PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   BREXIT (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/619673-brexit.html)

golfbananajam 3rd Mar 2021 13:42

ATNotts you sound just like a Trump supporter. You lied, you cheated so we didn't really lose, but watch out we'll be back.

WB627 3rd Mar 2021 13:45


Originally Posted by golfbananajam (Post 11001107)
ATNotts you sound just like a Trump supporter. You lied, you cheated so we didn't really lose, but watch out we'll be back.

Yes, but unlike Trump, there is proof they lied.


ATNotts 3rd Mar 2021 14:19


Originally Posted by golfbananajam (Post 11001107)
ATNotts you sound just like a Trump supporter. You lied, you cheated so we didn't really lose, but watch out we'll be back.

On the contrary, we lost, the reasons, not all of them the lies told by the Leave campaign, have been rehearsed previously. We will be back, democratically, through the ballot box, not by storming parliament and any acts of violence such as the rabble that we saw in Washington in January.

ORAC 4th Mar 2021 17:58

Scotch Whisky

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...-scotch-whisky

Is the special relationship already on sturdier ground?

After the Trump administration imposed a 25 per cent Scotch whisky tariff in retaliation for EU state support for Airbus, the UK government has been fighting to have the tariffs lifted to little avail.

However, Coffee House understands an agreement has now been reached between International Trade secretary Liz Truss and the new Biden administration.

The US will suspend tariffs as of today for four months — during which the two sides will attempt to come up with a long term solution to the long-running Boeing Airbus dispute.

Since the tariffs were imposed, exports of single malt Scotch whisky have fallen by more than a third — amounting to more than £500 million in losses since October 2019.

Truss took the decision on 1st January to unilaterally end UK tariffs on US goods that had been imposed by the EU. It was an opening move to try to get things moving that has paid off.

The freeze comes at an important time — with the campaign for the Scottish parliament election soon to get underway.

The hope inside government is that this will act as an example of the benefits of an independent UK trade policy — which allows the UK to take a nimble and independent approach to these discussions.

This boost to Scottish whisky is the latest reason for the Conservatives to feel a little less pessimistic going into the Holyrood elections.

https://whiskycast.com/u-s-suspends-...great-britain/

U.S. SUSPENDS SINGLE MALT WHISKY TARIFFS DURING TALKS WITH GREAT BRITAIN

Just a spotter 4th Mar 2021 18:37

Well now, this is turning out well ....

From The Irish Times, 4th March 2021, under the headline "UK ‘cannot be trusted’ on Northern Ireland protocol, says Simon Coveney"

Ten days ago the UK had committed to implementing the protocol, but now there was a new person in charge and had taken a different direction, leaving the EU with no option but to look at their legal options, he said.

“That is why the EU is now looking at legal options and legal action which means a much more formalised and rigid negotiation process as opposed to a process of partnership where you try to solve the problems together.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...eney-1.4500990

And later in the day,

From RTÉ, 4th March 2021


The European Parliament has postponed a decision on ratifying the EU-UK free trade agreement in protest at the UK's unilateral move on how the Northern Ireland Protocol should be implemented.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2021/...963-eu-brexit/
JAS

Effluent Man 4th Mar 2021 18:42

Never mind. Let Tubs de Pfeffel have a big tumbler of tariff free Scotch. And hand him a pearl handled revolver while we're at it.

Denti 4th Mar 2021 19:47

There were a few MEPs today mentioning the resolution the European Parliament took during the time of the internal market bill. That basically says: as long as the UK intends to break international law, or does break international law in the eyes of the EU, the parliament will not ratify any trade deal with the UK. That resolution is apparently very much alive and rearing its head now.

Of course the EU has an interest in ratifying the deal as it stands, as it is quite a bit in favor of the EU, but not at any price.

Effluent Man 4th Mar 2021 20:32

You just couldn't make this up. It's far to hilarious to put into words, but I'll give it a try. Sixty three days after the much acclaimed ( by the Excess and the Wail) free trade deal was implemented it's all fallen apart.now we have the prospect of the EU taking us to court and imposing trade barriers and tariffs. Well done DePfeffel, your renowned reputation as a details man has come home to roost, ably aided by Frosty the Snowman. What a pair of plonkers!

LTNman 4th Mar 2021 20:42


From The Irish Times, 4th March 2021, under the headline "UK ‘cannot be trusted’ on Northern Ireland protocol, says Simon Coveney"

A bit rich when the EU tried to invoke article 16. I don’t remember them holding talks with anyone so they have form. No surprises how this is turning out. Friends when we were funding the EU but not so friendly now the money will eventually stop.

The vaccination programme in the U.K. vs the EU is the icing on the cake for their anger. They have done such a great job rubbishing AstraZenica that no one wants it while at the same time banning exports of it to Australia. Now Australia has the arse and who can blame them so they would say the EU can’t be trusted

Effluent Man 4th Mar 2021 20:48

Tried to? I think they rather just suggested that they might. de Pfeffel has gone full loony on the NI agreement. I just hope the EU gives them what for.

Economics101 4th Mar 2021 22:41

LTNman: The AZ vaccine was rubbished in a German newspaper article which was quickly shown to be wrong (by Germans). Macron also said stupid things about the AZ vaccine. Both of these were from countries which happen to be EU members. The only official EU move on the efficacy of the vaccine for the over-65s was from the European Medicines Agency, which gave it the all-clear.
The EU move to invoke Article 16 was only ever a proposal, which was withdrawn after about an hour following protests from Ireland and the UK. It was a stupid move, but don't interpret it as some sort of malevolence on the part of the EU.

LTNman 5th Mar 2021 04:34

Clearly the EU and Ireland care little about the Good Friday Agreement, as that agreement is now breaking down while the U.K. is trying to keep it intact. This is all about pushing the North ever closer to the South, which loyalists will never support. So when do the killings start again, and have no doubt this is what is going to eventually happen. Also how is the EU stance protecting the Good Friday Agreement?

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2...r-brexit-rules

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-40156858.html


Meanwhile London faced pressure from the other side of the fractious debate after pro-UK paramilitaries said Wednesday they were abandoning support for Northern Ireland’s 1998 Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, insisting on the need to rip up the EU deal entirely.
https://i.imgur.com/K7yyHfa.jpg

LTNman 5th Mar 2021 05:24

Article 16 is often mentioned but article 6 is ignored by both the EU and Ireland


Article 6
Protection of the UK internal market
1. Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom's internal market.

alfaman 5th Mar 2021 07:46


Originally Posted by LTNman (Post 11002170)
Article 16 is often mentioned but article 6 is ignored by both the EU and Ireland

Selective quoting, you missed a the significant bit -

Article 6 Protection of the UK internal market 1.

Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom's internal market. Provisions of Union law made applicable by this Protocol which prohibit or restrict the exportation of goods shall only be applied to trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom to the extent strictly required by any international obligations of the Union. The United Kingdom shall ensure full protection under international requirements and commitments that are relevant to the prohibitions and restrictions on the exportation of goods from the Union to third countries as set out in Union law.

LTNman 5th Mar 2021 08:06

And the Loyalists will kick off big time, as they are now doing with their threats, as they have had enough. The EU and Ireland can see where this is going and don't care as they have little interest in the Good Friday Agreement despite the claims if it gets in the way of a united Ireland. The agreement was signed in 1998 and has kept the peace but all that will end if the EU doesn't change its mind set.


The UK needs an additional 6 months which seems reasonable if it means ironing out problems just like the MEP's requested and received an extension to the ratification process.


Effluent Man 5th Mar 2021 08:20

There is an easy answer to that : Tubs and Frosty should have read the agreement before they signed it instead of being so desperate to Get Brexit Done that, backed into a corner with the clock ticking, they signed an agreement that wasn't fit for purpose.

I used to deal with BT buying their executive cars. I agreed a deal whereby if I bought a hundred cars per annum I got 2.5% of the money I paid back. Had I only bought 99 then I wouldn't have expected to have got the discount, that was the deal, we both agreed to it. The UK appear not to want to stick to a deal, as Simon Coveney says they cannot be trusted.

Sallyann1234 5th Mar 2021 08:30

It doesn't matter what terms were signed or could have/ should have been signed.

It is simply impossible for Northern Ireland to have no border with the Republic and no border with Great Britain. No agreement of any shape or form can achieve that.

NI has to be either in the UK or in the Republic, and either of those will have painful consequences.

LowNSlow 5th Mar 2021 08:36

Article 16: what is it and how is it used.

When can it be used?

Article 16 provides both the UK and the EU with a unilateral power to take action should the application of the Protocol give rise to ‘serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade.’

Both parties are restricted in the action they can take to address any such issues. It must be limited to the scope of where the problems exist (i.e. a response cannot be taken that will alter the application of the Protocol in any unrelated respect) and there is a process in place which means action cannot happen on a whim or go unchecked.
I think the UK's response fully meets with the requirement that it be limited "to the scope of where problems exist" and, given the unrest that the "Loyalist" factions are starting to cause it fits in with the potential for the current status to give rise to "serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties".


How does it work?

If unilateral action is deemed necessary by either the UK or the EU, this starts a process, outlined in Annex 7 of the Protocol. Before any action is taken, the party considering it must work through the Joint Committee to notify the other ‘without delay’.

The UK and the EU will immediately enter talks through the Joint Committee with a view to finding ‘a commonly acceptable solution.’
The key word in the above is "immediately". The UK and EU obviously differ on the understanding of this word. When Frost received no response from his requests for meetings he actioned Article 16 as he was entitled to do.

As is described in this article, the EU seem to be going about the NI business in a fairly nonchalant way which doesn't inspire confidence when the situation on the ground requires decisive moves to be made on both sides of the agreement.

LTNman 5th Mar 2021 08:42


Originally Posted by Effluent Man (Post 11002258)
There is an easy answer to that : Tubs and Frosty should have read the agreement before they signed it instead of being so desperate to Get Brexit Done that, backed into a corner with the clock ticking, they signed an agreement that wasn't fit for purpose.

I used to deal with BT buying their executive cars. I agreed a deal whereby if I bought a hundred cars per annum I got 2.5% of the money I paid back. Had I only bought 99 then I wouldn't have expected to have got the discount, that was the deal, we both agreed to it. The UK appear not to want to stick to a deal, as Simon Coveney says they cannot be trusted.

I think this agreement goes back to the Theresa May days. So if the UK gives way lets see what happens. It might all depend on who and which country the loyalists target which will bring all parties back to the table again. As for trust ask Australia about EU trust.

SWBKCB 5th Mar 2021 08:50


Originally Posted by Sallyann1234 (Post 11002262)
It doesn't matter what terms were signed or could have/ should have been signed.

It is simply impossible for Northern Ireland to have no border with the Republic and no border with Great Britain. No agreement of any shape or form can achieve that.

NI has to be either in the UK or in the Republic, and either of those will have painful consequences.

Absolutely right, but the answer all along has been to fudge it - that's the only way it will work but that needs common sense and goodwill on both sides, and a will to just make it work. So that will be alright, then :ok:


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:45.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.