Alternatives?

[Tinsley Green]

I regret to have to tell the House that in recent months the EU has suggested that it is willing to go to extreme and unreasonable lengths, using the Northern Ireland protocol in a way that goes well beyond common sense simply to exert leverage against the UK in our negotiations for a free trade agreement. To take the most glaring example, the EU has said that if we fail to reach an agreement to its satisfaction, it might very well refuse to list the UK’s food and agricultural products for sale anywhere in the EU. It gets even worse, because under this protocol, that decision would create an instant and automatic prohibition on the transfer of our animal products from ​Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Our interlocutors on the other side are holding out the possibility of blockading food and agricultural transports within our own country. Absurd and self-defeating as that action would be, even as we debate this matter, the EU has not taken that particular revolver off the table. I hope that it will do so and that we can reach a Canada-style free trade agreement as well.

Is there anybody out there has a different solution other than breaking international law to ensure the uk is able to transport food and animal products within our own borders?

[litebulbs]

Surely this is about market forces and a competitive edge? Our divorced ex is now going for everything? What right do we have to complain, noting that we can ignore any reason to complain and lets breach away?

How would you resolve this?

[Tinsley Green]

It is a point of concern that our press are either biased or incompetent so the issues at hand do not filter down to the public. Indeed Clooneys wife would have served the greater cause far better by offering a solution rather than just claiming publicity for herself with a self serving resignation. Anyway haven't yet seen this published anywhere.

the issue apparently is:

For example, there is the question of tariffs in the Irish sea. When we signed the protocol, we accepted that goods “at risk” of going from Great Britain into the EU via Northern Ireland should pay the EU tariff as ​they crossed the Irish sea—we accepted that—but that any goods staying within Northern Ireland would not do so. The protocol created a joint committee to identify, with the EU, which goods were at risk of going into Ireland. That sensible process was one achievement of our agreement, and our view is that that forum remains the best way of solving that question.I am afraid that some in the EU are now relying on legal defaults to argue that every good is “at risk”, and therefore liable for tariffs. That would mean tariffs that could get as high as 90% by value on Scottish beef going to Northern Ireland, and moving not from Stranraer to Dublin but from Stranraer to Belfast within our United Kingdom. There would be tariffs of potentially more than 61% on Welsh lamb heading from Anglesey to Antrim, and of potentially more than 100% on clotted cream moving from Torridge—to pick a Devonshire town at random—to Larne. That is unreasonable and plainly against the spirit of that protocol.

So apparently our ex-partner has not adhered to the spirit of an agreement. So is this punishment for actually daring to leave the EU or is it a fair fight?

Keeping in mind

it's very difficult when you play against foreign opposition because culturally they don't class diving, or feigning injury, as cheating. They only see it as part of the game.

[litebulbs]

Can you quantify what "spirit" means in a legal context?

[Tinsley Green]

Can you quantify what "spirit" means in a legal context?

it is quite simple litebulbs as I am sure you well know. But in your haste to defend your friends of a dubious moral position, there is one major difference in this situation. Normally those arguing the spirit or letter of the law are detached from those who actually wrote the law. Therefore it can be difficult to know what the lawmaker truly intended leaving room for a spirit v letter of the law argument.

In this case its all the same players and its very recent. Therefore there can be no room for discussion over spirit or letter of the law (agreement) if all participants are being true to their word. The quoted paragraph of the actual issue makes it very clear who is not staying true to their word. Honesty and integrity are very important factors in building up trust particularly between polarized groups.

I refer the honorable gentlemen to my previous quote:

it's very difficult when you play against foreign opposition because culturally they don't class diving, or feigning injury, as cheating. They only see it as part of the game.

[litebulbs]

Can you cite your quote please?

[No Smoking]

It is a point of concern that our press are either biased or incompetent so the issues at hand do not filter down to the public. Indeed Clooneys wife would have served the greater cause far better by offering a solution rather than just claiming publicity for herself with a self serving resignation. Anyway haven't yet seen this published anywhere.

So apparently our ex-partner has not adhered to the spirit of an agreement. So is this punishment for actually daring to leave the EU or is it a fair fight?

The role of the Press in recent years across many nations has been hard to decipher, in the light of many conflicting interests. And it's not just the recognised media houses, but also the manipulation of social media to serve the interest of external forces.

UK fish is driving the EU-27 potty. They are ready to take desperate steps to help them retain access to fishing rights.

Well, Tinsley, you ask about alternatives. I have this one which can resolve many vexed issues. Let's make a move to reverse our history. Remember how the Scots of yester-years migrated to Northern Ireland. Let's make new laws to permit all Scots seeking to remain in the EU to uproot themselves and cross-over to Northern Ireland. At the same time, all Northern Irishmen/women who wish to remain in the UK should uproot themselves and relocate to Scotland.

The outcome will be a united Ireland keeping themselves in the EU while we get a Scotland devoid of the SNP and their endless pining for EU membership.

And my nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize will quickly outshine Donald Trump's.

[Tinsley Green]

Can you cite your quote please?

oh litebulbs come on. stop the dilly dallying just because the message is uncomfortable for a true committed remainer. Hansards, transcript of house of commons debate. statement by the prime minister on the root cause of the issue.

As the truth slowly filters through to those who pay attention, the situation looks rather different than the media would have you believe. I mean those poor souls need to sell newspapers.

The EU have turned their back on an agreement made in recent months. There was even a joint committee set up to determine which goods require tariffs. Now all of a sudden and against the spirit of the agreement (which set up the committee) all goods require tariffs. The action itself is not surprising to those who seek to understand how the EU functions rather than just harp on about ideological nonsense such as freedom of movement. I refer to my quote:

it's very difficult when you play against foreign opposition because culturally they don't class diving, or feigning injury, as cheating. They only see it as part of the game.

So the evidence is now suggesting the UK govt took exactly the right action in warning that international law may have to be broken to protect the uk. Unless of course there really is an alternative suggestion that could work.
As much as I would like to see No Smoking receive the nobel prize and there is some merit in his suggestion, I do find myself struggling to see how that could work.

I also haven't seen this anywhere in the mainstream media:

The US ambassador also tweeted: 'We trust the United Kingdom and are confident that they'll get these complex negotiations right in a way that treats everyone fairly and respects the choice UK voters have made.'

Last night, a source close to the Trump administration said the US had not made any suggestion to the UK that the outcome of trade talks was conditional on the UK's position on Northern Ireland.Mr Paisley said in his letter: 'Parliament is debating the Internal Market Bill that seeks to ensure that as a nation of four parts we can trade amongst ourselves without hindrance or tax from the EU.'It is unfortunate that some negative arguments have been couched in terms that posed the Northern Ireland peace accord to be in jeopardy.'No rational human could think peace is threatened by good internal trading relations.'

[litebulbs]

Hahahaha, Boris

[Tinsley Green]

it gives me no great pleasure to say this but your wattage is dimming. You are in complete denial due to your clear and obvious ideological position. Not a good place to be. And Captain Hindsight has just proven again on Andrew Marr why the looney left remain unelectable.

And who is Boris? Are you so uneducated that you are not aware that he alone does not make the decision?
Really you stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of labour and Unite, the masters of keep holding elections till the decision we want is the result, ignore our members do what we want, take us into an illegal war based upon lies and false information.

Are you seriously saying the govt is lying?
Are you undermining and stating that Hansards, the bedrock of transcribing every government debate has got it wrong?
Shame on you litebulbs, I expected far more.