I think the French are certainly saying it.
The EU didn’t want the Protocol, they wanted the Theresa May deal. It was the DUP who sank that.
President of Ireland or President of the Republic of Ireland?
- Thread starter Dave Vanian
- Start date
The EU didn’t want the Protocol, they wanted the Theresa May deal. It was the DUP who sank that.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
”think” and “certainly” in same sentence are a bit contradictory.
Possibly the French have got involved, the negotiations cannot be left to faceless Eurocrats, but I think I can be certain that they didn’t engage in schoolboy jibes about how can anybody trust them on free trade deals.
We know. Frostie was arguing that’s why they were playing such hard ball on it.
It makes perfect sense in French
Baby boomer
Registered User
- Messages
- 735
Not quite. The Brexiteers thought they could enjoy the benefits of EU membership without the obligations - the cakeism option. But the EU can't (for obvious existential reasons) tolerate a situation whereby a non-member state has a more advantageous package of trading and other terms outside the bloc than within it. Otherwise, member states would depart to enjoy those terms and the EU breaks up. In their wildest fantasies, the hardcore Brexiteers really quite fancied this outcome and some even openly admitted it. But it was never an option. Nothing personal against the Brits - just business.
But, but, but, what about the "easiest trade deal ever" that was going to be negotiated by a UK government that "held all the cards" post the Leave vote?! Surely you're not suggesting that the Brexiteers were spectacularly deluded?
Again, that's not a fair characterisation. If the UK is not in the Single Market, then there has to be a border somewhere along the route from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to 26 County Ireland to mainland Europe. There are only three options:
1. Sea border between GB and NI
2. Land border between Northern Ireland and the South.
3. Sea border between Ireland and Europe.
Option 3 destroys the EU Single Market principle and isn't a runner.
Option 2 is so unpalatable to Ireland and the EU that it was ruled out as a essential prerequisite for a UK-EU trade deal.
That leaves option 1. If the UK refuses to implement it (which they can do) then we default back to Option 2 but with no UK-EU trade deal. Again, nothing personal - just business.
The main retailers of cheap rhetoric are the Brits who made cheap anti-EU jibes their main stock in trade and a potent political tool. One Boris Johnson being a leading historical exponent who rode the anti-EU train all the way to Number 10.
French-British trust
6 Times Irish learned not to trust British government
All that aside, the customs checks imposed on goods between NI and GB are nothing more than an administrative overhang of the Brexit debacle.
It is not to be unexpected when the existing rules of engagement are to be overhauled by virtue of the Brexit referendum and with successive British administrations lacking of planning and foresight that teething problems in the implementation of the new arrangements would arise.
Such teething problems are the apparent excessive amount of checks between NI & GB.
Other teething problems include scarcity of HGV drivers in Britain.
The EU has now offered to remove 80% of checks with further reductions over time.
The UK is offering HGV drivers from Europe easier access.
These are reasonable and practical measures. They are not matters of sovereignty.
It is useful to remind ourselves, away from the din of table-thumping Unionists, what the NIP actually has to say on NI's place within the UK.
"NOTING that nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom's internal market,"
"RECALLING that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom and will benefit from participation in the United Kingdom's independent trade policy
"HAVING REGARD to the importance of maintaining the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom's internal market,
The customs checks imposed on goods between NI and GB are not part of the NIP they are simply a consequence of no planning and foresight by the British who did not consider Ireland, not once, in their drive for Brexit.
Now British government has jumped on the sovereignty issue as a measure to gain leverage. It is completely disengenuous and Frost is playing Unionists for fools.
The British will have a plethora of fish to fry with the EU over the coming decade(s), fishing rights being one.
It is simply incongruous that Britain thought it could switch off, not just 40yrs of trade agreements, rights, customs, but practically 400yrs of established customs and trade between it and its European neighbours and think it could have its cake and eat it.
The British government is using the Irish Unionist sovereignty battle-cry as a means to gain further concessions elsewhere.
This is known because there is no sovereignty issue in the NIP, there is just an administrative issue which will be resolved over time.
They cannot be trusted and Coveney is right to call them out on it.
6 Times Irish learned not to trust British government
All that aside, the customs checks imposed on goods between NI and GB are nothing more than an administrative overhang of the Brexit debacle.
It is not to be unexpected when the existing rules of engagement are to be overhauled by virtue of the Brexit referendum and with successive British administrations lacking of planning and foresight that teething problems in the implementation of the new arrangements would arise.
Such teething problems are the apparent excessive amount of checks between NI & GB.
Other teething problems include scarcity of HGV drivers in Britain.
The EU has now offered to remove 80% of checks with further reductions over time.
The UK is offering HGV drivers from Europe easier access.
These are reasonable and practical measures. They are not matters of sovereignty.
It is useful to remind ourselves, away from the din of table-thumping Unionists, what the NIP actually has to say on NI's place within the UK.
"NOTING that nothing in this Protocol prevents the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom's internal market,"
"RECALLING that Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom and will benefit from participation in the United Kingdom's independent trade policy
"HAVING REGARD to the importance of maintaining the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom's internal market,
The customs checks imposed on goods between NI and GB are not part of the NIP they are simply a consequence of no planning and foresight by the British who did not consider Ireland, not once, in their drive for Brexit.
Now British government has jumped on the sovereignty issue as a measure to gain leverage. It is completely disengenuous and Frost is playing Unionists for fools.
The British will have a plethora of fish to fry with the EU over the coming decade(s), fishing rights being one.
It is simply incongruous that Britain thought it could switch off, not just 40yrs of trade agreements, rights, customs, but practically 400yrs of established customs and trade between it and its European neighbours and think it could have its cake and eat it.
The British government is using the Irish Unionist sovereignty battle-cry as a means to gain further concessions elsewhere.
This is known because there is no sovereignty issue in the NIP, there is just an administrative issue which will be resolved over time.
They cannot be trusted and Coveney is right to call them out on it.
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Gosh, I am not going to find myself supporting the Brexiteers. I think you are just reinforcing Frostie's point - the EU do not want Brexit to be a success.
They were spectacularly deluded. They thought that since they already had a FTA and alignment on regulations it would be a breeze. But they underestimated the above point of the EU's desire to see it fail. And they completely missed that Varadkar would play "the IRA will bomb your border posts" card.
The EU claims to have announced an 80% relaxation in the Protocol. How is it that only a few months ago when Boris had his back to the wall the EU requirements were 5 times tougher than they now need? Who is being disingenuous here?
No supporter of Bojo but it seems to me that Simon Varadkar are taking a leaf from his copy book and trying to out point SF with their cheap anti Brit rhetoric.
Last edited:
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
After every atrocity by the IRA against the Brits/Protestants in the Troubles I assuaged any guilt I might feel by recalling the Betrayal of Clannabuidhe.
Similarly I don't touch anything Norwegian on principle after the appalling massacre of Dunmore Cave in 928 in which 1,000 innocent Irish people were slaughtered.
Wiki said:
Baby boomer
Registered User
- Messages
- 735
"....a success"? If you think about it, it's actually impossible for Brexit to be a success. At least in the sense of resulting in a more advantageous economic outcome for Britain than remaining an EU member state. Just about every economist in the world agrees that free trade agreements are a good thing for both sides. Britain had the ultimate, 100% frictionless, free trade agreement as part of its EU membership. Any replacement, by definition, had to be an inferior arrangement. That's down to the UK not the EU.
Of course, if you define Brexit "success" as reverting to Blue UK passports (manufactured in the EU!!) and the reintroduction of imperial weights and measures, then the EU has no problem with that kind of success.
Likewise, eliminating freedom of movement for EU workers while unpicked crops rot, ports jam up and the financial services industry shrinks operations in the City of London. They've taken back control, after all.No, they completely underestimated the EU's aversion to throwing a small member state under the bus. They just didn't expect the EU to make the absence of an economic border on the island of Ireland a red line issue.
A contemptible distortion of a legitimate Irish concern.
The EU has a legitimate interest, a vital interest even, in protecting the single market of its 27 member states and ensuring no leakage into it from the UK/NI channel. It's entitled to take a hardball negotiating stance to do so. The Protocol, even as originally envisaged, was still a considerable concession to the UK, and was a brave venture into the unknown by the EU. I don't see any great problem in tweaking it in light of practical experience and offering further operational relief to the UK in return for the UK fully implementing its side of the bargain - which it has egregiously failed to do so far. That's the very essence of reasonableness and good faith by the EU. To paint it as disingenuous is, well, disingenuous!
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
In contemplating a reply I find myself in the ridiculous position of almost defending Brexit. I was disgusted by the Brexit vote. I hope it goes wrong for them and best of all that they come back begging."....a success"? If you think about it, it's actually impossible for Brexit to be a success. At least in the sense of resulting in a more advantageous economic outcome for Britain than remaining an EU member state. Just about every economist in the world agrees that free trade agreements are a good thing for both sides. Britain had the ultimate, 100% frictionless, free trade agreement as part of its EU membership. Any replacement, by definition, had to be an inferior arrangement. That's down to the UK not the EU.
Of course, if you define Brexit "success" as reverting to Blue UK passports (manufactured in the EU!!) and the reintroduction of imperial weights and measures, then the EU has no problem with that kind of success.
No, they completely underestimated the EU's aversion to throwing a small member state under the bus. They just didn't expect the EU to make the absence of an economic border on the island of Ireland a red line issue.
A contemptible distortion of a legitimate Irish concern.
The EU has a legitimate interest, a vital interest even, in protecting the single market of its 27 member states and ensuring no leakage into it from the UK/NI channel. It's entitled to take a hardball negotiating stance to do so. The Protocol, even as originally envisaged, was still a considerable concession to the UK, and was a brave venture into the unknown by the EU. I don't see any great problem in tweaking it in light of practical experience and offering further operational relief to the UK in return for the UK fully implementing its side of the bargain - which it has egregiously failed to do so far. That's the very essence of reasonableness and good faith by the EU. To paint it as disingenuous is, well, disingenuous!
But I don't know if you read Eilis O'Hanlon in last week's Sindo. She highlights the misplaced gloating of us Paddies at what we see as Brexit payback - petrol queues, empty surpermarket shelves etc. It's all small beer, teething problems. The markets know that, as sterling has had a very strong run from over 90p/€ to 84p/€ since Brexit finally happened.
Anyway my main gripe on this occasion is Varadkar in particular playing to this gloating gallery and asking how can future trade partners trust the Brits? @WolfeTone posted an interesting Guardian link describing the current parlous state of Anglo French relations, citing Le Monde which I do myself read on occasion (see not just a provider of Preserve). I would be extremely surprised if Macro descended to the very childish cheap shot of warning off future trade partners of the UK.
And whilst I am on Varadkar, he did show his EU colleagues footage of IRA destroying border posts. He played the IRA card.
Last edited:
And just on that. Considering the response of loyalists to an invisible sea border, what do you think yourself the reaction of Republican communities in border areas to any type of visible physical infrastructure?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Well given the winding up they were getting I guess they would feel they would have to deliver a violent response. I am old enough to recall pre Troubles a very physical border infrastructure, entirely implemented by the basket case Southern State. The locals did not then see it as a proportionate response to go bombing these Southern posts.
Last edited:
This would be the physical border infrastructure that followed a bloody period of guerrilla, sectarian and civil war? When the IRA had effectively been stood due to splits, arrests, and heavy clampdown on remaining members by the new Free State?
Still it managed to rear its head again in late 1950's to commence a 'border campaign' targeting British military and infrastructure installations.
All that aside, my own view is that the implementation of physical customs posts in Ireland would provoke ire of Republican communities but by themselves would not instigate a full return to hostilities or anything like it.
Rather, customs posts would be subject to frequent agitation by militant Republicans trying to disrupt the operation of such posts.
That would, most likely be the height of it - an unpleasant place for customs officers to work in.
A bit like what any other security officers have to put up with in Dublin City centre late at night.
However what if, as in the 1950's, some took the agitation to another level? What if they took one opportune moment 5yrs from now, or 10yrs or whenever, and destroyed a customs post (with the workers in it)?
This is all speculative of course but the salient point is why even contemplate the prospect of something like that happening by providing ready made target's when there is absolutely no need to so or no desire by the people of Ireland on all sides of the political divide to see a return to customs posts?
An invisible border at sea is the best option by far. Administrative checks at customs post can, and will, be resolved in due course.
With the EU offering to scrap 80% of checks and more in due course the fuss over the invisible sea border is looking very watery.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
@WolfeTone There was never going to be a need for physical infrastructure at the border. I see you make a big play of the "invisibility" of the sea border between NI and GB. Do you think it all happens on a ship out of sight of the populace?
What do you think of @Baby boomer's option 3, a sea border between Ireland and the EU?
What do you think of @Baby boomer's option 3, a sea border between Ireland and the EU?
Yes, I've heard this many times from the British side, particularly during the negotiations. They were clear, under no circumstances would they place physical border posts on the island of Ireland.
Aside from the obvious contradiction of the Brexit objective 'take back control of our borders', the question was put to them on a multitude of occasions - where would the border checks take place?
Perhaps you can reveal all now?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
Invisibly just as now. Possibly in a ship anchored 20 miles outside Dublin bay unseen by the citizenry.
Apologies for the silly riposte, but can you please explain how the current sea border is invisible?
There seems to be a narrative that the EU are totally reasonable adults dealing with Brit juvenile delinquents. That myth was exploded when Ursula Underlying tried to play the NI card over vaccines or sumfin'. To be fair to our government we called her on that.
Last edited:
I didn't think it would be necessary to rewind the clocks but, sadly so, it appears to be the case.
The Brexit gig was predominantly sold to the good people of Britain as "take back control"...borders and sovereignty being right up to the fore.
And the Brexiteers won. Congratulations to them.
And then, as an after thought, it turns out that the British government has responsibility for the interests of the people of N Ireland.
Those interests being a distant second to the interests of Britain, once again.
At which point everyone, from the Shinners to the DUP, from Dublin to London, all agreed.... that "under no circumstances will we place a border in Ireland" (British PM).
The absolute contradiction of the UK leaving the EU to "take back control of our borders" while simultaneously, "under no circumstances" the UK placing any controls on its only land border with the EU is classic political farce.
But hang on!
It wasn't called "Ukexit" was it?
It was called "Brexit!"
What they meant was Britain leaving the EU, thinking Britain and UK was one and same.
It reminds me of that relentless, incessant, table-thumping mantra that I recognised since the age of 8 yrs "Ulster is British!"
Of course, in the absence of conflict it has become clear, Ulster is Irish.
Is it possible that the architects and cheerleaders of UK leaving the EU were actually just focused in Britain leaving the EU and didn't give pause, for a nanosecond, the people of Ireland?
Maybe I'm wrong, I just struggle to recall Nigel Farage parading the streets of Belfast to cheering Brexiteers.
Perhaps Northern Ireland is different?
Different Sterling, different laws on women's bodily rights, different Sunday trading laws, different political institutions, different demographic, different laws on language rights, different views on border controls with EU etc
The DUP thump the table "we are NOT different!"
I'm in danger of ranting if not already.
So again I ask you... for second time today and four years, what alternative arrangements for the land border between EU and UK that would preferentially agreeable?
Apologies, I realised I didn't answer the question direct.
I travelled over the Irish sea to Britain last month, there were no checkpoints over the Irish sea for in-full-flight aeroplanes.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,449
@WolfeTone I didn’t want to dig up the whole Brexit thing. In common with nearly everybody else I am against Brexit, I hope it backfires and yes I am enjoying the DUP getting roasted by a Protocol of their own making.
Winding back to the start of this rabbit hole, do you agree with me that the Tanaiste of this country warning future putative trade partners of the UK that you can’t trust them is childish and unhelpful?
Winding back to the start of this rabbit hole, do you agree with me that the Tanaiste of this country warning future putative trade partners of the UK that you can’t trust them is childish and unhelpful?
Last edited:
No I do not agree. I think the Tánaiste is being helpful to future putative trade partners to the UK under its current administration.