You honestly couldnt make it up. Johnson negotiates and signs the withdrawal agreement. Reads it properly after and then blames the EU for him not liking it. How bizarre that some cant see the pure incompetence of the man is beyond me.
The EU threatened to block GB food exports to Northern Ireland. There were veiled threats from Barnier that Brussels would exploit the withdrawal agreement to cripple trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. https://www.cityam.com/brexit-eu-threatened-to-block-great-britain-exports-to-northern-ireland/ https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...-UK-EU-trade-talks-withdrawal-agreement-Boris This is the same sort of bullying tactic as Barnier claiming the EU has a right to the fish in UK sovereign waters. The Withdrawal Agreement is a bare bones agreement and there are gaps that need to be filled post-agreement vis a vis implementation. That is at the heart of the UK government's current move on the Internal Markets Bill. The EU will not be allowed to bully the UK as it bullied Greece. Only the EU's useful idiots in this country have a problem with this
As a useful idiot, it looks a lot like just the latest example of this government manufacturing an enemy for its waves of fanatics to focus their ire on as the latest “enemy of da peeple” whose fault it will be when the **** hits the fan. Will be the same with the HoL, judges, Nancy Pelosi and basically anyone who tells them to grow up and dares impose some sort of check and balance on one unelected bureaucrat trying to wipe out anything that stops us being an autocracy. If the other side had been arrogant enough to rush through the WA for their short term political gain and exposed themselves as we have, we’d rightly be taking advantage of that stupidity and the gammon masses would be demanding we show no mercy.
Breaking news is we’ve almost got a trade deal with Japan which is largely the same as the EU’s trade deal with Japan but more British and therefore superior. This changes everything.
The fact that the EU, through Barnier, is using the bare boned provisions in the WA as a weapon, threatening to damage UK's internal trade, shows a marked lack of good faith. If this goes to court or arbitration, no doubt the UK will produce evidence of Barnier's threats. Barnier has caused this storm. He needs to be sacked, and Boris needs to speak to Merkel and Macron on a cut-the-crap basis. There will nevertheless be two huge areas of disagreement, EU standards and fishing, to resolve
If, by ITK, you mean "have read and understand the Northern Ireland protocol which the UK signed last year", then yes. It's hardly surprising that the pro-Brexit press are spinning the application of the protocol as some sort of travesty of justice which Brexit fantasists predictably lap up without any critical thought.
Yes, the first article you link to explains precisely what was given away in the Withdrawal Agreement, signed by Boris. That was always going to mean customs checks on goods like food and medicines, which creates barriers for GB / NI trade. That's literally the deal we signed up for. And now that's being spun as "veiled threats" because Cummings, Boris et al want to whip up fury about this rather than have people realise this is precisely what they signed up to. "Northern Ireland will enter into a customs union with the EU, while the rest of the UK will not, after the end of the Brexit transition period on 31 December. This means that some goods – including agricultural goods – travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be subject to customs checks and export declarations." Useful idiots seems like an entirely appropriate descriptor for those who fall for the spin instead of looking at what is written in black and white in the treaty we signed.
I'm pleased for you, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether Barnier was using what is not in the agreement and will have to be worked out going forward, as a threat against the UK's internal trading practices to gain leverage in the trade deal talks. As I say, if he did, that could well be evidence of a lack of bona fides imo
Did you read this in the first article?: "Barnier reportedly threatened to ban exports from Great Britain coming into the EU’s customs union, effectively stopping trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK." Where does it provide for that in the WA? Do you think he is acting in good faith?
The only fantasists are those still trying desperately to find a way to reverse the referendum result.
Yes - the quote I provided was from that article. Barnier reportedly said something, whereas the Withdrawal Agreement actually - in black and white - keeps Northern Ireland in a customs union with the EU. You're choosing to believe the "reportedly" given quote over the black and white text of the treaty we signed up to. Read Article 5 of the Northern Ireland Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement, paragraph 3. Copied below so you don't even have to look it up. As to Col's point - I have long since given up on trying to reverse Brexit, crazy as it might be, but that won't stop me or others pointing out the hypocrisy and fantasy of the Brexiteers as it all to frequently crops up. --- "Legislation as defined in point (2) of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (not including the territorial waters of the United Kingdom). However, the Joint Committee shall establish the conditions, including in quantitative terms, under which certain fishery and aquaculture products, as set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council , brought into the customs territory of the Union defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 by vessels flying the flag of the United Kingdom and having their port of registration in Northern Ireland are exempted from duties." Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 is the EU Customs Code, which there, in black and white, is applied to N Ireland.
Do you agree that if what has been reported in the press about Barnier threatening a ban is true, he is not acting in good faith?
If his explicit aim is to "cripple" trade between NI and GB, then of course that would be bad faith. Do I choose to believe an unattributed quote in a very pro-Brexit, pro-Govt newspaper over the written facts? Not without further proof. By contrast, what the UK Government is doing is unarguably bad faith - written in proposed legislation, with a Secretary of State admitting this is a breach of international law.
