|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 18, 2022 17:39:01 GMT
It is saying nothing of the sort - the Foreign Secretary stood up in the HoC on 17th May and said: "As the House will know, the Protocol has not yet been implemented in full due to the operation of grace periods and easements."Stop inventing nonsense... Erm ... the Government is claiming to be acting entirely within the law. When the Court rules against it, it will no longer have that option. That's the point at which things will change. You wanted to know why the Government couldn't continue to act as it has been doing indefinitely. Now you have your answer. Another dumb answer - who is going to stop the Government doing what they want?. The whole reason that the EU is taking the UK Government to Court is that the UK Government decided, unilaterally, not to enact much of the Protocol. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 17:43:49 GMT
Erm ... the Government is claiming to be acting entirely within the law. When the Court rules against it, it will no longer have that option. That's the point at which things will change. You wanted to know why the Government couldn't continue to act as it has been doing indefinitely. Now you have your answer. Another dumb answer - who is going to stop the Government doing what they want?. The whole reason that the EU is taking the UK Government to Court is that the UK Government decided, unilaterally, not to enact much of the Protocol. Yeah, but the Government claims to be acting within the law. And who's to say they're not? They have deniability so long as the Commission is merely contesting their actions. But they lose that deniability once the ECJ has ruled on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 19:01:56 GMT
Erm ... the Government is claiming to be acting entirely within the law. When the Court rules against it, it will no longer have that option. That's the point at which things will change. You wanted to know why the Government couldn't continue to act as it has been doing indefinitely. Now you have your answer. Another dumb answer - who is going to stop the Government doing what they want?. The whole reason that the EU is taking the UK Government to Court is that the UK Government decided, unilaterally, not to enact much of the Protocol. And Jeremy Hunt said yesterday that the Government should be taking steps to reduce trading barriers with the EU. Some insanely optimistic Remainers are taking this as an indication that the Government might be considering rejoining the SM. Not bloody likely! But it is a sign that they don't want to create the kind of trouble ignoring an ECJ ruling would create. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 18, 2022 22:22:50 GMT
Another dumb answer - who is going to stop the Government doing what they want?. The whole reason that the EU is taking the UK Government to Court is that the UK Government decided, unilaterally, not to enact much of the Protocol. Yeah, but the Government claims to be acting within the law. And who's to say they're not? They have deniability so long as the Commission is merely contesting their actions. But they lose that deniability once the ECJ has ruled on it. And then what? - are you intending to send in the Irish Army to enforce the decision of this foreign court?. We wait with anticipation and trembling...  |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 22:51:24 GMT
Yeah, but the Government claims to be acting within the law. And who's to say they're not? They have deniability so long as the Commission is merely contesting their actions. But they lose that deniability once the ECJ has ruled on it. And then what? - are you intending to send in the Irish Army to enforce the decision of this foreign court?. We wait with anticipation and trembling... o The Irish will use psychological warfare tactics. They will bombard the UK with repeats of Mrs. Brown's Boys trained to NATO standards if the UK doesn't meet their demands. This will never get to court. Sunak is busy extending an olive branch to the EU at this very moment. And the incoming Labour Government certainly won't be interested in rocking the boat. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 18, 2022 23:41:18 GMT
We've had a lot of howling and whinging from Europhiles over recent years proclaiming that if the Protocol isn't implemented in full it will jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement. There seems to be a 180 degree U-turn now from the same kind
of folk on this stance because what we're witnessing now is that the partial implementation of the Protocol is adversely affecting the political stability of the GFA as well as diverting trade, but that's okay because it doesn't adversely effect 'my
team' - the EU and Irish nationalists.
"Without prejudice" as you rightly said cannot be to the detriment of the GFA. Yet, the facts and reality of the matter are that the partial implementation of the Protocol is detrimental to the GFA. This cannot be argued. It is a fact.
The Protocol isn't permanent and at least you finally admit that and yes it has been ratified by both the UK and EU. However, this only demonstrates then that the Protocol was negotiated in bad faith if the EU insist it cannot be renegotiated at a
later date. The UK as a guarantor of the GFA could be left with no other choice to unilaterally act if the EU won't budge in good faith on the issues the Protocol is causing. The UK isn't a hostage to the EU's discretion and if the EU is not meeting its
obligations to improve the Protocol then the UK will be forced to act unilaterally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 19, 2022 0:15:17 GMT
We've had a lot of howling and whinging from Europhiles over recent years proclaiming that if the Protocol isn't implemented in full it will jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement. There seems to be a 180 degree U-turn now from the same kind of folk on this stance because what we're witnessing now is that the partial implementation of the Protocol is adversely affecting the political stability of the GFA as well as diverting trade, but that's okay because it doesn't adversely effect 'my team' - the EU and Irish nationalists. "Without prejudice" as you rightly said cannot be to the detriment of the GFA. Yet, the facts and reality of the matter are that the partial implementation of the Protocol is detrimental to the GFA. This cannot be argued. It is a fact. The Protocol isn't permanent and at least you finally admit that and yes it has been ratified by both the UK and EU. However, this only demonstrates then that the Protocol was negotiated in bad faith if the EU insist it cannot be renegotiated at a later date. The UK as a guarantor of the GFA could be left with no other choice to unilaterally act if the EU won't budge in good faith on the issues the Protocol is causing. The UK isn't a hostage to the EU's discretion and if the EU is not meeting its obligations to improve the Protocol then the UK will be forced to act unilaterally. Article 16 can only be used if it will fix the problem. Will the DUP return to Stormont if it is triggered? I doubt it. They won't be satisfied until the jurisdiction of the ECJ is removed. And even if they do, it's probable Sinn Fein will walk out. So, the Government can't trigger Article 16 because it won't have the effect of bringing both sides back to Stormont. Anyway, as I said above, Sunak is extending an olive branch to the EU right now, so it's very unlikely to be triggered. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 19, 2022 1:33:16 GMT
Article 16 can only be used if it will fix the problem. Will the DUP return to Stormont if it is triggered? I doubt it. They won't be satisfied until the jurisdiction of the ECJ is removed. And even if they do, it's probable Sinn Fein will walk out. So, the Government can't trigger Article 16 because it won't have the effect of bringing both sides back to Stormont. Anyway, as I said above, Sunak is extending an olive branch to the EU right now, so it's very unlikely to be triggered. Wrong again. You're making up more nonsense again. Nowhere is there a provision in Article 16 stating it "can only be used to fix the problem". Perhaps you could provide a link demonstrating what this olive branch is that Sunak is supposed to be extending. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 19, 2022 1:39:41 GMT
Article 16 can only be used if it will fix the problem. Will the DUP return to Stormont if it is triggered? I doubt it. They won't be satisfied until the jurisdiction of the ECJ is removed. And even if they do, it's probable Sinn Fein will walk out. So, the Government can't trigger Article 16 because it won't have the effect of bringing both sides back to Stormont. Anyway, as I said above, Sunak is extending an olive branch to the EU right now, so it's very unlikely to be triggered. Wrong again. You're making up more nonsense again. Nowhere is there a provision in Article 16 stating it "can only be used to fix the problem". Perhaps you could provide a link demonstrating what this olive branch is that Sunak is supposed to be extending. LOL!!!!! So, they can trigger Article 16 even if that won't fix the problem?!!!! What's the point of the Article, then? All the parties have to meet every two months (?) to assess whether triggering the Article is having the required effect, and, if it isn't, it has to be untriggered. So, the Government would have 2 months to convince the DUP to return to Stormont, and, if they can't, then it's back to square one. I don't believe for one moment, that the DUP would return while the ECJ continues to have jurisdiction, even if they say they will now. And, even if they do, there's the possibility that Sinn Fein would then walk out. So, triggering Article 16 won't have fixed the problem and it will have to be undone. I can't be arsed reading four articles just to satisfy you. It's all academic anyway - Sunak is working to improve UK/EU relations. I wish he wasn't, but he is. So, we'll both have to learn to live with that. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 19, 2022 1:58:40 GMT
LOL!!!!! So, they can trigger Article 16 even if that won't fix the problem?!!!! What's the point of the Article, then? All the parties have to meet every two months (?) to assess whether triggering the Article is having the required effect, and, if it isn't, it has to be untriggered. So, the Government would have 2 months to convince the DUP to return to Stormont, and, if they can't, then it's back to square one. I don't believe for one moment, that the DUP would return while the ECJ continues to have jurisdiction, even if they say they will now. And, even if they do, there's the possibility that Sinn Fein would then walk out. So, triggering Article 16 won't have fixed the problem and it will have to be undone. I can't be arsed reading four articles just to satisfy you. It's all academic anyway - Sunak is working to improve UK/EU relations. I wish he wasn't, but he is. So, we'll both have to learn to live with that. You claimed Art.16 can only be used if it fixes the problem. So, the problem has to be fixed prior to the usage of Art.16 or else the consequences of the problems just carry on ad infinitum otherwise. haha. You have failed to support any of your claims highlighting you lack credibility and just make BS statements up. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 19, 2022 2:00:54 GMT
LOL!!!!! So, they can trigger Article 16 even if that won't fix the problem?!!!! What's the point of the Article, then? All the parties have to meet every two months (?) to assess whether triggering the Article is having the required effect, and, if it isn't, it has to be untriggered. So, the Government would have 2 months to convince the DUP to return to Stormont, and, if they can't, then it's back to square one. I don't believe for one moment, that the DUP would return while the ECJ continues to have jurisdiction, even if they say they will now. And, even if they do, there's the possibility that Sinn Fein would then walk out. So, triggering Article 16 won't have fixed the problem and it will have to be undone. I can't be arsed reading four articles just to satisfy you. It's all academic anyway - Sunak is working to improve UK/EU relations. I wish he wasn't, but he is. So, we'll both have to learn to live with that. You claimed Art.16 can only be used if it fixes the problem. So, the problem has to be fixed prior to the usage of Art.16 or else the consequences of the problems just carry on ad infinitum otherwise. haha. You have failed to support any of your claims highlighting you lack credibility and just make BS statements up. I've no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm sure you're right. Good man! |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 19, 2022 2:06:06 GMT
You claimed Art.16 can only be used if it fixes the problem. So, the problem has to be fixed prior to the usage of Art.16 or else the consequences of the problems just carry on ad infinitum otherwise. haha. You have failed to support any of your claims highlighting you lack credibility and just make BS statements up. I've no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm sure you're right. Good man! I'm not surprised, you have no idea what Art. 16 says either. lol |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 19, 2022 2:08:55 GMT
I've no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm sure you're right. Good man! I'm not surprised, you have no idea what Art. 16 says either. lol What's the EU? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 19, 2022 7:42:48 GMT
Have you read what Cameron said about this? Obviously not. Cameron said that he thought that the promise to "honour" the referendum verdict would never be called in because he didn't think for a second that he would win a majority at the election. But he did. Therefore the referendum became mandatory - or bye bye Tory party. The trouble with you EUphiles is that you don't seem to have followed what was going on. I did. But it becomes a bore having to tell you the history of what actually happened and why. Your earlier post seemed to suggest that Cameron's 'promise' should be given a status it doesn't deserve. It doesn't matter what Cameron promised. He is just one member of Parliament. The majority in Parliament is sovereign, not one member, even if he is the Prime Minister. Cameron had no more authority to speak on behalf of Parliament than you or I have. It doesn't matter if the Tories don't win a majority - and Cameron never thought he would win a majority. But when they did he had no alternative but to keep his word. The backlash against the Tories at the next election would have been massive. UKIP would have come back with a vengeance. You can't stage the biggest democratic vote in our history, promising to honour the result, and then renege on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 19, 2022 8:15:14 GMT
And then what? - are you intending to send in the Irish Army to enforce the decision of this foreign court?. We wait with anticipation and trembling... o The Irish will use psychological warfare tactics. They will bombard the UK with repeats of Mrs. Brown's Boys trained to NATO standards if the UK doesn't meet their demands. This will never get to court. Sunak is busy extending an olive branch to the EU at this very moment. And the incoming Labour Government certainly won't be interested in rocking the boat. The only clout the Irish have is if they threaten to cut off the supply of Guinness.. |
|
