Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
FFS why is everyone misspelling 'brake?'
And yes, it is a brake, just one they can't apply as a sole party because they would misuse it. It doesn't say it has to represent both communities, just two parties.
In fairness to Moon. She's said before that she dictates through speech recognition.
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
FFS why is everyone misspelling 'brake?'
And yes, it is a brake, just one they can't apply as a sole party because they would misuse it. It doesn't say it has to represent both communities, just two parties.
I started it, so apologies.
Your misspelling of brake came near to breaking me!
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is fifteen points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 31% (+3) Lab 46% (-4) Lib Dem 8% (-1) Other 15% (+3) Fieldwork: 24th - 27th February Sample: 1,060 GB adults (Changes from 17th - 20th February 2023)
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
It also laid the pathway to this deal by binding the EU to a trusted trader scheme, essentially the green and red channels we have in the Windsor deal that removes checks for 97% of goods. Again, the May deal didn't have that in there and neither did it have A16. Both of those were at play over the last year while this deal was being hammered out.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
The EU never left the negotiating table under this counter-factual.
I think you overweight A16 (which ultras actually decided was insufficient hence the abrogation bill) and underweight the “facts on the ground” and overall realpolitik as sources of leverage.
Boris was a costly and confidence-eroding interregnum. There’s no evidence apart from conjecture that the NIP has delivered a better ultimate outcome, albeit we can certainly count the hit to trade.
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
At the time it was as you say better than a no deal but I doubt anyone understood how bad it was before Sunak spoke about it at the dispatch box today
If we are talking of supporting something at the time @CorrectHorseBattery wholly endorsed Corbyn for PM and since has had a damascine conversion to Starmer
Just possibly, perhaps you’re not the best person to go pointing the fingers at others’ u-turns?
I have had many change of minds over decades in politics and accept them and it is fair to draw a comparison with others who have also changed their minds
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
FFS why is everyone misspelling 'brake?'
And yes, it is a brake, just one they can't apply as a sole party because they would misuse it. It doesn't say it has to represent both communities, just two parties.
I started it, so apologies.
Your misspelling of brake came near to breaking me!
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
It also laid the pathway to this deal by binding the EU to a trusted trader scheme, essentially the green and red channels we have in the Windsor deal that removes checks for 97% of goods. Again, the May deal didn't have that in there and neither did it have A16. Both of those were at play over the last year while this deal was being hammered out.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
The EU never left the negotiating table under this counter-factual.
I think you overweight A16 (which ultras actually decided was insufficient hence the abrogation bill) and underweight the “facts on the ground” and overall realpolitik as sources of leverage.
Boris was a costly and confidence-eroding interregnum. There’s no evidence apart from conjecture that the NIP has delivered a better ultimate outcome, albeit we can certainly count the hit to trade.
The EU absolutely left the negotiating table. Until late 2021 they kept repeating that it was up to the UK to implement the NI protocol and it wouldn't be renegotiated at all. It was only once legal advice suggested that the UK had grounds to pull the A16 trigger due to the EU refusing to implement their part of the deal while attempting to enforce border controls into NI.
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
At the time it was as you say better than a no deal but I doubt anyone understood how bad it was before Sunak spoke about it at the dispatch box today
If we are talking of supporting something at the time @CorrectHorseBattery wholly endorsed Corbyn for PM and since has had a damascine conversion to Starmer
Just possibly, perhaps you’re not the best person to go pointing the fingers at others’ u-turns?
I have had many change of minds over decades in politics and accept them and it is fair to draw a comparison with others who have also changed their minds
Yes, you’re right. I should also have acknowledged your greater ability to recognise one when you saw it….
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
"What happens if no agreement in Joint Committee after the brake is triggered?
After the UK has notified the EU that the brake has been triggered, an exchange of views will take place in the Joint Committee on the implications of the amended or replacing act for the proper functioning of the Protocol. If the Parties cannot agree either to add an amended or replacing act or to other measures to ensure the proper functioning of the Protocol, the EU can take appropriate remedial measures, as is the case under Article 13(4) of the Protocol.
For a notification under Article 13(3a) to be made in good faith, it needs to be made under each of the conditions set out in the Unilateral Declaration made by the United Kingdom. An arbitration panel may rule on whether these conditions have been met."
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
Rees Mogg has reservations about ECJ having final say over the Deal in NI which is still making him wary of the Deal. He says the DUP response will be key for whether the Deal will be an acceptable Deal for the whole UK.
So looks like ERG waiting for DUP response, then they will take the same line
If Johnson is pushed back to leading a small group of the party's nutters, in opposition to what is widely seen as pragmatic good sense in the national interest, that in itself would be a humiliation.
Trouble for him is that filing through the lobbies to back Sunak's trashing of his own work and legacy, without having anything significant to say on the matter, is also a humiliation.
It was Boris who got Brexit done, today is just tweeks to the Irish Sea border
That is a steaming pile of elephant manure. That is so crap I could almost sell it to the farmer of the field behind my house.
Crerar: Sunak has gambled on enough Conservative MPs recognising that continued wrangling over Brexit in the runup to the next election would be electoral suicide – and that his deal is better than the alternatives.
It looks as if he has, at the very least, staved off a major rebellion, a huge shift from last week when there were warnings that as many as 100 Tory MPs could vote against the agreement. Parliament is expected to be given a vote – but not this week, so that MPs have time to go through the legal text. Tory whips are hopeful that the rebellion can be limited to two dozen irreconcilables, meaning the deal could pass without the government having to rely on Labour votes.
Unusually, the government’s deal has won the backing of the main UK opposition parties – although they do point out that much economic and political pain could have been avoided if Sunak’s predecessors had taken a different tack. They will now go away and study the detail of the deal. The prime minister should take the win.
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It depends what you think the purpose of Johnson’s NIP was.
Mays deal was worse in the long run.
The NIP was practically unworkable but got through Brexit to a point where it could be sensibly renegotiated
Judged on that metric it did what it was intended to do
Utter tripe.
It’s like saying that the shit on the carpet “intended” that the carpet be cleaned.
Well it's certainly a stepping stone toward a clean carpet....
Using it such is likely to make the task considerably harder. Best sidestepped.
Friend of mine was the son of a London docker, I think - anyway, he came from Rotherhithe way. "Shit on a blanket" was the docker's expression for someone who was obnoxious but wouldn't go away. Shite in a carpet has the same qualities.
"What happens if no agreement in Joint Committee after the brake is triggered?
After the UK has notified the EU that the brake has been triggered, an exchange of views will take place in the Joint Committee on the implications of the amended or replacing act for the proper functioning of the Protocol. If the Parties cannot agree either to add an amended or replacing act or to other measures to ensure the proper functioning of the Protocol, the EU can take appropriate remedial measures, as is the case under Article 13(4) of the Protocol.
For a notification under Article 13(3a) to be made in good faith, it needs to be made under each of the conditions set out in the Unilateral Declaration made by the United Kingdom. An arbitration panel may rule on whether these conditions have been met."
My reading of that summary (from the EU) is that the arbitration panel is merely deciding whether the Article 13(3a) (I assume this is the Article where the Stormont Brake sits?) has been triggered in accordance with the conditions - if it isn't properly made, what happens then? What are "remedial measures"?
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
It also laid the pathway to this deal by binding the EU to a trusted trader scheme, essentially the green and red channels we have in the Windsor deal that removes checks for 97% of goods. Again, the May deal didn't have that in there and neither did it have A16. Both of those were at play over the last year while this deal was being hammered out.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
The EU never left the negotiating table under this counter-factual.
I think you overweight A16 (which ultras actually decided was insufficient hence the abrogation bill) and underweight the “facts on the ground” and overall realpolitik as sources of leverage.
Boris was a costly and confidence-eroding interregnum. There’s no evidence apart from conjecture that the NIP has delivered a better ultimate outcome, albeit we can certainly count the hit to trade.
The EU absolutely left the negotiating table. Until late 2021 they kept repeating that it was up to the UK to implement the NI protocol and it wouldn't be renegotiated at all. It was only once legal advice suggested that the UK had grounds to pull the A16 trigger due to the EU refusing to implement their part of the deal while attempting to enforce border controls into NI.
They left the negotiating table under our timeline, not the May counterfactual. And no surprise, either, because Johnson and Frost were widely understood, even inside the UK, as utter charlatans.
The DUP are a bunch of prize knobends. What purpose do they serve beyond perennially agitating for endless dispute and disruption? Let the Alliance self-designate as Unionist for constitution convenience and Michelle O'Neill can lead NI as FM without the moronic Orange Brigade. Naomi Long as DFM.
No, the UUP could do that if they back the Deal, not the Alliance
If the DUP refuse to take part in governing their own province, nominate the next biggest party. Find a way! Change the law if necessary.
So abolish the Good Friday Agreement. 🤔
From what I've heard of the deal, I like it. It seems sensible. It seems like what I was saying we should do for years but people kept saying was an impossible unicorn.
But as far as the Good Friday Agreement goes, it isn't up to you and me who runs the province, its upto the two elected parties representing the cross community. Either a deal is reached satisfying them, or there's no deal as far as Stormont is concerned. Unless you repeal and abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
I don't think the Good Friday Agreement refers to "the two elected parties representing the cross community".
The reference is to "unionist and nationalist designations". It doesn't mention the DUP or largest party. I think there is scope for sidelining the DUP.
"Harold Wilson said that anyone who claimed that membership of the European Community was a black and white issue was either a charlatan or a simpleton... which brings me to Mr. Boris Johnson "
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
Well the devil is in the detail...
True, but a detail that when found (and it inevitably would be) would cause the entire deal to collapse is one heck of a devil.
If I thought you seriously believed we’d ever rejoin (as opposed to you just being provocative) I’d invest the time in showing why it’s off the table. But you don’t.
Incrementalism.
We’ll keep on getting closer alignment.
To quote a Leaver friend is today closer to our EU membership than yesterday?
No it isn’t, it’s further away than under the protocol. Bad example.
What people like you forget is that the EU hasn’t been frozen and won’t remain frozen. As the years pass by, integration into the single market will get harder and harder, and more and more disruptive.
The dream of serious divergence just isn't going to happen.
Have you worked with the EU? I’ve lost track of the directives and regulations in the pipeline because it no longer matters; but for one things I’d assume there’s going to be a Mifid 3. Without us in the room, that will loek reintroduce a concentration rule by default amongst other things. That’s massive.
See also digital and data standards.
Physical products? Very little difference.
The directives and regulations we would have passed versions of anyway. Like I said, the dream of serious divergence is not going to happen because it would be ridiculously unpopular.
We won’t be passing anything like what the EU will pass on financial services without us in the room. We will diverge.
Financial services - the bedrock of the red wall.
Funny how you ignore the micro - Scotch Whisky - in favour of macro but ignore the macro (financial services/red wall) depending on what best suits your view
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
It also laid the pathway to this deal by binding the EU to a trusted trader scheme, essentially the green and red channels we have in the Windsor deal that removes checks for 97% of goods. Again, the May deal didn't have that in there and neither did it have A16. Both of those were at play over the last year while this deal was being hammered out.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
The EU never left the negotiating table under this counter-factual.
I think you overweight A16 (which ultras actually decided was insufficient hence the abrogation bill) and underweight the “facts on the ground” and overall realpolitik as sources of leverage.
Boris was a costly and confidence-eroding interregnum. There’s no evidence apart from conjecture that the NIP has delivered a better ultimate outcome, albeit we can certainly count the hit to trade.
The EU absolutely left the negotiating table. Until late 2021 they kept repeating that it was up to the UK to implement the NI protocol and it wouldn't be renegotiated at all. It was only once legal advice suggested that the UK had grounds to pull the A16 trigger due to the EU refusing to implement their part of the deal while attempting to enforce border controls into NI.
They left the negotiating table under our timeline, not the May counterfactual. And no surprise, either, because Johnson and Frost were widely understood, even inside the UK, as utter charlatans.
Remind us how they responded to May's Chequers plan.
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is fifteen points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 31% (+3) Lab 46% (-4) Lib Dem 8% (-1) Other 15% (+3) Fieldwork: 24th - 27th February Sample: 1,060 GB adults (Changes from 17th - 20th February 2023)
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
It also laid the pathway to this deal by binding the EU to a trusted trader scheme, essentially the green and red channels we have in the Windsor deal that removes checks for 97% of goods. Again, the May deal didn't have that in there and neither did it have A16. Both of those were at play over the last year while this deal was being hammered out.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
The EU never left the negotiating table under this counter-factual.
I think you overweight A16 (which ultras actually decided was insufficient hence the abrogation bill) and underweight the “facts on the ground” and overall realpolitik as sources of leverage.
Boris was a costly and confidence-eroding interregnum. There’s no evidence apart from conjecture that the NIP has delivered a better ultimate outcome, albeit we can certainly count the hit to trade.
The EU absolutely left the negotiating table. Until late 2021 they kept repeating that it was up to the UK to implement the NI protocol and it wouldn't be renegotiated at all. It was only once legal advice suggested that the UK had grounds to pull the A16 trigger due to the EU refusing to implement their part of the deal while attempting to enforce border controls into NI.
They left the negotiating table under our timeline, not the May counterfactual. And no surprise, either, because Johnson and Frost were widely understood, even inside the UK, as utter charlatans.
Remind us how they responded to May's Chequers plan.
If you want me to argue that the EU are or have been blameless, I won’t. But I am interested in practical solutions not primary school eschatology.
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
FFS why is everyone misspelling 'brake?'
And yes, it is a brake, just one they can't apply as a sole party because they would misuse it. It doesn't say it has to represent both communities, just two parties.
In fairness to Moon. She's said before that she dictates through speech recognition.
Not sure I get or agree with the 'buried in the small print' comment, as if this was something hidden and to be ashamed of. Given that everything the NIP bill sought to address has been addressed by the adults, it is entirely sensible to drop it and the decision to do so is right there in the main text of the document (rather than being hidden away as if it was something Sunak is seeking to avoid comment on)
I’d go further and say it’s a PR “win” for the EU which costs the UK nothing.
Assuming the UK got something in return that’s not a bad trade
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
It also laid the pathway to this deal by binding the EU to a trusted trader scheme, essentially the green and red channels we have in the Windsor deal that removes checks for 97% of goods. Again, the May deal didn't have that in there and neither did it have A16. Both of those were at play over the last year while this deal was being hammered out.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
The EU never left the negotiating table under this counter-factual.
I think you overweight A16 (which ultras actually decided was insufficient hence the abrogation bill) and underweight the “facts on the ground” and overall realpolitik as sources of leverage.
Boris was a costly and confidence-eroding interregnum. There’s no evidence apart from conjecture that the NIP has delivered a better ultimate outcome, albeit we can certainly count the hit to trade.
The EU absolutely left the negotiating table. Until late 2021 they kept repeating that it was up to the UK to implement the NI protocol and it wouldn't be renegotiated at all. It was only once legal advice suggested that the UK had grounds to pull the A16 trigger due to the EU refusing to implement their part of the deal while attempting to enforce border controls into NI.
They left the negotiating table under our timeline, not the May counterfactual. And no surprise, either, because Johnson and Frost were widely understood, even inside the UK, as utter charlatans.
They were brought to the table by the NI Protocol Bill, which was leverage.
Leverage we only had, as we were in the Johnson/Frost timeline.
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
At the time it was as you say better than a no deal but I doubt anyone understood how bad it was before Sunak spoke about it at the dispatch box today
If we are talking of supporting something at the time @CorrectHorseBattery wholly endorsed Corbyn for PM and since has had a damascine conversion to Starmer
You were a big cheerleader for Johnson back in the day. You were very excited that Starmer had broken COVID rules thus negating Johnson's wrongdoing, and here you are a Sunakian and a critic of BigDog. Pots and kettles G.
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
FFS why is everyone misspelling 'brake?'
And yes, it is a brake, just one they can't apply as a sole party because they would misuse it. It doesn't say it has to represent both communities, just two parties.
In fairness to Moon. She's said before that she dictates through speech recognition.
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
It also laid the pathway to this deal by binding the EU to a trusted trader scheme, essentially the green and red channels we have in the Windsor deal that removes checks for 97% of goods. Again, the May deal didn't have that in there and neither did it have A16. Both of those were at play over the last year while this deal was being hammered out.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
The EU never left the negotiating table under this counter-factual.
I think you overweight A16 (which ultras actually decided was insufficient hence the abrogation bill) and underweight the “facts on the ground” and overall realpolitik as sources of leverage.
Boris was a costly and confidence-eroding interregnum. There’s no evidence apart from conjecture that the NIP has delivered a better ultimate outcome, albeit we can certainly count the hit to trade.
The EU absolutely left the negotiating table. Until late 2021 they kept repeating that it was up to the UK to implement the NI protocol and it wouldn't be renegotiated at all. It was only once legal advice suggested that the UK had grounds to pull the A16 trigger due to the EU refusing to implement their part of the deal while attempting to enforce border controls into NI.
They left the negotiating table under our timeline, not the May counterfactual. And no surprise, either, because Johnson and Frost were widely understood, even inside the UK, as utter charlatans.
They were brought to the table by the NI Protocol Bill, which was leverage.
Leverage we only had, as we were in the Johnson/Frost timeline.
Keep telling yourself that. Your hero is a busted flush, and your other hero is whatever gets stuck in a busted flush.
So what Tory crazy thing will Sunak undo next? He’s done Trussonomics and NI Brexit. How about leaving the customs union or universal credit?
Only people who don't understand the EU Customs Union talk about it in these terms.
No Brexiteer joins the EU CU. It would be bonkers on sticks.
Well what crazy Tory policy do you want Sunak to undo next?
The Great Reform Act. Went too far and the rot started to set in.
If only the wealthiest 5% could vote as pre 1832 then Remain would have won the 2016 referendum anyway and the next election would likely be between the Tories and LDs not the Tories and Labour
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
It also laid the pathway to this deal by binding the EU to a trusted trader scheme, essentially the green and red channels we have in the Windsor deal that removes checks for 97% of goods. Again, the May deal didn't have that in there and neither did it have A16. Both of those were at play over the last year while this deal was being hammered out.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
The EU never left the negotiating table under this counter-factual.
I think you overweight A16 (which ultras actually decided was insufficient hence the abrogation bill) and underweight the “facts on the ground” and overall realpolitik as sources of leverage.
Boris was a costly and confidence-eroding interregnum. There’s no evidence apart from conjecture that the NIP has delivered a better ultimate outcome, albeit we can certainly count the hit to trade.
The EU absolutely left the negotiating table. Until late 2021 they kept repeating that it was up to the UK to implement the NI protocol and it wouldn't be renegotiated at all. It was only once legal advice suggested that the UK had grounds to pull the A16 trigger due to the EU refusing to implement their part of the deal while attempting to enforce border controls into NI.
They left the negotiating table under our timeline, not the May counterfactual. And no surprise, either, because Johnson and Frost were widely understood, even inside the UK, as utter charlatans.
Remind us how they responded to May's Chequers plan.
If you want me to argue that the EU are or have been blameless, I won’t. But I am interested in practical solutions not primary school eschatology.
Both sides agreeing not to be tw@ts is to be applauded. Of course it helps to have a PM who isn’t one.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
FFS why is everyone misspelling 'brake?'
And yes, it is a brake, just one they can't apply as a sole party because they would misuse it. It doesn't say it has to represent both communities, just two parties.
In fairness to Moon. She's said before that she dictates through speech recognition.
What? 😠
Sorry. Thought you had. Apologies if I recall incorrectly.
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
At the time it was as you say better than a no deal but I doubt anyone understood how bad it was before Sunak spoke about it at the dispatch box today
If we are talking of supporting something at the time @CorrectHorseBattery wholly endorsed Corbyn for PM and since has had a damascine conversion to Starmer
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
At the time it was as you say better than a no deal but I doubt anyone understood how bad it was before Sunak spoke about it at the dispatch box today
If we are talking of supporting something at the time @CorrectHorseBattery wholly endorsed Corbyn for PM and since has had a damascine conversion to Starmer
You were a big cheerleader for Johnson back in the day. You were very excited that Starmer had broken COVID rules this negating Johnson's wrongdoing, and here you are a Sunakian and a critic of BigDog. Pots and kettles G.
I supported Johnson over Brexit, covid and Ukraine but if you have followed my posts I turned against Johnson over partygate plus patersongate, and wallpaper gate and have supported Sunak even before he became PM
I did not vote for Johnson or Hunt in the election for leader and admit that I do alter my views just as others have
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
It also laid the pathway to this deal by binding the EU to a trusted trader scheme, essentially the green and red channels we have in the Windsor deal that removes checks for 97% of goods. Again, the May deal didn't have that in there and neither did it have A16. Both of those were at play over the last year while this deal was being hammered out.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
The EU never left the negotiating table under this counter-factual.
I think you overweight A16 (which ultras actually decided was insufficient hence the abrogation bill) and underweight the “facts on the ground” and overall realpolitik as sources of leverage.
Boris was a costly and confidence-eroding interregnum. There’s no evidence apart from conjecture that the NIP has delivered a better ultimate outcome, albeit we can certainly count the hit to trade.
The EU absolutely left the negotiating table. Until late 2021 they kept repeating that it was up to the UK to implement the NI protocol and it wouldn't be renegotiated at all. It was only once legal advice suggested that the UK had grounds to pull the A16 trigger due to the EU refusing to implement their part of the deal while attempting to enforce border controls into NI.
They left the negotiating table under our timeline, not the May counterfactual. And no surprise, either, because Johnson and Frost were widely understood, even inside the UK, as utter charlatans.
They were brought to the table by the NI Protocol Bill, which was leverage.
Leverage we only had, as we were in the Johnson/Frost timeline.
Keep telling yourself that. Your hero is a busted flush, and your other hero is whatever gets stuck in a busted flush.
"Heroes" belong to comic books, and their adaptations, not politics.
May's backstop got us nowhere. Boris's agreement got us to this happy end state.
If you'd explained what is negotiated now, in GB and NI, five years ago who would have been calling for that? Is this arrangement closer to Barnier or Frost?
This is what I was calling for and you lot were calling a "unicorn" five years ago.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
Found them.
"The United Kingdom shall make the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph only where:
(a) the content or scope of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act significantly differs, in whole or in part, from the content or scope of the Union act as applicable before being amended or replaced; and
(b) the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act, or of the relevant part thereof as the case may be, would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist."
Fantastic news. Hopefully Braverman will now do one.
It seems Sunak anticipates greater cooperation with Macron and the EU over the boat issue as a result of the new friendlier relationship
Confirmation of membership of ECHR seems a sensible part of this rapprochement
He seems to learn fast.
Sunak and Hunt are clearly aware that resolution of the NIP is essential and no doubt sees an opportunity to grow closer to the EU which I expect is broadly welcomed by most
63.Once the UK notifies the EU that the Brake has been triggered, the rule in question is suspended automatically from coming into effect. It can then only be subsequently applied in Northern Ireland if the UK and EU both agree to that jointly in the Joint Committee. This would give the UK an unequivocal veto - enabling the rule to be permanently disapplied - within the Joint Committee. This new safeguard in the treaty is not subject to ECJ oversight, and any dispute on this issue would be resolved through subsequent independent arbitration according to international, not EU, law.
Reading the actual legal text, and although I am far from an expert, while it may not be subject to ECJ oversight it does not appear to be an "unequivocal veto" to me.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
Article 2 of the Draft Decision file on the page I linked has the proposed text.
Dragons in Crumbling Castle is a great collection, its really cool seeing his early writing and the seeds of what would become Discworld. It'll be great to read more, definitely buying this when it comes out. Or more probably asking for this for Father's Day.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
Found them.
"The United Kingdom shall make the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph only where:
(a) the content or scope of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act significantly differs, in whole or in part, from the content or scope of the Union act as applicable before being amended or replaced; and
(b) the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act, or of the relevant part thereof as the case may be, would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist."
Seems a high bar to me.
I don't think "significantly differs" or "significant impact" are high bars at all. It just means the new rule is meaningful.
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No we're nowhere near what May proposed. She proposed a no way out backstop for the whole of the UK. We'd still be there if that had been implemented as the inertia factor on the EU side would be huge and the inertia factor for Brexit 2 would be even bigger for the UK to pull out of the EU deal.
I don’t agree.
It's your prerogative to disagree with reality if you want, but it doesn't make for a useful discussion.
Mays deal envisaged a new and subsequent arrangement in 2020. Specific arrangements on Northern Ireland were supposed to be agreed with the EU and the UK was free to take specific proposals to a Joint Committee.
As I said in my original post, while the UK did not retain a unilateral right to just break off this agreement, it is stretching things beyond credibly to think the UK signed up to a for-ever customs union.
From a pure negotiating perspective, I can see why some want to claim that it was better to get to where we are today via the kind of hard break Boris “negotiated”, but I’m afraid that the vassalage idea around May’s deal was totally overblown, and Boris’s route cost the economy many many billions.
It wasn't overblown, it would have been the legal reality in the May deal. The UK would be stuck in the backstop with no unilateral mechanism to exit other than abrogating the treaty. Even the TCA has a 12 month divorce proceeding, the May WA didn't even have that. It was legitimately permanent purgatory for the UK stuck in the single market and customs union with no seat at the EU table and no legal mechanism to exit without the EU agreeing. It was a disaster and I said at the time it was a disaster.
What you call purgatory, I call insurance. Abrogating the treaty would have been the last recourse, but the intention was actually to make a new agreement sans the customs union.
Basically the argument rests on whether the “backstop” arrangements were in the interests of the EU against potential negotiated alternatives down the line. Those arguing the “purgatory” position were either taking the position that they were, or that the EU did not seek to act in its own interests where those interests might also coincide with the UK’s and potential to demonstrate “success” of Brexit. The “insurance” advocates basically disagree with this, argue that the backstop was an unstable position in neither party’s interests and that reality would drive its eventual replacement.
I think I agree, but I’d add that the purgatorial argument just happens to tie in with what was good for Boris’s career.
Purgatorialists were played. AND it cost the economy billions.
Yes. And you (I think) made the valid point above that if May's agreement was legally impossible to exit then so was Johnson's. Given that (having been trapped in it) Johnson's Govt proposed unilateral action through UK legislation to exit it then logically so could the same have been done under May's agreement. I think (subject to contradiction) that the supposed legal justification for the unilateral action within the NI Protocol bill was also available within the May agreement. Basically if the NI Protocol allowed provisions for suspension, then so did the May agreement.
Geoffrey Cox argued that we couldn't unilaterally exit the backstop. But then i suspect he would have taken the same view over the NI Protocol.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
Found them.
"The United Kingdom shall make the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph only where:
(a) the content or scope of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act significantly differs, in whole or in part, from the content or scope of the Union act as applicable before being amended or replaced; and
(b) the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act, or of the relevant part thereof as the case may be, would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist."
In more Tories-shuffling-off-the-blame, this is another specimen: apparently high energy bills are all Labour's fault. (Yes, I had to check the date on it.)
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No we're nowhere near what May proposed. She proposed a no way out backstop for the whole of the UK. We'd still be there if that had been implemented as the inertia factor on the EU side would be huge and the inertia factor for Brexit 2 would be even bigger for the UK to pull out of the EU deal.
I don’t agree.
It's your prerogative to disagree with reality if you want, but it doesn't make for a useful discussion.
Mays deal envisaged a new and subsequent arrangement in 2020. Specific arrangements on Northern Ireland were supposed to be agreed with the EU and the UK was free to take specific proposals to a Joint Committee.
As I said in my original post, while the UK did not retain a unilateral right to just break off this agreement, it is stretching things beyond credibly to think the UK signed up to a for-ever customs union.
From a pure negotiating perspective, I can see why some want to claim that it was better to get to where we are today via the kind of hard break Boris “negotiated”, but I’m afraid that the vassalage idea around May’s deal was totally overblown, and Boris’s route cost the economy many many billions.
It wasn't overblown, it would have been the legal reality in the May deal. The UK would be stuck in the backstop with no unilateral mechanism to exit other than abrogating the treaty. Even the TCA has a 12 month divorce proceeding, the May WA didn't even have that. It was legitimately permanent purgatory for the UK stuck in the single market and customs union with no seat at the EU table and no legal mechanism to exit without the EU agreeing. It was a disaster and I said at the time it was a disaster.
What you call purgatory, I call insurance. Abrogating the treaty would have been the last recourse, but the intention was actually to make a new agreement sans the customs union.
Basically the argument rests on whether the “backstop” arrangements were in the interests of the EU against potential negotiated alternatives down the line. Those arguing the “purgatory” position were either taking the position that they were, or that the EU did not seek to act in its own interests where those interests might also coincide with the UK’s and potential to demonstrate “success” of Brexit. The “insurance” advocates basically disagree with this, argue that the backstop was an unstable position in neither party’s interests and that reality would drive its eventual replacement.
I think I agree, but I’d add that the purgatorial argument just happens to tie in with what was good for Boris’s career.
Purgatorialists were played. AND it cost the economy billions.
Yes. And you (I think) made the valid point above that if May's agreement was legally impossible to exit then so was Johnson's. Given that (having been trapped in it) Johnson's Govt proposed unilateral action through UK legislation to exit it then logically so could the same have been done under May's agreement. I think (subject to contradiction) that the supposed legal justification for the unilateral action within the NI Protocol bill was also available within the May agreement. Basically if the NI Protocol allowed provisions for suspension, then so did the May agreement.
Geoffrey Cox argued that we couldn't unilaterally exit the backstop. But then i suspect he would have taken the same view over the NI Protocol.
Legally we could have left all, but May's deal did it in a way that would have made it a lot more painful.
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No we're nowhere near what May proposed. She proposed a no way out backstop for the whole of the UK. We'd still be there if that had been implemented as the inertia factor on the EU side would be huge and the inertia factor for Brexit 2 would be even bigger for the UK to pull out of the EU deal.
I don’t agree.
It's your prerogative to disagree with reality if you want, but it doesn't make for a useful discussion.
Mays deal envisaged a new and subsequent arrangement in 2020. Specific arrangements on Northern Ireland were supposed to be agreed with the EU and the UK was free to take specific proposals to a Joint Committee.
As I said in my original post, while the UK did not retain a unilateral right to just break off this agreement, it is stretching things beyond credibly to think the UK signed up to a for-ever customs union.
From a pure negotiating perspective, I can see why some want to claim that it was better to get to where we are today via the kind of hard break Boris “negotiated”, but I’m afraid that the vassalage idea around May’s deal was totally overblown, and Boris’s route cost the economy many many billions.
It wasn't overblown, it would have been the legal reality in the May deal. The UK would be stuck in the backstop with no unilateral mechanism to exit other than abrogating the treaty. Even the TCA has a 12 month divorce proceeding, the May WA didn't even have that. It was legitimately permanent purgatory for the UK stuck in the single market and customs union with no seat at the EU table and no legal mechanism to exit without the EU agreeing. It was a disaster and I said at the time it was a disaster.
What you call purgatory, I call insurance. Abrogating the treaty would have been the last recourse, but the intention was actually to make a new agreement sans the customs union.
Basically the argument rests on whether the “backstop” arrangements were in the interests of the EU against potential negotiated alternatives down the line. Those arguing the “purgatory” position were either taking the position that they were, or that the EU did not seek to act in its own interests where those interests might also coincide with the UK’s and potential to demonstrate “success” of Brexit. The “insurance” advocates basically disagree with this, argue that the backstop was an unstable position in neither party’s interests and that reality would drive its eventual replacement.
I think I agree, but I’d add that the purgatorial argument just happens to tie in with what was good for Boris’s career.
Purgatorialists were played. AND it cost the economy billions.
Yes. And you (I think) made the valid point above that if May's agreement was legally impossible to exit then so was Johnson's. Given that (having been trapped in it) Johnson's Govt proposed unilateral action through UK legislation to exit it then logically so could the same have been done under May's agreement. I think (subject to contradiction) that the supposed legal justification for the unilateral action within the NI Protocol bill was also available within the May agreement. Basically if the NI Protocol allowed provisions for suspension, then so did the May agreement.
Geoffrey Cox argued that we couldn't unilaterally exit the backstop. But then i suspect he would have taken the same view over the NI Protocol.
False comparison.
May's deal left us unable to get out, while still being in the EU's arrangements, with no unilateral exits.
Boris's deal already had us out of the EU's arrangements, and had multiple unilateral exits.
So what Tory crazy thing will Sunak undo next? He’s done Trussonomics and NI Brexit. How about leaving the customs union or universal credit?
Only people who don't understand the EU Customs Union talk about it in these terms.
No Brexiteer joins the EU CU. It would be bonkers on sticks.
Well what crazy Tory policy do you want Sunak to undo next?
The Great Reform Act. Went too far and the rot started to set in.
It did ban women from voting though. That would do wonders for Tory prospects.
ISTR liberal opposition to female suffrage was that they didn't want to give the Tories a permanent majority.
That was at the time of the Suffragettes ISTR. That women have gradually drifted to the left of men from starting well to the right over many decades is a little mysterious. There are plenty of theories. None wholly convincing to me. It's a little known fact that a number of women had the vote prior to 1832. There was no hard and fast bar. An unmarried eldest daughter (assuming no sons natch), whose father had died, owning the requisite property qualifications, was perfectly entitled to vote. Until they married of course. It's a major plot point in Gentleman Jack. It's why she's a convinced Tory. (It's a far more interesting and nuanced book than the execrable TV show).
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
Found them.
"The United Kingdom shall make the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph only where:
(a) the content or scope of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act significantly differs, in whole or in part, from the content or scope of the Union act as applicable before being amended or replaced; and
(b) the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act, or of the relevant part thereof as the case may be, would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist."
Seems a high bar to me.
I don't think "significantly differs" or "significant impact" are high bars at all. It just means the new rule is meaningful.
It has to be significantly different from the existing EU regulation AND significantly impact everyday life in a way that persists. That's a fairly high bar.
The point is that this isn't a simple unilateral veto. It can only be applied in certain circumstances.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
Found them.
"The United Kingdom shall make the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph only where:
(a) the content or scope of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act significantly differs, in whole or in part, from the content or scope of the Union act as applicable before being amended or replaced; and
(b) the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act, or of the relevant part thereof as the case may be, would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist."
Seems a high bar to me.
I don't think "significantly differs" or "significant impact" are high bars at all. It just means the new rule is meaningful.
It has to be significantly different from the existing EU regulation AND significantly impact everyday life in a way that persists. That's a fairly high bar.
It works precisely because although it does represent a veto, the NI stuff is goods only so we’ll never diverge far for many reasons (I disagreed with you earlier on the non-goods side but not here) so the issue will actually never arise. Or, if it does, it’ll be a major controversy in the EU too and there’ll be other opt-outs across the union so an NI opt out could be managed.
In more Tories-shuffling-off-the-blame, this is another specimen: apparently high energy bills are all Labour's fault. (Yes, I had to check the date on it.)
The DUP are a bunch of prize knobends. What purpose do they serve beyond perennially agitating for endless dispute and disruption? Let the Alliance self-designate as Unionist for constitution convenience and Michelle O'Neill can lead NI as FM without the moronic Orange Brigade. Naomi Long as DFM.
No, the UUP could do that if they back the Deal, not the Alliance
If the DUP refuse to take part in governing their own province, nominate the next biggest party. Find a way! Change the law if necessary.
So abolish the Good Friday Agreement. 🤔
From what I've heard of the deal, I like it. It seems sensible. It seems like what I was saying we should do for years but people kept saying was an impossible unicorn.
But as far as the Good Friday Agreement goes, it isn't up to you and me who runs the province, its upto the two elected parties representing the cross community. Either a deal is reached satisfying them, or there's no deal as far as Stormont is concerned. Unless you repeal and abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
I don't think the Good Friday Agreement refers to "the two elected parties representing the cross community".
The reference is to "unionist and nationalist designations". It doesn't mention the DUP or largest party. I think there is scope for sidelining the DUP.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
Found them.
"The United Kingdom shall make the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph only where:
(a) the content or scope of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act significantly differs, in whole or in part, from the content or scope of the Union act as applicable before being amended or replaced; and
(b) the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act, or of the relevant part thereof as the case may be, would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist."
Seems a high bar to me.
I don't think "significantly differs" or "significant impact" are high bars at all. It just means the new rule is meaningful.
It has to be significantly different from the existing EU regulation AND significantly impact everyday life in a way that persists. That's a fairly high bar.
It works precisely because it does represent a veto, but the NI stuff is goods only and we’ll never diverge far on them for many reasons (I disagreed with you earlier on the non-goods side but not here) so the issue will actually never arise. Or, if it does, it’ll be a major controversy in the EU too and there’ll be other opt-outs across the union.
It isn't a veto because it can only be applied in very specific circumstances which are not in the control of Stormont. I reckon the so-called "Stormont Brake" is never actually applied in reality.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
Found them.
"The United Kingdom shall make the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph only where:
(a) the content or scope of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act significantly differs, in whole or in part, from the content or scope of the Union act as applicable before being amended or replaced; and
(b) the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act, or of the relevant part thereof as the case may be, would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist."
Seems a high bar to me.
I don't think "significantly differs" or "significant impact" are high bars at all. It just means the new rule is meaningful.
It has to be significantly different from the existing EU regulation AND significantly impact everyday life in a way that persists. That's a fairly high bar.
The point is that this isn't a simple unilateral veto. It can only be applied in certain circumstances.
"That persists" just means its any permanent law effect, rather than one off administrative cost of setting it up or a temporary law. And I can't see a law that doesn't have a meaningful impact on day to day life as one that is worth worrying about.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
Found them.
"The United Kingdom shall make the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph only where:
(a) the content or scope of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act significantly differs, in whole or in part, from the content or scope of the Union act as applicable before being amended or replaced; and
(b) the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act, or of the relevant part thereof as the case may be, would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist."
Seems a high bar to me.
I don't think "significantly differs" or "significant impact" are high bars at all. It just means the new rule is meaningful.
It has to be significantly different from the existing EU regulation AND significantly impact everyday life in a way that persists. That's a fairly high bar.
It works precisely because it does represent a veto, but the NI stuff is goods only and we’ll never diverge far on them for many reasons (I disagreed with you earlier on the non-goods side but not here) so the issue will actually never arise. Or, if it does, it’ll be a major controversy in the EU too and there’ll be other opt-outs across the union.
It isn't a veto because it can only be applied in very specific circumstances which are not in the control of Stormont. I reckon the so-called "Stormont Brake" is never actually applied in reality.
Yes. That’s what I’m saying above. It’s clever because the circumstances won’t arise, but if they did it would be a unilateral opt-out. Slays the ERG’s perceived dragon but no real risk to the EU.
The DUP are a bunch of prize knobends. What purpose do they serve beyond perennially agitating for endless dispute and disruption? Let the Alliance self-designate as Unionist for constitution convenience and Michelle O'Neill can lead NI as FM without the moronic Orange Brigade. Naomi Long as DFM.
No, the UUP could do that if they back the Deal, not the Alliance
If the DUP refuse to take part in governing their own province, nominate the next biggest party. Find a way! Change the law if necessary.
So abolish the Good Friday Agreement. 🤔
From what I've heard of the deal, I like it. It seems sensible. It seems like what I was saying we should do for years but people kept saying was an impossible unicorn.
But as far as the Good Friday Agreement goes, it isn't up to you and me who runs the province, its upto the two elected parties representing the cross community. Either a deal is reached satisfying them, or there's no deal as far as Stormont is concerned. Unless you repeal and abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
I don't think the Good Friday Agreement refers to "the two elected parties representing the cross community".
The reference is to "unionist and nationalist designations". It doesn't mention the DUP or largest party. I think there is scope for sidelining the DUP.
Knowing nothing about the details -- oddly enough, our local news stations haven't been giving the agreement much coverage -- I'll just say that I hope it works out well for all of you.
And that the agreement makes it easier for you to work with nations in the EU to help Ukraine.
If either or both of those things happen, then Sunak should get some credit, but I will venture no prediction on whether he will.
PS - Thanks to Malmesbury for reminding me about the "Catholic Protestants". I had heard about that arrangement, perhaps in the Economist, but forgotten about it.
That's what all these suggestions about the Alliance Party redesignating as Unionist are all about.
Is that actually even slightly likely, or is it more like the suggestions that Sinn Fein might have taken their Westminster seats to vote in some Brexit vote or other -- theoretically possible but in practice a pigs-flying event ?
The DUP are a bunch of prize knobends. What purpose do they serve beyond perennially agitating for endless dispute and disruption? Let the Alliance self-designate as Unionist for constitution convenience and Michelle O'Neill can lead NI as FM without the moronic Orange Brigade. Naomi Long as DFM.
No, the UUP could do that if they back the Deal, not the Alliance
If the DUP refuse to take part in governing their own province, nominate the next biggest party. Find a way! Change the law if necessary.
So abolish the Good Friday Agreement. 🤔
From what I've heard of the deal, I like it. It seems sensible. It seems like what I was saying we should do for years but people kept saying was an impossible unicorn.
But as far as the Good Friday Agreement goes, it isn't up to you and me who runs the province, its upto the two elected parties representing the cross community. Either a deal is reached satisfying them, or there's no deal as far as Stormont is concerned. Unless you repeal and abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
I don't think the Good Friday Agreement refers to "the two elected parties representing the cross community".
The reference is to "unionist and nationalist designations". It doesn't mention the DUP or largest party. I think there is scope for sidelining the DUP.
In more Tories-shuffling-off-the-blame, this is another specimen: apparently high energy bills are all Labour's fault. (Yes, I had to check the date on it.)
Did Labour invade Ukraine? I thought it was Putin…
On a serious point governments of all stripes are to blame. Lack of preparedness for a change in the wind direction. Striving to move away from fossil (a laudable aim) while not doing enough to mitigate potential issues that might crop up. Greens have blocked nuclear for years, yet nuclear is a better option for the transition than just relying on intermittent wind.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Government summary. AFAIK we don't have the full legal text yet. But it would be a bit foolish to allow that in the summary if it's not in the text!
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
And if the arbitration panel rules that the brake was not applied in accordance with [unknown], the change in EU regs comes into force anyway.
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
Found them.
"The United Kingdom shall make the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph only where:
(a) the content or scope of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act significantly differs, in whole or in part, from the content or scope of the Union act as applicable before being amended or replaced; and
(b) the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act, or of the relevant part thereof as the case may be, would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist."
Seems a high bar to me.
I don't think "significantly differs" or "significant impact" are high bars at all. It just means the new rule is meaningful.
It has to be significantly different from the existing EU regulation AND significantly impact everyday life in a way that persists. That's a fairly high bar.
It works precisely because it does represent a veto, but the NI stuff is goods only and we’ll never diverge far on them for many reasons (I disagreed with you earlier on the non-goods side but not here) so the issue will actually never arise. Or, if it does, it’ll be a major controversy in the EU too and there’ll be other opt-outs across the union.
It isn't a veto because it can only be applied in very specific circumstances which are not in the control of Stormont. I reckon the so-called "Stormont Brake" is never actually applied in reality.
Knowing nothing about the details -- oddly enough, our local news stations haven't been giving the agreement much coverage -- I'll just say that I hope it works out well for all of you.
And that the agreement makes it easier for you to work with nations in the EU to help Ukraine.
If either or both of those things happen, then Sunak should get some credit, but I will venture no prediction on whether he will.
PS - Thanks to Malmesbury for reminding me about the "Catholic Protestants". I had heard about that arrangement, perhaps in the Economist, but forgotten about it.
Comments
She's said before that she dictates through speech recognition.
I think you overweight A16 (which ultras actually decided was insufficient hence the abrogation bill) and underweight the “facts on the ground” and overall realpolitik as sources of leverage.
Boris was a costly and confidence-eroding interregnum. There’s no evidence apart from conjecture that the NIP has delivered a better ultimate outcome, albeit we can certainly count the hit to trade.
Sunak committing unambiguously to the ECHR is entailed in today's 'choose cooperation after Brexit' strategy.
If left the ECHR, he has no UK-EU relationship, and would deeply damage any working relationship with Macron or Biden
This has implications for his immigration policy
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1630304053220503559
Best sidestepped.
After the UK has notified the EU that the brake has been triggered, an exchange of views will take place in the Joint Committee on the implications of the amended or replacing act for the proper functioning of the Protocol. If the Parties cannot agree either to add an amended or replacing act or to other measures to ensure the proper functioning of the Protocol, the EU can take appropriate remedial measures, as is the case under Article 13(4) of the Protocol.
For a notification under Article 13(3a) to be made in good faith, it needs to be made under each of the conditions set out in the Unilateral Declaration made by the United Kingdom. An arbitration panel may rule on whether these conditions have been met."
It looks as if he has, at the very least, staved off a major rebellion, a huge shift from last week when there were warnings that as many as 100 Tory MPs could vote against the agreement. Parliament is expected to be given a vote – but not this week, so that MPs have time to go through the legal text. Tory whips are hopeful that the rebellion can be limited to two dozen irreconcilables, meaning the deal could pass without the government having to rely on Labour votes.
Unusually, the government’s deal has won the backing of the main UK opposition parties – although they do point out that much economic and political pain could have been avoided if Sunak’s predecessors had taken a different tack. They will now go away and study the detail of the deal. The prime minister should take the win.
And no surprise, either, because Johnson and Frost were widely understood, even inside the UK, as utter charlatans.
The reference is to "unionist and nationalist designations". It doesn't mention the DUP or largest party. I think there is scope for sidelining the DUP.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034123/The_Belfast_Agreement_An_Agreement_Reached_at_the_Multi-Party_Talks_on_Northern_Ireland.pdf
- Betty Boothroyd
https://twitter.com/Planet_Belfast/status/1630226405593174019
There was a modest but obvious departure from Boris’s fraudulence when she became PM, and she put in place the team that supported this negotiation.
Hopefully Braverman will now do one.
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1630302891029217280
Assuming the UK got something in return that’s not a bad trade
Leverage we only had, as we were in the Johnson/Frost timeline.
Confirmation of membership of ECHR seems a sensible part of this rapprochement
Your hero is a busted flush, and your other hero is whatever gets stuck in a busted flush.
Of course it helps to have a PM who isn’t one.
AIUI the "brake" only applies to EU regs that change after the agreement goes into effect. Essentially the brake allows the old EU regulation to continue to apply in NI if certain conditions are met. Which is probably why the EU is relaxed about it.
Apologies if I recall incorrectly.
I did not vote for Johnson or Hunt in the election for leader and admit that I do alter my views just as others have
I can't find the conditions though. It does not appear to be an absolute veto to me.
That would do wonders for Tory prospects.
The senior people whose views matter in the DUP are Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, Nigel and Diane Dodds, Emma Pengelley, and Lord Morrow.
May's backstop got us nowhere.
Boris's agreement got us to this happy end state.
If you'd explained what is negotiated now, in GB and NI, five years ago who would have been calling for that? Is this arrangement closer to Barnier or Frost?
This is what I was calling for and you lot were calling a "unicorn" five years ago.
"The United Kingdom shall make the notification referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph only where:
(a) the content or scope of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act significantly differs, in whole or in part, from the content or scope of the Union act as applicable before being amended or replaced; and
(b) the application in Northern Ireland of the Union act as amended or replaced by the specific Union act, or of the relevant part thereof as the case may be, would have a significant impact specific to everyday life of communities in Northern Ireland in a way that is liable to persist."
Seems a high bar to me.
Sir Terry Pratchett: Short stories to be published after being found by fans
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64789059
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
Dragons in Crumbling Castle is a great collection, its really cool seeing his early writing and the seeds of what would become Discworld. It'll be great to read more, definitely buying this when it comes out. Or more probably asking for this for Father's Day.
Geoffrey Cox argued that we couldn't unilaterally exit the backstop. But then i suspect he would have taken the same view over the NI Protocol.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/feb/27/uk-energy-minister-blames-labour-for-soaring-energy-bills
May's deal left us unable to get out, while still being in the EU's arrangements, with no unilateral exits.
Boris's deal already had us out of the EU's arrangements, and had multiple unilateral exits.
That women have gradually drifted to the left of men from starting well to the right over many decades is a little mysterious. There are plenty of theories. None wholly convincing to me.
It's a little known fact that a number of women had the vote prior to 1832.
There was no hard and fast bar. An unmarried eldest daughter (assuming no sons natch), whose father had died, owning the requisite property qualifications, was perfectly entitled to vote. Until they married of course.
It's a major plot point in Gentleman Jack. It's why she's a convinced Tory. (It's a far more interesting and nuanced book than the execrable TV show).
The point is that this isn't a simple unilateral veto. It can only be applied in certain circumstances.
What was wrong with cupping your hands together to drink?
So even if the Alliance change designation, then that leaves them well short of 40% of the designated Unionists.
And that the agreement makes it easier for you to work with nations in the EU to help Ukraine.
If either or both of those things happen, then Sunak should get some credit, but I will venture no prediction on whether he will.
PS - Thanks to Malmesbury for reminding me about the "Catholic Protestants". I had heard about that arrangement, perhaps in the Economist, but forgotten about it.
Only TUV and Dorries openly against.
Lib Dems non committal. Quite a potential alliance there!
On a serious point governments of all stripes are to blame. Lack of preparedness for a change in the wind direction. Striving to move away from fossil (a laudable aim) while not doing enough to mitigate potential issues that might crop up. Greens have blocked nuclear for years, yet nuclear is a better option for the transition than just relying on intermittent wind.
https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2018/12/14/the-protestant-catholics/