Please not again :dead::roll:

But then, "SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE BRIT!" :O:

That quote is by Jim, not me, but he is right, and yes, he is a true Brit as well.



Brussels is "Kungel im Hinterzimmer hinter verschlossenen Türen". Personal networking and contacts is all, ability, intelligence, competence mean nothing. Lopok at the current lead perosnnel. Allm you can do is laughing tears, and then crying tears, and then hope that you wake up and it is over.

Isser, echt? How does the EU challenge England's or the UK's (!) "sovereignty"? He said again that the UK is one country. Is it also one nation? Or isn't it basically the same as any other conglomerate of nations joining to be stronger(?), here of course with a kingdom in the background :hmmm:

The UK is a conglomerate of "countries within a country", so all of them have to give away a part of their sovereignty to the "UK".
Other than North Ireland the Republic of Ireland does not belong to the UK.

If brexit leads to a border around the UK, being erected because its "sovereignty" demands it, this effectively means a border between North Ireland belonging to the UK and the Republic of Ireland being a sovereign independent state. Clear as mud as what happens to the good friday agreement, but it is a result of brexit.

Sigh.

Double standards.

I agree only on the part of what a border between NI and RoI means. Was clear since years. Like Germany would not accept that Brussels demands for exmaple the Freistaat Bayern beign extracted form the federal state by raising its own custom regime at the border and independent form the Germanborders, the UZK cannot accepot the same demanded over NI.

As long as Bavarians or NIers do not have a referendum and leave their national unions.

This Good Friday agreement cannot have been much a solid thing if it is so easily to be kicked off balance. Solution: Some Irelanders have some brain growing. Historical nationalistic eye-poking "Our Dads once kicked your Dads' lower bottoms long, long time ago" and religious hatred lead nobody nowhere. Plant brains in heads.

^ yes, all sides obviously.

Let me try to understand this.
So the EU wants border control because of goods and controls like with all their other trade partners that are not in the EU.

England/UK wants borders everywhere but just not here, because that threatens the good friday agreement and has already led to shortages and disruptions. Seems no one in the UK saw this coming, not prepared for brexit, but ok the EU is so lenient and blah.

On the other hand it should be just of all England/UK erecting borders between North Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because England/UK wants sovereignty everywhere – just not here.
Surely they cannot deny others what they themselves .. but it is England .. ok lol.

So let's say England/UK eventually breaks the treaty, inhowfar will this change the situation? Free flow of trade goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (member of the EU) then. What about UK sovereignty then?

The UK does want border routines in the middle of its nation as much as Germany wants customs unions between Thuringia and Bavaria, or Berlin and Meck-Pomm.

Brussels sees the opportunity to put pressure on London here by insisting there have to be customs, either between RoI and NI, or internally inside the UK between the big isle and NI.

Obviously there must be some kind of customs between the EU and UK. The EU wanst the UK to compromise territorial integrity on behalf of the Good Friday agreement, for this woudl mean damage to the sovereignty claim of London, would be a dimplatic defeat. London wants not threatening the "peace" in Ireland, but also does not accept a compromising of its territorial integrity: no sovereign nation could do that.

The rational solution obviously is to have border checks between RoI, an EU state, and NI, because between these two it is where the border between the UK and the block is located. So there, at that border, the customs duties have to be done. No-brainer.

So, the solution is to have them there - without some crazy Irishmen freaking out over it.

The problem is two-fold. London signed something of which they - stupidly - hoped the EU would not mercilessly press for, and the other problem is the instable sentimental attitude of the Irish over past things long lost in history.

What can be done NOW? Obviously London has no other choice, it almost must a.) break this part of the treaty they signed , the NI protocol, and it must b.) accept being blamed for violating treaties and earning the reputation of maybe not being seen as a trustworthy signator of future treaties. As I said many times before: they should never have signed this crappy Brexit deal. There is a reason why in brussel the champagne was flowign when it became known the Brits would sign this NI protocol - they knew they had the Brits by their balls with that one. Why Johnson did not see this, will remain his secret forever, I think.

The Brits do surprisingly well,btw, different to the gloomy picture EU media try to paint fo them. While they have problems, they are not as big as one expected (even hoped) for, and their foreigng trade relations have improved dramatically and to a degree that Brussel can just watch with envy. It seems right what the EU wanted to prevent ar all cost - Brexit leading to an economical success story - in the aftermath of Covid could become a reality. Too early to call it already a big success, but thing slook better than in Europe, and than expected. Thats the worst outcome possible - from Brussel'S perspective. I remind of the Swiss vote recently, and the growing dissatisfaction with the EU in Norway and Iceland.

Merkel'S time is finally over, and Macron may think it now is the hour of France. A nightmare for German payers. The more blocked and stuck things become in Brussel, the cheaper for net payers, and the greater the chance that people wake up and see the EU for what it really is. It seesm without big crisis and spectacular drama the eu cannot get overcome. So be it, let the drama have its way - the worse, the better. Better an end with horrors than horror without end.

So, is the Republic of Ireland a member of the UK or is it sovereign?
Because this is what it is about. I guess the whole Ireland question is a never ending weaseling-around since ..centuries.

??


The RoI is a member of the EU and its sovereignty as a national state ends where the EU rules it has to, while NI is a member of the UK. The borders between the UK and the EU obviously are seated right on the borders between the RoI and NI. And there it is where any border regimes and routines should be located.

Yes, only that the UK or in this case England cannot allow this without breaking the good friday agreement. So they let the trading goods pass with their prolonged "grace period" with less or no control thus keeping the good friday agreement, but violating the treaty they signed.

And if they really intend to breach the latter (and let them do it for whatever's sake) what does this mean then to "sovereignty" of the UK, or the ROI? Right, there is no "sovereignty" then. Not this nor that way.
This word is as sharp as a knife on which you can ride to Laramie.

The RoI is limited in its sovereignty by EU laws and treaties, much like other member states as well. The RoI cannot even negotiate certain kinds of treaties by itsself anymore, not to mention breaking them. However the disoute is not between the UK and the RoI, but the UK and the EU. The UK may or may not break a treaty, it may or may not sign treaties and negotiate them before - but in any of these it demonstrates that it not only does not want but also must not ask Brussel for permission, but does what it wants anyway. Which in any conetsallaiton is sovereignity. They would compromise it if they allow Brussel to force them erecting international borders within their own state, that is a border regime between NI and the big isle.

Yes, one can scratch one's head over why they signed that NI protocol. Only one thing would be a sign of lacking sovereignty that you implied to exist in your post: if they would obey it.

Thats why I do not expec them to obey it. Obeing it would thwart a major argument for Brexit. Even Johnson cannot afford that, although they seem to let him get away with a lot.

That is not the point. Once more:

IF the UK wants to have sovereignty, it has to introduce border controls, without this there is no sovereignty.
And if it thus erects border controls towards the EU, this border has to be between the ROI and Northern Ireland.

Now it seems it is rather the EU that wants controls of goods, if not a hard border. While the UK should want a border because of the urge to control possible immigrants or whatever (= sovereignty), but cannot afford it due to the good friday agreement.

So if the UK does not want any controlling border between the UK and the EU (read: the ROI which is not a member of the UK) and thus no controlling immigration (or for whatever they wanted brexit), how can this be UK "sovereignty" then? It makes no sense even if they break the treaty.

Like Bavaria and Thiuringia want no hard border with customs and migraiton control, the UK wants no internal border between two if its regions. But there are borders between the United Kingdom and external nations lik ethere are b etween Germany and Austria. Or, sicne that comaorsions lacks, between lets say Poland and Belarus, the former being a EU member and the latter not.



What have custom declarations on imports and exports to do with Brussels dictate of free migration movement?


The brits called for "pragmatic solutions" on the Irish situation. Which means they can probably happily live without sausage customs and all that. They do not want giving contorl of their borders on travelling and non-Irish import.exprt exchnages, however. Brussel links the one to the other, like they link evertyhing in one big pck and say "No trading with us without acceptance of all the other stuff we insist on and that has nothing to do with trade, too". Migration. EU-wide call for bids. Planned mandatory participation in the Euro-zone. European courts being the king of the hill. Brussel demanding sovereignty over 90% of natiponbaol law-making. Or in germany's case: disempowerement of national consittional high courts. And so forth.


The brits are open for shortcut solutions on Ireland. Its the Niorther Ireland bnaitonapsits and the EUcrats rejecting it.



But the situsaiton ahs beehn allowed by ALL sides to distort so miuch that nothign cna be fixed herer withoizut breaking plenty of porcellaine.



Whioch was to be expected, and I expect much more glass broken thna just over the NI protocol. The french and Brussel are out for a fight, and the eU will nenver forgive the stubborn UK islanders their sacrileg of leaving the bog happy family. The illusion got a serious crack, and this will never be forgiven or forogtten. Thwe offense roots deep. Telling the EU that it is not wonderful and all-wanted? What a sacrileg...!
Finally, a deterring precedence must be created so that no EU victim, I mean member, will ever dare to think of leaving again.


Johnson acted naive on NI. But the EU - and Paris, which is not that much a difference - want blood and are out to maximise the damage, to deliver the UK and all others a hurting lesson. That this was apparently underestimated, this is what founds Johnson's naivety. I cannot see other motives why he underestimated this. The EU has him by his balls over the protocol, and they will not let go, but squeeze as hard as they can.



Press your lips together and try to smile, Boris. :03: You gotta go through this.

If I understand it correctly The Ireland-N.I border issue is UK's gothic knots(I think you call it)

Markus

Gordian knot.

NI is the UK's Tar Baby, the Unionists are rabidly pro-British but it's a form of Britishness that very few on the mainland want anything to do with.

Mike.

@Sky (in particular)

Firstly, let me apologise for the time lapse since I last posted on this thread but can honestly say I was initially unaware of the volume of responses since said post.

Secondly, I must admit you have me in almost total awe at the quality and detail of your responses so I thank you for making it possible for me to respond in a few lines prior to watching the Spain v Sweden game.

Needless to say I agree with a great deal of what you posted and to be as succinct as I am able it is simply a case of the EU trying to teach the UK a lesson in the eyes of the world for fear of more nations leaving their cosy little club.

The NI protocol boils down to the simple truth that neither the ROI or UK want a hard border but because it goes against the grain of the interfering would be nanny state (EU)

Don't anyone forget what the UK Foreign Secretary said of the EU yesterday

My message to the EU is simple....."You want a hard border? How about you come over and try to build one?"

You are all evading the question :)
If you introduce nations that have borders you have to accept the political consequences.

re Skybird; while Thuringia and Saxony are counties belonging to one COUNTRY/NATION/STATE, the southern Republic of Ireland is sovereign, independent and an own nation. It does NOT belong to the UK.
Again, no one doubts that Northern Ireland belongs to the UK, but the ROI does NOT.
The Republic of Ireland is NOT a part of the UK, but Northern Ireland IS.
Again, no one denies that Northern Ireland is part of the UK.
So while the two Irelands are geographically and logically and by its people one entity, it is politically two countries/nations/states.
Even if a majority in Northern Ireland voted against brexit, it had to follow the UK's decision to LEAVE.

So all this talk about sovereignty, the UK has it, the ROI has it, ok?
Now if this sovereignty (read: passport checks, tax goods, controlling immigration and so on) is mandatory for the UK, where does it want to perform those checks for its "sovereignty"?

At the edge to Northern Ireland in the Irish sea? Makes no sense, but this is how it being done right now, evading the problem with a border between the two Irelands.

Again: If the UK needs its sovereignty where will the controls be?
Where does the UK control immigration, tax goods from the EU, control smugglers which will of course come up now after brexit?
If at all there can only be a border between Northern Ireland and the ROI, as Sky rightly said.

And as i now say for the third time, if the UK breaks the treaty, does not install a border, does not perform passport checks and so on, and lets goods freely flow between the UK and the EU across an open Ireland border without controls, where does it check EU imports, where does it control immigration, where does it execute its sovereignty? What kind of sovereignty are you talking about with such an open "border"?

It is a messed up situation alright, and the UK/England will have to solve it at some point.

Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Whether the Republic of Ireland is an independent nation or a green tennis ball, doesn't matter as long as the Irelands do not unite, and NI leaves the kingdom.



What things a nation does at its borders, is said nation's business. They can implement controls, or not. They can wave through migrants or goods or sausages, or not. What a wannabe superstate in some other part of the world thinks iother nations should want to do at their border, does not matter.


The only issue here is that Johnson signed something that he could not hold. If he had not signed it, there would be no rule whatever - as you imply - that he must order custom controls at a border, or not. Brussle cna only demand the 'Republic of Ireland doing this or that ion iuts side of the border. But its no external's business what the UK does at its borders, on its side of the border. Execpot this stupid thign with the Iriosah border, where they agreed a special treaty, a protocol, that part of the Uk should be treated in a schizophrenic comedy of absurdity to please Breussels, to mock Londown , and to appease backwardly Irish natioinalists.



The only issue here is that he signed the NI protocol although he should and could have known that this could not stand by it. You make it appear as if evben without that thjer ewould be somethign ike an intwenratioanlylly accept habit that London must do this or that on its side of the borders it has. This is not so.



The simple truth is he picked the easy and tempting way, hoping to release it by that the EU would not take the invitation to project max pressure over it. Which of course it does, however. He could have known it. God knows what devil has ridden him. Naivety at its best.



I in his place would not have signed the NI protocol. Which would have made the EU not accepting the rest of the Brexit treaty. which would have meant that there would have been no treaty. What I would have been okay with. Which would have meant there are a solid border between both Irelands, and customs and controls, so the UK wishes, on the British side of that border. What the EU and the RoI would have done on its side of the border, would have been their business.


Fact is the EU does not give much for the Good Friday peace status, obviously, if it rates the chance to put London under pressure as so much more relevant than accepting a pragmatic compromise on this certain border, and by that helping to keep that Good Friday status. Brussels hopes that London must break under the pressure. London hopes that brussel breaks under the creation of facts. Which is all as great a miscalculation as was Johnson'S expectation that the EU would play kind.


The French expectation to be co-owneers of Breitish fishing waters, and the EU'S ever raising demands on paper war that bogs down British expoprts toi the contient, are other exmaples of that the EU is not playing fairly or constructively. As a British exporter said in a business docu on I think Euronews two or three weeks agto: today it takes a frtaction fot he time to exprt to the US, and it also costs only a frraciton of the money, that it takes to exporetr on the toher side of the channel. Anbd you cna beg that this is a situation that not London has toguht outk but Brussel - THEY demand all this paper war, not so much London.



That businessman laughed, however. He said he had to change ways, but now sells more, all in all, by shifting his focus to trade with the US. He has stopped trading with Europe completely, he said. Some food stuff it was.



How many trade deals has Britain signed in the past 6 months since Brexit? I stopped counting. What has Brussle acchieve dint he same time. Was not worth counting.


And another thing. More and more Britoish peopoel must get pissed by the European. And the UK is pratcially the only war-reay,. by quality war-capable military in Eurooe, beside Turkey, and I see the Turks as unrerlaible "allies". The brits have the best electrionic intel and psissivbly the best human intel service in europe-. Thjeir expertiose in terms for European security, cannoit be replayced. Their armed forces may have become too small now to be globally relevant anymore in any furtutre bigger war, like they played a role in Iraq 91, still: in place, in that corner of th eEuzropean co9ntinent, in thgat close-by ocean, they cnanot be replaced.


Its stupid to risk these ressources going amiss just for the cause of lecturing a people for having done a free choice. One day they may have the nose spo full of the continent that they turn their back on it completely, security-wise, police-wise, military-wise, intel-wise. I do not see Europe could afford that loss.

I think your first five paragraphs are at least dealing with what i asked (if once more eavding the question), the rest is your opinion.
It is about the fact and question how he UK's "sovereignty" shall be actively handled and executed by themselves in Ireland. But there are only loaded words and opinions, and a cloudy idea of what sovereignty means. And it seems Johnson is not only unprepared, he has no idea.

You are aware what this means for the good friday agreement, and the nationalist movement.

It is ok with me if they break the treaty, i just ask what people think will happen then. If they have their border control even only (lol) on the british side (Northern Ireland) all hell will break loose.

The UK cannot execute their idea of border control without breaking the irish agreement. And if they do not implement their border control on their side (or on the moon i don't care) because they want to keep the peace, what is this control and sovereignty idea all about?
The whole idea is flawed.

I already have repeatedly adressed the lose ends you imply. You just do not like my answers. Well, maybe I do not like them either. But that does not matter. What I like things to be, and what they are, and what they likely turn for, are three very different things. :03: Of these three, my likings are the one thing most unimportant in all this.

I don't believe the Republic of Ireland or the EU would want an hot potato like Northern Ireland landing in their lap, me thinks they will do anything for that not to happen, even agreeing to whatever the UK proposes to do on the matter.

If that sets off the troubles again you can put the blame entirely on the EU for being so bloody minded about it.