country mile. Any leader who reneged on that would be up before the 1922 Committee and asked to resign in 5 minutes flat. It will not happen.
The customs union vote in parliament only failed by 8 votes. Nothing concrete was decided until after the second of these elections. No precise details on Brexit featured in either campaign.
You quote the TUV as though they support your side. The Party of Ian Paisley of the 1970s. Not the later, improved version. That are the Party in NI supported by Nigel Farage. That are making the case for tearing up the Good Friday Agreement. That want to ban Sinn Fein as a political party. And move further away from Europe than almost everybody would wish.
I merely quoted them as one of the parties that are in principle against the imposition of any border.
Brexit is more than a "problem". It is a choice. And a choice that has been made. The protocol is not "the solution"-it is an attempt to provide a compromise, and provide a solution. That is not working. Because of the intransigence and flag waving of BOTH sides. Unless progress is made, there will have to be a Plan B.
I believe that the choice was to leave, or remain in the EU. The protocol is the solution that Boris chose to offset the difficulties created by choosing to leave. He didnt like the backstop which was clearly a better solution. I dont think the EU have been intransigent. We have left, that is except for NI, yet we still wish to tell them which checks are acceptable on their side. How would we respond to them telling us which checks are acceptable on our side?
There is no need for border checks on both sides of the border in Ireland. We, unlike the EU, do not adopt a slavish adherence to the protectionist mantra of a Single Market. We are free to allow the people of Ireland to do what they want in relation to trade with the UK in general, and NI in particular. It is open to us to withdraw from the SM in NI, give the Irish Free Trade on our side, and leave it to them what will be the best way forward in relation to the Good Friday Agreement and border checks. While we have none. That is the sort of thing that countries that are not beholdent on other nations can do.
No you cant. WTO rules dictate that there is a border, between different customs territories. Can we really expect to tell the EU that they have no right to protect their single market? We have rubbed their noses in it, with our intention to diverge, and have done trade deals with countries that produce products that dont comply with EU standards, and will do others. Any protection of the single market is likely to become more valid as time goes on. Ireland is in the EU, and I am sure will continue to follow their rules. They have benefitted from companies from the UK relocating
There are lots of complaints on the EU side. Just not from the current ruling political parties. Do you really think that every person in the EU believes that the EU has their interests at heart? Or that the EU is better than their own country? Or that businesses that rely on UK trade do not wish that barriers were removed?
Must be my imagination then. Estonia are complaining about too many British companies setting up over there.
Brexiteer brilliantly defends EU exit as petrol row grows: 'UK set for many more wins!'
Labour, meanwhile, which is staging its own annual conference in Brighton this week, is also trying to "reset Labour's position" on Brexit and its future relationship with the EU, shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy has said.
Speaking at a fringe event organised by the Delegation of the EU to the UK, Ms Nandy said the UK and the EU did not need to have a "needlessly antagonistic relationship with each other".
She explained: "We think that is a nonsense."
Labour would "seek strong close bilateral relations with our friends and neighbours, particularly starting with Ireland given the challenges that we face on the island of Ireland to ensure that we never again use the Good Friday Agreement as a bargaining chip", Ms Nandy added.
In fuel, staff and energy shortages, Boris Johnson is finally facing a crisis he can’t bluster his way out of
When Johnson is under pressure, he will often dismiss issues as “bubble issues” that voters don’t care about. Or, should that fail, he adopts his old method of “throwing a dead cat” – saying something scandalous or doing something mad to distract everyone from the issue you really don’t want to talk about.
But the reason a cost-of-living crisis worries ministers so much is that it cannot be talked out of or distracted from for any meaningful length of time. The usual tactics don’t work. If the country isn’t moving or the shelves are empty ahead of Christmas, that’s something no voter will ignore just because the Prime Minister uses a colourful phrase.
The "UK Trade and Business Commission" tries desperately to fool people as to its basis. It is not a Parliamentary Committee-it was set up by "Best for Britain", a campaign group whose main purposes are for us to rejoin the EU and to frustrate any moves towards independence from the EU.
53% polled did not like Boris's deal? Sure. But then the majority have voted against pretty much everything-staying in the EU, every single type of deal to leave, every party wanting to remain.
The British public votes against everything. In short, it votes to have the omelette without breaking eggs. Doesn't prove anything. Other than the public have unrealistic expectations.
The polls that matter-the ones that really determine the path ahead-have not gone your way.
"Crisis facing touring musicians"? Really? So they are to be treated like everyone else wanting to do work abroad. I don't see US bands finding this to be insurmountable.
This is just the opposite side of the coin to the likes of the ERG. Propaganda. Designed to fool the gullible.
I would disagree. There just arent any articles proclaiming UK triumphs in regard to Brexit.
Of course there are. You just refuse to see them. I mentioned AUKUS a while back. you ignored it. We have the ability to be our own voice on the world stage. Without looking over our shoulder. To negotiate our own way in the world.
It will all take time. Or would you rather we accepted merely being part of a pan-EU Army? Have our ability to be our own nation gradually eroded?
In all deals such as this, there are good bits. And bad bits. You could certainly argue that (at the very least, economically) the bad outweigh the good. But no good at all? Delusional.
Thought I had found one, I have read and reread the article, but cant find any mention of an about face, a screeching u-turn, or a Brexit benefit?
What an about face! EU ambassador in screeching U-turn as he admits 'benefits' of Brexit Dan Falvey, Political Correspondent, at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton 4 hrs ago Britain has accused the EU of being "purist" in its implementation of the deal, causing damage to the UK's internal market.
Westminster is demanding a renegotiation of the Brexit mechanism to ease problems in the long term.
Yesterday, Mr Vale de Almeida rejected accusations of the EU being too "rules" focus on its implementation.
He said he wanted both sides to work together to find a compromise to move on from the row.
He said: "We are ready to be flexible, our approach has not been 'rules, rules, rules', it has been 'rules-minus, rules-minus'.
"In the sense we are adapting to the particular situation of Northern Ireland and we have shown enormous flexibility.
"We hope the conditions will be created very soon for us to move on, finding the right solutions for implementing the Northern Ireland Protocol.
"We believe this is an important moment and an important aspect of our overall relationship and the sooner we find a common group, the better it will be for other aspects of the relationship."
Labour now says it would reopen Brexit talks if in power
A Labour government would “fix” Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, a member of Keir Starmer's shadow cabinet has said – raising the prospect of more talks with the EU.
The announcement, which came hours before Sir Keir's speech to Labour conference in Brighton, represents a change in approach from the party and is the first time the new leadership has suggested there could be more negotiations.
Boris Johnson's government has been pushing hard for changes to the EU withdrawal agreement but the EU has said it is not open for renegotiation.
The bloc has however in the past been more open to closer economic integration through membership of the customs union or single market, though the issue of Brexit is largely considered settled in European capitals.
It comes as amid a separate post-Brexit row over fishing licences which could see the vast majority of French boats locked out of UK waters.
The French government reacted with fury after just 12 fishing licences for small boats to operate in UK waters were granted out of 47 applications.
The UK was accused of taking French fishing “hostage” and warned of “retaliatory action” following the decision.
The prospect of a new cross-channel fishing war came after the UK issued licences based on evidence of a boat’s track record of fishing in its territorial waters, in line with the Brexit deal.
Some 47 applications were received from boats under 12 metres in length to be able to operate in the UK’s territorial sea.
With respect, you overvalue the virtue/value of honesty in politicians. Particularly PMs.
Brown was far more honest than Blair. Far nicer man. Post-PM, a greater statesman (reminds me of Jimmy Carter in that respect). But Blair was unquestionably the more effective PM.
The best time to judge Johnson is when he has stepped down. For him, Brexit was the springboard to being PM. He didn't care one way or the other about Brexit-he wanted to do what was Best for Boris. But now he wants to prepare the way to leave, and to cement (or create) his legacy.
It would not surprise me if he actually went for a Swiss-style Brexit deal going forward. It will be dressed up as something different, of course. Faces need to be saved on all sides.Political suicide, of course. But Johnson doesn't think like other politicians. The last thing he needs is to be 1 of many PMs who have been tarnished over their dealings on the island of Ireland. I don't like him-but I actually think he is our best chance of moving forward. Because what is Best for Boris might, just might, also be what is Best for Britain. In the near future.
People in the UK tend to want something to blame. Blaming Brexit is no different to blaming the EU. Businesses have always needed to adapt or fail. But the failing ones always seem to blame change, rather than their failure to adapt. So, to a lesser extent, do people. In its way, it is no different to people trying to blame the RNG here.
Having said all that, Farage and Widdecombe would definitely and probably (in that order) be in my Bottom 5.
‘You reap what you sow’: Farage roasted after complaining about the fuel crisis (and he was also hit by a van)
Nigel Farage is being comprehensively roasted for complaining about a crisis that many believe he had some role in creating.
Posting on Twitter, the former leader of the Brexit Party put his foot in it by moaning about petrol shortages (which many have said Brexit contributed to by creating stricter immigration rules that have caused some people to leave the country).
He then announced that he had also been hit by a van. Some day.
'Opportunity squandered!' Fisheries say Brexit wasted as industry hit with £300m losses
Now, a new report released by the National Federation of Fisherman's Organisations (NFFO) claims the industry is set to lose out on hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of Mr Johnson caving to EU demands.
With respect, you overvalue the virtue/value of honesty in politicians. Particularly PMs.
Brown was far more honest than Blair. Far nicer man. Post-PM, a greater statesman (reminds me of Jimmy Carter in that respect). But Blair was unquestionably the more effective PM.
The best time to judge Johnson is when he has stepped down. For him, Brexit was the springboard to being PM. He didn't care one way or the other about Brexit-he wanted to do what was Best for Boris. But now he wants to prepare the way to leave, and to cement (or create) his legacy.
It would not surprise me if he actually went for a Swiss-style Brexit deal going forward. It will be dressed up as something different, of course. Faces need to be saved on all sides.Political suicide, of course. But Johnson doesn't think like other politicians. The last thing he needs is to be 1 of many PMs who have been tarnished over their dealings on the island of Ireland. I don't like him-but I actually think he is our best chance of moving forward. Because what is Best for Boris might, just might, also be what is Best for Britain. In the near future.
People in the UK tend to want something to blame. Blaming Brexit is no different to blaming the EU. Businesses have always needed to adapt or fail. But the failing ones always seem to blame change, rather than their failure to adapt. So, to a lesser extent, do people. In its way, it is no different to people trying to blame the RNG here.
Having said all that, Farage and Widdecombe would definitely and probably (in that order) be in my Bottom 5.
Only four per cent of Britons think Brexit has gone ‘very well’
With respect, you overvalue the virtue/value of honesty in politicians. Particularly PMs.
Brown was far more honest than Blair. Far nicer man. Post-PM, a greater statesman (reminds me of Jimmy Carter in that respect). But Blair was unquestionably the more effective PM.
The best time to judge Johnson is when he has stepped down. For him, Brexit was the springboard to being PM. He didn't care one way or the other about Brexit-he wanted to do what was Best for Boris. But now he wants to prepare the way to leave, and to cement (or create) his legacy.
It would not surprise me if he actually went for a Swiss-style Brexit deal going forward. It will be dressed up as something different, of course. Faces need to be saved on all sides.Political suicide, of course. But Johnson doesn't think like other politicians. The last thing he needs is to be 1 of many PMs who have been tarnished over their dealings on the island of Ireland. I don't like him-but I actually think he is our best chance of moving forward. Because what is Best for Boris might, just might, also be what is Best for Britain. In the near future.
People in the UK tend to want something to blame. Blaming Brexit is no different to blaming the EU. Businesses have always needed to adapt or fail. But the failing ones always seem to blame change, rather than their failure to adapt. So, to a lesser extent, do people. In its way, it is no different to people trying to blame the RNG here.
Having said all that, Farage and Widdecombe would definitely and probably (in that order) be in my Bottom 5.
UK bars more than 200 million EU citizens who have ID cards but no passports
How dodgy are the EU’s identity cards? In the past, some European Union nations issued laminated identity cards that were relatively easy to forge or tamper with.
But since August 2021 all new ID cards issued by EU countries must follow a common pattern. They comply with the highest security standards, as prescribed by the UN International Civil Aviation Organization, which requires them to be machine readable and to contain a microchip with the holder’s details. They are extremely difficult to forge or change.
EU citizens – and those of the wider European Economic Area plus Switzerland – may travel to all European countries except the UK on their national identity cards.
In addition citizens of some EU nations, including France, Germany, Italy and Portugal, can use ID cards to visit Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey. The fear is that prospective visitors will be deterred by the need to get passport for travel only to the UK.
Joss Croft, chief executive of the industry body, UKinbound, said: “Pre-pandemic the UK’s inbound tourism industry was the jewel in our crown.
“Today the industry sits in tatters, desperate to rebuild but facing barrier upon barrier as it tries to recover.”
Comments
I do.
I believe that compromises should have been negotiated before the agreement was signed.
You persist in believing that the only "solution" is for the UK to capitulate, and bow down to the Single Market. Disregarding that that would be impossible to achieve.
Describing this as bowing down to the single market is a giveaway.
Boris Johnson described staying in the SM/CU as the best of both worlds, in respect of NI.
It is therefore difficult to explain why he would not want the best of both worlds for the whole of the UK.
However I do accept that this will not happen under this Tory government.
I believe that we should stick to our agreement, or negotiate an improvement if possible.
The EU are expected to include radical changes to the licensing and distribution of medicines in the region, which involve the bloc changing its own laws.
You are ignoring the fact that the border seems to be causing unrest, and that a reduction in checks may not be a solution.
The only Boris recourse seems to be that we should pretend to be still members, and put off indefinitely the implementation of the rules and regulations that define our leaving, that he agreed to.
That everything done in the EU is the right way forward. And that everything that the UK does is wrong.
I didnt start off with that view, although it is one that is difficult to argue with at present.
Particularly when you base your argument on facts.
Both sides signed the agreement, yet our side seem to have all the problems.
Like someone else used to do. In the 1940s. Forget his name. Was it Lord Hay Hay?
It is not "extremely unlikely" that the whole of the UK joins the SM. It is politically impossible.
I wouldnt disagree.
We want the penny and the bun.
All the rights, but none of the obligations.
In the 5 years since we voted to leave, precisely no party has stood on a campaign ticket of "Leave plus Single Market". There have, as a result, been precisely no votes cast in favour of it. You could certainly argue that Labour should have adopted this position in the 2017/19 elections. But they did not. And we can't turn back time. Next time anyone could even begin that process would be 2024.
Leaving the EU was clear after the referendum.
The terms under which we left werent.
The Conservatives stand firmly against the SM. They have won the last 2 elections on that very platform. In 2019, by a country mile. Any leader who reneged on that would be up before the 1922 Committee and asked to resign in 5 minutes flat. It will not happen.
The customs union vote in parliament only failed by 8 votes.
Nothing concrete was decided until after the second of these elections.
No precise details on Brexit featured in either campaign.
You quote the TUV as though they support your side. The Party of Ian Paisley of the 1970s. Not the later, improved version. That are the Party in NI supported by Nigel Farage. That are making the case for tearing up the Good Friday Agreement. That want to ban Sinn Fein as a political party. And move further away from Europe than almost everybody would wish.
I merely quoted them as one of the parties that are in principle against the imposition of any border.
Brexit is more than a "problem". It is a choice. And a choice that has been made.
The protocol is not "the solution"-it is an attempt to provide a compromise, and provide a solution. That is not working. Because of the intransigence and flag waving of BOTH sides. Unless progress is made, there will have to be a Plan B.
I believe that the choice was to leave, or remain in the EU.
The protocol is the solution that Boris chose to offset the difficulties created by choosing to leave.
He didnt like the backstop which was clearly a better solution.
I dont think the EU have been intransigent.
We have left, that is except for NI, yet we still wish to tell them which checks are acceptable on their side.
How would we respond to them telling us which checks are acceptable on our side?
There is no need for border checks on both sides of the border in Ireland. We, unlike the EU, do not adopt a slavish adherence to the protectionist mantra of a Single Market. We are free to allow the people of Ireland to do what they want in relation to trade with the UK in general, and NI in particular. It is open to us to withdraw from the SM in NI, give the Irish Free Trade on our side, and leave it to them what will be the best way forward in relation to the Good Friday Agreement and border checks. While we have none. That is the sort of thing that countries that are not beholdent on other nations can do.
No you cant.
WTO rules dictate that there is a border, between different customs territories.
Can we really expect to tell the EU that they have no right to protect their single market?
We have rubbed their noses in it, with our intention to diverge, and have done trade deals with countries that produce products that dont comply with EU standards, and will do others.
Any protection of the single market is likely to become more valid as time goes on.
Ireland is in the EU, and I am sure will continue to follow their rules.
They have benefitted from companies from the UK relocating
There are lots of complaints on the EU side. Just not from the current ruling political parties. Do you really think that every person in the EU believes that the EU has their interests at heart? Or that the EU is better than their own country? Or that businesses that rely on UK trade do not wish that barriers were removed?
Must be my imagination then.
Estonia are complaining about too many British companies setting up over there.
Estonia are complaining about too many British companies setting up over there.
I think that some may consider that taking the below into account in respect of NI, the feeling that they are no longer part of the UK, as being reasonable.
"At the end of it, are we still left in a foreign single market for goods, subject to a foreign customs code, overseen by a foreign laws that we don't make and can't change, and adjudicated upon by a foreign court?.
Boris did this.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/brexit-has-become-unmentionable-and-it-means-we-re-not-holding-boris-johnson-to-account/ar-AAOSnPB?ocid=msedgntp
UK lorry driver crisis ‘vindicates’ warnings about speed of Brexit process
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/uk-lorry-driver-crisis-vindicates-warnings-about-speed-of-brexit-process/ar-AAOSPlP?ocid=msedgntp
Estonia are complaining about too many British companies setting up over there.
Labour is braced for Boris Johnson to suspend the Northern Ireland Protocol at next week’s Tory conference, to milk the “drama” and distract attention from the fuel crisis.
Speaking at Labour’s conference, Baroness Chapman said the prime minister was “not enjoying the headlines or the sight of people queuing up petrol stations”.
“I’m ashamed to say this about our government, but I think that makes it more likely that they will want to trigger Article 16,” she told a fringe meeting on the future relationship with the EU.
“They will like the drama of it and they will seek to use that to further their own party political advantage. And that should shock nobody in this room.”
Asked about rumours that the button will be pressed as early as next week, the Brexit spokeswoman replied: “I would not be surprised if what is predicted actually happens.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-expects-boris-johnson-to-suspend-northern-ireland-protocol-to-distract-from-fuel-crisis/ar-AAOUGhC?ocid=msedgntp
Labour Brexit chief urges party’s Remainers to ‘get over it and move on’ in conference speech
Meanwhile, Lady Chapman said she suspected Mr Johnson could use next week’s Conservative Party conference to unilaterally suspend the vexed Northern Ireland Protocol, which the UK is trying to renegotiate, to distract from the crisis at petrol pumps.
“They are not enjoying the headlines or the sight of people queuing at petrol stations, they will not enjoy the fact that the Labour Party, against everyone’s predictions, is actually having quite a good conference,” she said.
“The polls are tightening as a result and I’m ashamed to say this about our Government but I think it makes it more likely that they would trigger Article 16 (to suspend the Protocol), when actually they could take other routes.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/labour-brexit-chief-urges-party-s-remainers-to-get-over-it-and-move-on-in-conference-speech/ar-AAOUUUA?ocid=msedgntp
Ireland ‘in solution-mode’ on protocol, after fresh unionist opposition
DUP
@duponline
On Ulster Day 2021 unionism stands united in opposition to the Northern Ireland Protocol.
“The British Government tore up the Act of Union and also the Belfast Agreement. In doing this they diluted our Britishness.
“Today we stand strong against the protocol and we call on the British Government to remove the protocol.”
Earlier this month, the DUP threatened to collapse powersharing at Stormont unless their demands on the protocol were met.
Fine Gael TD Neale Richmond, who questioned Mr Martin in the Dail on the Northern Ireland Protocol, was critical of the declaration.
“I note the lack of reference to any realistic alternatives or to how Northern Ireland isn’t suffering the same issues that England currently is,” he tweeted on Tuesday.
“EU remains ready to engage constructively.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/ireland-in-solution-mode-on-protocol-after-fresh-unionist-opposition/ar-AAOU7JI?ocid=msedgntp
According to analysis from Informa Pharma Intelligence, the additional costs of implementing new regulatory procedures could threaten manufacturer's ability to export low-cost generic drugs to Northern Ireland from within the UK.
The Brexit grace period is set to end at the start of 2022 and pharmaceutical companies have raised concerns due to the lack of a clear political solution.
Ian Schofield, executive editor of Pharma Insights at Informa, said: "The Brexit vote, and the UK's stance on leaving the single market, forced a separation between the UK's MHRA and the EMA.
"Whilst the separation itself is a lengthy process that requires a re-evaluation of each detail of the UK's drug approval processes, the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol remains an ongoing area of tension with potentially significant impacts on the availability of generic drugs to Northern Irish citizens.
"Worryingly, an easy solution to this is not forthcoming even with the deadline fast approaching."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-facing-90-raid-on-key-medicine-supplies-over-hated-brexit-deal-frost-urged-to-act/ar-AAOVeUk?ocid=msedgntp
Brexit 'a factor' in fuel crisis Shapps admits in major U-turn 'Worked both ways!'
Grant Shapps had previously dismissed attempts to find a link between Britain quitting the European Union and the disruption motorists and consumers have been experiencing in recent weeks. But on the fifth day of Britons queueing en masse outside petrol stations to secure fuel amid fears of a shortage due to HGV drivers unavailability, the Transport Secretary was forced to backtrack on his comment. Speaking to the BBC, Mr Shapps said: "Brexit I hear mentioned a lot, and it no doubt will have been a factor.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-a-factor-in-fuel-crisis-shapps-admits-in-major-u-turn-worked-both-ways/ar-AAOUS41?ocid=msedgntp
The document affirms that The Good Friday Agreement must be protected in all its parts, and recalls the UKs commitment to guarantee no hard border on the island of Ireland etc.
Unlike you, I cant claim to be a legal expert.
Although I do think that some of the measures you suggest would not be possible.
I think that it would be straightforward to prove that the UK Government have taken some measures, the only purpose of which were to protect The Good Friday Agreement.
1 An Irish Sea border was the only means of avoiding a land border.
2 The sea border would be of no use, unless NI remained in the SM/CU.
I therefore think that going back on either of the above, as you have suggested, would be extremely difficult, without it being deemed as a failure to protect the GFA.
I think it would be beyond even Boris Johnson to come up with a believable excuse for leaving NI in the SM/CU, and pulling the rest of the UK out, while imposing an Irish Sea border, and splitting up the UK, for any other reason.
I firmly believe that it is the border rather than the number of checks, that is the root of the problem.
UK politicians have a completely different view from those in NI.
I also listened to a report which pointed out that the 2021 census will, for the first time show that there is now a majority of Catholics in NI.
This will surely mean a United Ireland is a step closer?
Just 12 of the 47 EU small vessels that applied have been granted permission for post-Brexit fishing rights in UK waters, it emerged, which provoked threats of reprisals from the French government
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10039471/New-Cod-War-three-four-small-French-boats-turned-post-Brexit-fishing-licences.html
Estonia are complaining about too many British companies setting up over there.
Brexiteer brilliantly defends EU exit as petrol row grows: 'UK set for many more wins!'
Labour, meanwhile, which is staging its own annual conference in Brighton this week, is also trying to "reset Labour's position" on Brexit and its future relationship with the EU, shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy has said.
Speaking at a fringe event organised by the Delegation of the EU to the UK, Ms Nandy said the UK and the EU did not need to have a "needlessly antagonistic relationship with each other".
She explained: "We think that is a nonsense."
Labour would "seek strong close bilateral relations with our friends and neighbours, particularly starting with Ireland given the challenges that we face on the island of Ireland to ensure that we never again use the Good Friday Agreement as a bargaining chip", Ms Nandy added.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexiteer-brilliantly-defends-eu-exit-as-petrol-row-grows-uk-set-for-many-more-wins/ar-AAOWsU8?ocid=msedgntp
When Johnson is under pressure, he will often dismiss issues as “bubble issues” that voters don’t care about. Or, should that fail, he adopts his old method of “throwing a dead cat” – saying something scandalous or doing something mad to distract everyone from the issue you really don’t want to talk about.
But the reason a cost-of-living crisis worries ministers so much is that it cannot be talked out of or distracted from for any meaningful length of time. The usual tactics don’t work. If the country isn’t moving or the shelves are empty ahead of Christmas, that’s something no voter will ignore just because the Prime Minister uses a colourful phrase.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/in-fuel-staff-and-energy-shortages-boris-johnson-is-finally-facing-a-crisis-he-can-t-bluster-his-way-out-of/ar-AAOWiCn?ocid=msedgntp
What an about face! EU ambassador in screeching U-turn as he admits 'benefits' of Brexit
Dan Falvey, Political Correspondent, at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton 4 hrs ago
Britain has accused the EU of being "purist" in its implementation of the deal, causing damage to the UK's internal market.
Westminster is demanding a renegotiation of the Brexit mechanism to ease problems in the long term.
Yesterday, Mr Vale de Almeida rejected accusations of the EU being too "rules" focus on its implementation.
He said he wanted both sides to work together to find a compromise to move on from the row.
He said: "We are ready to be flexible, our approach has not been 'rules, rules, rules', it has been 'rules-minus, rules-minus'.
"In the sense we are adapting to the particular situation of Northern Ireland and we have shown enormous flexibility.
"We hope the conditions will be created very soon for us to move on, finding the right solutions for implementing the Northern Ireland Protocol.
"We believe this is an important moment and an important aspect of our overall relationship and the sooner we find a common group, the better it will be for other aspects of the relationship."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/what-an-about-face-eu-ambassador-in-screeching-u-turn-as-he-admits-benefits-of-brexit/ar-AAOWSkz?ocid=msedgntp
A Labour government would “fix” Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, a member of Keir Starmer's shadow cabinet has said – raising the prospect of more talks with the EU.
The announcement, which came hours before Sir Keir's speech to Labour conference in Brighton, represents a change in approach from the party and is the first time the new leadership has suggested there could be more negotiations.
Boris Johnson's government has been pushing hard for changes to the EU withdrawal agreement but the EU has said it is not open for renegotiation.
The bloc has however in the past been more open to closer economic integration through membership of the customs union or single market, though the issue of Brexit is largely considered settled in European capitals.
It comes as amid a separate post-Brexit row over fishing licences which could see the vast majority of French boats locked out of UK waters.
The French government reacted with fury after just 12 fishing licences for small boats to operate in UK waters were granted out of 47 applications.
The UK was accused of taking French fishing “hostage” and warned of “retaliatory action” following the decision.
The prospect of a new cross-channel fishing war came after the UK issued licences based on evidence of a boat’s track record of fishing in its territorial waters, in line with the Brexit deal.
Some 47 applications were received from boats under 12 metres in length to be able to operate in the UK’s territorial sea.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/labour-now-says-it-would-reopen-brexit-talks-if-in-power/ar-AAOWfyN?ocid=msedgntp
Nigel Farage is being comprehensively roasted for complaining about a crisis that many believe he had some role in creating.
Posting on Twitter, the former leader of the Brexit Party put his foot in it by moaning about petrol shortages (which many have said Brexit contributed to by creating stricter immigration rules that have caused some people to leave the country).
He then announced that he had also been hit by a van. Some day.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/you-reap-what-you-sow-farage-roasted-after-complaining-about-the-fuel-crisis-and-he-was-also-hit-by-a-van/ar-AAOZOn3?ocid=msedgntp
Boris Johnson dealt brutal blow as US, China and India snub climate meeting
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-dealt-brutal-blow-as-us-china-and-india-snub-climate-meeting/ar-AAOZNEb?ocid=msedgntp
Polish lorry driver essentially tells UK where to shove it over temporary visa scheme to fix supply issues
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/polish-lorry-driver-essentially-tells-uk-where-to-shove-it-over-temporary-visa-scheme-to-fix-supply-issues/ar-AAOXkre?ocid=msedgntp
'Opportunity squandered!' Fisheries say Brexit wasted as industry hit with £300m losses
Now, a new report released by the National Federation of Fisherman's Organisations (NFFO) claims the industry is set to lose out on hundreds of millions of pounds as a result of Mr Johnson caving to EU demands.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/opportunity-squandered-fisheries-say-brexit-wasted-as-industry-hit-with-300m-losses/ar-AAOZqB7?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/french-dumping-on-uk-fury-as-timid-boris-lets-1-700-eu-ships-plunder-british-waters/ar-AAOXppR?ocid=msedgntp
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/only-four-per-cent-of-britons-think-brexit-has-gone-very-well/ar-AAP0NVg?ocid=msedgntp
Heeding working-class voices on Brexit and labour shortages
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/heeding-working-class-voices-on-brexit-and-labour-shortages/ar-AAP0AHe?ocid=msedgntp
Britain seeks views on plugging back into European power market
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/britain-seeks-views-on-plugging-back-into-european-power-market/ar-AAP08UB?ocid=msedgntp
The Guardian view on silence about Brexit: time to talk turkey
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/the-guardian-view-on-silence-about-brexit-time-to-talk-turkey/ar-AAP0tjs?ocid=msedgntp
Boris Johnson 'can't maintain Union by saying no' but Nicola Sturgeon still lacks support
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-can-t-maintain-union-by-saying-no-but-nicola-sturgeon-still-lacks-support/ar-AAP0y7t?ocid=msedgntp
The Tories are gaslighting the country – and it’s about to get a whole lot worse
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/the-tories-are-gaslighting-the-country-and-it-s-about-to-get-a-whole-lot-worse/ar-AAP00Pz?ocid=msedgntp
How dodgy are the EU’s identity cards?
In the past, some European Union nations issued laminated identity cards that were relatively easy to forge or tamper with.
But since August 2021 all new ID cards issued by EU countries must follow a common pattern. They comply with the highest security standards, as prescribed by the UN International Civil Aviation Organization, which requires them to be machine readable and to contain a microchip with the holder’s details. They are extremely difficult to forge or change.
EU citizens – and those of the wider European Economic Area plus Switzerland – may travel to all European countries except the UK on their national identity cards.
In addition citizens of some EU nations, including France, Germany, Italy and Portugal, can use ID cards to visit Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey.
The fear is that prospective visitors will be deterred by the need to get passport for travel only to the UK.
Joss Croft, chief executive of the industry body, UKinbound, said: “Pre-pandemic the UK’s inbound tourism industry was the jewel in our crown.
“Today the industry sits in tatters, desperate to rebuild but facing barrier upon barrier as it tries to recover.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/travel/uk-bars-more-than-200-million-eu-citizens-who-have-id-cards-but-no-passports/ar-AAP1LZ8?ocid=msedgntp