.... You put your tree up before December 20th.
Or ideally Christmas Eve (December 24th).
When it comes to Christmas Eve the clue is really in the name. Christmas Day is not the end of Christmas. It is the start. Of 12 days of Christmas.
If you put your tree up on December 1st. Well, it's going to be long dead by January 5th.
No matter how many days you get off work I always find it hard to celebrate Christmas. I have the misfortune of living in Khanistan where Christmas has long been considered, erm, har'm.
London is currently occupied by the Labour Party. Their power base is a network of housing associations. Primarily the Notting Hill Housing Trust (NHHT).
The relationship between the Labour Party and the NHHT was actually one of the main topical jokes in the BBC's 2018 Christmas Pantomime; "The Long Song."
Particularly the scene where the plantation owner tells the slaves that they were free. The plantation will suddenly start paying them for their labour. However the slaves will immediately have to give that money back to the plantation. If they want to keep their homes.
Honestly I don't see what the confusion was about. Much like the Free Movement of Human Capital this practice is thousands of years old. Even if the traditional term; "Feudalism" has recently been deemed to not be progressive sounding enough.
The Notting Hill Housing Trust would very much like to take ownership of my father's property. So they can build a Grenfell Tower style Ballot Mill on it.
Unfortunately the Notting Hill Housing Trust has gone through far too much of its life without someone explaining that it actually needs to pay for things.
So instead they're just going to kill him.
This isn't actually as dramatic as it sounds. After all the fact the NNHT have gone through some 14 years of battles without winning one suggests we're hardly talking about a Mossad Kidon unit here.
As with all security plans it just requires some basic threat awareness and organisational skills.
Unfortunately this year even basic threat awareness and organisational skills seem to be in extremely short supply. Particularly in America.
So on the third day of Christmas my brother did finally visit his father. This prompted me to engage in the British tradition of hiding in a pub to avoid Christmas visitors you're arguing with.
In my absence my brother dropped off the gifts he'd prepared for me and picked up the gifts I'd prepared for him and his girlfriend.
I gave him a reasonably mid-range bottle wine. After all everyone likes wine. At a family gathering even our trainee sommelier sister would have an opinion.
As it was never going to be a great year for gifts I gave his girlfriend some Parker jotter pens. Even in this digital age you still constantly hear the phrase; "Sorry. Have you got a pen?"
Pens can be considered something of an intimate gift. Too intimate to give to someone else's girlfriend. So I didn't want to go too overboard. Even if I remain frustrated I couldn't find a set in the coded colours of a certain football club.
The original plan was that these would be accompanied by a pair of nice cards containing money. Money which would allow them to buy something they actually wanted.
If you follow me on Twitter though I'm sure you've already got a picture of how things rapidly escalated.
If you follow me on Twitter you'll also probably know that in 2015 my brother gave me a copy of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) Puzzle Book.
One of the puzzles, on page 75 is just a picture of the actress Eva Green. There's not even any metadata to dig into.
In return I received two DVD's.
The first of these was Season One of; "The Deuce." This of course has been shown frequently on Sky Atlantic. Available through Sky's "Now TV" online streaming service.
Personally I thought the first season lacked narrative direction. A plot device to allow the viewer to be introduced to the vast array of well-drawn, complex, three dimensional characters.
I did though particularly enjoy the easter egg.
In the final scene of the first episode of the second season.
The second DVD was of an Italian TV show called; "1992." This too is available on Sky Atlantic and through Now TV.
Although it is subtitled I'd already decided that 1992 was probably going to be a little too spicy for family viewing.
According to the blurb on the box it deals with the February 17th 1992 (17/2/92) arrest of Italian politician Mario Chiesa on corruption charges. This triggered the series of so-called; "Clean Hands" arrests and trials.
Apparently the show uses, as a cipher the lives of; "six ordinary people whose lives are shattered by the judicial operation."
Meanwhile my brother gave our father a Now TV sports pass.
So at the very least he must know that he's not contributing anything.
Particularly as he's failed to turn up, as promised of this fifth day of Christmas I stand by my decision.
After all I've had many insults directed at me in my life.
No-one's ever go so far as to call me John Bolton.
17:35 on 29/12/18 (UK date).
Saturday, 29 December 2018
Monday, 24 December 2018
I Am Winning the Traditional Christmas Arguments.
All of Them.
If I had more time and/or talent I would merge this into a final; "Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Part Four."Essentially a tidied up version of Part Three; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2018/12/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_15.html
In that I made the point that I sort of came-of-age politically during the anti-globalisation protests. Against thing like the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
However I grew up in a mixed, English-Catholic, Irish-Protestant family. So my childhood in the 1980's wasn't exactly politics free. Particularly if the gathering was due to a religious rite. Such as Baptisms, Weddings, Communions.
A tradition my family has continued.
Such as my mothers', technically Civil Partnership. Which marked the start of the August, 2011 riots. Or my cousin's wedding amongst trauma doctors at the Royal London Hospital. Just before the Lee Rigby terror attack.
Incidentally that reception began with a traditional Gaelic toast. Prominently featuring the phrase; "Sinn Fein." It ended with the playing of Sloop John B.
Apparently that's not stressful enough for my family though.
As you may have heard my English-Catholic brother has long been dating a (British) Indian-Muslim.
To give you some perspective on the challenges this involves for the first three years of the relationship he wasn't able to introduce her to his father. Simply because she's Muslim. Likewise she could not introduce him to her father. Again simply because he's not a Muslim.
I can assure you that her father and his lesbian mothers have never met.
However in 2015 she did celebrate Christmas for the very first time. With his lesbian mothers and his, frankly amazing brother.
From the inside this was a pleasant time and a lot of fun. Even if I was nursing some pretty significant PTSD symptoms from the November 13th Paris Massacres. And the subsequent failure of the COP21 Climate Change conference.
Most of Christmas traditions are not religious at all. They are also very heavily centred around young children. It was quite fun introducing a fully grown adult to them for the first time.
From the outside however it must have looked extremely contentious.
Muslims are not famous for being relaxed about attempts to convert people to Christianity. I'm sure one or two people have heard of Pakistan's Blasphemy laws.
Not only are groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) somewhat intolerant of Christians they can, from time-to-time be a little bit violent.
I say you may have heard of this. It was the inspiration for supermarket giant Tescos 2017 Christmas advertising campaign. Which set out to start a national debate over the question;
"Can you invite a Muslim neighbour to a Christmas party without starting a war?"
Whether I would be able to repeat the trick in 2016 was a significant factor in the start of the Astana Process on Syria. Originally scheduled for December 27th 2016 (27/12/16).
Which is why Britain poisoned the Skripals. During the 2018 Winter Olympics.
Britain's continued attempts to falsely blame Russia for the Skripal poisoning is now causing problems of genocidal proportions.
I wasn't able to make it down to Salisbury for the day in 2016. I did though get my brother a rather excellent gift. A full, and lawfully valid driving license.
Last Friday (21/12/18), marked the winter Solstice. Amongst British Druids this a big event. Marked at Stonehenge. For many Iranians and Kurds it is also a big event. Known as; "Yalda." Although Iran's Muslim leaders very much try to suppress this pagan practice.
My English-Catholic brother chose this day to surprise everyone. By unilaterally asking his Indian-Muslim girlfriend to become his wife.
So on Friday (21/12/18) night the least popular person in all of Britain was whomever had been using drones to shut down Gatwick Airport.
By Saturday (22/12/18) morning the least popular person in all of Britain was my brother.
Obviously I would have liked to have discussed this with them in person. Rather than on the Internet. However he is now of the belief that he is so special he doesn't need to visit his father over Christmas.
By Sunday (23/12/18) morning this had all got too much for Sussex Police. The phrase they were looking for was either;
"The Couple are to be Charged."
Or;
"The Couple are to be Released. Under Criminal Investigation."
I should probably point out that Sussex Police are the only force on the British mainland to use one of the "Pig" armoured Land Rovers common in Northern Ireland. They use it to guard Gatwick Airport. Although they did once send it round my house.
So, before it spiralled out of control the Gatwick Airport thing was to give Britain a small taste of what a No Deal Brexit would look like.
Judging by the public reaction to, the frankly national hero responsible.
Well. I wouldn't want to be the elected official who does that to all of Britain's airports. Indefinitely.
19:15 on 24/12/18 (UK date).
If I had more time and/or talent I would merge this into a final; "Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Part Four."Essentially a tidied up version of Part Three; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2018/12/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_15.html
In that I made the point that I sort of came-of-age politically during the anti-globalisation protests. Against thing like the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
However I grew up in a mixed, English-Catholic, Irish-Protestant family. So my childhood in the 1980's wasn't exactly politics free. Particularly if the gathering was due to a religious rite. Such as Baptisms, Weddings, Communions.
A tradition my family has continued.
Such as my mothers', technically Civil Partnership. Which marked the start of the August, 2011 riots. Or my cousin's wedding amongst trauma doctors at the Royal London Hospital. Just before the Lee Rigby terror attack.
Incidentally that reception began with a traditional Gaelic toast. Prominently featuring the phrase; "Sinn Fein." It ended with the playing of Sloop John B.
Apparently that's not stressful enough for my family though.
As you may have heard my English-Catholic brother has long been dating a (British) Indian-Muslim.
To give you some perspective on the challenges this involves for the first three years of the relationship he wasn't able to introduce her to his father. Simply because she's Muslim. Likewise she could not introduce him to her father. Again simply because he's not a Muslim.
I can assure you that her father and his lesbian mothers have never met.
However in 2015 she did celebrate Christmas for the very first time. With his lesbian mothers and his, frankly amazing brother.
From the inside this was a pleasant time and a lot of fun. Even if I was nursing some pretty significant PTSD symptoms from the November 13th Paris Massacres. And the subsequent failure of the COP21 Climate Change conference.
Most of Christmas traditions are not religious at all. They are also very heavily centred around young children. It was quite fun introducing a fully grown adult to them for the first time.
From the outside however it must have looked extremely contentious.
Muslims are not famous for being relaxed about attempts to convert people to Christianity. I'm sure one or two people have heard of Pakistan's Blasphemy laws.
Not only are groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) somewhat intolerant of Christians they can, from time-to-time be a little bit violent.
I say you may have heard of this. It was the inspiration for supermarket giant Tescos 2017 Christmas advertising campaign. Which set out to start a national debate over the question;
"Can you invite a Muslim neighbour to a Christmas party without starting a war?"
Whether I would be able to repeat the trick in 2016 was a significant factor in the start of the Astana Process on Syria. Originally scheduled for December 27th 2016 (27/12/16).
Which is why Britain poisoned the Skripals. During the 2018 Winter Olympics.
Britain's continued attempts to falsely blame Russia for the Skripal poisoning is now causing problems of genocidal proportions.
I wasn't able to make it down to Salisbury for the day in 2016. I did though get my brother a rather excellent gift. A full, and lawfully valid driving license.
Last Friday (21/12/18), marked the winter Solstice. Amongst British Druids this a big event. Marked at Stonehenge. For many Iranians and Kurds it is also a big event. Known as; "Yalda." Although Iran's Muslim leaders very much try to suppress this pagan practice.
My English-Catholic brother chose this day to surprise everyone. By unilaterally asking his Indian-Muslim girlfriend to become his wife.
So on Friday (21/12/18) night the least popular person in all of Britain was whomever had been using drones to shut down Gatwick Airport.
By Saturday (22/12/18) morning the least popular person in all of Britain was my brother.
Obviously I would have liked to have discussed this with them in person. Rather than on the Internet. However he is now of the belief that he is so special he doesn't need to visit his father over Christmas.
By Sunday (23/12/18) morning this had all got too much for Sussex Police. The phrase they were looking for was either;
"The Couple are to be Charged."
Or;
"The Couple are to be Released. Under Criminal Investigation."
I should probably point out that Sussex Police are the only force on the British mainland to use one of the "Pig" armoured Land Rovers common in Northern Ireland. They use it to guard Gatwick Airport. Although they did once send it round my house.
So, before it spiralled out of control the Gatwick Airport thing was to give Britain a small taste of what a No Deal Brexit would look like.
Judging by the public reaction to, the frankly national hero responsible.
Well. I wouldn't want to be the elected official who does that to all of Britain's airports. Indefinitely.
19:15 on 24/12/18 (UK date).
Tuesday, 18 December 2018
Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Part Three (Draft-R).
Having thrown open the brackets around the placeholder it might be a challenge to reconcile this with the title headings.
Even if I'm sure it will get a clean bill of health. Eventually.
A direct continuation of Part Two; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2018/12/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_14.html
In that post I explained the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Sometimes referred to as; "The Northern Irish Backstop."
I also explained why it is considered so important. By briefly looking at the The Troubles in Northern Ireland and the 1998 Belfast Agreement which helped to end them.
I then looked at some of the concessions British Prime Minister May extracted from the EU in negotiating the protocol.
In my rush to get all of that, just out of my brain and onto the page my mind managed to completely blank on another significant concession Prime Minister May won during the negotiation.
The terms of the protocol will put the British mainland in a unique customs union with the EU.
That requires the British mainland to impose tariffs/taxes on imports and exports. The level of those tariff/taxes is set by the Most Favoured Nations (MFN) provisions of the 1994 General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).
These are the World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms the Hard Brexiteers are so hot for.
Beyond the tariffs themselves administration fees are also imposed. In order to pay the staff needed to process all the paperwork and conduct the physical customs checks.
For example, although slightly off-topic, a B-2 Tourism visa to the US costs US$160. Typically it lasts for one month.
Yesterday (14/12/18) the EU announced that post-Brexit, British citizens will require a European Travel Information & Authorisation System (ETIAS) visa to travel to the EU as tourists. This costs around US$8 and lasts for up to three years.
During trade wars nations normally massively inflate these administration fees. It allows them to impose a de facto higher tariff above the ones which are allowed by law.
What Britain will be able to do under the protocol is count the administration fee as part of the tariff. Allowing it to in fact charge a lower tariff than the one allowed by law. The tariff will be the same and in accordance with the law. However the total cost will be lower.
So imagine you're an importer/exporter looking to send goods into the EU via a/the customs union. Do you opt for Turkey which charges tariffs and fees. Or do you chose the British mainland which only charges tariffs?
I suspect the vehicle production sector of its economy, which Turkey is trying to expand, may well find itself running into some problems.
As I've said the Plan A laid out in the Withdrawal Agreement is that all issues are resolved during the Transition Period. If that fails the Withdrawal Agreement sets out the Plan B contingency; extending the Transition Period.
It is only if both Plan A and Plan B fail that the Plan C of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland will be invoked. As the contingency for the contingency.
I hope I have also managed to make clear that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland will not put the British mainland in the EU Customs Union.
However despite this and all the other concessions Prime Minister May has been able to extract being in any sort of customs union is not ideal. You still have to impose tariffs, perform some physical border checks and fill out a lot of paperwork.
Turkey is currently the only nation which is in the EU Customs Union but not also in the EU Single Market. They complain about this on pretty much a daily basis.
To the point that if I want to infuriate Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan I merely have to utter the polite farewell;
"See You."
I don't even need to follow it up with the more traditional confirmation;
"See You Next Tuesday."
Therefore before Britain enters into even this unique customs union with the EU it is only prudent and sensible to ask if it will ever be able to get out of it again. And if so, by what mechanism.
As has been very widely publicised in Britain the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland does not contain a specified end date. Nor does Britain, or the EU, have the power to unilaterally withdraw from the protocol.
However much of this wide publicity regarding the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has relied upon a pernicious myth. Put simply the lie that it contains no legal guarantees.
The Protocol Contains Legally Binding Guarantees.
Paragraph 5 (p.5) of the Preamble of the Withdrawal Agreement states clearly;
"STRESSING that the objective of this Agreement is to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union"
While Article 1(4) of the Protocol itself states even more clearly that;
"The objective of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom. The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the Parties set out in Article 2(1)."
I suppose the layout of the document made available to British MP's could be altered, on a Mutatis mutandis (change only that which is necessary) basis. So these statements appear in every article on every page.
However legally you only need to state it once. Stating it twice is overkill.
During both the Transition Period and under the protocol, if it is invoked contact between Britain and the EU will be through the Joint Committee mechanism. This is laid out under Title Two of Part Six of the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Joint Committee mechanism simply allows for a series of summits or meetings between representatives of the EU and representatives of the British government. It is essentially how negotiations have been conducted up until now.
However with Britain leaving the EU and becoming a so-called Third Country before either the Transition Period or the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland come into effect it requires a separate mechanism. Outside of the EU mechanism.
Due to the legal guarantee in Paragraph five of the Preamble all of the work of the Joint Committee is legally obligated to focus on bringing the Transition Period to an end as quickly as is reasonably possible.
If the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is invoked then both the legal guarantee in p.5 of the Preamble and Article 1(4) of the protocol mean that all of the work of the Joint Committee is legally obligated to focus on bringing the protocol to an end as quickly as is reasonably possible.
If Britain feels that the EU is not living up to this legal obligation within the Joint Committee mechanism it can take the matter up under the Withdrawal Agreement's Dispute Settlement procedure. This is laid out under Title Three of Part Six of the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Dispute Settlement procedure sees the matter taken to the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA-CPA).
Although located in the Hague, the Netherlands the PCA-CPA is not a body of the EU. It is not even a body of the UN. Founded in 1899 it is recognised as the international, intergovernmental body for dispute resolution.
Upon referral the PCA-CPA will ask the EU to nominate 10 people to sit on an Arbitration Panel. The PCA-CPA will also ask Britain to nominate 10 people to sit on an Arbitration Panel. Between them the EU and Britain will also be asked to nominate a total of 5 people to act as chair of the Arbitration Panel.
From that list of 25 names the PCA-CPA will pick four people to make up the Arbitration Panel. Two from the EU and two from Britain. Those four will then pick a fifth person from the sub-list to act as chair of the panel.
At the risk of being strangled by at least one of my mothers I'm tempted to call this Arbitration Panel the; "Supreme Court of Brexit."
Technically it is not a Court. However it is a panel of five people considering a case and making a legally binding ruling.
Those five people must be wholly independent of either the British government or any EU Member State government. They must also be qualified to the extent that they can hold the post of Supreme Court Judge in their respective country.
This system guarantees Britain, as a single nation at least two seats on this Supreme Court of Brexit. The EU, as 27 nations is only guaranteed two seats. This automatically gives Britain a clear majority on this Supreme Court of Brexit.
Aside from Britain's clear majority the guarantees of p.5 and A.1(4) mean that when faced with any reasonable request this Supreme Court of Brexit is legally bound to rule in favour of ending the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The burden-of-proof, if you like is on the party which wants to keep the protocol in place.
To put it in a way even arch-Remoaner Gary Lineker would understand;
"In a 50/50 challenge the ref's got to send it off."
Hard Brexiteers objections to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland are being fuelled by a, belief that it will be used by the EU to trap Britain within this, unique customs union.
Practically that is not something the EU can do.
Both the Withdrawal Agreement and the protocol place a legal obligation on all parties to bring the situation to an end as quickly as is reasonably possible. If either party feels that obligation is not being met there is a legally binding dispute resolution mechanism to enforce the legal obligation.
Beyond whether it is legally possible you also have to consider whether it is something the EU, realistically would want to do.
I voted to Leave because I think Britain's political culture and the EU's political culture aren't really compatible with each other. This incompatibility has led to a lot of conflict and tension over the years.
As I've said there has been absolutely nothing about this negotiation process which has changed my opinion.
Particularly when, last Thursday (13/12/18) and Friday (14/12/18) the British Parliament forced Prime Minister May to hijack the EU's monthly summit.
To demand concessions and legal guarantees. Concessions and legal guarantees which had not only already been won but were already published in the document in front of British Parliamentarians.
As a result Britain has never been anyone's favourite member of the EU.
It's more a case of Britain being tolerated for the money it brings in. Both directly in contributions to the EU budget and indirectly through the remittances that migrant workers in Britain send home to their native countries.
Assuming Parliament passes the Withdrawal Agreement into law Britain will leave the EU on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).
Britain's contributions to the EU budget will end in 2020. Before the Plan B of extending the Transition Period is activated.
If Plan C, the Protocol of Ireland/Northern Ireland is ever invoked it will bring an end to the Free Movement of People/Human Capital. Meaning an end to the remittances being sent home by migrant workers.
This really removes any incentive for the EU to try and keep Britain within the customs union.
Keeping Britain in the customs union actually causes the EU a lot of problems.
It is really hard to overstate just how big a concession Prime Minister May was able to win in allowing Northern Ireland to remain in a single market while ending the Free Movement of People/Human Capital.
This idea was first suggested in the so-called "Chequers Plan" published in July 2018. I immediately dismissed it out-of-hand. I assumed there was absolutely no way Britain would ever be able to get the EU to agree to it.
The Free Movement of People/Human Capital is one of the so-called; "Four Freedoms of the EU Single Market." Sometimes referred to as; "The Four Pillars" these are the core values on which the EU Single Market is founded.
If I was trying to cause maximum offence I would say that trying to be a member of the Single Market without accepting the Free Movement of People/Human Capital is a like a Muslim saying; "Oh, but there are other gods except Allah."
The Four Freedoms or Pillars are something that all EU members must accept. They are something that all prospective members of the EU must accept. They are even something that nations which wish to have a close relationship with the EU, such as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland must accept.
I'm not overly familiar with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland's agreements with the EU. However I know that Norway's agreement contains a clause. If the EU subsequently does a better deal with another country it must automatically grant Norway the terms of that deal.
The Withdrawal Agreement contains specific language making clear that it does not prejudice the EU's relationships with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. So Norway has no real legal recourse to use the agreement to demand a better deal with the EU.
However that will not stop politicians giving speeches and loudly knocking on the door of the EU demanding a better deal.
Even within existing EU member states Free Movement of People/Human Capital has become an extremely unpopular and contentious issue.
In Part Two I mentioned that on December 8th (8/12/18) the governing coalition in EU member state Belgium was brought down. The New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) withdrew in protest over the Free Movement of People/Human Capital.
Strictly speaking the N-VA brought down governing coalition in protest over plans to adopt the UN Global Compact for Migration.
Although I've clearly not had time to read it, inter alia, the UN Global Compact for Migration is a relatively benign document. In the sense that it is not legally binding and has no legal force.
However it is a clear statement of intent.
The intent to formalise the abuse of the legally binding 1952 Convention on the Status of Refugees to secure a steady supply of cheap Human Capital from into rich nations from poor nations. Nations which are often poor because rich nations have chosen to destabilise them.
I would say that the much more significant document in this area is Barack Obama's 2015 Paris Agreement. This will cause catastrophic Climate Change. Leaving sections of the planet inhabitable for humans creating permanent Climate Refugees.
So it seems the formal policy of Obama and his Progressive Democrats is; "Burn It! Burn It All Down!"
Although they withdrew from government over the UN Global Compact for Migration this was really the thing which was on the government's schedule which allowed the N-VA to withdraw in protest over the EU's Free Movement of People/Human Capital.
On Sunday (16/12/18) the issue ignited again in Brussels. With sometimes violent protests.
Sadly those protests were not violent enough to penetrate the thick skulls of British Parliamentarians and journalists. Nor were Greek attempts to enlighten a certain TV News broadcaster.
The Free Movement of People/Human Capital is not just an increasingly unpopular and contentious issue in the rich, western EU member states. Which migrants tend to migrate to. It is also becoming increasingly unpopular in the poorer, eastern EU member states. Which migrants tend to migrate from.
The highlight of the European political calender is the Eurovision Song Contest. This sees issues important to the entire continent, not just the EU discussed. In the form of three minute pop songs.
At the 2015 Eurovision Song Contest Romania were represented by Voltaj with the song; "De La Capat/ All Over Again." This caused some controversy regarding the contest's no overt politics rule.
The song had previously been used as part of a government backed political campaign. This delacapat.ro campaign was attempting to discourage Romanian parents migrating to find work in nations such as Britain. Or at least raise money to care for the children they'd abandoned.
At the 2018 Song Contest EU member state Romania were represented by the song; "Goodbye" by The Humans. The band share their name with a UK TV show. The message being that if that's the only remittance migrants are sending home Romania's got a really poor deal.
While taking a shot at British Remoaners, upset at the prospect of loosing their dollies.
Recently EU member state Poland has followed Romania's example. Starting a government backed political campaign. Urging its citizens not to migrate or for the ones who have migrated to return home in order to solve a growing labour shortage.
To fill the labour shortage in the interim Poland has started accepting large numbers of migrant workers from neighbouring Ukraine. Which is not part of the EU.
However Poland harbours a deep hatred of Russia because it allows them to avoid facing up to their Nazi past. This means that Poland now massively supports Nazi-led Ukraine.
Much as I love a tangent I don't have time to go down that particular rabbit hole at the moment.
The labour shortage created by the Free Movement of People/Human Capital has been even more acute in EU member state Hungary.
The Hungarian government is attempting to tackle this labour shortage by introducing, on December 10th (10/12/18) changes to labour laws.
Probably the most controversial provision of these reforms allows employers to force workers to do 400 hours of overtime each year. Then delay payment for that forced overtime for up to three years.
The Hungarian government had previously refused to solve the labour shortage by following the orders of George Soros and Germany's Angela Merkel. Simply import more Human Capital from Muslim nations such as Libya and Syria.
After all the Progressive Democrats seem intent on keeping the fires burning there for as long as possible.
Due to this disobedience of the high lord George Soros the EU Parliament, in September 2018 voted to suspend Hungary's voting rights. It is now up to the leaders of EU member states to reach a consensus on whether to follow through on that threat.
The longstanding, conventional wisdom is that Poland will veto the suspension of Hungary's voting rights.
So the way that certain EU officials are supporting the ongoing, sometimes violent protests in Hungary is starting to resemble the way certain US Ambassadors supported the 2014 'revolution' in Ukraine.
I'm sure though it's just another attempt to drive it through thick British skulls.
However the longstanding conventional wisdom may not hold.
Ukraine's Nazis have recently decided that they're no longer satisfied with simply exterminating all ethnically Russian citizens. They now want to exterminate all ethnically Hungarian citizens as well.
Recently the Ukrainian government permitted the Parliamentary website to host a petition calling for ethnic Hungarians to be forcibly expelled from the country.
More alarmingly the Ukrainian government linked Mirotvorets website published a list of the names and addresses of ethnically Hungarian citizens.
Mirotvorets has previously published the names and addresses of ethnically Russian Ukrainians. People who have gone on to be murdered.
This has unsurprisingly led to an increase in tension between Hungary and Nazi-led Ukraine. Which may well spill over into tension between Hungary and Poland, which supports Nazi-led Ukraine.
So feasibly during the Transition Period Britain could find itself negotiating with 25 rather than 27 EU member states.
At around 19:40 on 18/12/18 (UK date) I've more to add to this. When I get around to it.
Edited at around 17:30 on 19/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;
Primarily in Part Two I explained the significant concessions Prime Minister May has extracted from the EU under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
I particularly enjoyed detailing how this unique customs union puts Britain in a much better position that Turkey. The only member of the EU Customs Union which is not also a member of the EU Single Market.
I may have enjoyed it a little bit too much.
In the coming years the EU is likely to think so.
Since, certainly 2015 Turkey has been trying to blackmail the EU. By threatening to and sending wave-after-wave of irregular migrants and Islamist terrorists from Turkey into the EU.
In no small part Turkey's objective in this blackmail is to get itself promoted from the Customs Union to the Single Market. Without adopting EU standards and regulations.
Little things like not invading neighbouring nations. Nor using artillery and airstrikes to totally destroy cities such as Diyarbakir. In order to kill or displace part or all of an ethnic group.
I say Turkey's been trying to blackmail the EU. The EU's progressive democrats don't seem to be making any attempts to resist this blackmail. The EU is certainly not using any of the tools at its disposal.
Instead the EU seems to be rewarding Turkey for the free flow of Human Capital. By setting up a Trust Fund for refugees in Turkey. Chapter Six of the Withdrawal Agreement actually addresses Britain's financial obligations to that Trust Fund.
That is an issue on which I can quickly offer clarity.
In violation of EU rules Turkey does not recognise the 1952 Convention on refugees. Therefore there are no refugees in Turkey. So Britain's financial obligations under Chapter Six are precisely zero.
Aside from the migration issue Turkey is causing the EU significant problems. And one EU member state in particular, Cyprus.
In 1974 Turkey militarily invaded Cyprus. It continues to illegally occupy the northern half of the island.
Turkey claims its invasion of Cyprus was a humanitarian intervention. To protect civilians following a military coup. However the military junta collapsed in July 1974. The Turkish invasion occurred in August 1974.
I am most certainly not comparing Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus with Northern Ireland's status as part of Britain.
However while the reasons why they came about are completely different the current situations are quite similar. Particularly in terms of trade and customs arrangements.
The entire island of Cyprus is considered an EU member state and a member of the EU Single Market. However the northern part of the island is, at the same time not considered part of either the EU or the Single Market. Simply because it is under Turkish occupation.
Turkey is though a member of the EU Customs Union. So in theory goods from the occupied part of Cyprus are free to enter the EU Single Market with the minimum of customs checks. As they are free to enter Turkey.
That said the relationship between Cyprus and Turkey is absolutely nothing like the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and Britain.
So both sides use militarised, hard borders as part of their dispute. The closure of border crossings is a sign of growing hostility. The opening of border crossings is a sign of warming relations.
It frequently falls to the EU to mediate between Cyprus and Turkey in these disputes.
Nobody seems prepared to provide a check on Erdogan's efforts to drive Turkey down through Syria.
Feeling free to do as he pleases Erdogan is becoming increasingly militant on the Cyprus issue. Particularly now large deposits of natural gas have been discovered in the island's territorial waters.
You can be absolutely certain that in future engagement with the EU over Cyprus Erdogan will be bringing up the much more favourable terms of Britain's unique customs union.
As it stands the EU seems utterly incapable of pulling its weight when it comes to Turkey. The longer the protocol goes on for the harder it is going to get for them.
So I would actually be more worried about the EU unilaterally scrapping the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland than attempting to trap Britain in it.
Rather like a certain Bajan pop princess the Hard Brexiteers need to accept that; "Hun, you're just not that big of a prize."
Even if their antics have prompted Britain to put 3,500 troops on stand-by.
17:50 on 19/12/18 (UK date).
Even if I'm sure it will get a clean bill of health. Eventually.
A direct continuation of Part Two; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2018/12/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_14.html
In that post I explained the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Sometimes referred to as; "The Northern Irish Backstop."
I also explained why it is considered so important. By briefly looking at the The Troubles in Northern Ireland and the 1998 Belfast Agreement which helped to end them.
I then looked at some of the concessions British Prime Minister May extracted from the EU in negotiating the protocol.
In my rush to get all of that, just out of my brain and onto the page my mind managed to completely blank on another significant concession Prime Minister May won during the negotiation.
The terms of the protocol will put the British mainland in a unique customs union with the EU.
That requires the British mainland to impose tariffs/taxes on imports and exports. The level of those tariff/taxes is set by the Most Favoured Nations (MFN) provisions of the 1994 General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).
These are the World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms the Hard Brexiteers are so hot for.
Beyond the tariffs themselves administration fees are also imposed. In order to pay the staff needed to process all the paperwork and conduct the physical customs checks.
For example, although slightly off-topic, a B-2 Tourism visa to the US costs US$160. Typically it lasts for one month.
Yesterday (14/12/18) the EU announced that post-Brexit, British citizens will require a European Travel Information & Authorisation System (ETIAS) visa to travel to the EU as tourists. This costs around US$8 and lasts for up to three years.
During trade wars nations normally massively inflate these administration fees. It allows them to impose a de facto higher tariff above the ones which are allowed by law.
What Britain will be able to do under the protocol is count the administration fee as part of the tariff. Allowing it to in fact charge a lower tariff than the one allowed by law. The tariff will be the same and in accordance with the law. However the total cost will be lower.
So imagine you're an importer/exporter looking to send goods into the EU via a/the customs union. Do you opt for Turkey which charges tariffs and fees. Or do you chose the British mainland which only charges tariffs?
I suspect the vehicle production sector of its economy, which Turkey is trying to expand, may well find itself running into some problems.
As I've said the Plan A laid out in the Withdrawal Agreement is that all issues are resolved during the Transition Period. If that fails the Withdrawal Agreement sets out the Plan B contingency; extending the Transition Period.
It is only if both Plan A and Plan B fail that the Plan C of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland will be invoked. As the contingency for the contingency.
I hope I have also managed to make clear that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland will not put the British mainland in the EU Customs Union.
However despite this and all the other concessions Prime Minister May has been able to extract being in any sort of customs union is not ideal. You still have to impose tariffs, perform some physical border checks and fill out a lot of paperwork.
Turkey is currently the only nation which is in the EU Customs Union but not also in the EU Single Market. They complain about this on pretty much a daily basis.
To the point that if I want to infuriate Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan I merely have to utter the polite farewell;
"See You."
I don't even need to follow it up with the more traditional confirmation;
"See You Next Tuesday."
Therefore before Britain enters into even this unique customs union with the EU it is only prudent and sensible to ask if it will ever be able to get out of it again. And if so, by what mechanism.
As has been very widely publicised in Britain the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland does not contain a specified end date. Nor does Britain, or the EU, have the power to unilaterally withdraw from the protocol.
However much of this wide publicity regarding the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has relied upon a pernicious myth. Put simply the lie that it contains no legal guarantees.
The Protocol Contains Legally Binding Guarantees.
Paragraph 5 (p.5) of the Preamble of the Withdrawal Agreement states clearly;
"STRESSING that the objective of this Agreement is to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union"
While Article 1(4) of the Protocol itself states even more clearly that;
"The objective of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom. The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the Parties set out in Article 2(1)."
I suppose the layout of the document made available to British MP's could be altered, on a Mutatis mutandis (change only that which is necessary) basis. So these statements appear in every article on every page.
However legally you only need to state it once. Stating it twice is overkill.
During both the Transition Period and under the protocol, if it is invoked contact between Britain and the EU will be through the Joint Committee mechanism. This is laid out under Title Two of Part Six of the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Joint Committee mechanism simply allows for a series of summits or meetings between representatives of the EU and representatives of the British government. It is essentially how negotiations have been conducted up until now.
However with Britain leaving the EU and becoming a so-called Third Country before either the Transition Period or the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland come into effect it requires a separate mechanism. Outside of the EU mechanism.
Due to the legal guarantee in Paragraph five of the Preamble all of the work of the Joint Committee is legally obligated to focus on bringing the Transition Period to an end as quickly as is reasonably possible.
If the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is invoked then both the legal guarantee in p.5 of the Preamble and Article 1(4) of the protocol mean that all of the work of the Joint Committee is legally obligated to focus on bringing the protocol to an end as quickly as is reasonably possible.
If Britain feels that the EU is not living up to this legal obligation within the Joint Committee mechanism it can take the matter up under the Withdrawal Agreement's Dispute Settlement procedure. This is laid out under Title Three of Part Six of the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Dispute Settlement procedure sees the matter taken to the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA-CPA).
Although located in the Hague, the Netherlands the PCA-CPA is not a body of the EU. It is not even a body of the UN. Founded in 1899 it is recognised as the international, intergovernmental body for dispute resolution.
Upon referral the PCA-CPA will ask the EU to nominate 10 people to sit on an Arbitration Panel. The PCA-CPA will also ask Britain to nominate 10 people to sit on an Arbitration Panel. Between them the EU and Britain will also be asked to nominate a total of 5 people to act as chair of the Arbitration Panel.
From that list of 25 names the PCA-CPA will pick four people to make up the Arbitration Panel. Two from the EU and two from Britain. Those four will then pick a fifth person from the sub-list to act as chair of the panel.
At the risk of being strangled by at least one of my mothers I'm tempted to call this Arbitration Panel the; "Supreme Court of Brexit."
Technically it is not a Court. However it is a panel of five people considering a case and making a legally binding ruling.
Those five people must be wholly independent of either the British government or any EU Member State government. They must also be qualified to the extent that they can hold the post of Supreme Court Judge in their respective country.
This system guarantees Britain, as a single nation at least two seats on this Supreme Court of Brexit. The EU, as 27 nations is only guaranteed two seats. This automatically gives Britain a clear majority on this Supreme Court of Brexit.
Aside from Britain's clear majority the guarantees of p.5 and A.1(4) mean that when faced with any reasonable request this Supreme Court of Brexit is legally bound to rule in favour of ending the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The burden-of-proof, if you like is on the party which wants to keep the protocol in place.
To put it in a way even arch-Remoaner Gary Lineker would understand;
"In a 50/50 challenge the ref's got to send it off."
Hard Brexiteers objections to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland are being fuelled by a, belief that it will be used by the EU to trap Britain within this, unique customs union.
Practically that is not something the EU can do.
Both the Withdrawal Agreement and the protocol place a legal obligation on all parties to bring the situation to an end as quickly as is reasonably possible. If either party feels that obligation is not being met there is a legally binding dispute resolution mechanism to enforce the legal obligation.
Beyond whether it is legally possible you also have to consider whether it is something the EU, realistically would want to do.
I voted to Leave because I think Britain's political culture and the EU's political culture aren't really compatible with each other. This incompatibility has led to a lot of conflict and tension over the years.
As I've said there has been absolutely nothing about this negotiation process which has changed my opinion.
Particularly when, last Thursday (13/12/18) and Friday (14/12/18) the British Parliament forced Prime Minister May to hijack the EU's monthly summit.
To demand concessions and legal guarantees. Concessions and legal guarantees which had not only already been won but were already published in the document in front of British Parliamentarians.
As a result Britain has never been anyone's favourite member of the EU.
It's more a case of Britain being tolerated for the money it brings in. Both directly in contributions to the EU budget and indirectly through the remittances that migrant workers in Britain send home to their native countries.
Assuming Parliament passes the Withdrawal Agreement into law Britain will leave the EU on March 29th 2019 (29/3/19).
Britain's contributions to the EU budget will end in 2020. Before the Plan B of extending the Transition Period is activated.
If Plan C, the Protocol of Ireland/Northern Ireland is ever invoked it will bring an end to the Free Movement of People/Human Capital. Meaning an end to the remittances being sent home by migrant workers.
This really removes any incentive for the EU to try and keep Britain within the customs union.
Keeping Britain in the customs union actually causes the EU a lot of problems.
It is really hard to overstate just how big a concession Prime Minister May was able to win in allowing Northern Ireland to remain in a single market while ending the Free Movement of People/Human Capital.
This idea was first suggested in the so-called "Chequers Plan" published in July 2018. I immediately dismissed it out-of-hand. I assumed there was absolutely no way Britain would ever be able to get the EU to agree to it.
The Free Movement of People/Human Capital is one of the so-called; "Four Freedoms of the EU Single Market." Sometimes referred to as; "The Four Pillars" these are the core values on which the EU Single Market is founded.
If I was trying to cause maximum offence I would say that trying to be a member of the Single Market without accepting the Free Movement of People/Human Capital is a like a Muslim saying; "Oh, but there are other gods except Allah."
The Four Freedoms or Pillars are something that all EU members must accept. They are something that all prospective members of the EU must accept. They are even something that nations which wish to have a close relationship with the EU, such as Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland must accept.
I'm not overly familiar with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland's agreements with the EU. However I know that Norway's agreement contains a clause. If the EU subsequently does a better deal with another country it must automatically grant Norway the terms of that deal.
The Withdrawal Agreement contains specific language making clear that it does not prejudice the EU's relationships with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. So Norway has no real legal recourse to use the agreement to demand a better deal with the EU.
However that will not stop politicians giving speeches and loudly knocking on the door of the EU demanding a better deal.
Even within existing EU member states Free Movement of People/Human Capital has become an extremely unpopular and contentious issue.
In Part Two I mentioned that on December 8th (8/12/18) the governing coalition in EU member state Belgium was brought down. The New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) withdrew in protest over the Free Movement of People/Human Capital.
Strictly speaking the N-VA brought down governing coalition in protest over plans to adopt the UN Global Compact for Migration.
Although I've clearly not had time to read it, inter alia, the UN Global Compact for Migration is a relatively benign document. In the sense that it is not legally binding and has no legal force.
However it is a clear statement of intent.
The intent to formalise the abuse of the legally binding 1952 Convention on the Status of Refugees to secure a steady supply of cheap Human Capital from into rich nations from poor nations. Nations which are often poor because rich nations have chosen to destabilise them.
I would say that the much more significant document in this area is Barack Obama's 2015 Paris Agreement. This will cause catastrophic Climate Change. Leaving sections of the planet inhabitable for humans creating permanent Climate Refugees.
So it seems the formal policy of Obama and his Progressive Democrats is; "Burn It! Burn It All Down!"
Although they withdrew from government over the UN Global Compact for Migration this was really the thing which was on the government's schedule which allowed the N-VA to withdraw in protest over the EU's Free Movement of People/Human Capital.
On Sunday (16/12/18) the issue ignited again in Brussels. With sometimes violent protests.
Sadly those protests were not violent enough to penetrate the thick skulls of British Parliamentarians and journalists. Nor were Greek attempts to enlighten a certain TV News broadcaster.
The Free Movement of People/Human Capital is not just an increasingly unpopular and contentious issue in the rich, western EU member states. Which migrants tend to migrate to. It is also becoming increasingly unpopular in the poorer, eastern EU member states. Which migrants tend to migrate from.
The highlight of the European political calender is the Eurovision Song Contest. This sees issues important to the entire continent, not just the EU discussed. In the form of three minute pop songs.
At the 2015 Eurovision Song Contest Romania were represented by Voltaj with the song; "De La Capat/ All Over Again." This caused some controversy regarding the contest's no overt politics rule.
The song had previously been used as part of a government backed political campaign. This delacapat.ro campaign was attempting to discourage Romanian parents migrating to find work in nations such as Britain. Or at least raise money to care for the children they'd abandoned.
At the 2018 Song Contest EU member state Romania were represented by the song; "Goodbye" by The Humans. The band share their name with a UK TV show. The message being that if that's the only remittance migrants are sending home Romania's got a really poor deal.
While taking a shot at British Remoaners, upset at the prospect of loosing their dollies.
Recently EU member state Poland has followed Romania's example. Starting a government backed political campaign. Urging its citizens not to migrate or for the ones who have migrated to return home in order to solve a growing labour shortage.
To fill the labour shortage in the interim Poland has started accepting large numbers of migrant workers from neighbouring Ukraine. Which is not part of the EU.
However Poland harbours a deep hatred of Russia because it allows them to avoid facing up to their Nazi past. This means that Poland now massively supports Nazi-led Ukraine.
Much as I love a tangent I don't have time to go down that particular rabbit hole at the moment.
The labour shortage created by the Free Movement of People/Human Capital has been even more acute in EU member state Hungary.
The Hungarian government is attempting to tackle this labour shortage by introducing, on December 10th (10/12/18) changes to labour laws.
Probably the most controversial provision of these reforms allows employers to force workers to do 400 hours of overtime each year. Then delay payment for that forced overtime for up to three years.
The Hungarian government had previously refused to solve the labour shortage by following the orders of George Soros and Germany's Angela Merkel. Simply import more Human Capital from Muslim nations such as Libya and Syria.
After all the Progressive Democrats seem intent on keeping the fires burning there for as long as possible.
Due to this disobedience of the high lord George Soros the EU Parliament, in September 2018 voted to suspend Hungary's voting rights. It is now up to the leaders of EU member states to reach a consensus on whether to follow through on that threat.
The longstanding, conventional wisdom is that Poland will veto the suspension of Hungary's voting rights.
So the way that certain EU officials are supporting the ongoing, sometimes violent protests in Hungary is starting to resemble the way certain US Ambassadors supported the 2014 'revolution' in Ukraine.
I'm sure though it's just another attempt to drive it through thick British skulls.
However the longstanding conventional wisdom may not hold.
Ukraine's Nazis have recently decided that they're no longer satisfied with simply exterminating all ethnically Russian citizens. They now want to exterminate all ethnically Hungarian citizens as well.
Recently the Ukrainian government permitted the Parliamentary website to host a petition calling for ethnic Hungarians to be forcibly expelled from the country.
More alarmingly the Ukrainian government linked Mirotvorets website published a list of the names and addresses of ethnically Hungarian citizens.
Mirotvorets has previously published the names and addresses of ethnically Russian Ukrainians. People who have gone on to be murdered.
This has unsurprisingly led to an increase in tension between Hungary and Nazi-led Ukraine. Which may well spill over into tension between Hungary and Poland, which supports Nazi-led Ukraine.
So feasibly during the Transition Period Britain could find itself negotiating with 25 rather than 27 EU member states.
At around 19:40 on 18/12/18 (UK date) I've more to add to this. When I get around to it.
Edited at around 17:30 on 19/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;
Primarily in Part Two I explained the significant concessions Prime Minister May has extracted from the EU under the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
I particularly enjoyed detailing how this unique customs union puts Britain in a much better position that Turkey. The only member of the EU Customs Union which is not also a member of the EU Single Market.
I may have enjoyed it a little bit too much.
In the coming years the EU is likely to think so.
Since, certainly 2015 Turkey has been trying to blackmail the EU. By threatening to and sending wave-after-wave of irregular migrants and Islamist terrorists from Turkey into the EU.
In no small part Turkey's objective in this blackmail is to get itself promoted from the Customs Union to the Single Market. Without adopting EU standards and regulations.
Little things like not invading neighbouring nations. Nor using artillery and airstrikes to totally destroy cities such as Diyarbakir. In order to kill or displace part or all of an ethnic group.
I say Turkey's been trying to blackmail the EU. The EU's progressive democrats don't seem to be making any attempts to resist this blackmail. The EU is certainly not using any of the tools at its disposal.
Instead the EU seems to be rewarding Turkey for the free flow of Human Capital. By setting up a Trust Fund for refugees in Turkey. Chapter Six of the Withdrawal Agreement actually addresses Britain's financial obligations to that Trust Fund.
That is an issue on which I can quickly offer clarity.
In violation of EU rules Turkey does not recognise the 1952 Convention on refugees. Therefore there are no refugees in Turkey. So Britain's financial obligations under Chapter Six are precisely zero.
Aside from the migration issue Turkey is causing the EU significant problems. And one EU member state in particular, Cyprus.
In 1974 Turkey militarily invaded Cyprus. It continues to illegally occupy the northern half of the island.
Turkey claims its invasion of Cyprus was a humanitarian intervention. To protect civilians following a military coup. However the military junta collapsed in July 1974. The Turkish invasion occurred in August 1974.
I am most certainly not comparing Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus with Northern Ireland's status as part of Britain.
However while the reasons why they came about are completely different the current situations are quite similar. Particularly in terms of trade and customs arrangements.
The entire island of Cyprus is considered an EU member state and a member of the EU Single Market. However the northern part of the island is, at the same time not considered part of either the EU or the Single Market. Simply because it is under Turkish occupation.
Turkey is though a member of the EU Customs Union. So in theory goods from the occupied part of Cyprus are free to enter the EU Single Market with the minimum of customs checks. As they are free to enter Turkey.
That said the relationship between Cyprus and Turkey is absolutely nothing like the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and Britain.
So both sides use militarised, hard borders as part of their dispute. The closure of border crossings is a sign of growing hostility. The opening of border crossings is a sign of warming relations.
It frequently falls to the EU to mediate between Cyprus and Turkey in these disputes.
Nobody seems prepared to provide a check on Erdogan's efforts to drive Turkey down through Syria.
Feeling free to do as he pleases Erdogan is becoming increasingly militant on the Cyprus issue. Particularly now large deposits of natural gas have been discovered in the island's territorial waters.
You can be absolutely certain that in future engagement with the EU over Cyprus Erdogan will be bringing up the much more favourable terms of Britain's unique customs union.
As it stands the EU seems utterly incapable of pulling its weight when it comes to Turkey. The longer the protocol goes on for the harder it is going to get for them.
So I would actually be more worried about the EU unilaterally scrapping the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland than attempting to trap Britain in it.
Rather like a certain Bajan pop princess the Hard Brexiteers need to accept that; "Hun, you're just not that big of a prize."
Even if their antics have prompted Britain to put 3,500 troops on stand-by.
17:50 on 19/12/18 (UK date).
Saturday, 15 December 2018
Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Part Three (Draft).
A direct continuation of Part Two; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2018/12/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_14.html
In that post I explained the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Sometimes referred to as; "The Northern Irish Backstop."
I also explained why it is considered so important. By briefly looking at the The Troubles in Northern Ireland and the 1998 Belfast Agreement which helped to end them.
I then looked at some of the concessions British Prime Minister May extracted from the EU in negotiating the protocol.
In my rush to get all of that, just out of my brain and onto the page my mind managed to completely blank on another significant concession Prime Minister May won during the negotiation.
The terms of the protocol will put the British mainland in a unique customs union with the EU.
That requires the British mainland to impose tariffs/taxes on imports and exports. The level of those tariff/taxes is set by the Most Favoured Nations (MFN) provisions of the 1994 General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).
These are the World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms the Hard Brexiteers are so hot for.
Beyond the tariffs themselves administration fees are also imposed. In order to pay the staff needed to process all the paperwork and conduct the physical customs checks.
For example, although slightly off-topic, a B-2 Tourism visa to the US costs US$160. Typically it lasts for one month.
Yesterday (14/12/18) the EU announced that post-Brexit, British citizens will require a European Travel Information & Authorisation System (ETIAS) visa to travel to the EU as tourists. This costs around US$8 and lasts for up to three years.
During trade wars nations normally massively inflate these administration fees. It allows them to impose a de facto higher tariff above the ones which are allowed by law.
What Britain will be able to do under the protocol is count the administration fee as part of the tariff. Allowing it to in fact charge a lower tariff than the one allowed by law. The tariff will be the same and in accordance with the law. However the total cost will be lower.
So imagine you're an importer/exporter looking to send goods into the EU via a/the customs union. Do you opt for Turkey which charges tariffs and fees. Or do you chose the British mainland which only charges tariffs?
I suspect the vehicle production sector of its economy which Turkey is trying to expand may well find itself running into some problems.
As I've said the Plan A laid out in the Withdrawal Agreement is that all issues are resolved during the Transition Period. If that fails the Withdrawal Agreement sets out the Plan B contingency; extending the Transition Period.
It is only if both Plan A and Plan B fail that the Plan C of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland will be invoked. As the contingency for the contingency.
I hope I have also managed to make clear that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland will not put the British mainland in the EU Customs Union.
However despite this and all the other concessions Prime Minister May has been able to extract being in any sort of customs union is not ideal. You still have to impose tariffs, perform some physical border checks and fill out a lot of paperwork.
Turkey is currently the only nation which is in the EU Customs Union but not also in the EU Single Market. They complain about this on pretty much a daily basis.
To the point that if I want to infuriate Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan I merely have to utter the polite farewell;
"See You."
I don't even need to follow it up with the more traditional confirmation;
"See You Next Tuesday."
Therefore before Britain enters into even this unique customs union with the EU it is only prudent and sensible to ask if it will ever be able to get out of it again. And if so, by what mechanism.
As has been very widely publicised in Britain the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland does not contain a specified end date. Nor does Britain, or the EU, have the power to unilaterally withdraw from the protocol.
However much of this wide publicity regarding the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has relied upon a pernicious myth. Put simply the lie that it contains no legal guarantees.
The Protocol Contains Legally Binding Guarantees.
Paragraph 5 (p.5) of the Preamble of the Withdrawal Agreement states clearly;
"STRESSING that the objective of this Agreement is to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union"
While Article 1(4) of the Protocol itself states even more clearly that;
"The objective of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom. The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the Parties set out in Article 2(1)."
I suppose the layout of the document made available to British MP's could be altered, on a Mutatis mutandis (change only that which is necessary) basis. So these statements appear in every article on every page.
However legally you only need to state it once. Stating it twice is overkill.
During both the Transition Period and under the protocol, if it is invoked contact between Britain and the EU will be through the Joint Committee mechanism. This is laid out under Title Two of Part Six of the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Joint Committee mechanism simply allows for a series of summits or meetings between representatives of the EU and representatives of the British government. It is essentially how negotiations have been conducted up until now.
However with Britain leaving the EU and becoming a so-called Third Country before either the Transition Period or the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland come into effect it requires a separate mechanism. Outside of the EU mechanism.
Due to the legal guarantee in Paragraph five of the Preamble all of the work of the Joint Committee is legally obligated to focus on bringing the Transition Period to an end as quickly as is reasonably possible.
If the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is invoked then both the legal guarantee in p.5 of the Preamble and Article 1(4) of the protocol mean that all of the work of the Joint Committee is legally obligated to focus on bringing the protocol to an end as quickly as is reasonably possible.
If Britain feels that the EU is not living up to this legal obligation within the Joint Committee mechanism it can take the matter up under the Withdrawal Agreement's Dispute Settlement procedure. This is laid out under Title Three of Part Six of the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Dispute Settlement procedure sees the matter taken to the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA-CPA).
Although located in the Hague, the Netherlands the PCA-CPA is not a body of the EU. It is not even a body of the UN. Founded in 1899 it is recognised as the international, intergovernmental body for dispute resolution.
Upon referral the PCA-CPA will ask the EU to nominate 10 people to sit on an Arbitration Panel. The PCA-CPA will also ask Britain to nominate 10 people to sit on an Arbitration Panel. Between them the EU and Britain will also be asked to nominate a total of 5 people to act as chair of the Arbitration Panel.
From that list of 25 names the PCA-CPA will pick four people to make up the Arbitration Panel. Two from the EU and two from Britain. Those four will then pick a fifth person from the sub-list to act as chair of the panel.
At the risk of being strangled by at least one of my mothers I'm tempted to call this Arbitration Panel the; "Supreme Court of Brexit."
Technically it is not a Court. However it is a panel of five people considering a case and making a legally binding ruling.
Those five people must be wholly independent of either the British government or any EU Member State government. They must also be qualified to the extent that they can hold the post of Supreme Court Judge in their respective country.
This system guarantees Britain, as a single nation at least two seats on this Supreme Court of Brexit. The EU, as 27 nations is only guaranteed two seats. This automatically gives Britain a clear majority on this Supreme Court of Brexit.
Aside from Britain's clear majority the guarantees of p.5 and A.1(4) mean that when faced with any reasonable request this Supreme Court of Brexit is legally bound to rule in favour of ending the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The burden-of-proof, if you like is on the party which wants to keep the protocol in place.
To put it in a way even arch-Remainer Gary Lineker would understand;
"In a 50/50 challenge the ref's got to send it off."
At around 17:45 on 15/12/18 (UK date) there is still so much more to come. Even if I don't know when.
Edited at around 18:25 on 16/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;
//PLACE HOLDER FOR AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN'S CONSPIRACY TO KEEP BRITAIN IN THE EU\\
Opposition to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has mainly been driven by the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).
Other Hard Brexiteers have then latched themselves onto the issue. Either for their own reasons. Or because they're too stupid to understand the issue.
Sadly I know that the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are not stupid.
It is tempting for me to simply dismiss the DUP as religious fanatics. As always in life though the truth is more subtle and complicated than that.
In Part Two I discussed The Troubles in Northern Ireland in terms of Catholics against Protestants. Despite little of what either side got up to having much to do with any branch of Christianity.
The conflict is often also discussed in terms of Republicans against Unionists. Those who wish to see Northern Ireland become part of the Republic of Ireland against those who remain loyal to the Union between the Four Home Nations which make up the United Kingdom (UK).
That is probably the more accurate way to describe it. However within the Withdrawal Agreement the EU is officially referred to as; "The Union." So I can see that getting really confusing, really quickly.
The Protestant, Unionist side of the conflict is actually itself quite a broad church. Dr, Rev Ian Paisley who founded the DUP was never a Church of England (CoE) Protestant. He was a Baptist Protestant.
To confuse matters even further Paisley's Northern Baptists actually owe more to the Southern Baptists in the US. Only with a lot more drizzle.
What unites these different Protestants is a deep sense of British identity. They see themselves not just as Protestants but as BRITISH Protestants.
In the wake of the Brexit referendum the British mainland started to experience this sort of identity politics. As did the US in the run-up to and election of President Donald Trump.
Apparently whether you chose Leave or Remain in the referendum is not simply a question of what you think Britain's future legal and economic relationship with the EU should be.
Instead it is a much deeper question of who you are as a person. Essentially whether you are a Good person or a Bad person.
So Britain's approach to these Brexit negotiations hasn't been so much Nebulous as full blown Existentialist.
In trying to explain this to people at the 2018 Winter Olympics I pointed out that it's not really something I experience.
Politics is basically my job. So Britain's relationship with the EU doesn't affect the way I think about human rights or efforts to combat climate change. Nor does it effect how I deal with people on a day-to-day basis.
However, particularly talking to members of the gay community of the generation before mine I do, sort of understand it.
Up until really the start of the 21st Century Britain remained a still very homophobic society. Some, who do not remember that time, would say that it still is.
If you can distill a nation's culture down to one, single thing Britain's homophobia is defined by Section 28 of the Local Government Act of 1988.
This was introduced by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. It declared that, at no level may British government institutions, such as schools;
"Intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality. [...] Nor promote the teaching [...] of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."
This piece of legislation essentially turned round to every gay person in the country and declared;
"Britain does not want you. You may not call yourself British."
Feeling they were no longer allowed to identify as British this forced many gay people, along with their friends and relatives to instead identify as Europeans. To those people Britain leaving the EU must feel like a personal attack.
There is a rather cruel joke amongst those who voted to Remain (Remoaners) that the only people who voted to Leave (Brexiteers) are the extremely elderly.
The truth is that the bulk of the Remoaners are left-wing liberals from the generation older than mine.
People who came of age politically during the battles against Apartheid and Margaret Thatcher. There are some even older, who came of age during the 1968 Paris Spring. Which, unlike the so-called "2011 Arab Spring" actually happened in spring.
At the risk of a messy tangent the famous 1968 Paris Spring was actually preceded by a similar outbreak of revolutionary politics in West Germany in 1967. However being Germany it was a much more precise and orderly upheaval.
This upheaval, which has really defined the German political left ever since was triggered by the police shooting and killing a student protester. Benno Ohnesorg.
In 2009 is was finally confirmed that the police officer who fired the fatal shot, Karl-Heinz Kurras was actually an agent of the East German KGB/Stasi.
So Germany's recent discovery of Vladimir Putin's old Stasi ID is not quite Tier One Trolling. But it's getting up there. Even if as the chant goes; "*shakes head* Oh, Jeremy Corbyn."
As I attempt to wander back to my point it shouldn't really surprise you to learn that politically I came of age during the anti-globalisation protests. Against things such as GATT, the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF.
//
Although I grew up in a mixed, English-Catholic, Irish-Protestant family. So my childhood in the 1980's wasn't exactly politics. Particularly if the gathering was due to a religious rite. Such as Baptisms, Weddings, Communions.
A tradition my family has continued.
Such as my mothers', technically Civil Partnership. Which marked the start of the August, 2011 riots. Or my cousin's wedding amongst trauma doctors at the Royal London Hospital. Just before the Lee Rigby terror attack.
Incidentally that reception began with a traditional Gaelic toast. Prominently featuring the phrase; "Sinn Fein." It ended with the playing of Sloop John B.
//
The generation younger then mine are what are sometimes called; "Digital Natives." People who have lived their entire lives with ready access to high-speed Internet connections.
I think this has really changed people's sense of identity. Particularly in terms of national identity.
Throughout 2013 I spent a lot of time online with Rihanna fans. These are people who didn't identify themselves as British, American, Polish, Brazilian etc. Instead they identified themselves simply as Rihanna fans.
You also see it a lot in football. Manchester Utd have fans not only across Britain but also across the World. Something which continues to offend Mancunians of my generation, older and younger.
In this digitalised world where everything is tailored to your trends you have to try so much harder to stand out. It's no longer enough to identify as gay or straight. Instead you have to invent nonsense terms such as; "Gender Fluid" and "Pansexual."
During the 2018 Eurovision Song Contest I pointed out that generation of gay people probably don't even know that they've been born. 70 years after the founding of the State of Israel you could probably say the same thing about Beitar Jerusalem fans.
With so much of their sense of identity tied up in the notion of their Britishness the DUP and their supporters are deeply offended by the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
It creates what is known in the jargon as; "Regulatory Divergence." The rules in Northern Ireland will be slightly different to the rules on the British mainland.
Rather like Section 28 this says to the DUP that they are somehow less than British.
However, as with so much else that has been written or said during the Brexit debate, I think the DUP are being a bit silly about this.
Even before the start of The Troubles, let alone the Belfast Agreement there has always been significant Regulatory Divergence between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
I'm tempted to say that if you printed out, on paper every Northern Irish regulation that diverged from a regulation on the British mainland you would need a warehouse to store it all in. Or even an aircraft hanger.
In Northern Irish politics everything can be sectarian. Everything can start a riot.
For example;
"It's a beautiful sunset. The (protestant) orange is really blessing the land."
Or;
"I can't wait for the spring. When the (republican) green rises."
So I'm going to try and stick to the least inflammatory examples of regulatory divergence;
The Accent: Okay, not strictly speaking a regulation.
However Britain is really famous for its multitude of regional accents.
To the point there is even a distinct North London accent and a Sarf (South) London accent. Of which mine tends to come out when I'm drunk. There's even a North-West London accent and a North-East London. Which tends to come out when Chelsea play West 'am Utd.
Norn Iron has its own regional accent. To absolutely anyone on the British mainland anything said in a Northern Irish accent automatically sounds like a threat.
Bank Notes: Although there is a slight divergence with Scotland on the British mainland banknotes can only be issued by the Bank on England. They are printed horizontally, from left-to-right.
All for of Northern Ireland's banks have the power to issue banknotes. Ulster Bank have just announced plans to print notes vertically. From top-to-bottom. Northern Bank actually issued a small number of these vertical notes to celebrate the 2000 millennium.
Vehicle Registration Plates: The designs of car number plates on the British mainland and in Northern Ireland are completely different.
Mainland plates have, from left to right; A National Identity code. A Regional Identity code. An Age Identifier code. Three random letters.
The national identity code is optional. And contains an image, making it hard to show here. So a typical mainland plate looks something like;
BD|51|SMR
Northern Ireland plates have, from left-to-right; A National Identity code. A longer National Identity code. Four random numbers. They do not include an Age Identifier code.
So a typical Northern Irish plate looks something like;
BDZ|7459
I am very sensibly going to avoid the discussions about which national identity code and/or flag should be used on Northern Irish registration plates.
At around 18:30 on 16/12/18 (UK date) I'll be leaving the rest of that list until, at least tomorrow.
Edited at around 18:15 on 17/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;
Policing: Always the aspect of Northern Irish society you want to tackle when you're a bit drunk.
On the British mainland the police are not routinely armed. Following the terror attacks in 2018 a lot of work went in to reassuring the public not to be alarmed because they were suddenly seeing police officers carrying guns for the first time.
In Northern Ireland the police are armed as a matter of routine. Every officer carries a handgun as a sidearm. Most patrol vehicles are also equipped with long-guns such as assault rifles.
Although they're being phased out the patrol vehicles themselves are often heavily armoured, bomb-proof Land Rovers. These are know to the people who drive them, with absolutely no level of affection as; "Pigs."
Shortly after invading Iraq in 2003 the British Military replaced its own fleet of Pigs with the similar, but much more advanced Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) Bearcat.
In August 2011 the British mainland experienced what residents of Northern Ireland would describe as; "Some light summer rioting."
In response then London Mayor Boris Johnson brought three water cannon vehicles for riot control. It was only after he'd paid out the GB£320,000 the then Interior Minister (Home Secretary) Theresa May pointed out that on the mainland the police aren't allowed to use water cannon.
In Northern Ireland the police are most certainly allowed to, and do use water cannon.
On the British mainland the standard police uniform is dark blue, or increasingly black. The standard uniform of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) is green.
This is something the DUP are still a bit sensitive about. The change is the result of the dismantling of the RUC, who wore blue uniforms, under the Belfast Agreement.
The DUP were only prepared to accept the Irish green because it was the colour worn by the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). Back when the entire island of Ireland was a British colony.
All parties were happy to agree that the replacement for the RUC should not be named the Northern Irish Police Service. After all, no-one likes getting caught by the NIPS.
The Provision of Public Services: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) forbids discrimination AGAINST people in the provision of public services based on race, religion etc.
Although they collect extensive data authorities on the British mainland are not allowed to base their decisions on race, religion etc.
This has actually caused its own set of segregation problems between Muslims and non-Muslims in many northern English towns and cities. I suspect France will be getting another lecture on just this multiculturalism doctrine at the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest. To be held in Israel.
In Northern Ireland authorities are most certainly allowed to discriminate FOR people based on, primarily religion. This is particularly true in the area of social housing.
Simply if you house a Protestant family in the middle of deeply Catholic housing estate within a week the house will have been burnt to the ground. Likewise if you house a Catholic family in the middle of a deeply Protestant housing estate. There's no such thing as a mixed housing estate.
It's testament to what a success the Belfast Agreement has been that apparently people are now starting to use this to game the system. Sending themselves death threats in order to get moved to one of the nice new build houses in the suburbs.
Gay Rights: In the Republic of Ireland gay, or equal marriage is now legal. As it is on the British mainland.
However in Northern Ireland it remains illegal. Almost entirely at the insistence of the DUP.
So I think they're likely to be doubly offended by all those jokes about the SAS spending the night in Bobby Sands. I know his mother certainly was.
Abortion: In the Republic of Ireland abortion is now legal. As it has been on the British mainland since before the start of The Troubles.
However in Northern Ireland abortion remains illegal. Again almost entirely at the insistence of the DUP.
The Northern Irish Assembly: The biggest, and probably most controversial example.
Under the Belfast Agreement Northern Ireland has, effectively its own Parliament. The entire purpose of which is passing laws and regulations which are different from those on the British mainland.
The DUP are really not happy about the Northern Irish Assembly. To the point they are keeping it suspended and out of session. In the hope of forcing the return of direct rule from London.
Making the DUP the only political party in Britain, and possibly the entire World which is actively trying to have powers taken away from it.
In part two I said that no-one wants to see a return to the security measures of The Troubles. The truth is that there is a hardline faction of DUP supporters, if not the party itself who absolutely do want to see a return to those security measures.
They think that the enhanced Anti-Terrorism laws brought in after 9/11 mean they can win the war this time around.
On the mainland the Labour Party's approach to the Withdrawal Agreement is the same as the party's approach has been to every issue since the June 2017 General Election. Use it to try and bring down the government.
Labour Finance Minister John McDonnell has made quite clear that his party does not think the collapse of the government should lead to a General Election. Instead he thinks it should lead to the Labour Party simply being appointed as the government.
Bear that in mind when Labour introduce a no confidence motion in the government claiming that Prime Minister May is denying the public its voice in a second referendum.
The Provisional Irish Republican Army's (PIRA) mainland bombing campaign of the 1980's and 1990's was not intended to kill. In fact, bizarrely every PIRA terror cell had its own, sort of health & safety officer. In the Birmingham & Warrington cells the health & safety officers failed.
Instead the PIRA bombing campaign was intended to do massive economic damage. Effectively to bankrupt Britain. This is why post-9/11 Anti-Terrorism laws have specific provisions for this type of economic terrorism.
So I'm fast running out of reasons why John McDonnell and others in his party haven't been arrested on a formal charge of insurrection.
As I'm sure former Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams will remind them. They have the right to be offered food. There's no guarantee they'll actually get fed.
In their efforts, both legal and otherwise, to overthrow the government the Labour Party frequently point to the GB£1bn Prime Minister May promised the DUP as part of the confidence & supply deal. The so-called; "Magic Money Tree."
What they've failed to realise is that with the Northern Irish Assembly suspended the DUP can't actually spend any of that money. It's effectively sitting in escrow.
So this terrible negotiator Theresa May appears to have pulled a little bit of a fast one on the DUP. Which is no mean feat.
As for making the Scottish National Party (SNP) look foolish. Well, that's akin to bullying the mentally disabled.
Maximum Facilitation.
Despite the DUP leading the opposition to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland it has been drawn up almost exclusively for their benefit.
The far easier solution would be to simply declare Northern Ireland a Frontier Territory under GATT.
This would mean that technically Northern Ireland would leave the EU Single Market along with the rest of the UK. However no customs controls would be imposed on the Ireland/Northern Ireland border. All goods in both markets would be considered to be in Free Circulation.
However in order to prevent so-called leakage (smuggling) both into and out of the EU Single Market a loose border would have to be placed around the entire island of Ireland. This is actually much more of a problem for the Republic of Ireland who would have to put up with customs checks despite being a member of the EU Single Market.
It is though the DUP who would be utterly furious about it. It would create a border in the Irish Sea, making quite clear that Northern Ireland is separate from the British mainland.
Again though I think the DUP are being overly sensitive about this.
During the 1980's and 1990's PIRA was using coffee grinders to build fertiliser bombs in farm houses in the Armagh badlands. They would then load these bombs onto trucks and drive them onto ferries to the mainland. Where they would be used to blow up huge chunks of British cities such as London, Manchester and Warrington.
Ultimately bringing about the financial collapse of the Lloyds of London Insurance Group. Long a jewel in the crown of the City of London's financial institutions. Hence, economic terrorism.
Funnily enough during this time there was a hard, security border running down the Irish Sea. Clearly separating Northern Ireland from the British mainland.
This hard border though was based on intelligence gathering and covert surveillance. So very few people ever knew it was there. Save for the occasional invoking of Section 8 of the 1974 Prevention of Terrorism Act. A provision which became permanent, if rarely used under Schedule VII of the Terrorism Act 2000.
One of the surprising side effect of the Belfast Agreement was an increase in gun crime on the British mainland. Particularly in Manchester and Liverpool. As this hard border was gradually scaled back as part of the peace process a small percentage of, primarily Loyalist, guns were not decommissioned. They were sold on.
Despite both the Belfast Agreement and the EU Single Market there is still, a much lighter hard border down the Irish Sea. However unless you're in the business of trafficking illegal drugs or weapons you'd never know it was there.
You only need to look at the cellphones were using now to see how much technology has moved on since 1998. So it should be entirely possible to make this customs border around the island of Ireland entirely invisible and frictionless. This is known as the; "Maximum Facilitation (MaxFac)" plan.
The reason why the EU rejected it during negotiations was that it would require Britain to act as a tax collector for the EU.
Something the EU were far from convinced about with the Hard Brexiteers insisting that Britain doesn't even need to pay its existing debts.
I hope that during the Transition Period it is an idea that can be revisited.
It almost goes without saying though that anything which would inhibit the free movement of British citizens within any part of Britain is an absolute red line.
Even if they are engaging in the traditional and expected levels of smuggling for personal use.
18:35 on 17/12/18 (UK date).
https://twitter.com/MajaEUspox/status/107355177379578265
In that post I explained the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. Sometimes referred to as; "The Northern Irish Backstop."
I also explained why it is considered so important. By briefly looking at the The Troubles in Northern Ireland and the 1998 Belfast Agreement which helped to end them.
I then looked at some of the concessions British Prime Minister May extracted from the EU in negotiating the protocol.
In my rush to get all of that, just out of my brain and onto the page my mind managed to completely blank on another significant concession Prime Minister May won during the negotiation.
The terms of the protocol will put the British mainland in a unique customs union with the EU.
That requires the British mainland to impose tariffs/taxes on imports and exports. The level of those tariff/taxes is set by the Most Favoured Nations (MFN) provisions of the 1994 General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT).
These are the World Trade Organisation (WTO) terms the Hard Brexiteers are so hot for.
Beyond the tariffs themselves administration fees are also imposed. In order to pay the staff needed to process all the paperwork and conduct the physical customs checks.
For example, although slightly off-topic, a B-2 Tourism visa to the US costs US$160. Typically it lasts for one month.
Yesterday (14/12/18) the EU announced that post-Brexit, British citizens will require a European Travel Information & Authorisation System (ETIAS) visa to travel to the EU as tourists. This costs around US$8 and lasts for up to three years.
During trade wars nations normally massively inflate these administration fees. It allows them to impose a de facto higher tariff above the ones which are allowed by law.
What Britain will be able to do under the protocol is count the administration fee as part of the tariff. Allowing it to in fact charge a lower tariff than the one allowed by law. The tariff will be the same and in accordance with the law. However the total cost will be lower.
So imagine you're an importer/exporter looking to send goods into the EU via a/the customs union. Do you opt for Turkey which charges tariffs and fees. Or do you chose the British mainland which only charges tariffs?
I suspect the vehicle production sector of its economy which Turkey is trying to expand may well find itself running into some problems.
As I've said the Plan A laid out in the Withdrawal Agreement is that all issues are resolved during the Transition Period. If that fails the Withdrawal Agreement sets out the Plan B contingency; extending the Transition Period.
It is only if both Plan A and Plan B fail that the Plan C of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland will be invoked. As the contingency for the contingency.
I hope I have also managed to make clear that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland will not put the British mainland in the EU Customs Union.
However despite this and all the other concessions Prime Minister May has been able to extract being in any sort of customs union is not ideal. You still have to impose tariffs, perform some physical border checks and fill out a lot of paperwork.
Turkey is currently the only nation which is in the EU Customs Union but not also in the EU Single Market. They complain about this on pretty much a daily basis.
To the point that if I want to infuriate Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan I merely have to utter the polite farewell;
"See You."
I don't even need to follow it up with the more traditional confirmation;
"See You Next Tuesday."
Therefore before Britain enters into even this unique customs union with the EU it is only prudent and sensible to ask if it will ever be able to get out of it again. And if so, by what mechanism.
As has been very widely publicised in Britain the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland does not contain a specified end date. Nor does Britain, or the EU, have the power to unilaterally withdraw from the protocol.
However much of this wide publicity regarding the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has relied upon a pernicious myth. Put simply the lie that it contains no legal guarantees.
The Protocol Contains Legally Binding Guarantees.
Paragraph 5 (p.5) of the Preamble of the Withdrawal Agreement states clearly;
"STRESSING that the objective of this Agreement is to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union"
While Article 1(4) of the Protocol itself states even more clearly that;
"The objective of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom. The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the Parties set out in Article 2(1)."
I suppose the layout of the document made available to British MP's could be altered, on a Mutatis mutandis (change only that which is necessary) basis. So these statements appear in every article on every page.
However legally you only need to state it once. Stating it twice is overkill.
During both the Transition Period and under the protocol, if it is invoked contact between Britain and the EU will be through the Joint Committee mechanism. This is laid out under Title Two of Part Six of the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Joint Committee mechanism simply allows for a series of summits or meetings between representatives of the EU and representatives of the British government. It is essentially how negotiations have been conducted up until now.
However with Britain leaving the EU and becoming a so-called Third Country before either the Transition Period or the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland come into effect it requires a separate mechanism. Outside of the EU mechanism.
Due to the legal guarantee in Paragraph five of the Preamble all of the work of the Joint Committee is legally obligated to focus on bringing the Transition Period to an end as quickly as is reasonably possible.
If the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is invoked then both the legal guarantee in p.5 of the Preamble and Article 1(4) of the protocol mean that all of the work of the Joint Committee is legally obligated to focus on bringing the protocol to an end as quickly as is reasonably possible.
If Britain feels that the EU is not living up to this legal obligation within the Joint Committee mechanism it can take the matter up under the Withdrawal Agreement's Dispute Settlement procedure. This is laid out under Title Three of Part Six of the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Dispute Settlement procedure sees the matter taken to the International Bureau of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA-CPA).
Although located in the Hague, the Netherlands the PCA-CPA is not a body of the EU. It is not even a body of the UN. Founded in 1899 it is recognised as the international, intergovernmental body for dispute resolution.
Upon referral the PCA-CPA will ask the EU to nominate 10 people to sit on an Arbitration Panel. The PCA-CPA will also ask Britain to nominate 10 people to sit on an Arbitration Panel. Between them the EU and Britain will also be asked to nominate a total of 5 people to act as chair of the Arbitration Panel.
From that list of 25 names the PCA-CPA will pick four people to make up the Arbitration Panel. Two from the EU and two from Britain. Those four will then pick a fifth person from the sub-list to act as chair of the panel.
At the risk of being strangled by at least one of my mothers I'm tempted to call this Arbitration Panel the; "Supreme Court of Brexit."
Technically it is not a Court. However it is a panel of five people considering a case and making a legally binding ruling.
Those five people must be wholly independent of either the British government or any EU Member State government. They must also be qualified to the extent that they can hold the post of Supreme Court Judge in their respective country.
This system guarantees Britain, as a single nation at least two seats on this Supreme Court of Brexit. The EU, as 27 nations is only guaranteed two seats. This automatically gives Britain a clear majority on this Supreme Court of Brexit.
Aside from Britain's clear majority the guarantees of p.5 and A.1(4) mean that when faced with any reasonable request this Supreme Court of Brexit is legally bound to rule in favour of ending the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
The burden-of-proof, if you like is on the party which wants to keep the protocol in place.
To put it in a way even arch-Remainer Gary Lineker would understand;
"In a 50/50 challenge the ref's got to send it off."
At around 17:45 on 15/12/18 (UK date) there is still so much more to come. Even if I don't know when.
Edited at around 18:25 on 16/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;
//PLACE HOLDER FOR AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN'S CONSPIRACY TO KEEP BRITAIN IN THE EU\\
Opposition to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has mainly been driven by the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).
Other Hard Brexiteers have then latched themselves onto the issue. Either for their own reasons. Or because they're too stupid to understand the issue.
Sadly I know that the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson are not stupid.
It is tempting for me to simply dismiss the DUP as religious fanatics. As always in life though the truth is more subtle and complicated than that.
In Part Two I discussed The Troubles in Northern Ireland in terms of Catholics against Protestants. Despite little of what either side got up to having much to do with any branch of Christianity.
The conflict is often also discussed in terms of Republicans against Unionists. Those who wish to see Northern Ireland become part of the Republic of Ireland against those who remain loyal to the Union between the Four Home Nations which make up the United Kingdom (UK).
That is probably the more accurate way to describe it. However within the Withdrawal Agreement the EU is officially referred to as; "The Union." So I can see that getting really confusing, really quickly.
The Protestant, Unionist side of the conflict is actually itself quite a broad church. Dr, Rev Ian Paisley who founded the DUP was never a Church of England (CoE) Protestant. He was a Baptist Protestant.
To confuse matters even further Paisley's Northern Baptists actually owe more to the Southern Baptists in the US. Only with a lot more drizzle.
What unites these different Protestants is a deep sense of British identity. They see themselves not just as Protestants but as BRITISH Protestants.
In the wake of the Brexit referendum the British mainland started to experience this sort of identity politics. As did the US in the run-up to and election of President Donald Trump.
Apparently whether you chose Leave or Remain in the referendum is not simply a question of what you think Britain's future legal and economic relationship with the EU should be.
Instead it is a much deeper question of who you are as a person. Essentially whether you are a Good person or a Bad person.
So Britain's approach to these Brexit negotiations hasn't been so much Nebulous as full blown Existentialist.
In trying to explain this to people at the 2018 Winter Olympics I pointed out that it's not really something I experience.
Politics is basically my job. So Britain's relationship with the EU doesn't affect the way I think about human rights or efforts to combat climate change. Nor does it effect how I deal with people on a day-to-day basis.
However, particularly talking to members of the gay community of the generation before mine I do, sort of understand it.
Up until really the start of the 21st Century Britain remained a still very homophobic society. Some, who do not remember that time, would say that it still is.
If you can distill a nation's culture down to one, single thing Britain's homophobia is defined by Section 28 of the Local Government Act of 1988.
This was introduced by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. It declared that, at no level may British government institutions, such as schools;
"Intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality. [...] Nor promote the teaching [...] of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship."
This piece of legislation essentially turned round to every gay person in the country and declared;
"Britain does not want you. You may not call yourself British."
Feeling they were no longer allowed to identify as British this forced many gay people, along with their friends and relatives to instead identify as Europeans. To those people Britain leaving the EU must feel like a personal attack.
There is a rather cruel joke amongst those who voted to Remain (Remoaners) that the only people who voted to Leave (Brexiteers) are the extremely elderly.
The truth is that the bulk of the Remoaners are left-wing liberals from the generation older than mine.
People who came of age politically during the battles against Apartheid and Margaret Thatcher. There are some even older, who came of age during the 1968 Paris Spring. Which, unlike the so-called "2011 Arab Spring" actually happened in spring.
At the risk of a messy tangent the famous 1968 Paris Spring was actually preceded by a similar outbreak of revolutionary politics in West Germany in 1967. However being Germany it was a much more precise and orderly upheaval.
This upheaval, which has really defined the German political left ever since was triggered by the police shooting and killing a student protester. Benno Ohnesorg.
In 2009 is was finally confirmed that the police officer who fired the fatal shot, Karl-Heinz Kurras was actually an agent of the East German KGB/Stasi.
So Germany's recent discovery of Vladimir Putin's old Stasi ID is not quite Tier One Trolling. But it's getting up there. Even if as the chant goes; "*shakes head* Oh, Jeremy Corbyn."
As I attempt to wander back to my point it shouldn't really surprise you to learn that politically I came of age during the anti-globalisation protests. Against things such as GATT, the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF.
//
Although I grew up in a mixed, English-Catholic, Irish-Protestant family. So my childhood in the 1980's wasn't exactly politics. Particularly if the gathering was due to a religious rite. Such as Baptisms, Weddings, Communions.
A tradition my family has continued.
Such as my mothers', technically Civil Partnership. Which marked the start of the August, 2011 riots. Or my cousin's wedding amongst trauma doctors at the Royal London Hospital. Just before the Lee Rigby terror attack.
Incidentally that reception began with a traditional Gaelic toast. Prominently featuring the phrase; "Sinn Fein." It ended with the playing of Sloop John B.
//
The generation younger then mine are what are sometimes called; "Digital Natives." People who have lived their entire lives with ready access to high-speed Internet connections.
I think this has really changed people's sense of identity. Particularly in terms of national identity.
Throughout 2013 I spent a lot of time online with Rihanna fans. These are people who didn't identify themselves as British, American, Polish, Brazilian etc. Instead they identified themselves simply as Rihanna fans.
You also see it a lot in football. Manchester Utd have fans not only across Britain but also across the World. Something which continues to offend Mancunians of my generation, older and younger.
In this digitalised world where everything is tailored to your trends you have to try so much harder to stand out. It's no longer enough to identify as gay or straight. Instead you have to invent nonsense terms such as; "Gender Fluid" and "Pansexual."
During the 2018 Eurovision Song Contest I pointed out that generation of gay people probably don't even know that they've been born. 70 years after the founding of the State of Israel you could probably say the same thing about Beitar Jerusalem fans.
With so much of their sense of identity tied up in the notion of their Britishness the DUP and their supporters are deeply offended by the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
It creates what is known in the jargon as; "Regulatory Divergence." The rules in Northern Ireland will be slightly different to the rules on the British mainland.
Rather like Section 28 this says to the DUP that they are somehow less than British.
However, as with so much else that has been written or said during the Brexit debate, I think the DUP are being a bit silly about this.
Even before the start of The Troubles, let alone the Belfast Agreement there has always been significant Regulatory Divergence between Northern Ireland and the British mainland.
I'm tempted to say that if you printed out, on paper every Northern Irish regulation that diverged from a regulation on the British mainland you would need a warehouse to store it all in. Or even an aircraft hanger.
In Northern Irish politics everything can be sectarian. Everything can start a riot.
For example;
"It's a beautiful sunset. The (protestant) orange is really blessing the land."
Or;
"I can't wait for the spring. When the (republican) green rises."
So I'm going to try and stick to the least inflammatory examples of regulatory divergence;
The Accent: Okay, not strictly speaking a regulation.
However Britain is really famous for its multitude of regional accents.
To the point there is even a distinct North London accent and a Sarf (South) London accent. Of which mine tends to come out when I'm drunk. There's even a North-West London accent and a North-East London. Which tends to come out when Chelsea play West 'am Utd.
Norn Iron has its own regional accent. To absolutely anyone on the British mainland anything said in a Northern Irish accent automatically sounds like a threat.
Bank Notes: Although there is a slight divergence with Scotland on the British mainland banknotes can only be issued by the Bank on England. They are printed horizontally, from left-to-right.
All for of Northern Ireland's banks have the power to issue banknotes. Ulster Bank have just announced plans to print notes vertically. From top-to-bottom. Northern Bank actually issued a small number of these vertical notes to celebrate the 2000 millennium.
Vehicle Registration Plates: The designs of car number plates on the British mainland and in Northern Ireland are completely different.
Mainland plates have, from left to right; A National Identity code. A Regional Identity code. An Age Identifier code. Three random letters.
The national identity code is optional. And contains an image, making it hard to show here. So a typical mainland plate looks something like;
BD|51|SMR
Northern Ireland plates have, from left-to-right; A National Identity code. A longer National Identity code. Four random numbers. They do not include an Age Identifier code.
So a typical Northern Irish plate looks something like;
BDZ|7459
I am very sensibly going to avoid the discussions about which national identity code and/or flag should be used on Northern Irish registration plates.
At around 18:30 on 16/12/18 (UK date) I'll be leaving the rest of that list until, at least tomorrow.
Edited at around 18:15 on 17/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;
Policing: Always the aspect of Northern Irish society you want to tackle when you're a bit drunk.
On the British mainland the police are not routinely armed. Following the terror attacks in 2018 a lot of work went in to reassuring the public not to be alarmed because they were suddenly seeing police officers carrying guns for the first time.
In Northern Ireland the police are armed as a matter of routine. Every officer carries a handgun as a sidearm. Most patrol vehicles are also equipped with long-guns such as assault rifles.
Although they're being phased out the patrol vehicles themselves are often heavily armoured, bomb-proof Land Rovers. These are know to the people who drive them, with absolutely no level of affection as; "Pigs."
Shortly after invading Iraq in 2003 the British Military replaced its own fleet of Pigs with the similar, but much more advanced Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected (MRAP) Bearcat.
In August 2011 the British mainland experienced what residents of Northern Ireland would describe as; "Some light summer rioting."
In response then London Mayor Boris Johnson brought three water cannon vehicles for riot control. It was only after he'd paid out the GB£320,000 the then Interior Minister (Home Secretary) Theresa May pointed out that on the mainland the police aren't allowed to use water cannon.
In Northern Ireland the police are most certainly allowed to, and do use water cannon.
On the British mainland the standard police uniform is dark blue, or increasingly black. The standard uniform of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) is green.
This is something the DUP are still a bit sensitive about. The change is the result of the dismantling of the RUC, who wore blue uniforms, under the Belfast Agreement.
The DUP were only prepared to accept the Irish green because it was the colour worn by the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC). Back when the entire island of Ireland was a British colony.
All parties were happy to agree that the replacement for the RUC should not be named the Northern Irish Police Service. After all, no-one likes getting caught by the NIPS.
The Provision of Public Services: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) forbids discrimination AGAINST people in the provision of public services based on race, religion etc.
Although they collect extensive data authorities on the British mainland are not allowed to base their decisions on race, religion etc.
This has actually caused its own set of segregation problems between Muslims and non-Muslims in many northern English towns and cities. I suspect France will be getting another lecture on just this multiculturalism doctrine at the 2019 Eurovision Song Contest. To be held in Israel.
In Northern Ireland authorities are most certainly allowed to discriminate FOR people based on, primarily religion. This is particularly true in the area of social housing.
Simply if you house a Protestant family in the middle of deeply Catholic housing estate within a week the house will have been burnt to the ground. Likewise if you house a Catholic family in the middle of a deeply Protestant housing estate. There's no such thing as a mixed housing estate.
It's testament to what a success the Belfast Agreement has been that apparently people are now starting to use this to game the system. Sending themselves death threats in order to get moved to one of the nice new build houses in the suburbs.
Gay Rights: In the Republic of Ireland gay, or equal marriage is now legal. As it is on the British mainland.
However in Northern Ireland it remains illegal. Almost entirely at the insistence of the DUP.
So I think they're likely to be doubly offended by all those jokes about the SAS spending the night in Bobby Sands. I know his mother certainly was.
Abortion: In the Republic of Ireland abortion is now legal. As it has been on the British mainland since before the start of The Troubles.
However in Northern Ireland abortion remains illegal. Again almost entirely at the insistence of the DUP.
The Northern Irish Assembly: The biggest, and probably most controversial example.
Under the Belfast Agreement Northern Ireland has, effectively its own Parliament. The entire purpose of which is passing laws and regulations which are different from those on the British mainland.
The DUP are really not happy about the Northern Irish Assembly. To the point they are keeping it suspended and out of session. In the hope of forcing the return of direct rule from London.
Making the DUP the only political party in Britain, and possibly the entire World which is actively trying to have powers taken away from it.
In part two I said that no-one wants to see a return to the security measures of The Troubles. The truth is that there is a hardline faction of DUP supporters, if not the party itself who absolutely do want to see a return to those security measures.
They think that the enhanced Anti-Terrorism laws brought in after 9/11 mean they can win the war this time around.
On the mainland the Labour Party's approach to the Withdrawal Agreement is the same as the party's approach has been to every issue since the June 2017 General Election. Use it to try and bring down the government.
Labour Finance Minister John McDonnell has made quite clear that his party does not think the collapse of the government should lead to a General Election. Instead he thinks it should lead to the Labour Party simply being appointed as the government.
Bear that in mind when Labour introduce a no confidence motion in the government claiming that Prime Minister May is denying the public its voice in a second referendum.
The Provisional Irish Republican Army's (PIRA) mainland bombing campaign of the 1980's and 1990's was not intended to kill. In fact, bizarrely every PIRA terror cell had its own, sort of health & safety officer. In the Birmingham & Warrington cells the health & safety officers failed.
Instead the PIRA bombing campaign was intended to do massive economic damage. Effectively to bankrupt Britain. This is why post-9/11 Anti-Terrorism laws have specific provisions for this type of economic terrorism.
So I'm fast running out of reasons why John McDonnell and others in his party haven't been arrested on a formal charge of insurrection.
As I'm sure former Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams will remind them. They have the right to be offered food. There's no guarantee they'll actually get fed.
In their efforts, both legal and otherwise, to overthrow the government the Labour Party frequently point to the GB£1bn Prime Minister May promised the DUP as part of the confidence & supply deal. The so-called; "Magic Money Tree."
What they've failed to realise is that with the Northern Irish Assembly suspended the DUP can't actually spend any of that money. It's effectively sitting in escrow.
So this terrible negotiator Theresa May appears to have pulled a little bit of a fast one on the DUP. Which is no mean feat.
As for making the Scottish National Party (SNP) look foolish. Well, that's akin to bullying the mentally disabled.
Maximum Facilitation.
Despite the DUP leading the opposition to the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland it has been drawn up almost exclusively for their benefit.
The far easier solution would be to simply declare Northern Ireland a Frontier Territory under GATT.
This would mean that technically Northern Ireland would leave the EU Single Market along with the rest of the UK. However no customs controls would be imposed on the Ireland/Northern Ireland border. All goods in both markets would be considered to be in Free Circulation.
However in order to prevent so-called leakage (smuggling) both into and out of the EU Single Market a loose border would have to be placed around the entire island of Ireland. This is actually much more of a problem for the Republic of Ireland who would have to put up with customs checks despite being a member of the EU Single Market.
It is though the DUP who would be utterly furious about it. It would create a border in the Irish Sea, making quite clear that Northern Ireland is separate from the British mainland.
Again though I think the DUP are being overly sensitive about this.
During the 1980's and 1990's PIRA was using coffee grinders to build fertiliser bombs in farm houses in the Armagh badlands. They would then load these bombs onto trucks and drive them onto ferries to the mainland. Where they would be used to blow up huge chunks of British cities such as London, Manchester and Warrington.
Ultimately bringing about the financial collapse of the Lloyds of London Insurance Group. Long a jewel in the crown of the City of London's financial institutions. Hence, economic terrorism.
Funnily enough during this time there was a hard, security border running down the Irish Sea. Clearly separating Northern Ireland from the British mainland.
This hard border though was based on intelligence gathering and covert surveillance. So very few people ever knew it was there. Save for the occasional invoking of Section 8 of the 1974 Prevention of Terrorism Act. A provision which became permanent, if rarely used under Schedule VII of the Terrorism Act 2000.
One of the surprising side effect of the Belfast Agreement was an increase in gun crime on the British mainland. Particularly in Manchester and Liverpool. As this hard border was gradually scaled back as part of the peace process a small percentage of, primarily Loyalist, guns were not decommissioned. They were sold on.
Despite both the Belfast Agreement and the EU Single Market there is still, a much lighter hard border down the Irish Sea. However unless you're in the business of trafficking illegal drugs or weapons you'd never know it was there.
You only need to look at the cellphones were using now to see how much technology has moved on since 1998. So it should be entirely possible to make this customs border around the island of Ireland entirely invisible and frictionless. This is known as the; "Maximum Facilitation (MaxFac)" plan.
The reason why the EU rejected it during negotiations was that it would require Britain to act as a tax collector for the EU.
Something the EU were far from convinced about with the Hard Brexiteers insisting that Britain doesn't even need to pay its existing debts.
I hope that during the Transition Period it is an idea that can be revisited.
It almost goes without saying though that anything which would inhibit the free movement of British citizens within any part of Britain is an absolute red line.
Even if they are engaging in the traditional and expected levels of smuggling for personal use.
18:35 on 17/12/18 (UK date).
https://twitter.com/MajaEUspox/status/107355177379578265
Thursday, 13 December 2018
Britain's Brexit Withdrawal Agreement: Part Two (Draft).
A direction continuation of Part One; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2018/12/britains-brexit-withdrawal-agreement_12.html
The other area which seems of importance to people is the Northern Ireland Backstop. Or to give it its formal name; "The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland."
I should start by pointing out that the Northern Ireland Backstop is not technically part of the Withdrawal Agreement. Instead it is a legally binding protocol under the Withdrawal Agreement.
I know that sounds pedantic. However legally binding protocols under agreements and other statutory instruments rely almost exclusively on precision and pedantry.
The Withdrawal Agreement sets out a Transition Period. Plan A is that all outstanding issues on Britain's future relationship with the EU will be resolved during this Transition Period.
However if that Plan A fails the Withdrawal Agreement lays out a contingency plan. The Transition Period can be extended. The Plan B.
If both Plan A and Plan B fail the Withdrawal Agreement lays out a third contingency. This is the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. The Plan C.
So when British MP's such as Esther McVey appear on TV demanding Prime Minister May abandons the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. In order to draw up a Plan B.
Well, it really gives you a headache. Particularly when they're not immediately corrected by the interviewer.
In order to understand why the Ireland/Northern Ireland border is such a contentious issue you could go back to the Norman, Strongbow invasion of Ireland in 1170. Or; "Brentry, Annex One" as I believe it's now known.
You could also look at Martin Luther's decision to nail his Ninety-Five Theses to the doors of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany. In October 1517.
It might also be worth looking at the British Act of Settlement of 1701.
After all the Act of Settlement introduced the Royal Prerogative. Due to the antics of Gina Miller in the 2016; "Enemies of the People" case it was found the Royal Prerogative could not be used to negotiate Brexit. Giving British Parliamentarians this oh, so meaningful say of theirs.
However what is most relevant to the Ireland/Northern Ireland border issue is the so-called; "Good Friday Agreement." Or, to give it its formal name; "The 1998 Belfast Agreement."
The purpose of the 1998 Belfast Agreement was to bring about the end of a period known as; "The Troubles."
Displaying typical British understatement The Troubles was a low-intensity, but often brutal civil war. Fought across Northern Ireland, the British Mainland and even as far as Spain and Gibraltar.
One of the main provisions of the Belfast Agreement is the removal of any physical border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
At the time of the Belfast Agreement the Ireland/Northern Ireland border was operated by the British Military. Border posts and checkpoints were small military bases.
Rather like the network of Control Points the Turkish Military currently operates in the Sudetenland of Syria. Or the network of Observation Posts the US Military is currently establishing in the Shangri-La area of Syria. In order to deter a Turkish invasion and occupation.
The border posts the British Military operated along the Ireland/Northern Ireland border during The Troubles are remarkably similar to the Observation Posts the Israeli Military operates along the Palestinian West Bank Separation Wall.
This militarised border created a very aggressive and hostile environment. Which was extremely stressful for all involved. Particularly civilains.
There is a British comedian, Patrick Kielty. He is married to British TV presenter Cat Deeley, who Americans may have heard of. Patrick Kielty grew up in Northern Ireland during The Troubles. He can tell you a story about how, having just passed his driving test he crashed his car.
Emerging from the wreck Patrick Kielty was not presented with sympathetic firefighters or paramedics. Instead he was confronted by British soldiers in full combat gear, leaping from their armoured vehicle to point assault rifles in his face. Forcing him to prove he wasn't a terrorist. He was just a teenage boy who'd made a fool of himself.
Another of the provisions of the Belfast Agreement was the withdrawal of British troops. They were replaced by the newly formed Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). Although a civilian police force the PSNI are still extremely heavily armed.
If there's a terror attack in Europe or a mass shooting in America you will often see police SWAT teams running about in combat gear. That is how the PSNI conduct routine, day-to-day patrols. Particularly in the rural border areas.
So no-one wants to see a return to the aggressive and hostile environment of a so-called; "Hard Border" between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
However while soldiers and their toys are part of the issue it is not the main issue with the border.
The overarching ethos of the Belfast Agreement was to use economic prosperity as a mechanism for peace.
For his own reasons Jacob Rees-Mogg seems to have absolutely no interest in explaining this to people. However if he were to attempt to he would probably reach for Greek Mythology. Particularly the battle between Poseidon and Athena.
Compared to other developed EU Member States Britain is relatively small. Compared to Britain as a whole Northern Ireland is absolutely tiny. With a population of just 1.8 million people. As with small island states Northern Ireland's small population means that it's never going to have a big economy.
When there's not much to go around everyone starts wondering if other people are taking more than their fair share. Leading to conflict. Particularly when members of one religious group think members of another religious group have absolutely no right to exist. Let alone a right to housing or food.
As far back as 1965 Protestant groups such as the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) were operating paramilitary death squads in Northern Ireland. To kidnap and kill Catholic civilians. Prior to founding the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) Dr, Rev Ian Paisley was a member of the UVF.
However the widely recognised start of The Troubles was a massive riot in 1969 known as; "The Battle of the Bogside."
Relatively poor Catholic residents of the Bogside Housing Estate held a civil rights march. To protest the awarding of social housing to a single, Protestant woman. Over a homeless Catholic family. Relatively wealthy Protestants decided to mock the Catholics by rolling pennies down the Falls Road into the Bogside Estate.
So when the Protestant DUP play, at their rallies songs like; "Penny Lane" by the Beatles. Or "Penny Arcade" by Roy Orbison it has a very different meaning. As does the Beach Boys song; "Sloop John B."
At the time of the Battle of the Bogside policing in Northern Ireland was the responsibility of the almost exclusively Protestant Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). They were backed by the unpaid volunteers of the exclusively Protestant Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) known as; "The B-Specials."
The B-Specials were a Protestant paramilitary group. One authorised by and backed by the British State.
The RUC and the B-Specials' response to the Battle of the Bogside was to open fire with heavy machine guns. Not just against the rioters but against all the houses in the Bogside Estate.
The first official fatality of The Troubles was a Catholic soldier in the British Army. Home on leave he was killed by an B-Special bullet from a Browning M2 machine gun while standing on the balcony of his mother's home in the Davis Flats building.
In the eyes of the RUC and the B-Specials the fact he was serving in the British Army was apparently not enough to wash away the crime of being Catholic.
So officially the British Military was first deployed to Northern Ireland to protect the Catholic minority. From the Protestant RUC and B-Specials.
One of the British Military's first tasks was to disband the B-Specials. They were replaced by the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR). Who were hardly much better.
Particularly under Prime Minister Margret Thatcher the British mainland went through an extensive revision of the history of The Troubles. On the mainland the focus is very much on Catholic paramilitary groups. Such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA).
These Catholic paramilitaries simply did not exist at the start of The Troubles. The INLA were not formed until 1974. Five years after the Battle of the Bogside.
The primary purpose of removing the Ireland/Northern Ireland border under the Belfast Agreement is to boost Northern Ireland's economy by allowing for tariff-free trade.
The thinking being that as Northern Ireland's economy grows the sectarian divisions and conflict will reduce.
At around 13:40 on 13/12/18 (UK date) there is still so much more to come.
Edited at around 18:30 on 13/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste, from another place;
At the time of the Belfast Agreement Northern Irish society was deeply segregated. In a way that makes the US' Jim Crow-era look like a walk in the park.
The current UK Secretary of State (Chief Minister) for Northern Ireland, Karen Bradley recently made a bit of a fool of herself. She declared that before taking up the post she didn't realise how deeply segregated society in Northern Ireland continues to be.
For example she didn't know that in Northern Irish politics almost all political parties have a religious affiliation. Catholic parties simply don't even attempt to campaign in Protestant areas. Likewise Protestant parties simply don't even attempt to campaign in Catholic areas.
At the time of the Belfast Agreement this segregation wasn't just social it was also physical. There were giant concrete barriers, known as; "Peace Walls" between Protestant and Catholic areas. In order to stop the residents of those areas from killing each other.
These Peace Walls were remarkably similar to the blast walls around the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq. They are also remarkably similar to the Separation Wall between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank. The reason they are so similar is that both Iraq and Israel stole the idea from Northern Ireland.
Trade and employment have proven themselves to be very effective mechanisms for bridging these, literal, segregation walls.
For example Dennis, the Protestant farmer may despise all Catholics. Yet he seems to get on rather well with Patrick, the Catholic farmer south of the border who buys his crops to feed his cows.
Likewise Patrick may hate all Protestants. Yet he seems to get on rather well with Kevin, the Protestant who runs the dairy north of the border which buys his cow's milk.
This sort of mechanism for peace is what Soda Stream were trying to achieve with their plant Lehavim in the Israeli occupied West Bank. So I continue to be unimpressed by Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) forcing the closure of the plant in March 2016.
Not that this post is really crying out for more tangents.
In Northern Ireland the Belfast Agreement has been a resounding success. The generation born after 1998 contains far fewer just absolute headbangers.
The removal of the Ireland/Northern Ireland border has led to a significant boost in the economy. This has fuelled a growing middle-class, which both Catholic and Protestant, is more than happy to move out of the segregated and dilapidated social housing estates.
Things have improved to the point that back in 2014 I thought it was safe for me to start making jokes about The Troubles. In the context of the current war in Syria.
Amid the fury of the Brexit debate though I'm starting to think it might be time to update the codebook. "Dixie" and "Dollywood" are current front runners.
The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Known colloquially as; "The Northern Irish Backstop."
As I've mentioned the Plan A set out in the Withdrawal Agreement is for all outstanding issues to be resolved during the Transition Period.
If Plan A fails then the Withdrawal Agreement sets out a Plan B. The Transition Period will be extended.
It is only if both Plan A and Plan B fail the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, Plan C, will be invoked.
The moment that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is invoked Britain, in its entirety will leave both the EU Single Market and the EU Customs Union.
However Northern Ireland will simultaneously adopt, under British law a set of rules that are almost identical to the rules of the EU Single Market.
There is though one huge and key difference. Northern Ireland will not adopt the EU Single Market rules regarding the Free Movement of People/Free Movement of Human Capital.
It is hard to overstate just how massive a concession from the EU Prime Minister May has been able to win on this point.
On Saturday (8/12/18) the coalition governing EU member state, Belgium collapsed. It was brought down by the N-VA Party in protest over the Free Movement of People.
Last night (12/12/18) saw large, and at times violent protests in Budapest, capital of EU Member State Hungary. In protest against measures to tackle the Hungarian labour shortage caused by the Free Movement of People.
Despite the abolition of the Free Movement of People all citizens of Northern Ireland will continue to be dual nationals. Holding both British and Irish citizenship. As per the Belfast Agreement.
British and Irish nationals will also continue to be completely free to travel between and work within Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Under the terms of the 1923 Common Travel Area.
On the topic of irritating headaches Britain has two female comedians. Aisling Bea and Katherine Ryan. Both are Irish citizens. Since 2015 both of their entire acts have been built around how Brexit will force them out of Britain.
That is absolute rubbish. Both live and work in the UK under the Common Travel Area of 1923.
Quite how someone named Aisling Bea can forget she's Irish is completely beyond me.
The Common Travel Area of 1923 however only applies to British and Irish citizens. It does not apply to EU citizens residing in the Republic of Ireland.
The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland does though contain a provision which grants EU citizens transit through Northern Ireland.
So if an EU citizen wants to fly into Derry City Airport in Northern Ireland in order to visit the border town of Muff in the Republic of Ireland. Possibly for no other reason than its got a really funny name. Derry City Airport has to allow them to do so.
I don't think Derry City Airport along with local car hire firms and even the most sectarian taxi drivers wouldn't want to turn away that tourist money.
So this transit provision is really the question that no-one asked. The protocol though has provided for the question should it ever arise.
At around 18:35 on 13/12/18 (UK date) there is still so much more to go.
Edited at around 21:15 on 13/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;
Under the protocol Northern Ireland not will not join, nor remain part of the EU Single Market.
However the fact it will join a single market with the EU causes significant problems. Both for the British mainland and for the wider EU.
It risks turning Northern Ireland into a massive marketplace for smuggled goods. Both from the EU into the British mainland and from the British mainland, and by extension the wider World into the EU.
So to prevent this the British mainland will, simultaneously adopt, under British law a set of rules that are almost identical to the rules of the EU Customs Union.
If you wish to check exactly what the rules both Northern Ireland and the British mainland will be adopting Annexes 1 to 10 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland provide a 143 page list.
Despite the similarity of these rules under the protocol the British mainland will not join, nor remain part of the EU Customs Union.
Instead it will join special customs union with the EU of which it is the only member. I will endeavour to explain the extremely technical differences between the rules later on this post.
First though I should dispel one of the biggest myths about this customs union and the EU Customs Union.
Being a member of either this customs union or the EU Customs Union DOES NOT stop Britain reaching and implementing trade deals with countries outside of the EU.
Either customs union prevents Britain from doing tariff-free trade deals with countries outside of EU. It can still implement trade deals. However those deals must impose tariffs under the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) provisions of the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs (GATT). The legal basis on which the World Trade Organisation (WTO) operates.
The fact that the British mainland will be entering into a special, unique customs union is another absolutely massive concession British Prime Minister has been able to win from the EU.
As I mentioned in part one a significant thing which prompted British people to vote to leave the EU was a desire to take back control. To ruled by British laws, interpreted and enforced by British Courts.
The words used in the rules governing both the Northern Ireland single market and the British mainland customs union may be identical to the EU rules. However they are technically British laws. The EU has conceded that they can be interpreted and enforced solely by "competent" British Courts.
If the EU wishes to have a British Court ruling deemed incompetent it has to go through a lengthy and independent dispute resolution and arbitration process. During this process the ruling of the British Court stands.
By pushing for a No Deal scenario Hard Brexiteers want, as an alternative to have any points of law interpreted and ruled upon by the United Nation's International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Britain has absolutely no Judges sitting on the ICJ.
Britain has had a Judge on the ICJ since it was founded in 1945. Out of the Nuremberg Tribunals in Nazi war crimes.
However in November 2017 Britain was forced to withdraw its candidate to sit as a Judge on the ICJ. After the other members of the ICJ made it quite clear that they would not be supporting Britain.
Curiously this occurred at exactly the time the Hard Brexiteers were at their most vocal in the claim that Britain doesn't need to pay its divorce bill with the EU. And that the ICJ would certainly rule in Britain's favour.
At around 21:20 on 13/12/18 (UK date) I think I'm only about 50% of the way in. Having already decided on the need for an entirely seperate part three.
Edited at around 13:00 on 14/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;
Prime Minister May has also been able to extract another concession from the EU.
The rules governing both the Northern Ireland single market and the British mainland customs union can be replaced by laws passed exclusively by the British Parliament. On an ad-hoc, case-by-case basis. With the consent of the EU through the Joint Committee mechanism.
What Britain cannot do though is replace the rules laid out in the protocol with ones that offer less protection. Something which is known as; "Backsliding" in the jargon.
The overwhelming majority of these minimum standards are not something Britain adheres to under EU law. They are obligations that Britain has accepted under various, global treaties of international law.
So, for example the DUP can't suddenly introduce a law allowing them to deny public services such as housing to Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else on religious grounds. That is a restriction placed on Britain by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948.
It was a restriction that was again, specifically explained to Dr, Rev Ian Paisley in the 1998 Belfast Agreement. Which Paisley signed to confirm that he had received, read and accepted.
Likewise Britain's environmental protection obligations come from the UN's 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Along with the UN Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCCC) of the same year. Under which you have the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Ideally I would like to see all references to the Paris Agreement removed. However that's not really anything to do with this document. I just mean from the Earth, generally.
In the area of taxation the UK is obligated to adhere to principles of good governance. As defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Prime Minister May has also been successful in extracting concessions from the EU in the very fine, technical details of these rules. And how they are enforced.
Every member of the EU Single Market is also a member of the EU Customs Union. However agreeing to become part of the Single Market involves waiving most of the restrictions of the Customs Union. So most members of the Single Market simply forget that they are also members of the Customs Union.
In the interests of getting this long stream of jargon to make anything resembling sense I will ignore, for the moment, that under the protocol Northern Ireland will not be in the EU Single Market. Nor will Britain be in the EU Customs Union.
With the customs union extending across the entire single market no-one is particularly concerned with goods produced in either, moving between the customs union and the single market. In the jargon this is known as; "Free Circulation."
What people are concerned about is goods produced in the single market using the customs union as a way to sneak out into the global market. They are even more concerned about goods produced in the global market using the customs union as a way to sneak into the single market.
Even here the primary concern is not about lost tax revenue. It is about public safety, quality and manufacturing standards.
I don't want to single anyone out but concerns about Chinese safety, quality and manufacturing standards is not "Health & Safety Gone Mad!" Even Chinese parents don't want to give their children food, medicines and toys manufactured in China.
Under the protocol all goods manufactured solely in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and on the British mainland are considered in Free Circulation. This particularly applies to farm products. So Dennis, Patrick and Kevin can keep growing their hay, feeding their cows and selling their milk.
Things get more complicated when products are manufactured within either the customs union or single market. Yet include parts or ingredients that are imported from outside the customs union.
These products require extensive customs and border controls. In order to keep track of each individual part or ingredient. Whether they adhere to relevant standards and whether the relevant tariff/tax has been paid.
Here the EU has been very generous in its definition of; "Free Circulation."
As an example the computer keyboard I'm using to write this was made in China. However I did not import it from China. I brought it from a shop on the high street.
At some point in the supply chain the shop in the high street imported it from China. Making sure that it adhered to the relevant standards and that the relevant tariff/tax had been paid.
Under the protocol this keyboard is now considered in Free Circulation.
Therefore I can package it up with a similarly free circulating monitor and tower and sell it to someone in the Republic of Ireland. Or anywhere else in the EU Single Market. Without having to go through all the form filling and customs checks.
This is a very big deal if you're manufacturing for export to the EU something on the UK mainland which requires that one very complex part from Japan.
The EU is also being very generous regarding the type of checks for goods which are wholly, or in part considered not to be in Free Circulation.
Imagine you're trying to import/export a shipping container holding a thousand, individually boxed laptops, wristwatches or any other generic widget.
What would happen at the border between the customs union in the single market is the shipping container would be impounded and opened. Each individual box would then be opened to check it contains what it claims to.
Customs officials would then take a random sample of, say 10 of the laptops. They would then completely take them to bits to check the origin of each individual, tiny part.
If they can't put them back together again, well that's your problem. Customs officials are not liable for loss or damage during checks.
If there is a trade war going on nations can use this system of checks to really screw with you. It allows them to stand up at the ICJ and say;
"No we've haven't put an illegal quota on goods from Spain. Most of the imports just keep getting broken on the docks."
The protocol doesn't bother with any of these checks. Instead British exporters to the EU simply have to attach a certificate to the shipping container and the customs officials just wave it through.
The specific design of that certificate has not yet been decided upon. Nor has the process of obtaining one. I suspect though for a member of trusted trader scheme it will be a case of filling out a form online and printing off the certificate in the form of a sticky label yourself.
This is an area where the British mainland's unique customs union differs from Turkey's treatment under the EU Customs Union. Now he's had it explained to him Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his wobbly economy seems even more furious than usual.
Of course if the certificate system is widely abused than the EU can impose the physical checks.
That worst case scenario though is the WTO/GATT rules the Hard Brexiteers are demanding be adopted.
Instead of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
13:10 on 14/12/18 (UK date).
The other area which seems of importance to people is the Northern Ireland Backstop. Or to give it its formal name; "The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland."
I should start by pointing out that the Northern Ireland Backstop is not technically part of the Withdrawal Agreement. Instead it is a legally binding protocol under the Withdrawal Agreement.
I know that sounds pedantic. However legally binding protocols under agreements and other statutory instruments rely almost exclusively on precision and pedantry.
The Withdrawal Agreement sets out a Transition Period. Plan A is that all outstanding issues on Britain's future relationship with the EU will be resolved during this Transition Period.
However if that Plan A fails the Withdrawal Agreement lays out a contingency plan. The Transition Period can be extended. The Plan B.
If both Plan A and Plan B fail the Withdrawal Agreement lays out a third contingency. This is the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. The Plan C.
So when British MP's such as Esther McVey appear on TV demanding Prime Minister May abandons the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. In order to draw up a Plan B.
Well, it really gives you a headache. Particularly when they're not immediately corrected by the interviewer.
In order to understand why the Ireland/Northern Ireland border is such a contentious issue you could go back to the Norman, Strongbow invasion of Ireland in 1170. Or; "Brentry, Annex One" as I believe it's now known.
You could also look at Martin Luther's decision to nail his Ninety-Five Theses to the doors of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany. In October 1517.
It might also be worth looking at the British Act of Settlement of 1701.
After all the Act of Settlement introduced the Royal Prerogative. Due to the antics of Gina Miller in the 2016; "Enemies of the People" case it was found the Royal Prerogative could not be used to negotiate Brexit. Giving British Parliamentarians this oh, so meaningful say of theirs.
However what is most relevant to the Ireland/Northern Ireland border issue is the so-called; "Good Friday Agreement." Or, to give it its formal name; "The 1998 Belfast Agreement."
The purpose of the 1998 Belfast Agreement was to bring about the end of a period known as; "The Troubles."
Displaying typical British understatement The Troubles was a low-intensity, but often brutal civil war. Fought across Northern Ireland, the British Mainland and even as far as Spain and Gibraltar.
One of the main provisions of the Belfast Agreement is the removal of any physical border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
At the time of the Belfast Agreement the Ireland/Northern Ireland border was operated by the British Military. Border posts and checkpoints were small military bases.
Rather like the network of Control Points the Turkish Military currently operates in the Sudetenland of Syria. Or the network of Observation Posts the US Military is currently establishing in the Shangri-La area of Syria. In order to deter a Turkish invasion and occupation.
The border posts the British Military operated along the Ireland/Northern Ireland border during The Troubles are remarkably similar to the Observation Posts the Israeli Military operates along the Palestinian West Bank Separation Wall.
This militarised border created a very aggressive and hostile environment. Which was extremely stressful for all involved. Particularly civilains.
There is a British comedian, Patrick Kielty. He is married to British TV presenter Cat Deeley, who Americans may have heard of. Patrick Kielty grew up in Northern Ireland during The Troubles. He can tell you a story about how, having just passed his driving test he crashed his car.
Emerging from the wreck Patrick Kielty was not presented with sympathetic firefighters or paramedics. Instead he was confronted by British soldiers in full combat gear, leaping from their armoured vehicle to point assault rifles in his face. Forcing him to prove he wasn't a terrorist. He was just a teenage boy who'd made a fool of himself.
Another of the provisions of the Belfast Agreement was the withdrawal of British troops. They were replaced by the newly formed Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). Although a civilian police force the PSNI are still extremely heavily armed.
If there's a terror attack in Europe or a mass shooting in America you will often see police SWAT teams running about in combat gear. That is how the PSNI conduct routine, day-to-day patrols. Particularly in the rural border areas.
So no-one wants to see a return to the aggressive and hostile environment of a so-called; "Hard Border" between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
However while soldiers and their toys are part of the issue it is not the main issue with the border.
The overarching ethos of the Belfast Agreement was to use economic prosperity as a mechanism for peace.
For his own reasons Jacob Rees-Mogg seems to have absolutely no interest in explaining this to people. However if he were to attempt to he would probably reach for Greek Mythology. Particularly the battle between Poseidon and Athena.
Compared to other developed EU Member States Britain is relatively small. Compared to Britain as a whole Northern Ireland is absolutely tiny. With a population of just 1.8 million people. As with small island states Northern Ireland's small population means that it's never going to have a big economy.
When there's not much to go around everyone starts wondering if other people are taking more than their fair share. Leading to conflict. Particularly when members of one religious group think members of another religious group have absolutely no right to exist. Let alone a right to housing or food.
As far back as 1965 Protestant groups such as the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) were operating paramilitary death squads in Northern Ireland. To kidnap and kill Catholic civilians. Prior to founding the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) Dr, Rev Ian Paisley was a member of the UVF.
However the widely recognised start of The Troubles was a massive riot in 1969 known as; "The Battle of the Bogside."
Relatively poor Catholic residents of the Bogside Housing Estate held a civil rights march. To protest the awarding of social housing to a single, Protestant woman. Over a homeless Catholic family. Relatively wealthy Protestants decided to mock the Catholics by rolling pennies down the Falls Road into the Bogside Estate.
So when the Protestant DUP play, at their rallies songs like; "Penny Lane" by the Beatles. Or "Penny Arcade" by Roy Orbison it has a very different meaning. As does the Beach Boys song; "Sloop John B."
At the time of the Battle of the Bogside policing in Northern Ireland was the responsibility of the almost exclusively Protestant Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). They were backed by the unpaid volunteers of the exclusively Protestant Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) known as; "The B-Specials."
The B-Specials were a Protestant paramilitary group. One authorised by and backed by the British State.
The RUC and the B-Specials' response to the Battle of the Bogside was to open fire with heavy machine guns. Not just against the rioters but against all the houses in the Bogside Estate.
The first official fatality of The Troubles was a Catholic soldier in the British Army. Home on leave he was killed by an B-Special bullet from a Browning M2 machine gun while standing on the balcony of his mother's home in the Davis Flats building.
In the eyes of the RUC and the B-Specials the fact he was serving in the British Army was apparently not enough to wash away the crime of being Catholic.
So officially the British Military was first deployed to Northern Ireland to protect the Catholic minority. From the Protestant RUC and B-Specials.
One of the British Military's first tasks was to disband the B-Specials. They were replaced by the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR). Who were hardly much better.
Particularly under Prime Minister Margret Thatcher the British mainland went through an extensive revision of the history of The Troubles. On the mainland the focus is very much on Catholic paramilitary groups. Such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) and the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA).
These Catholic paramilitaries simply did not exist at the start of The Troubles. The INLA were not formed until 1974. Five years after the Battle of the Bogside.
The primary purpose of removing the Ireland/Northern Ireland border under the Belfast Agreement is to boost Northern Ireland's economy by allowing for tariff-free trade.
The thinking being that as Northern Ireland's economy grows the sectarian divisions and conflict will reduce.
At around 13:40 on 13/12/18 (UK date) there is still so much more to come.
Edited at around 18:30 on 13/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste, from another place;
At the time of the Belfast Agreement Northern Irish society was deeply segregated. In a way that makes the US' Jim Crow-era look like a walk in the park.
The current UK Secretary of State (Chief Minister) for Northern Ireland, Karen Bradley recently made a bit of a fool of herself. She declared that before taking up the post she didn't realise how deeply segregated society in Northern Ireland continues to be.
For example she didn't know that in Northern Irish politics almost all political parties have a religious affiliation. Catholic parties simply don't even attempt to campaign in Protestant areas. Likewise Protestant parties simply don't even attempt to campaign in Catholic areas.
At the time of the Belfast Agreement this segregation wasn't just social it was also physical. There were giant concrete barriers, known as; "Peace Walls" between Protestant and Catholic areas. In order to stop the residents of those areas from killing each other.
These Peace Walls were remarkably similar to the blast walls around the Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq. They are also remarkably similar to the Separation Wall between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank. The reason they are so similar is that both Iraq and Israel stole the idea from Northern Ireland.
Trade and employment have proven themselves to be very effective mechanisms for bridging these, literal, segregation walls.
For example Dennis, the Protestant farmer may despise all Catholics. Yet he seems to get on rather well with Patrick, the Catholic farmer south of the border who buys his crops to feed his cows.
Likewise Patrick may hate all Protestants. Yet he seems to get on rather well with Kevin, the Protestant who runs the dairy north of the border which buys his cow's milk.
This sort of mechanism for peace is what Soda Stream were trying to achieve with their plant Lehavim in the Israeli occupied West Bank. So I continue to be unimpressed by Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) forcing the closure of the plant in March 2016.
Not that this post is really crying out for more tangents.
In Northern Ireland the Belfast Agreement has been a resounding success. The generation born after 1998 contains far fewer just absolute headbangers.
The removal of the Ireland/Northern Ireland border has led to a significant boost in the economy. This has fuelled a growing middle-class, which both Catholic and Protestant, is more than happy to move out of the segregated and dilapidated social housing estates.
Things have improved to the point that back in 2014 I thought it was safe for me to start making jokes about The Troubles. In the context of the current war in Syria.
Amid the fury of the Brexit debate though I'm starting to think it might be time to update the codebook. "Dixie" and "Dollywood" are current front runners.
The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Known colloquially as; "The Northern Irish Backstop."
As I've mentioned the Plan A set out in the Withdrawal Agreement is for all outstanding issues to be resolved during the Transition Period.
If Plan A fails then the Withdrawal Agreement sets out a Plan B. The Transition Period will be extended.
It is only if both Plan A and Plan B fail the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, Plan C, will be invoked.
The moment that the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is invoked Britain, in its entirety will leave both the EU Single Market and the EU Customs Union.
However Northern Ireland will simultaneously adopt, under British law a set of rules that are almost identical to the rules of the EU Single Market.
There is though one huge and key difference. Northern Ireland will not adopt the EU Single Market rules regarding the Free Movement of People/Free Movement of Human Capital.
It is hard to overstate just how massive a concession from the EU Prime Minister May has been able to win on this point.
On Saturday (8/12/18) the coalition governing EU member state, Belgium collapsed. It was brought down by the N-VA Party in protest over the Free Movement of People.
Last night (12/12/18) saw large, and at times violent protests in Budapest, capital of EU Member State Hungary. In protest against measures to tackle the Hungarian labour shortage caused by the Free Movement of People.
Despite the abolition of the Free Movement of People all citizens of Northern Ireland will continue to be dual nationals. Holding both British and Irish citizenship. As per the Belfast Agreement.
British and Irish nationals will also continue to be completely free to travel between and work within Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Under the terms of the 1923 Common Travel Area.
On the topic of irritating headaches Britain has two female comedians. Aisling Bea and Katherine Ryan. Both are Irish citizens. Since 2015 both of their entire acts have been built around how Brexit will force them out of Britain.
That is absolute rubbish. Both live and work in the UK under the Common Travel Area of 1923.
Quite how someone named Aisling Bea can forget she's Irish is completely beyond me.
The Common Travel Area of 1923 however only applies to British and Irish citizens. It does not apply to EU citizens residing in the Republic of Ireland.
The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland does though contain a provision which grants EU citizens transit through Northern Ireland.
So if an EU citizen wants to fly into Derry City Airport in Northern Ireland in order to visit the border town of Muff in the Republic of Ireland. Possibly for no other reason than its got a really funny name. Derry City Airport has to allow them to do so.
I don't think Derry City Airport along with local car hire firms and even the most sectarian taxi drivers wouldn't want to turn away that tourist money.
So this transit provision is really the question that no-one asked. The protocol though has provided for the question should it ever arise.
At around 18:35 on 13/12/18 (UK date) there is still so much more to go.
Edited at around 21:15 on 13/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;
Under the protocol Northern Ireland not will not join, nor remain part of the EU Single Market.
However the fact it will join a single market with the EU causes significant problems. Both for the British mainland and for the wider EU.
It risks turning Northern Ireland into a massive marketplace for smuggled goods. Both from the EU into the British mainland and from the British mainland, and by extension the wider World into the EU.
So to prevent this the British mainland will, simultaneously adopt, under British law a set of rules that are almost identical to the rules of the EU Customs Union.
If you wish to check exactly what the rules both Northern Ireland and the British mainland will be adopting Annexes 1 to 10 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland provide a 143 page list.
Despite the similarity of these rules under the protocol the British mainland will not join, nor remain part of the EU Customs Union.
Instead it will join special customs union with the EU of which it is the only member. I will endeavour to explain the extremely technical differences between the rules later on this post.
First though I should dispel one of the biggest myths about this customs union and the EU Customs Union.
Being a member of either this customs union or the EU Customs Union DOES NOT stop Britain reaching and implementing trade deals with countries outside of the EU.
Either customs union prevents Britain from doing tariff-free trade deals with countries outside of EU. It can still implement trade deals. However those deals must impose tariffs under the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) provisions of the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs (GATT). The legal basis on which the World Trade Organisation (WTO) operates.
The fact that the British mainland will be entering into a special, unique customs union is another absolutely massive concession British Prime Minister has been able to win from the EU.
As I mentioned in part one a significant thing which prompted British people to vote to leave the EU was a desire to take back control. To ruled by British laws, interpreted and enforced by British Courts.
The words used in the rules governing both the Northern Ireland single market and the British mainland customs union may be identical to the EU rules. However they are technically British laws. The EU has conceded that they can be interpreted and enforced solely by "competent" British Courts.
If the EU wishes to have a British Court ruling deemed incompetent it has to go through a lengthy and independent dispute resolution and arbitration process. During this process the ruling of the British Court stands.
By pushing for a No Deal scenario Hard Brexiteers want, as an alternative to have any points of law interpreted and ruled upon by the United Nation's International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Britain has absolutely no Judges sitting on the ICJ.
Britain has had a Judge on the ICJ since it was founded in 1945. Out of the Nuremberg Tribunals in Nazi war crimes.
However in November 2017 Britain was forced to withdraw its candidate to sit as a Judge on the ICJ. After the other members of the ICJ made it quite clear that they would not be supporting Britain.
Curiously this occurred at exactly the time the Hard Brexiteers were at their most vocal in the claim that Britain doesn't need to pay its divorce bill with the EU. And that the ICJ would certainly rule in Britain's favour.
At around 21:20 on 13/12/18 (UK date) I think I'm only about 50% of the way in. Having already decided on the need for an entirely seperate part three.
Edited at around 13:00 on 14/12/18 (UK date) to copy & paste from another tab;
Prime Minister May has also been able to extract another concession from the EU.
The rules governing both the Northern Ireland single market and the British mainland customs union can be replaced by laws passed exclusively by the British Parliament. On an ad-hoc, case-by-case basis. With the consent of the EU through the Joint Committee mechanism.
What Britain cannot do though is replace the rules laid out in the protocol with ones that offer less protection. Something which is known as; "Backsliding" in the jargon.
The overwhelming majority of these minimum standards are not something Britain adheres to under EU law. They are obligations that Britain has accepted under various, global treaties of international law.
So, for example the DUP can't suddenly introduce a law allowing them to deny public services such as housing to Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or anyone else on religious grounds. That is a restriction placed on Britain by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948.
It was a restriction that was again, specifically explained to Dr, Rev Ian Paisley in the 1998 Belfast Agreement. Which Paisley signed to confirm that he had received, read and accepted.
Likewise Britain's environmental protection obligations come from the UN's 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Along with the UN Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCCC) of the same year. Under which you have the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Ideally I would like to see all references to the Paris Agreement removed. However that's not really anything to do with this document. I just mean from the Earth, generally.
In the area of taxation the UK is obligated to adhere to principles of good governance. As defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Prime Minister May has also been successful in extracting concessions from the EU in the very fine, technical details of these rules. And how they are enforced.
Every member of the EU Single Market is also a member of the EU Customs Union. However agreeing to become part of the Single Market involves waiving most of the restrictions of the Customs Union. So most members of the Single Market simply forget that they are also members of the Customs Union.
In the interests of getting this long stream of jargon to make anything resembling sense I will ignore, for the moment, that under the protocol Northern Ireland will not be in the EU Single Market. Nor will Britain be in the EU Customs Union.
With the customs union extending across the entire single market no-one is particularly concerned with goods produced in either, moving between the customs union and the single market. In the jargon this is known as; "Free Circulation."
What people are concerned about is goods produced in the single market using the customs union as a way to sneak out into the global market. They are even more concerned about goods produced in the global market using the customs union as a way to sneak into the single market.
Even here the primary concern is not about lost tax revenue. It is about public safety, quality and manufacturing standards.
I don't want to single anyone out but concerns about Chinese safety, quality and manufacturing standards is not "Health & Safety Gone Mad!" Even Chinese parents don't want to give their children food, medicines and toys manufactured in China.
Under the protocol all goods manufactured solely in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and on the British mainland are considered in Free Circulation. This particularly applies to farm products. So Dennis, Patrick and Kevin can keep growing their hay, feeding their cows and selling their milk.
Things get more complicated when products are manufactured within either the customs union or single market. Yet include parts or ingredients that are imported from outside the customs union.
These products require extensive customs and border controls. In order to keep track of each individual part or ingredient. Whether they adhere to relevant standards and whether the relevant tariff/tax has been paid.
Here the EU has been very generous in its definition of; "Free Circulation."
As an example the computer keyboard I'm using to write this was made in China. However I did not import it from China. I brought it from a shop on the high street.
At some point in the supply chain the shop in the high street imported it from China. Making sure that it adhered to the relevant standards and that the relevant tariff/tax had been paid.
Under the protocol this keyboard is now considered in Free Circulation.
Therefore I can package it up with a similarly free circulating monitor and tower and sell it to someone in the Republic of Ireland. Or anywhere else in the EU Single Market. Without having to go through all the form filling and customs checks.
This is a very big deal if you're manufacturing for export to the EU something on the UK mainland which requires that one very complex part from Japan.
The EU is also being very generous regarding the type of checks for goods which are wholly, or in part considered not to be in Free Circulation.
Imagine you're trying to import/export a shipping container holding a thousand, individually boxed laptops, wristwatches or any other generic widget.
What would happen at the border between the customs union in the single market is the shipping container would be impounded and opened. Each individual box would then be opened to check it contains what it claims to.
Customs officials would then take a random sample of, say 10 of the laptops. They would then completely take them to bits to check the origin of each individual, tiny part.
If they can't put them back together again, well that's your problem. Customs officials are not liable for loss or damage during checks.
If there is a trade war going on nations can use this system of checks to really screw with you. It allows them to stand up at the ICJ and say;
"No we've haven't put an illegal quota on goods from Spain. Most of the imports just keep getting broken on the docks."
The protocol doesn't bother with any of these checks. Instead British exporters to the EU simply have to attach a certificate to the shipping container and the customs officials just wave it through.
The specific design of that certificate has not yet been decided upon. Nor has the process of obtaining one. I suspect though for a member of trusted trader scheme it will be a case of filling out a form online and printing off the certificate in the form of a sticky label yourself.
This is an area where the British mainland's unique customs union differs from Turkey's treatment under the EU Customs Union. Now he's had it explained to him Turkish President/Prime Minister/Emperor Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his wobbly economy seems even more furious than usual.
Of course if the certificate system is widely abused than the EU can impose the physical checks.
That worst case scenario though is the WTO/GATT rules the Hard Brexiteers are demanding be adopted.
Instead of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
13:10 on 14/12/18 (UK date).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)