Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Now, this could be something worth discussing for many reasons...
I wonder if the pressure regarding vaccine rollout numbers in the largest EU states is causing unrest, putting pressure on the leaders to be seen to act ( in this case, maybe prematurely and heavy handedly) it will be interesting to see who was involved in the discussion prior to article 16 being invoked, and equally interesting to see who was involved in putting pressure on to revoke it so quickly
I think this bolded bit is key here. They've been on an upwards escalation trajectory all week, leading to today's debacle. Leadership questions need to be asked, and I'm looking forward to finding out tomorrow how this could've happened.
Troll. Ok then jog on
Shall do.
Yeah you are right, and I think lots of countries are in a tricky period and impatient to be doing (and seen to be doing the right thing) it's been a long year and wave after wave and lockdown after lockdown have not yet beaten this thing.
The whole of Europe has taken a kicking, and in my opinion, none in Europe have come out well. The figures in the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and France are staying stubbornly high and there are signs that countries are acting in own best interests at the cost of others.
Macron is an interesting one though, and he seems fidgety and the extra restrictions he's put out tonight regarding travel and curfews are almost a batten down the hatches response which is unlikely to go down well with the French
They’re learning from the UK government about U turns I guess?
I see how the Brexiteers have now come out in force on social media to using this incident as an example stating it’s good we left claiming some kind of win casually ignoring all the Governments mistakes and how Brexit is still a clusterfeck.
Last edited:
As we saw in this very thread.
They've had feck all in the last 4 and a half years. Now their enemy has actually shown some incompetence and it's like Christmas to them.
Brexiters are so desperate for straws to clutch on, since they are realising Brexit is a clusterfeck with no redemption, they are ignoring all the disasters it is causing and pointing at one mistake made by the EU and admitted by the EU. Nevemind the fact that UK has made multiple mistakes and never admitted it.
It truly fecking is. So desperate for any win, the idiots are all out in force twisting arguments to suit their narrative. Here is just a couple of examples:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So we are going to forget we were late with Covid response, late with PPE (EU invited us to join their scheme but we refused), over 100,000 dead. Makes me fecking sick.
Also you can imagine if Johnson had done this, you can imagine Brexiteers applauding him and criticising the EU for not sharing the vaccine. The sheer hypocrisy and a number of idiots are bought by it.
Last edited:
You’d bloody hope the EU are desperate to save the lives of as many as possible.
“Look at those embarrassing idiots, showing desperation to save lives” isn’t quite the amazing victory you seem to think it is.
The UK government has on multiple occasions made a major embarrassing political decision which was reversed due to Marcus fecking Rashford ffs. What is the significance of this?
Totally agree but sadly the stupid action of the EU has let the genie out of the bottle with regards to the Article 16. Given the difficulties NI is facing over essential supplies I am sure the DUP will attempt to pressurise the government to using Article 16 itself on the basis of ‘sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
When did Laura K ever use language like this about the Government’s incompetence:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And what has any of that to do with, in this instance, the EU having well and truly fecked up both with their late vaccine procurement and their decision to invoke article 16 in Ireland. Trump and Johnson combined could’nt have done a better job had they been in charge of the EU. Even worse is that the imbecilic leader Macron pontificates that the AZ vaccine is only 8% effective.It truly fecking is. So desperate for any win, the idiots are all out in force twisting arguments to suit their narrative. Here is just a couple of examples:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So we are going to forget we were late with Covid response, late with PPE (EU invited us to join their scheme but we refused), over 100,000 dead. Makes me fecking sick.
Also you can imagine if Johnson had done this, you can imagine Brexiteers applauding him and criticising the EU for not sharing the vaccine. The sheer hypocrisy and a number of idiots are bought by it.
Attempting to absolve the EU by pointing out how the Tories have made a dogs dinner of the U.K. response to the virus is silly as in this instance the stupidity lies squarely on the shoulders of the EU
Leavers ******* over their Union Jacks while yet again another 1,245 people died yesterday. Winning.
Who the hell is trying to absolve the EU of anything? They have fecked up here. What we are pointing out is the sheer hypocrisy of everyone keeping their trap shut while the Government broke international law, cocked up the pandemic response amongst a whole load of other errors yet no one had a word to say about it. Also the sheer cheek of Brexiteers to make this like some win for Brexit where it is not. That’s the shite we are pointing out.
They have to an extent for sure.
I realised I wasn't super clear on what I actually meant. Through the negotiations, our politicians (and media) have used inflammatory language towards the EU, used all kinds of brinkmanship and even threatened to break international law.
Now, while I haven't taken the EU position at face value through the negotiations always like some in here, I feel they have been more professional throughout. The EU itself, not individual member state politicians.
What we've seen in the last few weeks is that, despite what some Brexiteers always said, we clearly depend far more on the mainland than vica versa, especially for supplies, at least for now.
Entering into a tit for tat dispute with a larger bloc, whether that be the USA, EU or China, is not a good thing at all. Particularly for the smaller party in that dispute.
Nationalists feigning moral outrage that states are are acting self serving.. I bet they'd be the first to object if AZ were to balance their delivery numbers between the UK and EU.
Yes stupidly we have but the EU with its action has inadvertently presented the U.K. with an open goal. The other downside is that it has provided the Brexiteers with an almost ‘I told you so’ moment particularly when the No Hard Border was an EU red line. Just see the bounce the Tories get from this debacle.
IMHO the action of the EU in the last 24 hours mirrors the action of UKIP and establishment Brexiteers. You have a problem that’s of your own making then deflect it by blaming it on another entity so it’s not your fault. The ills of the U.K. were all due to the bad old EU. The stupidity in delaying vaccine procurement because of the decision to only buy it cheaply is not the EUs fault its all down to that bad old U.K. and it’s puppet AZ. Different hymn but same hymnsheet. As I said before all politicians are tarred with the same brush but every time we fall for it.
Last edited:
What open goal is that?
The restrictions are perfectly fine for the vast majority because the point is to avoid a third lockdown.
People actually do that?
Anyway, thanks for explaining as this is the first time someone has made clear (no pun intended) what's involved.
And no need for you to check here. I haven't mastered changing text colour yet. Have a good weekend.
I've posted a couple of times in this thread and raised a few hackles but I haven't mentioned Brexit and I'm not motivated to post by Brexit.
My issue is with sanctimonious hypocrisy within the EU. It's hard to reconcile how Ursula can emphatically say publicly that no side deals will be done, only for Germany to announce theirs two hours later and separately Ireland to be told that they can't make such a deal for their country.
Witold Waszczykowski, the former foreign minister of Poland, who is an MEP accused Germany of ignoring the rules that applied to the rest of the EU.
It does smack of one rule for some (one?) and a different rule for others (the rest?). It's not the first time such double standards have been displayed and my guess is it won't be the last.
My view on this firmed up when last night I read this article on the Reuters website.
Taiwan has sought Germany’s help in securing COVID-19 vaccines, Economy Minister Wang Mei-hua said on Thursday, after Berlin asked for the island’s assistance in easing a shortage of automobile semiconductor chips.
Wang told reporters she made the request at a meeting with Germany’s de facto ambassador in Taipei, who handed her a letter seeking help to resolve the shortage, which is hampering the European nation’s fledgling economic recovery from the pandemic.
At their meeting on Wednesday, Wang said, she told the head of the German mission in Taipei that she hoped Germany could “assist Taiwan in obtaining vaccines within the feasible range”.
Germany’s Economy Ministry declined comment.
In the letter, German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier asked Wang to help persuade manufacturers in Taiwan, home to the world’s largest contract chipmaker and one of Germany’s main suppliers, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd (TSMC), to ease the chip shortage.
Wang met senior chip executives this week who pledged to help tackle the problem.
Late last month, Taiwan said it had agreed to buy almost 20 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including 10 million from AstraZeneca Plc, with the first to start arriving from March.
Another 4.76 million are expected to come from global vaccine programme COVAX, but the government has given no details of which company may supply the rest.
Pfizer Inc has jointly developed with Germany’s BioNTech SE one of the main vaccines which is now being rolled out worldwide.
Countries are battling vaccine shortages worldwide. Germany’s health minister said on Thursday he expected the current shortage to persist into April.
Taiwan has kept the pandemic well under control thanks to early and effective prevention, with 896 cases, including seven deaths. Most the infections have been imported from abroad and only 79 people are now in hospital.
If I was in Italy which has suffered over 85000 deaths, I wouldn't be impressed if an EU ally, loosely put, decided that its car industry was more important than helping another EU member with a death count 12,000 times greater than Taiwan's (according to the Reuters article).
I accept my frustration is based on press coverage and that's not always accurate but let's assume it is. These conflicting examples of national attitude, definition of co-responsibility, mutual respect, collective responsibility etc etc don't add up to a pretty picture and regardless of Brexit, they do tell a story about how the EU conducts and presents itself as a bloc and as individual member states.
And that's without the NI border farago.
My issue is with sanctimonious hypocrisy within the EU. It's hard to reconcile how Ursula can emphatically say publicly that no side deals will be done, only for Germany to announce theirs two hours later and separately Ireland to be told that they can't make such a deal for their country.
Witold Waszczykowski, the former foreign minister of Poland, who is an MEP accused Germany of ignoring the rules that applied to the rest of the EU.
It does smack of one rule for some (one?) and a different rule for others (the rest?). It's not the first time such double standards have been displayed and my guess is it won't be the last.
My view on this firmed up when last night I read this article on the Reuters website.
Taiwan has sought Germany’s help in securing COVID-19 vaccines, Economy Minister Wang Mei-hua said on Thursday, after Berlin asked for the island’s assistance in easing a shortage of automobile semiconductor chips.
Wang told reporters she made the request at a meeting with Germany’s de facto ambassador in Taipei, who handed her a letter seeking help to resolve the shortage, which is hampering the European nation’s fledgling economic recovery from the pandemic.
At their meeting on Wednesday, Wang said, she told the head of the German mission in Taipei that she hoped Germany could “assist Taiwan in obtaining vaccines within the feasible range”.
Germany’s Economy Ministry declined comment.
In the letter, German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier asked Wang to help persuade manufacturers in Taiwan, home to the world’s largest contract chipmaker and one of Germany’s main suppliers, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd (TSMC), to ease the chip shortage.
Wang met senior chip executives this week who pledged to help tackle the problem.
Late last month, Taiwan said it had agreed to buy almost 20 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine, including 10 million from AstraZeneca Plc, with the first to start arriving from March.
Another 4.76 million are expected to come from global vaccine programme COVAX, but the government has given no details of which company may supply the rest.
Pfizer Inc has jointly developed with Germany’s BioNTech SE one of the main vaccines which is now being rolled out worldwide.
Countries are battling vaccine shortages worldwide. Germany’s health minister said on Thursday he expected the current shortage to persist into April.
Taiwan has kept the pandemic well under control thanks to early and effective prevention, with 896 cases, including seven deaths. Most the infections have been imported from abroad and only 79 people are now in hospital.
If I was in Italy which has suffered over 85000 deaths, I wouldn't be impressed if an EU ally, loosely put, decided that its car industry was more important than helping another EU member with a death count 12,000 times greater than Taiwan's (according to the Reuters article).
I accept my frustration is based on press coverage and that's not always accurate but let's assume it is. These conflicting examples of national attitude, definition of co-responsibility, mutual respect, collective responsibility etc etc don't add up to a pretty picture and regardless of Brexit, they do tell a story about how the EU conducts and presents itself as a bloc and as individual member states.
And that's without the NI border farago.
Explains why Boris likes the idea so much.
I'm not sure where the 'protectionist racket' stuff comes from. I mean, of course they're protectionist, and I hate that, and I hate that everywhere. But all states and unions are. And most importantly: isn't the whole idea of Brexit to be able to have your own 'protectioniat racket'? Given that, shouldn't Brexiteers more than everyone else appreciate that everyone is like that, and be able to accept it as the natural state of things?
(I know I'm being too rational here for the typical opportunistic and populist political discourse.)
Exactly this.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It's the express. The UK print equivalent of One America Network.
Last edited:
Reckon Boris has annoyed Ursula?
UK applying to join Asia-Pacific free trade pact CPTPP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55871373
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-cptpp
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)
What is the CPTPP?
The CPTPP is a free-trade agreement (FTA) between 11 countries around the Pacific Rim: Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Japan.
When was the CPTPP negotiated?
Negotiations for what was then simply the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) began in March 2010 and concluded on 5 October 2015.
The US was party to those talks, but the election of President Trump in 2016 led to its withdrawal from the agreement before ratification. The remaining 11 participants scrambled to amend the text of the agreement, and the newly renamed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership was signed in March 2018. It came into force in December the same year.
What does the CPTPP do?
The rights and obligations under the CPTPP fall into two categories:
Why is the CPTPP important?
The original TPP (including the US) would have been one of the world’s largest economic blocs, accounting for over 30% of world GDP. For this reason, it was thought that it would have been able to exercise of high degree of influence over the rules governing the world economy. In particular, the Obama administration hoped that it could become a vehicle to constrain the rise of China, setting rules for such a large group of countries that China would be compelled to follow them.
The smaller (if more ambitiously named) CPTPP is less significant, but still accounts for a substantial share (about 13%) of world GDP. This could rise, and help the CPTPP become even more important, were the US to come back on board – which Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for November’s US election, has hinted support for.
Can the UK join the CPTPP?
Yes – provided all the existing members agree. Article 30.4 of the agreement makes clear that the CPTPP is open to accession by any state “as the Parties may agree”. It is not necessary for a state to be in the Pacific region to participate.
What would the UK have to do in order to join the CPTPP?
A state that wants to join has to inform the New Zealand government (the depositary of the agreement), which will then inform the other members. The CPTPP Commission then decides whether or not to start an accession process. If it decides to start the process, a working group would be formed. The UK would have to explain to the working group how it was going to comply with the CPTPP rules.
Within 30 days of the first meeting of the working group, the UK would have to submit its market access offers: tariff cuts, lists of service sectors from which it proposed to exclude CPTPP members, and parts of government procurement that would not be open to bids from other CPTPP members. There would then be a process of negotiation. Once all the existing members are satisfied, the Commission would formally invite the UK to become a member.
Is the CPTPP Commission like the European Commission?
Not really. Unlike in the EU, there will be no new ‘CPTPP regulations’ developed over time. The CPTPP Commission is simply a gathering of representatives of CPTPP member states. It meets for short sessions about twice a year to discuss issues arising from the agreement, and to set procedures for the accession of new states and rules of conduct for dispute settlement.
There is no ‘CPTPP Court’ equivalent to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) either: if a dispute arises between the parties, an ad-hoc arbitration panel is convened. If the panel finds that a member state has breached its obligations under the agreement, there are no fines payable (as in the ECJ). Such a state has a choice of four options:
The government has still not conducted an assessment of the economic impact of joining CPTPP. Its most recent policy paper on the subject just gives figures for how much trade the UK does in the region already and what percentage of tariffs would be eliminated under the agreement – which says little about what benefits would actually accrue to the UK.
The benefits of joining the CPTPP are also likely to depend on how successful the UK is at replacing, or ‘rolling over’, the existing FTAs it enjoys as an EU member state. The EU has signed FTAs with all of the CPTPP countries except Malaysia, Brunei, Australia and New Zealand, which the UK is therefore party to until the transition period ends. If the UK is able to roll over these existing EU–CPTPP agreements – admittedly far from guaranteed given the cool responses to the suggestion from Canada, Japan, Mexico, Singapore and Vietnam – the benefits of CPTPP membership could become quite limited.
The UK government has also stated that it sees geopolitical advantages in CPTPP membership, since it would put “the UK at the centre of a network of countries committed to free trade and to the global rules underpinning international commerce”.
Could the UK both join the CPTPP and have a trade deal with the EU?
Many CPTPP members also have trade agreements with the EU, so there is nothing in principle to stop it. Some of the provisions of the CPTPP, however, clash with the UK's obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement and with the EU’s demands in the future relationship negotiations.
For example, Article 58(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement requires the UK to protect “traditional terms” for wine. These are terms such as “château”, “clos” or “tawny” which, in the EU’s view, are associated with specific winemaking regions and should be reserved for them. The US disagrees vehemently and so secured a provision prohibiting the parties from restricting the use of such terms. The UK would need to secure an exemption from this rule to comply with its obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement. This can be done – Canada secured such an exemption in the original TPP talks – but it highlights the complexity, and risk, of attempting to negotiate two wide-ranging and at times contradictory FTAs at once.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55871373
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/trade-cptpp
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)
What is the CPTPP?
The CPTPP is a free-trade agreement (FTA) between 11 countries around the Pacific Rim: Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Japan.
When was the CPTPP negotiated?
Negotiations for what was then simply the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) began in March 2010 and concluded on 5 October 2015.
The US was party to those talks, but the election of President Trump in 2016 led to its withdrawal from the agreement before ratification. The remaining 11 participants scrambled to amend the text of the agreement, and the newly renamed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership was signed in March 2018. It came into force in December the same year.
What does the CPTPP do?
The rights and obligations under the CPTPP fall into two categories:
- Rules: for example, on how countries should make new food safety regulations or whether they can ban the transfer of data to other CPTPP members. These are the same for all CPTPP parties (including any new members that may join).
- Market access: how far each CPTPP member will cut its tariffs, open up its services markets, liberalise visa conditions for business travellers, and so on. Each member has its own schedules of commitments. In some cases the commitments are offered to all other members, while in others they are restricted to specific negotiating partners.
Why is the CPTPP important?
The original TPP (including the US) would have been one of the world’s largest economic blocs, accounting for over 30% of world GDP. For this reason, it was thought that it would have been able to exercise of high degree of influence over the rules governing the world economy. In particular, the Obama administration hoped that it could become a vehicle to constrain the rise of China, setting rules for such a large group of countries that China would be compelled to follow them.
The smaller (if more ambitiously named) CPTPP is less significant, but still accounts for a substantial share (about 13%) of world GDP. This could rise, and help the CPTPP become even more important, were the US to come back on board – which Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee for November’s US election, has hinted support for.
Can the UK join the CPTPP?
Yes – provided all the existing members agree. Article 30.4 of the agreement makes clear that the CPTPP is open to accession by any state “as the Parties may agree”. It is not necessary for a state to be in the Pacific region to participate.
What would the UK have to do in order to join the CPTPP?
A state that wants to join has to inform the New Zealand government (the depositary of the agreement), which will then inform the other members. The CPTPP Commission then decides whether or not to start an accession process. If it decides to start the process, a working group would be formed. The UK would have to explain to the working group how it was going to comply with the CPTPP rules.
Within 30 days of the first meeting of the working group, the UK would have to submit its market access offers: tariff cuts, lists of service sectors from which it proposed to exclude CPTPP members, and parts of government procurement that would not be open to bids from other CPTPP members. There would then be a process of negotiation. Once all the existing members are satisfied, the Commission would formally invite the UK to become a member.
Is the CPTPP Commission like the European Commission?
Not really. Unlike in the EU, there will be no new ‘CPTPP regulations’ developed over time. The CPTPP Commission is simply a gathering of representatives of CPTPP member states. It meets for short sessions about twice a year to discuss issues arising from the agreement, and to set procedures for the accession of new states and rules of conduct for dispute settlement.
There is no ‘CPTPP Court’ equivalent to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) either: if a dispute arises between the parties, an ad-hoc arbitration panel is convened. If the panel finds that a member state has breached its obligations under the agreement, there are no fines payable (as in the ECJ). Such a state has a choice of four options:
- Comply with the CPTPP rules as interpreted by the panel.
- Compensate the offended party through a tariff concession.
- Compensate the offended party with a cash payment.
- Accept increased tariffs on its own exports to the offended party.
The government has still not conducted an assessment of the economic impact of joining CPTPP. Its most recent policy paper on the subject just gives figures for how much trade the UK does in the region already and what percentage of tariffs would be eliminated under the agreement – which says little about what benefits would actually accrue to the UK.
The benefits of joining the CPTPP are also likely to depend on how successful the UK is at replacing, or ‘rolling over’, the existing FTAs it enjoys as an EU member state. The EU has signed FTAs with all of the CPTPP countries except Malaysia, Brunei, Australia and New Zealand, which the UK is therefore party to until the transition period ends. If the UK is able to roll over these existing EU–CPTPP agreements – admittedly far from guaranteed given the cool responses to the suggestion from Canada, Japan, Mexico, Singapore and Vietnam – the benefits of CPTPP membership could become quite limited.
The UK government has also stated that it sees geopolitical advantages in CPTPP membership, since it would put “the UK at the centre of a network of countries committed to free trade and to the global rules underpinning international commerce”.
Could the UK both join the CPTPP and have a trade deal with the EU?
Many CPTPP members also have trade agreements with the EU, so there is nothing in principle to stop it. Some of the provisions of the CPTPP, however, clash with the UK's obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement and with the EU’s demands in the future relationship negotiations.
For example, Article 58(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement requires the UK to protect “traditional terms” for wine. These are terms such as “château”, “clos” or “tawny” which, in the EU’s view, are associated with specific winemaking regions and should be reserved for them. The US disagrees vehemently and so secured a provision prohibiting the parties from restricting the use of such terms. The UK would need to secure an exemption from this rule to comply with its obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement. This can be done – Canada secured such an exemption in the original TPP talks – but it highlights the complexity, and risk, of attempting to negotiate two wide-ranging and at times contradictory FTAs at once.
Also:
The article 16 vaccine row is over – but the damage has been done
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/article-16-vaccine-row-over-–-damage-has-been-done
The EU’s backtracking on its threat to override parts of the Northern Ireland protocol is not only welcome – it is necessary.
Under the protocol, goods can travel freely between the EU and Northern Ireland, and from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. EU officials were concerned that Northern Ireland could be used as a backdoor into the UK, so frustrating its proposals to restrict the export of vaccines from member states. Their solution? To invoke article 16 of the protocol, under which the UK and the EU unilaterally take “appropriate safeguarding measures”, to block EU exports of the vaccine to Northern Ireland. In doing so, the EU added fuel to the fire of an already contentious debate in Northern Ireland and undermined its own credentials as a guardian of peace in the region.
The latest row over the EU’s supply contract with AstraZeneca has passed, but the damage has already been done. The UK and the EU must focus on how to rebuild trust – and how to provide assurance that the same mistakes will not be made again.
The circumstances did not justify the use of article 16
The protocol states that article 16 can be used in the event of “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist”. While there is no definition of ‘serious’, the intention is that it should only be used in exceptional circumstances, for example to respond to a total collapse of the Northern Ireland economy or terrorist threats – and any measure must be limited in scope and duration to what is strictly necessary. There is good reason for these thresholds to be high. Reopening one aspect of the agreement risks reopening all of it – creating more constitutional friction and more uncertainty for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland.
The EU’s justification, that the use of article 16 was necessary to avert “serious societal difficulties” that would arise if the supply of vaccines to member states was undermined, fell well short of that high bar. [1] The risk that Northern Ireland would be used as a route to circumvent export controls was entirely hypothetical. It was also implausible. Northern Ireland sources vaccines from Great Britain via UK contracts, while EU supplies go direct to member state governments to distribute. Even if an EU-NI-GB route opened up, the chances of it having a genuine effect on vaccine supplies across the EU are even more remote. It is right that the Commission backed down. .
The EU has now lowered the bar for calls to use unilateral measures
The EU failed to go through the process for using article 16. There was no prior notification of the UK government, and it appears to have acted without consulting the Irish representation in Brussels or the government in Dublin. That overhasty action meant it failed to think through the consequences of its action.
The most damaging is that the EU’s move gives impetus – and credibility – to ongoing calls to invoke article 16 on the UK side. Since the protocol came into effect, members of the DUP have been arguing that unilateral action is necessary to address (the much more tangible) problems it creates for Northern Ireland’s supply chains from GB. Arlene Foster, the first minister of Northern Ireland, had avoided publicly backing those calls – until yesterday.
The genie is out of the bottle and can’t put back in – but unilateral measures will not provide a sustainable settlement for Northern Ireland. Instead, the EU and the UK must find solutions to the challenges created by the protocol. The end of a grace-periods for certain agri-food paperwork and products provides an opportunity for the UK and the EU to demonstrate their commitment to working together, by agreeing long-term, sustainable, and proportionate arrangements for supermarket supply chains.
Political missteps can have damaging consequences in Northern Ireland
The article 16 debacle appears to be more cock-up than conspiracy, with EU sources saying that the decision to invoke it was as ‘oversight’. [2] The UK government too has been vulnerable to forgetting the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, often finding itself backtracking on issues like GB stickers for Northern Ireland cars. But cock-ups on either side have damaging consequences in Northern Ireland, and both sides need to tread carefully if they are to live up to their rhetoric about the importance of maintaining stability.
This won’t be the last time that Northern Ireland’s special arrangements require careful consideration in implementing a UK or an EU policy. Under the protocol Northern Ireland is required to keep pace with changes to EU law – over time, as the UK and the EU statute books diverge, these types of challenges will multiply rather than diminish. Unless structures and systems are put in place to bring Northern Irish voices into the policy-making process, yet more missteps are certain to occur.
The UK and the EU have spent the last four years grappling with the unique challenges posed to Northern Ireland by Brexit. They must not let this progress be undermined by unavoidable errors.
The article 16 vaccine row is over – but the damage has been done
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/article-16-vaccine-row-over-–-damage-has-been-done
The EU’s backtracking on its threat to override parts of the Northern Ireland protocol is not only welcome – it is necessary.
Under the protocol, goods can travel freely between the EU and Northern Ireland, and from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. EU officials were concerned that Northern Ireland could be used as a backdoor into the UK, so frustrating its proposals to restrict the export of vaccines from member states. Their solution? To invoke article 16 of the protocol, under which the UK and the EU unilaterally take “appropriate safeguarding measures”, to block EU exports of the vaccine to Northern Ireland. In doing so, the EU added fuel to the fire of an already contentious debate in Northern Ireland and undermined its own credentials as a guardian of peace in the region.
The latest row over the EU’s supply contract with AstraZeneca has passed, but the damage has already been done. The UK and the EU must focus on how to rebuild trust – and how to provide assurance that the same mistakes will not be made again.
The circumstances did not justify the use of article 16
The protocol states that article 16 can be used in the event of “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist”. While there is no definition of ‘serious’, the intention is that it should only be used in exceptional circumstances, for example to respond to a total collapse of the Northern Ireland economy or terrorist threats – and any measure must be limited in scope and duration to what is strictly necessary. There is good reason for these thresholds to be high. Reopening one aspect of the agreement risks reopening all of it – creating more constitutional friction and more uncertainty for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland.
The EU’s justification, that the use of article 16 was necessary to avert “serious societal difficulties” that would arise if the supply of vaccines to member states was undermined, fell well short of that high bar. [1] The risk that Northern Ireland would be used as a route to circumvent export controls was entirely hypothetical. It was also implausible. Northern Ireland sources vaccines from Great Britain via UK contracts, while EU supplies go direct to member state governments to distribute. Even if an EU-NI-GB route opened up, the chances of it having a genuine effect on vaccine supplies across the EU are even more remote. It is right that the Commission backed down. .
The EU has now lowered the bar for calls to use unilateral measures
The EU failed to go through the process for using article 16. There was no prior notification of the UK government, and it appears to have acted without consulting the Irish representation in Brussels or the government in Dublin. That overhasty action meant it failed to think through the consequences of its action.
The most damaging is that the EU’s move gives impetus – and credibility – to ongoing calls to invoke article 16 on the UK side. Since the protocol came into effect, members of the DUP have been arguing that unilateral action is necessary to address (the much more tangible) problems it creates for Northern Ireland’s supply chains from GB. Arlene Foster, the first minister of Northern Ireland, had avoided publicly backing those calls – until yesterday.
The genie is out of the bottle and can’t put back in – but unilateral measures will not provide a sustainable settlement for Northern Ireland. Instead, the EU and the UK must find solutions to the challenges created by the protocol. The end of a grace-periods for certain agri-food paperwork and products provides an opportunity for the UK and the EU to demonstrate their commitment to working together, by agreeing long-term, sustainable, and proportionate arrangements for supermarket supply chains.
Political missteps can have damaging consequences in Northern Ireland
The article 16 debacle appears to be more cock-up than conspiracy, with EU sources saying that the decision to invoke it was as ‘oversight’. [2] The UK government too has been vulnerable to forgetting the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, often finding itself backtracking on issues like GB stickers for Northern Ireland cars. But cock-ups on either side have damaging consequences in Northern Ireland, and both sides need to tread carefully if they are to live up to their rhetoric about the importance of maintaining stability.
This won’t be the last time that Northern Ireland’s special arrangements require careful consideration in implementing a UK or an EU policy. Under the protocol Northern Ireland is required to keep pace with changes to EU law – over time, as the UK and the EU statute books diverge, these types of challenges will multiply rather than diminish. Unless structures and systems are put in place to bring Northern Irish voices into the policy-making process, yet more missteps are certain to occur.
The UK and the EU have spent the last four years grappling with the unique challenges posed to Northern Ireland by Brexit. They must not let this progress be undermined by unavoidable errors.
-
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date - https://www.independent.ie/news/cov...-blocking-supplies-to-the-north-40028406.html
Post-Brexit taxes for steel 'very damaging', says Kinnock
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55845067
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-55845067
This is quite amusing reading.
Has anyone in the UK government yet realised that the FTA's are only a minor part of their trade problems .
I also saw that the Liz Truss is now claiming that the UK have FTA's for a value of £885bn of which, wait for it £660bn is the EU, really; £100bn+ photocopies of Japan, Switzerland, S Korea, EU negotiated FTA's and loads of other little ones which are also continuation agreements of EU FTA's.
Surely Brexiters must be asking where are all the newly discussed trade agreements that the government told them they couldn't have when they were in the EU. Was it Fox who said they would all be ready to go the day the UK left the EU.
The hope with joining the CPTPP will be that the US join. Biden has made comments about starting negotiations to join, but without the US it gives the UK virtually nothing on top of what they have now with deals being negotiated with Australia and NZ.