RayC

That wouldn't satisfy me but each to their own????

How did they do that? Then he made a bad decision and was incompetent. For the umpteenth time, the DUP made known their objections to a border down the Irish Sea way before January 2020. Johnson chose to ignore this warning. It was not difficult to see what the reaction of the DUP would be to this snub but, nevertheless, Johnson ploughed ahead. I'd imagine that the EU side were all too aware of the potential problems but what were they meant to do? If they refused to sign because of reservations about what might happen in NI, they would be accused of trying to keep the UK in the EU and/or interfering in UK domestic politics. Brexiters would probably have self-combusted if that scenario had occurred. What workable solutions? It's all about the EU applying the terms of the Agreement. The idea that the EU is a dictatorship is complete and utter nonsense. Again, paraphrasing a previous post, there are two EU institutions with legislative powers. The first (the European Council) comprises of the Heads of Government from the member state; the second consists of MPs who are elected by the electorate in the member states and sit in the European Parliament. How is that undemocratic, let alone a dictatorship?

Very surreal. You'll have to explain that one to me.

I don't know what lead you to that conclusion but apology accepted. Wrong again, I'm afraid. I asked a Rumanian friend and he couldn't help as he'd never claimed benefits anywhere. Maybe there are a few Brits who could advise about the relative ease of claiming benefits in the UK and the various EU states?

That's your opinion. Mine is different. I guess that the legal bods will decide who of us is right. From 1996 to 2014, the UK was forced to enact +/-1.5% of EU legislation against its' will: It comes down to a value judgement i.e. whether you think that regaining 1.5% more sovereignty is worth all this hassle. I don't. I assume that you do. Regarding the control of borders. The UK needs to import labour. It appears to me that we are merely substituting EU labour for, say, Canadian labour. Again, it comes down to a value judgement. You may think this valuable and worth the ongoing hassle, I don't.

The UK would be in breach of international law if it unilaterally abrogated the NI Protocol and, by extension, the Withdrawal Agreement. However, it is perfectly entitled to invoke Article 16. Both sides would then try to find a solution. If this is not possible, the matter then goes to the Joint Committee, which is comprised in equal part of representatives from the EU and the UK. If they are unable to agree a solution, the matter is further escalated to an international court. It's unclear to me which international court this is, and what powers of enforcement it might have? (For example, my layman's interpretation is that judgements by the International Court of Arbitration are not legally binding, whereas those made by the International Court of Justice are). The EU is perfectly entitled to apply the letter of the law. The UK government's inability and/or unwillingness to comply with its' obligations is the problem.

"I am standing on a platform of increased duplicity and dishonesty" Who could resist voting for a politician like that?????

I don't agree with much of what you say but I admire your honest self-reflection.

Or maybe it was the likes of supermarkets squeezing suppliers that kept wage rates artificially low. Then how would you know anything about the practical difficulties of getting benefits abroad or did you find that simple to get benefits in the UK that you can't believe there is an easier system? I can't provide details of any personal experience with applying for benefits overseas as I've never done so.

Maybe. But the short-term omens don't look great and the payback period for these perceived economic benefits seems to stretch further and further into the future by the day. How so? What positive difference has it made to the UK?

I imagine that, as a minimum, those living on the island of Ireland have a passing interest in matters plus the Irish diaspora which includes a lot of influencal US politicians. Best to keep on their good side as we'll need to suck up to them shortly.

Agreed. But if the UK government had been so concerned about the training given to the UK workforce, it could have subsided it (in a way that would not have broken EU state subsidy rules).

As an aside, what's the Brexiters reaction to the news that their hero is the one who apparently wants to take a softer line with the EU? Is it now 'Off to the Tower' with him and 'All Hail, Queen Lizzie (Truss)'?

Err ... NI is part of the UK. Shouldn't Westminster be taking an interest in its' affairs and trying to solve any problems.

No matter what way you dress it up, it's a border and its' existence was unacceptable to the DUP.

That has nothing to do with it. Some simple "'Yes'/'No' answer" questions: Were the objections of the DUP to a border down the Irish Sea known before the Brexit Agreement was signed? Could the reactions of the DUP to the UK disregarding the DUP's objections be foreseen? Did the UK government enact any legislation to deal with the DUP's objectives immediately before or shortly after the signing of the Brexit Agreement? Therefore logically, Can the EU be blamed for the chaotic situation we now find ourselves in?

I assume by Irish you mean the DUP? If so, I agree. Which begs the question: If Johnson knew this, why did he sign the Agreement? You can't have a border and no border simultaneously in January 2020, now or at any time in the future, unless some Einstein-like mathematical genius comes along and destroys the rules of deductive logic. Maybe that's the plan?

It is. You're watching a repeat on 'Dave'. Spoiler alert: It didn't turn out so great for us Brits.

There was nothing to stop the UK training its' workforce while it was a member of the EU. An UK industrial strategy containing incentives for industry to do so could have been introduced. The problems faced by the Polish health service are more deep-seated than simply stopping their doctors from emigrating. In 2020, only 9% of qualified doctors emigrated from Poland. Not great but not an insurmountable problem in itself. The bigger problem is a chronic lack of investment.

How on earth can you come to the conclusion that the EU is interfering with the UK's sovereignty? The UK came to an Agreement with the EU that there would effectively be a border in the Irish Sea, ignoring warnings from the DUP that this would cause problems and increase tensions in NI. What would you have had the EU do? Refuse to sign the Agreement because they were worried about the matter? They would then -perhaps justifiably - have been accused of meddling in UK domestic issues. I can only imagine the outrage that Brexiters would have expressed if this scenario had become reality. So all the troubles caused by the protocol is due to Sinn Fein having the audacity to stand for election and the NI electorate for making them the biggest party? This would be laughable, and could form the basis of a Whitehall farce, if it wasn't so serious. Identifying the cause of the problem is simple. It is due to the inability and/or the unwillingness of the UK government, who signed the deal to fully implement it. The ability of Brexiters and this UK administration to avoid taking responsibility and accountability for their actions is astonishing, as is their ability to find new entities to blame.

We've established that. It doesn't address my point that restricting freedom of movement is an impediment to labour mobility.

You keep on about cheap labour. Does this mean EU nationals are paid less than their UK counterparts? If so, I would have thought that you'd be in favour of that? Clever UK employers getting one over on Johnny Foreigner. If they are then they are missing a trick if they are looking for the country with the most generous welfare benefits. They'd be better off in France, Belgium or Italy amongst others.

Not unless they applied for, and were granted 'settled status' they can't. There is no doubt that the restriction on freedom of movement is an impediment to EU nationals applying for jobs in the UK.

Not since we left the EU they are not, not without the individual and their UK employer jumping through numerous hoops and preparing reams of paperwork. I agree with you up to a point. The relatively sudden lifting of Covid restrictions meant that the Aviation industry had little time to get back to a normal operational level. However, the effect was enhanced by Brexit. 30+% of staff in UK airports were EU nationals, and many (most?) left the UK during Covid and have not returned. No other nation in Europe is suffering such severe disruption at its' airports as the UK, and the reason for this is that there is more availability of fully-trained staff who might (pre-Brexit) have been tempted by a job in the UK. Pre-Brexit they didn't need work permits. They could land in the UK and apply for jobs while here. Skilled professionals such as doctors are in demand everywhere, why go through the hassle of complying with requirements when elsewhere, you don't need to?

That might be the idea but it is not as simple as 'one immigrant worker out, one domestic worker in'. There is a currently a shortage of workers in the aviation industry, some of which is due to EU workers not returning. Apparently it takes 12 weeks to train/ clear individuals to work in security/ baggage handling, etc. at airports. Obviously not a long term problem but no comfort to those people having their holidays cancelled. However, what about those jobs which require longer training/ more experience? You can't simply take people out of an unemployment line and tell them that they are now an accountant/ doctor/ systems analyst/ etc. These jobs will need to be filled by overseas workers and, as I said previously, simply replacing EU nationals with other overseas nationals seems a pretty pointless exercise and offers no real benefits