Long on theory. Long on rhetoric. Non-existent on anything of practical relevance.
The dawn of EU lite? Macron invites Britain to join an alternative 'European political community' with 'full political integration'... one-and-a-half years after Brexit became official
French President Emmanuel Macron today invited Britain to join a new 'European political community' outside the EU. Mr Macron - who was fiercely opposed to Brexit - said this new status would allow the UK to enjoy full political integration within the 27-country bloc, and have a say in crucial decisions. In a keynote speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Monday, Mr Macron said he was all in favour of 'creating what I would call a European political community. 'This new European organisation would allow democratic European nations adhering to our core values to find a new space for political cooperation, and security. 'Joining it would not prejudge future membership of the European Union, and it would not be closed to those who have left the latter'. During a trip to Berlin later in the day, Mr Macron confirmed that Britain would be invited to 'take its full place' in the new community.
The EU has totally changed since Merkel retired. It is now France (rather than Germany) that is the effective leader of the EU.
It seems that the EU (or at least France) finally understands that the EEC and an EU are 2 totally separate things. It is perfectly possible to be in 1 without the other. The key to this will all be in the detail.
'We are not a satellite of Brussels': Tory Brexiteers fume at Emmanuel Macron's plan for post-Brexit Britain to become part of new 'EU-lite' as Number 10 says 'non, merci'
The proposal, which has been dubbed 'EU-lite', would include both members and non-members of the EU.
Long on theory. Long on rhetoric. Non-existent on anything of practical relevance.
The dawn of EU lite? Macron invites Britain to join an alternative 'European political community' with 'full political integration'... one-and-a-half years after Brexit became official
French President Emmanuel Macron today invited Britain to join a new 'European political community' outside the EU. Mr Macron - who was fiercely opposed to Brexit - said this new status would allow the UK to enjoy full political integration within the 27-country bloc, and have a say in crucial decisions. In a keynote speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Monday, Mr Macron said he was all in favour of 'creating what I would call a European political community. 'This new European organisation would allow democratic European nations adhering to our core values to find a new space for political cooperation, and security. 'Joining it would not prejudge future membership of the European Union, and it would not be closed to those who have left the latter'. During a trip to Berlin later in the day, Mr Macron confirmed that Britain would be invited to 'take its full place' in the new community.
The EU has totally changed since Merkel retired. It is now France (rather than Germany) that is the effective leader of the EU.
It seems that the EU (or at least France) finally understands that the EEC and an EU are 2 totally separate things. It is perfectly possible to be in 1 without the other. The key to this will all be in the detail.
The detail wont matter to Mr Farage or the ERG?
Farage is a whiny little baby, who (fortunately) is increasingly irrelevant.
The ERG is more interesting. I doubt they will be so dismissive.
Johnson is in trouble at home. Massive inflation. Massive scandals. Massive ineptitude. They have neither the money nor the will to grip the massive problems facing the electorate.
So this Government will do what all Governments do when in trouble at home. Focus on foreign policy to divert attention. This could do exactly that.
The ERG may well care about political ideology. But they care about their seats more
GB News: Nigel Farage told Boris Johnson's advisers 'didn't want Brexit to happen'
Long on theory. Long on rhetoric. Non-existent on anything of practical relevance.
The dawn of EU lite? Macron invites Britain to join an alternative 'European political community' with 'full political integration'... one-and-a-half years after Brexit became official
French President Emmanuel Macron today invited Britain to join a new 'European political community' outside the EU. Mr Macron - who was fiercely opposed to Brexit - said this new status would allow the UK to enjoy full political integration within the 27-country bloc, and have a say in crucial decisions. In a keynote speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Monday, Mr Macron said he was all in favour of 'creating what I would call a European political community. 'This new European organisation would allow democratic European nations adhering to our core values to find a new space for political cooperation, and security. 'Joining it would not prejudge future membership of the European Union, and it would not be closed to those who have left the latter'. During a trip to Berlin later in the day, Mr Macron confirmed that Britain would be invited to 'take its full place' in the new community.
The EU has totally changed since Merkel retired. It is now France (rather than Germany) that is the effective leader of the EU.
It seems that the EU (or at least France) finally understands that the EEC and an EU are 2 totally separate things. It is perfectly possible to be in 1 without the other. The key to this will all be in the detail.
Tory Brexiteers fume at Macron's plan for UK to join new 'EU-lite'
I am big on using the actual words-"Britain Exit". It is done.
If, however, you believe that "Brexit" doesn't mean the closing of the last chapter, but some sort of organisation in relation to the next chapter, then I suppose it is not complete.
Which only goes to show just how unrealistic the British electorate are. They voted to leave the EU. Without bothering to compare it with what comes next. And have got exactly that.
But we have got exactly what was voted for. While not receiving the benefits that different people promised different sets of voters.
I am big on using the actual words-"Britain Exit". It is done.
If, however, you believe that "Brexit" doesn't mean the closing of the last chapter, but some sort of organisation in relation to the next chapter, then I suppose it is not complete.
Which only goes to show just how unrealistic the British electorate are. They voted to leave the EU. Without bothering to compare it with what comes next. And have got exactly that.
But we have got exactly what was voted for. While not receiving the benefits that different people promised different sets of voters.
We might be about to take a massive step backwards, the result of which could be Brexit becoming a bit undone.
I am big on using the actual words-"Britain Exit". It is done.
If, however, you believe that "Brexit" doesn't mean the closing of the last chapter, but some sort of organisation in relation to the next chapter, then I suppose it is not complete.
Which only goes to show just how unrealistic the British electorate are. They voted to leave the EU. Without bothering to compare it with what comes next. And have got exactly that.
But we have got exactly what was voted for. While not receiving the benefits that different people promised different sets of voters.
What do you think is going to happen? Do you think it is all going to blow up? Apparently the DUP dont intend to turn up to elect a Speaker tomorrow. So Stormont collapses again. The people of NI cant get their hands on the £300million thats in place, to help with the cost of living crisis. The DUP are now saying that they see a satisfactory resolution of the protocol problem is the removal of the Irish Sea border. The government seem to be attempting to appease the DUP. They seem intent on taking unilateral action to overrule bits of the protocol. Although I am not sure they intend to go as far as removing the border. The EU will not be happy, but how far will they go? Trade war?
The strange thing is that even though the protocol isnt working, NI has outperformed the rest of the UK, as far as trade is concerned.
A trade war is unlikely to help the cost of living crisis, or many businesses.
I am big on using the actual words-"Britain Exit". It is done.
If, however, you believe that "Brexit" doesn't mean the closing of the last chapter, but some sort of organisation in relation to the next chapter, then I suppose it is not complete.
Which only goes to show just how unrealistic the British electorate are. They voted to leave the EU. Without bothering to compare it with what comes next. And have got exactly that.
But we have got exactly what was voted for. While not receiving the benefits that different people promised different sets of voters.
EU issues furious rebuke as UK ramps up threat to rip up Brexit deal in Northern Ireland
Long on theory. Long on rhetoric. Non-existent on anything of practical relevance.
The dawn of EU lite? Macron invites Britain to join an alternative 'European political community' with 'full political integration'... one-and-a-half years after Brexit became official
French President Emmanuel Macron today invited Britain to join a new 'European political community' outside the EU. Mr Macron - who was fiercely opposed to Brexit - said this new status would allow the UK to enjoy full political integration within the 27-country bloc, and have a say in crucial decisions. In a keynote speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Monday, Mr Macron said he was all in favour of 'creating what I would call a European political community. 'This new European organisation would allow democratic European nations adhering to our core values to find a new space for political cooperation, and security. 'Joining it would not prejudge future membership of the European Union, and it would not be closed to those who have left the latter'. During a trip to Berlin later in the day, Mr Macron confirmed that Britain would be invited to 'take its full place' in the new community.
The EU has totally changed since Merkel retired. It is now France (rather than Germany) that is the effective leader of the EU.
It seems that the EU (or at least France) finally understands that the EEC and an EU are 2 totally separate things. It is perfectly possible to be in 1 without the other. The key to this will all be in the detail.
'We are not a satellite of Brussels': Tory Brexiteers fume at Emmanuel Macron's plan for post-Brexit Britain to become part of new 'EU-lite' as Number 10 says 'non, merci'
The proposal, which has been dubbed 'EU-lite', would include both members and non-members of the EU.
I am big on using the actual words-"Britain Exit". It is done.
If, however, you believe that "Brexit" doesn't mean the closing of the last chapter, but some sort of organisation in relation to the next chapter, then I suppose it is not complete.
Which only goes to show just how unrealistic the British electorate are. They voted to leave the EU. Without bothering to compare it with what comes next. And have got exactly that.
But we have got exactly what was voted for. While not receiving the benefits that different people promised different sets of voters.
The attorney general’s office was worthy of respect. Suella the stooge disgraces it
I am big on using the actual words-"Britain Exit". It is done.
If, however, you believe that "Brexit" doesn't mean the closing of the last chapter, but some sort of organisation in relation to the next chapter, then I suppose it is not complete.
Which only goes to show just how unrealistic the British electorate are. They voted to leave the EU. Without bothering to compare it with what comes next. And have got exactly that.
But we have got exactly what was voted for. While not receiving the benefits that different people promised different sets of voters.
'Petty, small-minded and vindictive' Stephen Dixon condemns EU in blistering GB News swipe
I am big on using the actual words-"Britain Exit". It is done.
If, however, you believe that "Brexit" doesn't mean the closing of the last chapter, but some sort of organisation in relation to the next chapter, then I suppose it is not complete.
Which only goes to show just how unrealistic the British electorate are. They voted to leave the EU. Without bothering to compare it with what comes next. And have got exactly that.
But we have got exactly what was voted for. While not receiving the benefits that different people promised different sets of voters.
Kwasi Kwarteng was very uncomfortable discussing the protocol on BBC this morning. There was a lot of squirming going on.
What I cant understand is the following, When the referendum was planned why was there no plan for NI. A vote for Brexit had to mean a border between the UK and the EU. The reason for this is obvious. Had Ireland been a different island somewhere else in the world, it may have been straightforward. That would have meant that there was no "Good Friday Agreement". There would have been a land border, and no problem.
However, in the case of NI, there is a "Good Friday Agreement", which rules out a land border. Therefore the only other place that the border could go is in the Irish Sea. This was known before the referendum took place. Putting a border in the Irish Sea, was bound to create tensions. It effectively separates NI, from the rest of the UK. This was bound to alienate Unionists.
Many commentators, the Government, and I will include you in this, have focused on what has been described as EU inflexibility on the number of customs checks that they require. They continue to criticise them despite their offer to reduce checks by 80%, and resolve issues surrounding medicines etc. The focus seems to centre on customs checks. Yet the Unionist objection is clearly that there any checks full stop, and they want the border removed completely. They see the border as an impediment to them feeling part of the UK. The Unionists will not be happy while there is a border between them and the rest of the UK. Is this even possible?
The government see the protocol as the reason Stormont is not up and running. This is despite the fact 53 out of the 90 MLAs would vote to keep the protocol in place, and a majority of voters, voted for parties that support the protocol.
Wasnt Theresa May really clever. Her backstop avoided all this. My understanding of the backstop is that it was a temporary plan to keep the whole of the UK in the customs union, until an alternative plan could be found. So no border, and no checks.
We would also be permitted to forge independent free trade deals with other countries.
Couldnt we have produced a protocol as the long term plan, at the same time. The EU could have laid out the number of checks they required, and we could have negotiated to eliminate as many as we could over a period of years. The ERG were against the backstop, and the reason they cited was because we could get stuck in the backstop for ever. Yet the same people were arguing at the same time that there was no border needed because of trusted trader schemes, and technological solutions, etc etc. These solutions could have been explored over a period of years to reduce the number of EU checks that may be required.
Stormont vote on the protocol in 2024. At present it seems that they would vote to keep it in place. Had the backstop been in place the protocol would have provided an alternative, when it comes to a vote. As things stand, if they voted the protocol down, what would the alternative be?
I am big on using the actual words-"Britain Exit". It is done.
If, however, you believe that "Brexit" doesn't mean the closing of the last chapter, but some sort of organisation in relation to the next chapter, then I suppose it is not complete.
Which only goes to show just how unrealistic the British electorate are. They voted to leave the EU. Without bothering to compare it with what comes next. And have got exactly that.
But we have got exactly what was voted for. While not receiving the benefits that different people promised different sets of voters.
Kwasi Kwarteng was very uncomfortable discussing the protocol on BBC this morning. There was a lot of squirming going on.
What I cant understand is the following, When the referendum was planned why was there no plan for NI. A vote for Brexit had to mean a border between the UK and the EU. The reason for this is obvious. Had Ireland been a different island somewhere else in the world, it may have been straightforward. That would have meant that there was no "Good Friday Agreement". There would have been a land border, and no problem.
However, in the case of NI, there is a "Good Friday Agreement", which rules out a land border. Therefore the only other place that the border could go is in the Irish Sea. This was known before the referendum took place. Putting a border in the Irish Sea, was bound to create tensions. It effectively separates NI, from the rest of the UK. This was bound to alienate Unionists.
Many commentators, the Government, and I will include you in this, have focused on what has been described as EU inflexibility on the number of customs checks that they require. They continue to criticise them despite their offer to reduce checks by 80%, and resolve issues surrounding medicines etc. The focus seems to centre on customs checks. Yet the Unionist objection is clearly that there any checks full stop, and they want the border removed completely. They see the border as an impediment to them feeling part of the UK. The Unionists will not be happy while there is a border between them and the rest of the UK. Is this even possible?
The government see the protocol as the reason Stormont is not up and running. This is despite the fact 53 out of the 90 MLAs would vote to keep the protocol in place, and a majority of voters, voted for parties that support the protocol.
Wasnt Theresa May really clever. Her backstop avoided all this. My understanding of the backstop is that it was a temporary plan to keep the whole of the UK in the customs union, until an alternative plan could be found. So no border, and no checks.
We would also be permitted to forge independent free trade deals with other countries.
Couldnt we have produced a protocol as the long term plan, at the same time. The EU could have laid out the number of checks they required, and we could have negotiated to eliminate as many as we could over a period of years. The ERG were against the backstop, and the reason they cited was because we could get stuck in the backstop for ever. Yet the same people were arguing at the same time that there was no border needed because of trusted trader schemes, and technological solutions, etc etc. These solutions could have been explored over a period of years to reduce the number of EU checks that may be required.
Stormont vote on the protocol in 2024. At present it seems that they would vote to keep it in place. Had the backstop been in place the protocol would have provided an alternative, when it comes to a vote. As things stand, if they voted the protocol down, what would the alternative be?
I havent heard criticism of the EU for introducing any new customs checks. Are they therefore being criticised for insisting on checks that applied to third countries throughout the time we were members? If we thought these checks were excessive, why didnt we insist on reducing them for other third countries while we were members? The problem therefore seems to be that we wanted to leave the EU, become a third country, but not accept the rules which have always applied to third countries. Having our cake and eating it.
There is a massive problem in NI. Boris and the government continually rant about the number of customs checks that the EU are insisting on. However any solution that merely reduced the number of customs checks does not address the Unionist problem. They will not be happy until the border is removed. They have not suggested a solution, or put forward an alternative to the current arrangements. This just seems a fudge to enable Boris to blame the EU.
Interestingly Boris stated that the protocol gave NI the best of both worlds. On that basis wouldnt the backstop have given the whole of the UK the best of both worlds?
No credit seems to have been given to the EU for accepting that there is no land border in Ireland, and allowing NI to remain in the CU/SM free of charge. I believe that they have bent over backwards, and shown great flexibility to reach a deal in the first place, and we have taken every opportunity to sh1t on them ever since.
The NI problem is clearly about the border, not the number of customs checks.
I am big on using the actual words-"Britain Exit". It is done.
If, however, you believe that "Brexit" doesn't mean the closing of the last chapter, but some sort of organisation in relation to the next chapter, then I suppose it is not complete.
Which only goes to show just how unrealistic the British electorate are. They voted to leave the EU. Without bothering to compare it with what comes next. And have got exactly that.
But we have got exactly what was voted for. While not receiving the benefits that different people promised different sets of voters.
Kwasi Kwarteng was very uncomfortable discussing the protocol on BBC this morning. There was a lot of squirming going on.
What I cant understand is the following, When the referendum was planned why was there no plan for NI. A vote for Brexit had to mean a border between the UK and the EU. The reason for this is obvious. Had Ireland been a different island somewhere else in the world, it may have been straightforward. That would have meant that there was no "Good Friday Agreement". There would have been a land border, and no problem.
However, in the case of NI, there is a "Good Friday Agreement", which rules out a land border. Therefore the only other place that the border could go is in the Irish Sea. This was known before the referendum took place. Putting a border in the Irish Sea, was bound to create tensions. It effectively separates NI, from the rest of the UK. This was bound to alienate Unionists.
Many commentators, the Government, and I will include you in this, have focused on what has been described as EU inflexibility on the number of customs checks that they require. They continue to criticise them despite their offer to reduce checks by 80%, and resolve issues surrounding medicines etc. The focus seems to centre on customs checks. Yet the Unionist objection is clearly that there any checks full stop, and they want the border removed completely. They see the border as an impediment to them feeling part of the UK. The Unionists will not be happy while there is a border between them and the rest of the UK. Is this even possible?
The government see the protocol as the reason Stormont is not up and running. This is despite the fact 53 out of the 90 MLAs would vote to keep the protocol in place, and a majority of voters, voted for parties that support the protocol.
Wasnt Theresa May really clever. Her backstop avoided all this. My understanding of the backstop is that it was a temporary plan to keep the whole of the UK in the customs union, until an alternative plan could be found. So no border, and no checks.
We would also be permitted to forge independent free trade deals with other countries.
Couldnt we have produced a protocol as the long term plan, at the same time. The EU could have laid out the number of checks they required, and we could have negotiated to eliminate as many as we could over a period of years. The ERG were against the backstop, and the reason they cited was because we could get stuck in the backstop for ever. Yet the same people were arguing at the same time that there was no border needed because of trusted trader schemes, and technological solutions, etc etc. These solutions could have been explored over a period of years to reduce the number of EU checks that may be required.
Stormont vote on the protocol in 2024. At present it seems that they would vote to keep it in place. Had the backstop been in place the protocol would have provided an alternative, when it comes to a vote. As things stand, if they voted the protocol down, what would the alternative be?
I havent heard criticism of the EU for introducing any new customs checks. Are they therefore being criticised for insisting on checks that applied to third countries throughout the time we were members? If we thought these checks were excessive, why didnt we insist on reducing them for other third countries while we were members? The problem therefore seems to be that we wanted to leave the EU, become a third country, but not accept the rules which have always applied to third countries. Having our cake and eating it.
There is a massive problem in NI. Boris and the government continually rant about the number of customs checks that the EU are insisting on. However any solution that merely reduced the number of customs checks does not address the Unionist problem. They will not be happy until the border is removed. They have not suggested a solution, or put forward an alternative to the current arrangements. This just seems a fudge to enable Boris to blame the EU.
Interestingly Boris stated that the protocol gave NI the best of both worlds. On that basis wouldnt the backstop have given the whole of the UK the best of both worlds?
No credit seems to have been given to the EU for accepting that there is no land border in Ireland, and allowing NI to remain in the CU/SM free of charge. I believe that they have bent over backwards, and shown great flexibility to reach a deal in the first place, and we have taken every opportunity to sh1t on them ever since.
The NI problem is clearly about the border, not the number of customs checks.
Any correlation between the truth and what Liz Truss said was entirely coincidental
Comments
The proposal, which has been dubbed 'EU-lite', would include both members and non-members of the EU.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10801493/Tory-Brexiteers-fume-Macrons-plan-post-Brexit-Britain-new-EU-lite.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/gb-news-nigel-farage-told-boris-johnson-s-advisers-didn-t-want-brexit-to-happen/ar-AAX8HlX?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b9b700a83cc440acbf22c29ae489d1b8
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tory-brexiteers-fume-at-macron-s-plan-for-uk-to-join-new-eu-lite/ar-AAX77iv?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b9b700a83cc440acbf22c29ae489d1b8
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/brexit-reality-bites-as-stagflation-looms/ar-AAXb4CP?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0cd525c954af467c9a6ac467ea73cf9c
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/liz-truss-s-plan-to-revoke-ni-protocol-splits-allies-and-risks-trade-war/ar-AAXaiCl?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=0cd525c954af467c9a6ac467ea73cf9c
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/fewer-half-britons-think-brexit-done-074543764.html
I am big on using the actual words-"Britain Exit". It is done.
If, however, you believe that "Brexit" doesn't mean the closing of the last chapter, but some sort of organisation in relation to the next chapter, then I suppose it is not complete.
Which only goes to show just how unrealistic the British electorate are. They voted to leave the EU. Without bothering to compare it with what comes next. And have got exactly that.
But we have got exactly what was voted for. While not receiving the benefits that different people promised different sets of voters.
Do you think it is all going to blow up?
Apparently the DUP dont intend to turn up to elect a Speaker tomorrow.
So Stormont collapses again.
The people of NI cant get their hands on the £300million thats in place, to help with the cost of living crisis.
The DUP are now saying that they see a satisfactory resolution of the protocol problem is the removal of the Irish Sea border.
The government seem to be attempting to appease the DUP.
They seem intent on taking unilateral action to overrule bits of the protocol.
Although I am not sure they intend to go as far as removing the border.
The EU will not be happy, but how far will they go?
Trade war?
The strange thing is that even though the protocol isnt working, NI has outperformed the rest of the UK, as far as trade is concerned.
A trade war is unlikely to help the cost of living crisis, or many businesses.
Is it even possible to remove the border now?
EU issues furious rebuke as UK ramps up threat to rip up Brexit deal in Northern Ireland
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/eu-issues-furious-rebuke-as-uk-ramps-up-threat-to-rip-up-brexit-deal-in-northern-ireland/ar-AAXbZzb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e69ecc7bc3594fca81e07cc5fa755964
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/dodds-concern-at-partisan-approach-of-us-administration/ar-AAXfvGP?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=44a9a24b0a74441e87ea0a347b007663
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/the-attorney-general-s-office-was-worthy-of-respect-suella-the-stooge-disgraces-it/ar-AAXgDrK?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=85851cd0b0d047aa83e9cb4bd83ac498
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/petty-small-minded-and-vindictive-stephen-dixon-condemns-eu-in-blistering-gb-news-swipe/ar-AAXgckb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=db33c888e2734d51a3c696ce9d1ed7d0
Sinn Fein's president accuses PM of using Northern Ireland as a 'pawn' in negotiations with EU
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/sinn-fein-s-president-accuses-pm-of-using-northern-ireland-as-a-pawn-in-negotiations-with-eu/ar-AAXgN6D?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=db33c888e2734d51a3c696ce9d1ed7d0
Boris Johnson backs away from Northern Ireland protocol threat ahead of talks
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-backs-away-from-northern-ireland-protocol-threat-ahead-of-talks/ar-AAXhccz?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=db33c888e2734d51a3c696ce9d1ed7d0
TRUSS ISSUES Boris Johnson clashes with Liz Truss as he tries to calm tensions with EU over post-Brexit trade rules
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/webcontent/boris-johnson-clashes-with-liz-truss-as-he-tries-to-calm-tensions-with-eu-over-postbrexit-trade-rules/wc-031752248D5626AD36F827D86322C26C?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=db33c888e2734d51a3c696ce9d1ed7d0
There was a lot of squirming going on.
What I cant understand is the following,
When the referendum was planned why was there no plan for NI.
A vote for Brexit had to mean a border between the UK and the EU.
The reason for this is obvious.
Had Ireland been a different island somewhere else in the world, it may have been straightforward.
That would have meant that there was no "Good Friday Agreement".
There would have been a land border, and no problem.
However, in the case of NI, there is a "Good Friday Agreement", which rules out a land border.
Therefore the only other place that the border could go is in the Irish Sea.
This was known before the referendum took place.
Putting a border in the Irish Sea, was bound to create tensions.
It effectively separates NI, from the rest of the UK.
This was bound to alienate Unionists.
Many commentators, the Government, and I will include you in this, have focused on what has been described as EU inflexibility on the number of customs checks that they require.
They continue to criticise them despite their offer to reduce checks by 80%, and resolve issues surrounding medicines etc.
The focus seems to centre on customs checks.
Yet the Unionist objection is clearly that there any checks full stop, and they want the border removed completely.
They see the border as an impediment to them feeling part of the UK.
The Unionists will not be happy while there is a border between them and the rest of the UK.
Is this even possible?
The government see the protocol as the reason Stormont is not up and running.
This is despite the fact 53 out of the 90 MLAs would vote to keep the protocol in place, and a majority of voters, voted for parties that support the protocol.
Wasnt Theresa May really clever.
Her backstop avoided all this.
My understanding of the backstop is that it was a temporary plan to keep the whole of the UK in the customs union, until an alternative plan could be found.
So no border, and no checks.
We would also be permitted to forge independent free trade deals with other countries.
Couldnt we have produced a protocol as the long term plan, at the same time.
The EU could have laid out the number of checks they required, and we could have negotiated to eliminate as many as we could over a period of years.
The ERG were against the backstop, and the reason they cited was because we could get stuck in the backstop for ever.
Yet the same people were arguing at the same time that there was no border needed because of trusted trader schemes, and technological solutions, etc etc.
These solutions could have been explored over a period of years to reduce the number of EU checks that may be required.
Stormont vote on the protocol in 2024.
At present it seems that they would vote to keep it in place.
Had the backstop been in place the protocol would have provided an alternative, when it comes to a vote.
As things stand, if they voted the protocol down, what would the alternative be?
Are they therefore being criticised for insisting on checks that applied to third countries throughout the time we were members?
If we thought these checks were excessive, why didnt we insist on reducing them for other third countries while we were members?
The problem therefore seems to be that we wanted to leave the EU, become a third country, but not accept the rules which have always applied to third countries.
Having our cake and eating it.
There is a massive problem in NI.
Boris and the government continually rant about the number of customs checks that the EU are insisting on.
However any solution that merely reduced the number of customs checks does not address the Unionist problem.
They will not be happy until the border is removed.
They have not suggested a solution, or put forward an alternative to the current arrangements.
This just seems a fudge to enable Boris to blame the EU.
Interestingly Boris stated that the protocol gave NI the best of both worlds.
On that basis wouldnt the backstop have given the whole of the UK the best of both worlds?
No credit seems to have been given to the EU for accepting that there is no land border in Ireland, and allowing NI to remain in the CU/SM free of charge.
I believe that they have bent over backwards, and shown great flexibility to reach a deal in the first place, and we have taken every opportunity to sh1t on them ever since.
The NI problem is clearly about the border, not the number of customs checks.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/correlation-between-truth-liz-truss-172408044.html
The only 1 telling the truth was Peter Bone.
There's a sentence I never thought I would type