EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’... | Page 703 | Vital Football

EU strategy to destroy the Chequers ‘agreement’...

Oh dear. Like when he said Northern Ireland would “enjoy the best of both worlds: access to the EU single market and at the same time unfettered access to the rest of the UK market."
Foolishly describing the exact the situation we all had before his cabal decided to set fire to it!

NI, or at least the Unionists, didn't actually want access to the EU single market. The EU insisted on it purely for the benefit of the ROI so as to avoid a hard border that they would need to erect in order to protect the precious "integrity" of their single market.

By doing that, the EU were choosing to grant those joint accesses for the time being but NI is no longer in the EU and will not have to allow free movement of people.

However, if the border in the Irish Sea keeps causing food shortages and delays due to over zealous EU customs checks, I fear a unionist uprising. I would not want to be one of those border staff.
 
No, you wouldn't because the BOE Governor does not share your warped view, and you therefore do not want to know about it.

Fingers in ears and singing "la, la, la" if the view of a top man in his field does not match yours.

Nothing much changes.

If you asked the BOE governor whether EEA risks insured in the UK have been transferred to the EU as a direct result of Brexit - then his answer would categorically be ‘yes’.

If you choose not to believe me, try looking up the trend in Part VII transfer proceedings over the last 10 years. You will see a huge spike soon after the referendum result.
 
NI, or at least the Unionists, didn't actually want access to the EU single market. The EU insisted on it purely for the benefit of the ROI so as to avoid a hard border that they would need to erect in order to protect the precious "integrity" of their single market.

By doing that, the EU were choosing to grant those joint accesses for the time being but NI is no longer in the EU and will not have to allow free movement of people.

However, if the border in the Irish Sea keeps causing food shortages and delays due to over zealous EU customs checks, I fear a unionist uprising. I would not want to be one of those border staff.

I’ve been saying that since the day Johnson agreed to this.
Having worked in NI during the eighties, I can confirm that the radical unionists are not people to f”ck about with.
The simple point that Johnson did the deal without consultation with the Unionist community shows that he and his team had no grasp on the situation.
If a sensible compromise can’t be found, then I genuinely think that the UVF will up the anti.
They spent so much time placating the EU and more specifically Dublin that they took their eyes off the ball with the hardcore unionists.
The choice was a border in Ireland or a border in the U.K..
Johnson made the wrong choice.
 
If you asked the BOE governor whether EEA risks insured in the UK have been transferred to the EU as a direct result of Brexit - then his answer would categorically be ‘yes’.
If you choose not to believe me, try looking up the trend in Part VII transfer proceedings over the last 10 years. You will see a huge spike soon after the referendum result.

All right. You have bored me in to submission so I have bitten and looked up what a Part VII transfer is.

This tends to suggest that rather than policies and risks being transferred to separately owned EU insurance companies, Insurance companies based in the UK just set up their own 100% owned subsidiaries in the EU as an alternative to the old passport arrangement:
Part VII transfer - Wikipedia

Something else that will settle down after a brief reorganisation and administration.
 
I’ve been saying that since the day Johnson agreed to this.
Having worked in NI during the eighties, I can confirm that the radical unionists are not people to f”ck about with.
The simple point that Johnson did the deal without consultation with the Unionist community shows that he and his team had no grasp on the situation.
If a sensible compromise can’t be found, then I genuinely think that the UVF will up the anti.
They spent so much time placating the EU and more specifically Dublin that they took their eyes off the ball with the hardcore unionists.
The choice was a border in Ireland or a border in the U.K..
Johnson made the wrong choice.

To be fair, I can not see how there was any best solution.

1. If a hard border was created on the island of Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement would have been contravened, with the anticipated return of the troubles and sectarian violence
2. As you say, the alternative border in the Irish Sea has already upset the unionists and caused threatening graffiti as well as rumoured warnings from the militant wing.
3. ROI has the right to remain in the EU and the UK had the right to leave.
4. The EU insists on rigorous customs checks to protect their single market.

How do you reach a settlement that keeps everybody happy from that lot?
 
To be fair, I can not see how there was any best solution.

1. If a hard border was created on the island of Ireland, the Good Friday Agreement would have been contravened, with the anticipated return of the troubles and sectarian violence
2. As you say, the alternative border in the Irish Sea has already upset the unionists and caused threatening graffiti as well as rumoured warnings from the militant wing.
3. ROI has the right to remain in the EU and the UK had the right to leave.
4. The EU insists on rigorous customs checks to protect their single market.

How do you reach a settlement that keeps everybody happy from that lot?
Hilarious. There were only ever a set number of options. (a) remain in the EU, (b) remain in the CU and SM (c) have a hard border in Ireland (d) have a sea border between NI and mainland Britain. Remainers have been setting out these issues since day one and have had ‘Project Fear’ spouted at them at every turn. On this board it has been described to me on more than one occasion as a ‘non issue’.
 
Hilarious. There were only ever a set number of options. (a) remain in the EU, (b) remain in the CU and SM (c) have a hard border in Ireland (d) have a sea border between NI and mainland Britain. Remainers have been setting out these issues since day one and have had ‘Project Fear’ spouted at them at every turn. On this board it has been described to me on more than one occasion as a ‘non issue’.

It was a non issue for the UK, to the extent that there was nothing we could do about it, other than say that we would not have a need to create a hard border ourselves and would have nothing to do with setting one up. Any border would therefore need to be on the ROI side.

It would be up to the ROI and EU to negotiate as the ROI wanted to stay in the single market and obey its draconian rules (like insisting on free movement of people to stay in the single market).

How is the wish of the UK to leave the EU and regain its own border control (for people) any less important than the ROI's wish to stay in the EU and therefore need to create a border of its own (for goods) ?
 
Last edited:
It was a non issue for the UK, to the extent that there was nothing we could do about it, other than say that we would not have a need to create a hard border ourselves and would have nothing to do with setting one up. Any border would therefore need to be on the ROI side.

It would be up to the ROI and EU to negotiate as the ROI wanted to stay in the single market and obey its draconian rules (like insisting on free movement of people to stay in the single market).

How is the wish of the UK to leave the EU and regain its own border control (for people) any less important than the ROI's wish to stay in the EU and therefore need to create a border of its own (for goods) ?
Absolutely 100% spot on 👍
 
It was a non issue for the UK, to the extent that there was nothing we could do about it, other than say that we would not have a need to create a hard border ourselves and would have nothing to do with setting one up. Any border would therefore need to be on the ROI side.

It would be up to the ROI and EU to negotiate as the ROI wanted to stay in the single market and obey its draconian rules (like insisting on free movement of people to stay in the single market).

How is the wish of the UK to leave the EU and regain its own border control (for people) any less important than the ROI's wish to stay in the EU and therefore need to create a border of its own (for goods) ?
I’m sorry but that’s a pathetic argument. International trading law means that if you have different customs arrangements either side of an international boundary a border is required. It’s childish in the extreme to put forward an argument that says, the UK will create the conditions that necessitate a hard border in Ireland (by seeking to abandon the sea border between NI and the rest of the UK) but we’ll force the EU to install it. A hard border is likely to lead to a return of nationalist violence but in your mind that’s fine because we can blame the EU. As I said. Pathetic.
 
The NI peace Agreement and Brexit without membership of the single market are incompatible imo. Cannot satisfy both. This isn't an argument for or against Brexit.

I can't work out whether Johnson knew this and was blatantly lying a year ago or if he just didn't care what the reality was and just said what he thought he needed to say to become leader of the Tories/win the election.

Still feel sorry for May who was multiple stabbed in the back by Johnson and his ERG mates. Funnily enough he is now having to fight them off as they seem to have largely re-formed as the CRG and are pestering him to make another disastrous premature release from lockdown.

Lack of deal over Finance looking worrying. People have fixated on the Trade deal but Finance deal is important. Understandably the EU is suspicious of us doing a 'Singapore'. I won't pretend to be an expert on such matters though, so I stand to be corrected/reassured. Reassurance won't come from some fellow posters on here who also lack expertise.
 
I’m sorry but that’s a pathetic argument. International trading law means that if you have different customs arrangements either side of an international boundary a border is required. It’s childish in the extreme to put forward an argument that says, the UK will create the conditions that necessitate a hard border in Ireland (by seeking to abandon the sea border between NI and the rest of the UK) but we’ll force the EU to install it. A hard border is likely to lead to a return of nationalist violence but in your mind that’s fine because we can blame the EU. As I said. Pathetic.

A border is required but not a hard border.

By your argument, we would be insisting on a hard land border between ROI and NI as well, if International Trading law demanded it, but Bojo made it clear that we would not create one and he has made no moves to do so.

He is not forcing the EU to do so either but I suspect they will in the end and therefore who else could possibly be to blame for any nationalist violence and who else could have provoked it? Now that is pathetic but par for the rigid rulebook no flexibility union.

The EU have already provoked the threat of unionist violence by not only insisting on the Irish sea border in the first place but then almost breaking their own agreement within a month.

Break rules but only when it suits them. Pathetic.
 
You are correct GBN
It’s a matter of choice.
The Eu were never compelled to fix a hard border.
It would have been a decision of choice.
Johnson bottled it.
 
Lack of deal over Finance looking worrying. People have fixated on the Trade deal but Finance deal is important. Understandably the EU is suspicious of us doing a 'Singapore'. I won't pretend to be an expert on such matters though, so I stand to be corrected/reassured. Reassurance won't come from some fellow posters on here who also lack expertise.

What I don't understand is why the EU seem to be so fixated on what we decide to do, any more than any other trading nation that they have a free trade deal with. Why should they think that there should be any special level playing field arrangements or clauses beyond those contained in the normal standard trade deal?

Surely every nation, in and outside of the EU, and indeed every company in the same business, competes with the others for customers and needs to be free to plan their own strategy without artificial restrictions.

I am not aware that we have insisted on having any control over the activities of Euronext, for instance. We did not object to the state aid provided by the German government to bail out Lufthansa.

So why do the EU expect a right to veto any level of deregulation, or extra regulation, that we decide upon in respect of the City of London?