FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The Horizon Program
The Horizon Program
Jump to: Newest in thread
"Tom is no scientist but apparently Brexit means that some science types are not getting their EU grant..
Did they think about that before they voted for it.. ?"
Most scientists didn't vote for Brexit as they knew where most of their funding came and knew it was a really bad idea in the first place |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Tom is no scientist but apparently Brexit means that some science types are not getting their EU grant..
Did they think about that before they voted for it.. ?
Most scientists didn't vote for Brexit as they knew where most of their funding came and knew it was a really bad idea in the first place"
In fact the scientific community were mostly warning against the consequences of Brexit. But people tend not to listen to scientists if it challenges their preconceptions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Tom is no scientist but apparently Brexit means that some science types are not getting their EU grant..
Did they think about that before they voted for it.. ?
Most scientists didn't vote for Brexit as they knew where most of their funding came and knew it was a really bad idea in the first place
In fact the scientific community were mostly warning against the consequences of Brexit. But people tend not to listen to scientists if it challenges their preconceptions."
Yes very true |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"These science buggers new the risk and did not prepare..
And now they moan...
Eh! They totally knew, and raised it as a huge issue at the time...
No they did not.."
We did Tom, I know as I was one of them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"These science buggers new the risk and did not prepare..
And now they moan...
Eh! They totally knew, and raised it as a huge issue at the time...
No they did not..
We did Tom, I know as I was one of them"
One of ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The head of Microbiology dept at Imperial College in London has said that he has just lost €2.5m funding from the European research council due to the government refusing to continue being part of the Horizon partnership program. His department are at the forefront of research in the UK and Europe but at this time are unable to secure government funding to replace this not to mention the access to other scientists and their work throughout Europe. Some of his staff have decided to move to Europe as a result so the research he was undertaking is now hamstrung by loss of skills as well as finance and collaboration of ideas.
It’s another Brexit bonus! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The driver here seems to be so called scientists losing their free ride and the gravy train over.. "
What Gravy train?,What free ride?,What do you think the EU(with UK agreement) was funding these scientists for?
To give horribly written background to the situation (anyone feel free to correct me).Most research is an investment with the aim of turning over a profit,sometimes it goes well sometimes it doesn't.
The problem is that a lot of scientific problems(diseases,viruses and environmental) that could be fixed in the world simply do not because there is no profit incentive to do so.
Knowing this many countries fund research via their governments for pressing issues,But the EU being a union of nations decided a different action was needed and so started issuing grants and then created the Horizon scheme.
Basically Horizon allows easy access to information across the EU and limited but still substantial information sharing with affiliate nations(The UK government is actually not happy about this and wants to have the privileges of full membership but none of the burden). Horizons purpose is to allow for unprofitable but beneficial initiatives to be funded and the UK being a major centre of science got a significant amount of grants.
That is my understanding of it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the English scientists were worth their salt then they would be supported.. EU won't fund their nonsense so why should England ?"
England and the UK has many scientists leading in their fields. In all scientific disciplines.
As mentioned, many scientists warned that leaving the UK would damage the scientific community.
The suggestion that they should have prepared, what could they have done?
I suppose it's better than the - scientists should all move to the EU idea. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If the English scientists were worth their salt then they would be supported.. EU won't fund their nonsense so why should England ?
England and the UK has many scientists leading in their fields. In all scientific disciplines.
As mentioned, many scientists warned that leaving the UK would damage the scientific community.
The suggestion that they should have prepared, what could they have done?
I suppose it's better than the - scientists should all move to the EU idea."
*Leaving the EU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The uk government still wishes to be part of horizon and agreed on the financial settlement for this as part of the withdrawal agreement with the EU, the issue is the EU as decided to block the UK's ascension to the project due to the bad blood over the NI protocol. This has been criticised by academics here and in many European countries but is still ongoing. I believe the uk government has now started legal proceedings with the EU over this matter. It is certainly not as black and white as some posters on here seem to be making out but then facts rarely seem to matter anymore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The uk government still wishes to be part of horizon and agreed on the financial settlement for this as part of the withdrawal agreement with the EU, the issue is the EU as decided to block the UK's ascension to the project due to the bad blood over the NI protocol. This has been criticised by academics here and in many European countries but is still ongoing. I believe the uk government has now started legal proceedings with the EU over this matter. It is certainly not as black and white as some posters on here seem to be making out but then facts rarely seem to matter anymore."
I guess if you want to be part of the game but don’t want to pay your subs than you get what you deserve?
The point that was being made by the Imperial College professor was that the failure of the government to ensure access to Horizon is damaging research here and now and that the promise of matching the funding has not happened.
Blaming the EU for the stupid decisions this government have made in the attempt to look bold and push the limits of negotiations to the point where they break down is hardly something to cheer about imho |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Britain has launched legal action after accusing the EU of refusing to release funding for vital scientific research.
Under a post-Brexit trade agreement with the bloc, the UK was set to pay £15billion to take part in Horizon Europe, an £80billion innovation programme.
It is supposed to allow British researchers access to grants and collaborations with Europeans.
But the bloc has effectively diverted the UK's grants to its own scientists by delaying Britain's membership in a 'clear breach' of the Brexit deal, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss claimed.
Her department said that delaying membership will cause 'serious damage to research and development' in both the UK and European countries.
Brussels is also blocking UK access to Copernicus, the earth observation programme which provides data on climate change, and nuclear research programme Euratom.
Officials said that refusing to finalise access to the schemes was widely seen as an attempt to gain leverage in the bitter dispute over the post-Brexit trading arrangements in Ireland.
Last night, the Government said the UK's ambassador to the EU, Lindsay Croisdale-Appleby, had written to the European Commission in Brussels to launch formal dispute proceedings.
The European Commission has been contacted for comment.
Miss Truss, the frontrunner to become the prime minister, said: 'The EU is in clear breach of our agreement, repeatedly seeking to politicise vital scientific cooperation by refusing to finalise access to these important programmes.
'We cannot allow this to continue. That is why the UK has now launched formal consultations and will do everything necessary to protect the scientific community.'
Minister for Europe, Graham Stuart, said: 'It is disappointing that the EU has not facilitated UK participation in the agreed scientific programmes, despite extensive UK engagement on the issue.
'Now more than ever the UK and the EU should be working together to tackle our shared challenges from net zero to global health and energy security. We look forward to constructive engagement through the formal consultations.'
The Government said it has prepared an alternative set of programmes to support UK scientists and researchers, if membership to Horizon Europe is not formalised
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. . "
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. .
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right?"
What is youre thinking that the uk broke the agreement ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. .
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right?
What is youre thinking that the uk broke the agreement ?
"
I was referring to the GFA which we are sworn under international and internal law to uphold.Should have made that clearer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Britain has launched legal action after accusing the EU of refusing to release funding for vital scientific research.
Under a post-Brexit trade agreement with the bloc, the UK was set to pay £15billion to take part in Horizon Europe, an £80billion innovation programme.
It is supposed to allow British researchers access to grants and collaborations with Europeans.
But the bloc has effectively diverted the UK's grants to its own scientists by delaying Britain's membership in a 'clear breach' of the Brexit deal, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss claimed.
Her department said that delaying membership will cause 'serious damage to research and development' in both the UK and European countries.
Brussels is also blocking UK access to Copernicus, the earth observation programme which provides data on climate change, and nuclear research programme Euratom.
Officials said that refusing to finalise access to the schemes was widely seen as an attempt to gain leverage in the bitter dispute over the post-Brexit trading arrangements in Ireland.
Last night, the Government said the UK's ambassador to the EU, Lindsay Croisdale-Appleby, had written to the European Commission in Brussels to launch formal dispute proceedings.
The European Commission has been contacted for comment.
Miss Truss, the frontrunner to become the prime minister, said: 'The EU is in clear breach of our agreement, repeatedly seeking to politicise vital scientific cooperation by refusing to finalise access to these important programmes.
'We cannot allow this to continue. That is why the UK has now launched formal consultations and will do everything necessary to protect the scientific community.'
Minister for Europe, Graham Stuart, said: 'It is disappointing that the EU has not facilitated UK participation in the agreed scientific programmes, despite extensive UK engagement on the issue.
'Now more than ever the UK and the EU should be working together to tackle our shared challenges from net zero to global health and energy security. We look forward to constructive engagement through the formal consultations.'
The Government said it has prepared an alternative set of programmes to support UK scientists and researchers, if membership to Horizon Europe is not formalised
"
this diverting funds line ... Presumably the UK hasnt paid in yet... So the EU are getting more of a smaller pie (but the same weight). And the UK has some money it can give to unis. Aka Plan B.
Btw, I suspect the EU are on the wrong side of the fence on this one. Their argument can only be that with COVID and ukariane etc there has not been the time to grant the association. Shakey. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"The uk government still wishes to be part of horizon and agreed on the financial settlement for this as part of the withdrawal agreement with the EU, the issue is the EU as decided to block the UK's ascension to the project due to the bad blood over the NI protocol. This has been criticised by academics here and in many European countries but is still ongoing. I believe the uk government has now started legal proceedings with the EU over this matter. It is certainly not as black and white as some posters on here seem to be making out but then facts rarely seem to matter anymore.
I guess if you want to be part of the game but don’t want to pay your subs than you get what you deserve?
The point that was being made by the Imperial College professor was that the failure of the government to ensure access to Horizon is damaging research here and now and that the promise of matching the funding has not happened.
Blaming the EU for the stupid decisions this government have made in the attempt to look bold and push the limits of negotiations to the point where they break down is hardly something to cheer about imho"
That's different to what the BBC were saying. If I understand you correctly you are saying the UK is refusing to pay its subs. As the horizon project is not purely EU members the only subs due would be to take part in that specific program. They say the EU agreed to have the UK involved and the UK has agreed to pay for membership of the project. The UK has the agreement and subs but now the EU has not honoured their side. Instead if I understand correctly they are using it as a weapon or bargaining chip in relation to the NI dispute |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. .
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right?
What is youre thinking that the uk broke the agreement ?
I was referring to the GFA which we are sworn under international and internal law to uphold.Should have made that clearer."
But is it not the EU who want a hard border ? And not the UK ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"The uk government still wishes to be part of horizon and agreed on the financial settlement for this as part of the withdrawal agreement with the EU, the issue is the EU as decided to block the UK's ascension to the project due to the bad blood over the NI protocol. This has been criticised by academics here and in many European countries but is still ongoing. I believe the uk government has now started legal proceedings with the EU over this matter. It is certainly not as black and white as some posters on here seem to be making out but then facts rarely seem to matter anymore.
I guess if you want to be part of the game but don’t want to pay your subs than you get what you deserve?
The point that was being made by the Imperial College professor was that the failure of the government to ensure access to Horizon is damaging research here and now and that the promise of matching the funding has not happened.
Blaming the EU for the stupid decisions this government have made in the attempt to look bold and push the limits of negotiations to the point where they break down is hardly something to cheer about imho
That's different to what the BBC were saying. If I understand you correctly you are saying the UK is refusing to pay its subs. As the horizon project is not purely EU members the only subs due would be to take part in that specific program. They say the EU agreed to have the UK involved and the UK has agreed to pay for membership of the project. The UK has the agreement and subs but now the EU has not honoured their side. Instead if I understand correctly they are using it as a weapon or bargaining chip in relation to the NI dispute"
The UK had already ring fenced the money for the projects it’s the EU who have not honoured the agreement so far.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. .
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right?
What is youre thinking that the uk broke the agreement ?
I was referring to the GFA which we are sworn under international and internal law to uphold.Should have made that clearer.
But is it not the EU who want a hard border ? And not the UK ?"
Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The uk government still wishes to be part of horizon and agreed on the financial settlement for this as part of the withdrawal agreement with the EU, the issue is the EU as decided to block the UK's ascension to the project due to the bad blood over the NI protocol. This has been criticised by academics here and in many European countries but is still ongoing. I believe the uk government has now started legal proceedings with the EU over this matter. It is certainly not as black and white as some posters on here seem to be making out but then facts rarely seem to matter anymore.
I guess if you want to be part of the game but don’t want to pay your subs than you get what you deserve?
The point that was being made by the Imperial College professor was that the failure of the government to ensure access to Horizon is damaging research here and now and that the promise of matching the funding has not happened.
Blaming the EU for the stupid decisions this government have made in the attempt to look bold and push the limits of negotiations to the point where they break down is hardly something to cheer about imho
That's different to what the BBC were saying. If I understand you correctly you are saying the UK is refusing to pay its subs. As the horizon project is not purely EU members the only subs due would be to take part in that specific program. They say the EU agreed to have the UK involved and the UK has agreed to pay for membership of the project. The UK has the agreement and subs but now the EU has not honoured their side. Instead if I understand correctly they are using it as a weapon or bargaining chip in relation to the NI dispute"
 yes thats the factual truth mate, half whats on here is absolute bollocks as usual. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The uk government still wishes to be part of horizon and agreed on the financial settlement for this as part of the withdrawal agreement with the EU, the issue is the EU as decided to block the UK's ascension to the project due to the bad blood over the NI protocol. This has been criticised by academics here and in many European countries but is still ongoing. I believe the uk government has now started legal proceedings with the EU over this matter. It is certainly not as black and white as some posters on here seem to be making out but then facts rarely seem to matter anymore.
I guess if you want to be part of the game but don’t want to pay your subs than you get what you deserve?
The point that was being made by the Imperial College professor was that the failure of the government to ensure access to Horizon is damaging research here and now and that the promise of matching the funding has not happened.
Blaming the EU for the stupid decisions this government have made in the attempt to look bold and push the limits of negotiations to the point where they break down is hardly something to cheer about imho"
The government agreed to pay the money for association to the program, your information on lack of payment is wrong, the guardian article is also rather misleading, may I suggest you look into all the complaints that have been presented to the European commission over this matter for at least the last 12 months and the fact they are from academics all over Europe to give you a more factual view on this subject. Oh and I am not cheering but can't be doing with all the misinformation on the thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. . "
Lol, classic.
The "it's the EUs fault for all the problems caused by Brexit" is my personal favourite diehard brexiteer excuse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. .
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right?
What is youre thinking that the uk broke the agreement ?
I was referring to the GFA which we are sworn under international and internal law to uphold.Should have made that clearer.
But is it not the EU who want a hard border ? And not the UK ?"
The EU want to honour the terms of the GFE. The UK voted to put a hard border around the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. .
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right?
What is youre thinking that the uk broke the agreement ?
I was referring to the GFA which we are sworn under international and internal law to uphold.Should have made that clearer.
But is it not the EU who want a hard border ? And not the UK ?
The EU want to honour the terms of the GFE. The UK voted to put a hard border around the UK."
*GFA |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. .
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right?
What is youre thinking that the uk broke the agreement ?
I was referring to the GFA which we are sworn under international and internal law to uphold.Should have made that clearer.
But is it not the EU who want a hard border ? And not the UK ?
Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU)."
That’s not going to happen |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. .
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right?
What is youre thinking that the uk broke the agreement ?
I was referring to the GFA which we are sworn under international and internal law to uphold.Should have made that clearer.
But is it not the EU who want a hard border ? And not the UK ?
Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
That’s not going to happen "
Yeah a practical solution that benefits the UK is not acceptable to conservatives |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. .
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right?
What is youre thinking that the uk broke the agreement ?
I was referring to the GFA which we are sworn under international and internal law to uphold.Should have made that clearer.
But is it not the EU who want a hard border ? And not the UK ?
Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
That’s not going to happen
Yeah a practical solution that benefits the UK is not acceptable to conservatives"
Yeah, never going to happen. As brexiteers keep telling us, we're fucked, suck it up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There are some rather misinformed comments on here. You did not have to be a member of the EU to be in the Horizon programme. The EU encouraged many non EU states to join as associated members and the country concerned paid the relevant subscription.
The UK is now an associate member and has pledged £15 billion for our seven years of subscriptions.
On a simplistic basis the EU is using Horizon as leverage to to pressurise the UK on the NI protocol .
The UK government is now taking proceedings against the EU on this issue.
Any loss of funding is simply down to the EU being vindictive. We have already honoured our obligations to the scheme. .
I’m confused how is the EU being vindictive over the NI protocol?
You know that we’re the ones who broke the agreement right?
What is youre thinking that the uk broke the agreement ?
I was referring to the GFA which we are sworn under international and internal law to uphold.Should have made that clearer.
But is it not the EU who want a hard border ? And not the UK ?
Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
That’s not going to happen
Yeah a practical solution that benefits the UK is not acceptable to conservatives
Yeah, never going to happen. As brexiteers keep telling us, we're fucked, suck it up. "
Never!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU)."
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?"
WTO rules. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It’s astonishing how little is understood by leavers about what position we are in after leaving the EU. There seems to be a belief that we are still entitled to the full privileges of EU cooperation even though we chose to leave and the only payments we are making to the EU are for our obligations under our leaving deal, (pensions for the likes of Farage etc). To be blunt if you leave the game and try to play by your own rules and then you want to rejoin the game why should anyone give you the time of day no matter how exceptional you believe yourself to be? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?WTO rules. "
No because the EU want one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?WTO rules.
No because the EU want one "
No, the UK voted to leave the EU, it's our responsibility to sort out the brexit clusterfuck and all the problems it caused.
People can blame the EU for all the problems caused by brexit until the cows come home. The reality is, "project fear" is now reality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?WTO rules.
No because the EU want one
No, the UK voted to leave the EU, it's our responsibility to sort out the brexit clusterfuck and all the problems it caused.
People can blame the EU for all the problems caused by brexit until the cows come home. The reality is, "project fear" is now reality."
The EU want the border the UK don’t that’s it, the the first sone stupid reason expected the EU to show good faith.
The problem is they don’t have any |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?WTO rules.
No because the EU want one
No, the UK voted to leave the EU, it's our responsibility to sort out the brexit clusterfuck and all the problems it caused.
People can blame the EU for all the problems caused by brexit until the cows come home. The reality is, "project fear" is now reality.
The EU want the border the UK don’t that’s it, the the first sone stupid reason expected the EU to show good faith.
The problem is they don’t have any "
Who are they?
You know the EU includes the ROI which has to sign off on any decision ,a hard border would be disastrous for the coalition there |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?WTO rules. "
From what I understand the UK said it is happy not to have a hard boarder even if there was no a no deal outcome after the transition period. The EU insist on a boarder in the event of a no deal. I guess if the deal breaks down and we are basically in the position of a no deal then both the UK and EU previous positions on the border will resume. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?WTO rules.
From what I understand the UK said it is happy not to have a hard boarder even if there was no a no deal outcome after the transition period. The EU insist on a boarder in the event of a no deal. I guess if the deal breaks down and we are basically in the position of a no deal then both the UK and EU previous positions on the border will resume. "
my understading WTO rules say you can't favour one country over another without an explicitagreement (FTA, cu, etc).
Most favoured nation rules.
So whatever checks we so or don't do for the use, we do or don't do for everyone.
That's why the EU want checks. As they want to check goods coming from China, India, Russia, pick a country.
The UK never explained how it was going to square off MFN with no checks on the Irish border.
Imo, it always knew we'd land on either the Irish sea or a CU deal. But kept posturing for its supporters. Who can then blame the EU for being bullies and being the one who wanted the "hard border".
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/no-deal-brexit-and-wto-article-24-explained/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?WTO rules.
From what I understand the UK said it is happy not to have a hard boarder even if there was no a no deal outcome after the transition period. The EU insist on a boarder in the event of a no deal. I guess if the deal breaks down and we are basically in the position of a no deal then both the UK and EU previous positions on the border will resume. my understading WTO rules say you can't favour one country over another without an explicitagreement (FTA, cu, etc).
Most favoured nation rules.
So whatever checks we so or don't do for the use, we do or don't do for everyone.
That's why the EU want checks. As they want to check goods coming from China, India, Russia, pick a country.
The UK never explained how it was going to square off MFN with no checks on the Irish border.
Imo, it always knew we'd land on either the Irish sea or a CU deal. But kept posturing for its supporters. Who can then blame the EU for being bullies and being the one who wanted the "hard border".
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/no-deal-brexit-and-wto-article-24-explained/"
According to the BBC you can have an open Irish boarder and maintain other existing boarders. The ROI government stated they would not be imposing a hard boarder nor should anyone else in the event of WTO rules. There is apparently a get out clause for the WTO rule which is another WTO rule of a national security waiver. They are confident with good reason that they can show a hard boarder would negatively effect national security. I'm sure it's one for the legal eagles so only saying what was on the BBC |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?WTO rules.
From what I understand the UK said it is happy not to have a hard boarder even if there was no a no deal outcome after the transition period. The EU insist on a boarder in the event of a no deal. I guess if the deal breaks down and we are basically in the position of a no deal then both the UK and EU previous positions on the border will resume. my understading WTO rules say you can't favour one country over another without an explicitagreement (FTA, cu, etc).
Most favoured nation rules.
So whatever checks we so or don't do for the use, we do or don't do for everyone.
That's why the EU want checks. As they want to check goods coming from China, India, Russia, pick a country.
The UK never explained how it was going to square off MFN with no checks on the Irish border.
Imo, it always knew we'd land on either the Irish sea or a CU deal. But kept posturing for its supporters. Who can then blame the EU for being bullies and being the one who wanted the "hard border".
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/no-deal-brexit-and-wto-article-24-explained/
According to the BBC you can have an open Irish boarder and maintain other existing boarders. The ROI government stated they would not be imposing a hard boarder nor should anyone else in the event of WTO rules. There is apparently a get out clause for the WTO rule which is another WTO rule of a national security waiver. They are confident with good reason that they can show a hard boarder would negatively effect national security. I'm sure it's one for the legal eagles so only saying what was on the BBC"
I remember that argument. Irrc there were two challenges to this. One, it would look weak if only teh UK presented this argument, and 2 the UK chose to tear up the old arrangement, so how much of a security risk could there have been.
I also read that it would mean the UK admitting Brexit had the potential to be a security risk. And that the country voted to put us at risk.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yep, Camerloon and Osbourne really blew it didn't they.
Didn't see that one coming..
They did. They didn't care.
You may be right "
You know that Cameron and Osbourne were both pro-EU and did warn about this stuff?. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"Yep, Camerloon and Osbourne really blew it didn't they.
Didn't see that one coming..
They did. They didn't care.
You may be right
You know that Cameron and Osbourne were both pro-EU and did warn about this stuff?."
They gave the go ahead for the vote convinced it would be remain |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yep, Camerloon and Osbourne really blew it didn't they.
Didn't see that one coming..
They did. They didn't care.
You may be right
You know that Cameron and Osbourne were both pro-EU and did warn about this stuff?.
They gave the go ahead for the vote convinced it would be remain"
I don't think they cared much either way. They just wanted to get the Tories re-elected. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yep, Camerloon and Osbourne really blew it didn't they.
Didn't see that one coming..
They did. They didn't care.
You may be right
You know that Cameron and Osbourne were both pro-EU and did warn about this stuff?.
They gave the go ahead for the vote convinced it would be remain"
to be fair they didn't know the extent third parties would have on the leave vote,or how much the leave campaign used ambiguity from those third parties
However they knew it would essentially break the GFA which the UK is sworn to uphold. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?WTO rules.
From what I understand the UK said it is happy not to have a hard boarder even if there was no a no deal outcome after the transition period. The EU insist on a boarder in the event of a no deal. I guess if the deal breaks down and we are basically in the position of a no deal then both the UK and EU previous positions on the border will resume. my understading WTO rules say you can't favour one country over another without an explicitagreement (FTA, cu, etc).
Most favoured nation rules.
So whatever checks we so or don't do for the use, we do or don't do for everyone.
That's why the EU want checks. As they want to check goods coming from China, India, Russia, pick a country.
The UK never explained how it was going to square off MFN with no checks on the Irish border.
Imo, it always knew we'd land on either the Irish sea or a CU deal. But kept posturing for its supporters. Who can then blame the EU for being bullies and being the one who wanted the "hard border".
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/no-deal-brexit-and-wto-article-24-explained/
According to the BBC you can have an open Irish boarder and maintain other existing boarders. The ROI government stated they would not be imposing a hard boarder nor should anyone else in the event of WTO rules. There is apparently a get out clause for the WTO rule which is another WTO rule of a national security waiver. They are confident with good reason that they can show a hard boarder would negatively effect national security. I'm sure it's one for the legal eagles so only saying what was on the BBCI remember that argument. Irrc there were two challenges to this. One, it would look weak if only teh UK presented this argument, and 2 the UK chose to tear up the old arrangement, so how much of a security risk could there have been.
I also read that it would mean the UK admitting Brexit had the potential to be a security risk. And that the country voted to put us at risk.
"
It was the Irish government that touted the idea, not the UK government as they said they would not install a hard border. The UK also said they would not install a hard border. The WTO confirmed the security waiver argument was valid. The BBC report goes onto say that despite neither the Irish or UK governments are to install a border and that the WTO confirmed it was acceptable not to do so, the EU would insist on it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Nobody wants a hard border, the UK left what was creating an open border however and hasn't been able come up with a solution that fully resolves it(that would play well to conservative party supporters,it can easily be resolved by re-joining the EU).
If nobody wants a hard border, why can't we resolve the issue by saying "let's not have a hard border". We could just agree that we both trust each other not to do anything dodgy, and we carry on with life the way it was before Brexit.
Why do we need to enforce a border?WTO rules.
From what I understand the UK said it is happy not to have a hard boarder even if there was no a no deal outcome after the transition period. The EU insist on a boarder in the event of a no deal. I guess if the deal breaks down and we are basically in the position of a no deal then both the UK and EU previous positions on the border will resume. my understading WTO rules say you can't favour one country over another without an explicitagreement (FTA, cu, etc).
Most favoured nation rules.
So whatever checks we so or don't do for the use, we do or don't do for everyone.
That's why the EU want checks. As they want to check goods coming from China, India, Russia, pick a country.
The UK never explained how it was going to square off MFN with no checks on the Irish border.
Imo, it always knew we'd land on either the Irish sea or a CU deal. But kept posturing for its supporters. Who can then blame the EU for being bullies and being the one who wanted the "hard border".
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/no-deal-brexit-and-wto-article-24-explained/
According to the BBC you can have an open Irish boarder and maintain other existing boarders. The ROI government stated they would not be imposing a hard boarder nor should anyone else in the event of WTO rules. There is apparently a get out clause for the WTO rule which is another WTO rule of a national security waiver. They are confident with good reason that they can show a hard boarder would negatively effect national security. I'm sure it's one for the legal eagles so only saying what was on the BBCI remember that argument. Irrc there were two challenges to this. One, it would look weak if only teh UK presented this argument, and 2 the UK chose to tear up the old arrangement, so how much of a security risk could there have been.
I also read that it would mean the UK admitting Brexit had the potential to be a security risk. And that the country voted to put us at risk.
It was the Irish government that touted the idea, not the UK government as they said they would not install a hard border. The UK also said they would not install a hard border. The WTO confirmed the security waiver argument was valid. The BBC report goes onto say that despite neither the Irish or UK governments are to install a border and that the WTO confirmed it was acceptable not to do so, the EU would insist on it"
can you link me up to this BBC article ? Always happy to be corrected! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do we need to enforce a border?"
"WTO rules."
The WTO rules say that we can't treat one country differently to another without a defined trade agreement. That means that there has to be a border between the UK ( i.e. Northern Ireland), and the EU (i.e. Ireland).
There's nothing in the WTO rules that says we have to have border patrols, or inspections, or customs posts. We simply declare that the Irish border is the border between the UK and the EU, and that we trust them not to break the rules, so we won't be putting any infrastructure in place to monitor that border.
If the EU doesn't trust us and they want border checks on their side, that's for them to implement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do we need to enforce a border?
WTO rules.
The WTO rules say that we can't treat one country differently to another without a defined trade agreement. That means that there has to be a border between the UK ( i.e. Northern Ireland), and the EU (i.e. Ireland).
There's nothing in the WTO rules that says we have to have border patrols, or inspections, or customs posts. We simply declare that the Irish border is the border between the UK and the EU, and that we trust them not to break the rules, so we won't be putting any infrastructure in place to monitor that border.
If the EU doesn't trust us and they want border checks on their side, that's for them to implement."
you are right
WTO doeanean there needs to be a border
just you treat all countries equally. The UK can choose to do no checks to any country on any border.
(There is an exception for security as mentioned above. But that isnt your position so let's ignore that angle for now)
Are you proposing no checks anywhere to any country? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why do we need to enforce a border?"
"WTO rules."
"The WTO rules say that we can't treat one country differently to another without a defined trade agreement. That means that there has to be a border between the UK ( i.e. Northern Ireland), and the EU (i.e. Ireland).
There's nothing in the WTO rules that says we have to have border patrols, or inspections, or customs posts. We simply declare that the Irish border is the border between the UK and the EU, and that we trust them not to break the rules, so we won't be putting any infrastructure in place to monitor that border.
If the EU doesn't trust us and they want border checks on their side, that's for them to implement."
"you are right
WTO doeanean there needs to be a border
just you treat all countries equally. The UK can choose to do no checks to any country on any border."
I'll try again.
WTO rules say that we must apply trade rules equally to all countries, unless we have a trade deal with a specific country. We do have a trade deal with the EU, so we can treat them differently to everyone else.
WTO rules further describe how trade rules should be formulated, and what sorts of clauses can't exist in trade deals. There's nothing in the WTO rulebook that says anyone is required to have a border force presence, checking everything that goes over the border. As long as the correct rules are in place, the WTO is happy.
We do have a trade agreement with the EU, we do have all the rules written down, and we do know exactly where the border is. That's all we need to cover WTO rules. There's no need to install border posts and start checking vehicles. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Tom is no scientist but apparently Brexit means that some science types are not getting their EU grant..
Did they think about that before they voted for it.. ?"
Tom certainly is no scientist.
Scientific research leads to engineering and technical solutions that lead to design and manufacturing jobs in existing industries and brand new ones.
The links are not obvious and the time can be long.
The most successful outcomes come from collaborations that span disciplines and geographies and can involve scale.
The resource available a European level is significantly higher than at a UK only level.
Warnings were given. The UK said that it would join Horizon. Grants were given to UK studies.
The UK has chosen to break the Northern Ireland agreement. The EU have decided to use Horizon as a negotiating tool. They are free to do that. UK horizon grants have been withdrawn and many individuals and teams are relocating to the EU to receive their grants with long term stability.
Both the consequences of the Northern Ireland protocol and the loss of Horizon are a direct consequence of Brexit. They would not be happening without leaving the EU.
There would be no disputes of either matter. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Why do we need to enforce a border?
WTO rules.
The WTO rules say that we can't treat one country differently to another without a defined trade agreement. That means that there has to be a border between the UK ( i.e. Northern Ireland), and the EU (i.e. Ireland).
There's nothing in the WTO rules that says we have to have border patrols, or inspections, or customs posts. We simply declare that the Irish border is the border between the UK and the EU, and that we trust them not to break the rules, so we won't be putting any infrastructure in place to monitor that border.
If the EU doesn't trust us and they want border checks on their side, that's for them to implement.
you are right
WTO doeanean there needs to be a border
just you treat all countries equally. The UK can choose to do no checks to any country on any border.
I'll try again.
WTO rules say that we must apply trade rules equally to all countries, unless we have a trade deal with a specific country. We do have a trade deal with the EU, so we can treat them differently to everyone else.
WTO rules further describe how trade rules should be formulated, and what sorts of clauses can't exist in trade deals. There's nothing in the WTO rulebook that says anyone is required to have a border force presence, checking everything that goes over the border. As long as the correct rules are in place, the WTO is happy.
We do have a trade agreement with the EU, we do have all the rules written down, and we do know exactly where the border is. That's all we need to cover WTO rules. There's no need to install border posts and start checking vehicles."
The EU can demand whatever conditions that they wish as can the UK.
We came to an agreement after a long negotiation. We have now unilaterally decided to break the agreement.
The EU can choose to use any negotiating position that they choose to use as leverage against the UK.
That is correct, isn't it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do we need to enforce a border?
WTO rules.
The WTO rules say that we can't treat one country differently to another without a defined trade agreement. That means that there has to be a border between the UK ( i.e. Northern Ireland), and the EU (i.e. Ireland).
There's nothing in the WTO rules that says we have to have border patrols, or inspections, or customs posts. We simply declare that the Irish border is the border between the UK and the EU, and that we trust them not to break the rules, so we won't be putting any infrastructure in place to monitor that border.
If the EU doesn't trust us and they want border checks on their side, that's for them to implement.
you are right
WTO doeanean there needs to be a border
just you treat all countries equally. The UK can choose to do no checks to any country on any border.
I'll try again.
WTO rules say that we must apply trade rules equally to all countries, unless we have a trade deal with a specific country. We do have a trade deal with the EU, so we can treat them differently to everyone else.
WTO rules further describe how trade rules should be formulated, and what sorts of clauses can't exist in trade deals. There's nothing in the WTO rulebook that says anyone is required to have a border force presence, checking everything that goes over the border. As long as the correct rules are in place, the WTO is happy.
We do have a trade agreement with the EU, we do have all the rules written down, and we do know exactly where the border is. That's all we need to cover WTO rules. There's no need to install border posts and start checking vehicles."
but free trade agreements are for tarrifs, not checks. You'd need a customs union for that. At least that is my understanding otherwise what's the difference between the two ?
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/customs-union
Indeed even a CU isn't quite enough for no border at all. SM for that rare beast. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We came to an agreement after a long negotiation. We have now unilaterally decided to break the agreement."
We didn't break the agreement, we invoked a clause that allowed us to change a few things. If the EU didn't want to allow for change, they shouldn't have signed an agreement with a change clause in it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Why do we need to enforce a border?
WTO rules.
The WTO rules say that we can't treat one country differently to another without a defined trade agreement. That means that there has to be a border between the UK ( i.e. Northern Ireland), and the EU (i.e. Ireland).
There's nothing in the WTO rules that says we have to have border patrols, or inspections, or customs posts. We simply declare that the Irish border is the border between the UK and the EU, and that we trust them not to break the rules, so we won't be putting any infrastructure in place to monitor that border.
If the EU doesn't trust us and they want border checks on their side, that's for them to implement.
you are right
WTO doeanean there needs to be a border
just you treat all countries equally. The UK can choose to do no checks to any country on any border.
I'll try again.
WTO rules say that we must apply trade rules equally to all countries, unless we have a trade deal with a specific country. We do have a trade deal with the EU, so we can treat them differently to everyone else.
WTO rules further describe how trade rules should be formulated, and what sorts of clauses can't exist in trade deals. There's nothing in the WTO rulebook that says anyone is required to have a border force presence, checking everything that goes over the border. As long as the correct rules are in place, the WTO is happy.
We do have a trade agreement with the EU, we do have all the rules written down, and we do know exactly where the border is. That's all we need to cover WTO rules. There's no need to install border posts and start checking vehicles."
I was assuming the question revolved around the UK not having a trade deal with the EU and therefore WTO is not a consideration. I may have misunderstood though. Obviously there is a trade deal but some say it is under threat due to the problems with the protocol. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We do have a trade agreement with the EU, we do have all the rules written down, and we do know exactly where the border is. That's all we need to cover WTO rules. There's no need to install border posts and start checking vehicles.but free trade agreements are for tarrifs, not checks."
"You'd need a customs union for that. At least that is my understanding otherwise what's the difference between the two ?"
I'll try an analogy.
My local pub has a bar that the landlord works behind. There's a flap in the bar that allows the landlord to come out to collect glasses. Customers are not allowed to use the flap to get behind the bar.
The landlord in my local leaves the flap open all the time. Everyone knows that customers are not allowed behind the bar, and none of them try to gain access. There's a border, we know what is and isn't allowed to go across it, and no one breaks the rules.
We could do exactly the same thing with the EU. We still have a border, and we still have rules about what can and can't cross it. We just don't need to bother checking every vehicle, because we can trust all the people not to break the rules.
The WTO will be happy because we have, and follow, all the appropriate rules. The UK will be happy, because there is no hard border in Ireland, and the Irish will be happy for the same reason.
Is that making my proposal clearer? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do we need to enforce a border?
WTO rules.
The WTO rules say that we can't treat one country differently to another without a defined trade agreement. That means that there has to be a border between the UK ( i.e. Northern Ireland), and the EU (i.e. Ireland).
There's nothing in the WTO rules that says we have to have border patrols, or inspections, or customs posts. We simply declare that the Irish border is the border between the UK and the EU, and that we trust them not to break the rules, so we won't be putting any infrastructure in place to monitor that border.
If the EU doesn't trust us and they want border checks on their side, that's for them to implement.
you are right
WTO doeanean there needs to be a border
just you treat all countries equally. The UK can choose to do no checks to any country on any border.
I'll try again.
WTO rules say that we must apply trade rules equally to all countries, unless we have a trade deal with a specific country. We do have a trade deal with the EU, so we can treat them differently to everyone else.
WTO rules further describe how trade rules should be formulated, and what sorts of clauses can't exist in trade deals. There's nothing in the WTO rulebook that says anyone is required to have a border force presence, checking everything that goes over the border. As long as the correct rules are in place, the WTO is happy.
We do have a trade agreement with the EU, we do have all the rules written down, and we do know exactly where the border is. That's all we need to cover WTO rules. There's no need to install border posts and start checking vehicles.
I was assuming the question revolved around the UK not having a trade deal with the EU and therefore WTO is not a consideration. I may have misunderstood though. Obviously there is a trade deal but some say it is under threat due to the problems with the protocol. "
we trade with teh EU under WTO rules. WTO allows you not to apply a different approach to one country than others if you have a FTA or CU. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"We came to an agreement after a long negotiation. We have now unilaterally decided to break the agreement.
We didn't break the agreement, we invoked a clause that allowed us to change a few things. If the EU didn't want to allow for change, they shouldn't have signed an agreement with a change clause in it."
No. The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill unilaterally overrides parts of the protocol.
They made use of a negotiation clause but would not accept any part of the EU counter proposal.
Your behind the run of events, aren't you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"Why do we need to enforce a border?
WTO rules.
The WTO rules say that we can't treat one country differently to another without a defined trade agreement. That means that there has to be a border between the UK ( i.e. Northern Ireland), and the EU (i.e. Ireland).
There's nothing in the WTO rules that says we have to have border patrols, or inspections, or customs posts. We simply declare that the Irish border is the border between the UK and the EU, and that we trust them not to break the rules, so we won't be putting any infrastructure in place to monitor that border.
If the EU doesn't trust us and they want border checks on their side, that's for them to implement.
you are right
WTO doeanean there needs to be a border
just you treat all countries equally. The UK can choose to do no checks to any country on any border.
I'll try again.
WTO rules say that we must apply trade rules equally to all countries, unless we have a trade deal with a specific country. We do have a trade deal with the EU, so we can treat them differently to everyone else.
WTO rules further describe how trade rules should be formulated, and what sorts of clauses can't exist in trade deals. There's nothing in the WTO rulebook that says anyone is required to have a border force presence, checking everything that goes over the border. As long as the correct rules are in place, the WTO is happy.
We do have a trade agreement with the EU, we do have all the rules written down, and we do know exactly where the border is. That's all we need to cover WTO rules. There's no need to install border posts and start checking vehicles.
I was assuming the question revolved around the UK not having a trade deal with the EU and therefore WTO is not a consideration. I may have misunderstood though. Obviously there is a trade deal but some say it is under threat due to the problems with the protocol. we trade with teh EU under WTO rules. WTO allows you not to apply a different approach to one country than others if you have a FTA or CU. "
I always thought one of the benefits of having trade agreements was that you did not have to trade under WTO rules for the countries you have the agreements with. Maybe I have been looking at it wrong. Either way as far as I can tell by what I read is the UK government and the Irish government will not implement a hard boarder |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We do have a trade agreement with the EU, we do have all the rules written down, and we do know exactly where the border is. That's all we need to cover WTO rules. There's no need to install border posts and start checking vehicles.but free trade agreements are for tarrifs, not checks.
You'd need a customs union for that. At least that is my understanding otherwise what's the difference between the two ?
I'll try an analogy.
My local pub has a bar that the landlord works behind. There's a flap in the bar that allows the landlord to come out to collect glasses. Customers are not allowed to use the flap to get behind the bar.
The landlord in my local leaves the flap open all the time. Everyone knows that customers are not allowed behind the bar, and none of them try to gain access. There's a border, we know what is and isn't allowed to go across it, and no one breaks the rules.
We could do exactly the same thing with the EU. We still have a border, and we still have rules about what can and can't cross it. We just don't need to bother checking every vehicle, because we can trust all the people not to break the rules.
The WTO will be happy because we have, and follow, all the appropriate rules. The UK will be happy, because there is no hard border in Ireland, and the Irish will be happy for the same reason.
Is that making my proposal clearer?"
can you link me up to where the WTO are happy with turning a blind eye. Or apply different checking rules for the EU than other countries.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do we need to enforce a border?
WTO rules.
The WTO rules say that we can't treat one country differently to another without a defined trade agreement. That means that there has to be a border between the UK ( i.e. Northern Ireland), and the EU (i.e. Ireland).
There's nothing in the WTO rules that says we have to have border patrols, or inspections, or customs posts. We simply declare that the Irish border is the border between the UK and the EU, and that we trust them not to break the rules, so we won't be putting any infrastructure in place to monitor that border.
If the EU doesn't trust us and they want border checks on their side, that's for them to implement.
you are right
WTO doeanean there needs to be a border
just you treat all countries equally. The UK can choose to do no checks to any country on any border.
I'll try again.
WTO rules say that we must apply trade rules equally to all countries, unless we have a trade deal with a specific country. We do have a trade deal with the EU, so we can treat them differently to everyone else.
WTO rules further describe how trade rules should be formulated, and what sorts of clauses can't exist in trade deals. There's nothing in the WTO rulebook that says anyone is required to have a border force presence, checking everything that goes over the border. As long as the correct rules are in place, the WTO is happy.
We do have a trade agreement with the EU, we do have all the rules written down, and we do know exactly where the border is. That's all we need to cover WTO rules. There's no need to install border posts and start checking vehicles.
I was assuming the question revolved around the UK not having a trade deal with the EU and therefore WTO is not a consideration. I may have misunderstood though. Obviously there is a trade deal but some say it is under threat due to the problems with the protocol. we trade with teh EU under WTO rules. WTO allows you not to apply a different approach to one country than others if you have a FTA or CU.
I always thought one of the benefits of having trade agreements was that you did not have to trade under WTO rules for the countries you have the agreements with. Maybe I have been looking at it wrong. Either way as far as I can tell by what I read is the UK government and the Irish government will not implement a hard boarder"
article 24 is what you are after. We are still trading under WTO.
I think both sides don't want a hard border. The UK havent explained how they would do it with no agreementw in place. Someone said that WTO have allowed us to use the security exception but they didn't share any links to support this claim. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Why do we need to enforce a border?
WTO rules.
The WTO rules say that we can't treat one country differently to another without a defined trade agreement. That means that there has to be a border between the UK ( i.e. Northern Ireland), and the EU (i.e. Ireland).
There's nothing in the WTO rules that says we have to have border patrols, or inspections, or customs posts. We simply declare that the Irish border is the border between the UK and the EU, and that we trust them not to break the rules, so we won't be putting any infrastructure in place to monitor that border.
If the EU doesn't trust us and they want border checks on their side, that's for them to implement.
you are right
WTO doeanean there needs to be a border
just you treat all countries equally. The UK can choose to do no checks to any country on any border.
I'll try again.
WTO rules say that we must apply trade rules equally to all countries, unless we have a trade deal with a specific country. We do have a trade deal with the EU, so we can treat them differently to everyone else.
WTO rules further describe how trade rules should be formulated, and what sorts of clauses can't exist in trade deals. There's nothing in the WTO rulebook that says anyone is required to have a border force presence, checking everything that goes over the border. As long as the correct rules are in place, the WTO is happy.
We do have a trade agreement with the EU, we do have all the rules written down, and we do know exactly where the border is. That's all we need to cover WTO rules. There's no need to install border posts and start checking vehicles.
I was assuming the question revolved around the UK not having a trade deal with the EU and therefore WTO is not a consideration. I may have misunderstood though. Obviously there is a trade deal but some say it is under threat due to the problems with the protocol. we trade with teh EU under WTO rules. WTO allows you not to apply a different approach to one country than others if you have a FTA or CU.
I always thought one of the benefits of having trade agreements was that you did not have to trade under WTO rules for the countries you have the agreements with. Maybe I have been looking at it wrong. Either way as far as I can tell by what I read is the UK government and the Irish government will not implement a hard boarderarticle 24 is what you are after. We are still trading under WTO.
I think both sides don't want a hard border. The UK havent explained how they would do it with no agreementw in place. Someone said that WTO have allowed us to use the security exception but they didn't share any links to support this claim. "
Yeah there is sort of a national security waiver in the WTO which allows countries to suspend some of their obligations. However its only use seems to be to allow the putting up of trade barriers.
The only case I know of this is when Russia did it with Ukraine pre-invasion.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I always thought one of the benefits of having trade agreements was that you did not have to trade under WTO rules for the countries you have the agreements with. Maybe I have been looking at it wrong."
No, you have it exactly right. If there's a trade agreement, WTO rules don't apply between the countries involved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"can you link me up to where the WTO are happy with turning a blind eye. Or apply different checking rules for the EU than other countries. "
Can I give you a link to the bit of the WTO website where the rules don't exist? Well no, obviously not.
The WTO rules about treating countries differently don't apply, because we have a trade deal. We're allowed to treat the EU differently to the rest of the world, because of that trade deal.
The WTO aren't happy with turning a blind eye and I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that we should have rules, and that we should trust the Irish to follow them. I don't see that Ireland is going to suddenly start importing meat from China and shipping it across the border into the UK. Why would they bother when the UK can do that for itself?
We've been trading with Ireland for decades under EU rules, without any scandals over illegal imports. Why would things change now? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Your behind the run of events, aren't you?
I think it's more that you are ahead of events, since the bill hasn't even been finalised yet, let alone been passed as legislation."
Then, perhaps you've missed the point completely.
The Discussion over the Horizon programme is fundamentally linked to the UK's posturing over the unilateral changes to the NI protocol.
That is what this situation has been caused by. You can talk about WTO rules all you want, but if you sign a deal, then try to immediately renegotiate it and start the process of trying to make unilateral changes when you fail, then there are consequences.
As an amateur lawyer you should be aware of that. How likely is that approach to succeed in a civil contract dispute? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Then, perhaps you've missed the point completely."
Well, yes, I did get sidetracked away from the Horizon programme, and that is what this thread is about.
"You can talk about WTO rules all you want, but if you sign a deal, then try to immediately renegotiate it and start the process of trying to make unilateral changes when you fail, then there are consequences.
As an amateur lawyer you should be aware of that. How likely is that approach to succeed in a civil contract dispute?"
I'm not an amateur lawyer.
But since you ask ... The situation is that the UK is preparing a bill that will amend a trade agreement. At this point the worst that you can say is that the UK is preparing to 'unilaterally break' an agreement. There's lots of noise, but no action so far. The EU on the other hand has made a written undertaking on the Horizon programme, and has reneged on that agreement. As it stands today, the judge would likely come down against the EU, since they have done something legally wrong, whereas the UK is just threatening to do so. Generally speaking, judges don't like it when one party gets their retaliation in before the other party has actually committed an act. The UK might even persuade a judge to order specific performance, i.e. to force the EU to allow us into the Horizon programme.
But obviously, that's just on today's facts, and it's just my opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"can you link me up to where the WTO are happy with turning a blind eye. Or apply different checking rules for the EU than other countries.
Can I give you a link to the bit of the WTO website where the rules don't exist? Well no, obviously not.
The WTO rules about treating countries differently don't apply, because we have a trade deal. We're allowed to treat the EU differently to the rest of the world, because of that trade deal.
The WTO aren't happy with turning a blind eye and I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that we should have rules, and that we should trust the Irish to follow them. I don't see that Ireland is going to suddenly start importing meat from China and shipping it across the border into the UK. Why would they bother when the UK can do that for itself?
We've been trading with Ireland for decades under EU rules, without any scandals over illegal imports. Why would things change now?"
okay you believe that a FTA means that checks aren't needed. Got it.
My understanding is that for limited checks you'd need a CU. For no checks you'd need a SM.
Like we had. Which allowed us to traded frictionlessy with Ireland.
What do you see a CU bringing that an FTA doesnt ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Then, perhaps you've missed the point completely.
Well, yes, I did get sidetracked away from the Horizon programme, and that is what this thread is about.
You can talk about WTO rules all you want, but if you sign a deal, then try to immediately renegotiate it and start the process of trying to make unilateral changes when you fail, then there are consequences.
As an amateur lawyer you should be aware of that. How likely is that approach to succeed in a civil contract dispute?
I'm not an amateur lawyer.
But since you ask ... The situation is that the UK is preparing a bill that will amend a trade agreement. At this point the worst that you can say is that the UK is preparing to 'unilaterally break' an agreement. There's lots of noise, but no action so far. The EU on the other hand has made a written undertaking on the Horizon programme, and has reneged on that agreement. As it stands today, the judge would likely come down against the EU, since they have done something legally wrong, whereas the UK is just threatening to do so. Generally speaking, judges don't like it when one party gets their retaliation in before the other party has actually committed an act. The UK might even persuade a judge to order specific performance, i.e. to force the EU to allow us into the Horizon programme.
But obviously, that's just on today's facts, and it's just my opinion."
The situation is that the UK is preparing a bill that will UNILATERALLY break an international agreement within five years of signing it.
A contract was signed. One party is going to change it without the agreement of the other.
UK has not signed it's association with the Horizon Europe research programme. Why would a judge "force" one party to honour an agreement that has not been signed?
The only discussion is if the various agreements are interdependent or not. However, there is no timeline defined and if the UK chooses to behave in the way it does for domestic political reasons, the consequences cannot be surprising.
Your research is proving to be very flawed. Why do you keep making legal pronouncements as if you knew what you were talking about?
It really is just your uninformed opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The situation is that the UK is preparing a bill ... "
Yes, "is preparing", not "has implemented".
"A contract was signed. ... "
Yes, we both agree there.
"UK has not signed it's association with the Horizon Europe research programme. ... "
Well, that's not true is it. Here's a link to an EU document that talks about the UK's participation being part of our trade agreement.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/qa-uks-participation-horizon-europe_en
"Your research is proving to be very flawed. ... "
Not so far it isn't.
"Why do you keep making legal pronouncements as if you knew what you were talking about? ... "
Well in this case, it's because you asked me to.
Why do you feel the need to belittle every statement I make on legal issues? Why do you keep doing it, despite having had plenty of opportunities to point out flaws in my legal reasoning, and so far having been unable to do so? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The situation is that the UK is preparing a bill ...
Yes, "is preparing", not "has implemented".
A contract was signed. ...
Yes, we both agree there.
UK has not signed it's association with the Horizon Europe research programme. ...
Well, that's not true is it. Here's a link to an EU document that talks about the UK's participation being part of our trade agreement.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/qa-uks-participation-horizon-europe_en
Your research is proving to be very flawed. ...
Not so far it isn't.
Why do you keep making legal pronouncements as if you knew what you were talking about? ...
Well in this case, it's because you asked me to.
Why do you feel the need to belittle every statement I make on legal issues? Why do you keep doing it, despite having had plenty of opportunities to point out flaws in my legal reasoning, and so far having been unable to do so?"
Ah, you're doing your selective "research" again.
Has the Horizon Europe Association agreement been signed?
You regularly make legal pronouncements with certainty, implying that you understand them yet clearly seem not to.
Why do that? Anyone can share an opinion, bit claiming more certainty then there is is deliberately misleading. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The situation is that the UK is preparing a bill ...
Yes, "is preparing", not "has implemented".
A contract was signed. ...
Yes, we both agree there.
UK has not signed it's association with the Horizon Europe research programme. ...
Well, that's not true is it. Here's a link to an EU document that talks about the UK's participation being part of our trade agreement.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/qa-uks-participation-horizon-europe_en
Your research is proving to be very flawed. ...
Not so far it isn't.
Why do you keep making legal pronouncements as if you knew what you were talking about? ...
Well in this case, it's because you asked me to.
Why do you feel the need to belittle every statement I make on legal issues? Why do you keep doing it, despite having had plenty of opportunities to point out flaws in my legal reasoning, and so far having been unable to do so?"
Just for clarity, the first line of your link says this: with capitalisation added for emphasis:
"The UK is EXPECTED to become an associated country to the
EU’s R&I Framework Programme Horizon Europe."
Does that mean that the UK is or is not associated?
Even your own "evidence" indicates clearly that we are not yet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Has the Horizon Europe Association agreement been signed?"
Here's a link from the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation:
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/updates-association-third-countries-horizon-europe-2021-12-21_en
It lists at the top all of the countries which have signed up to the Horizon Europe Association agreement. Then it has a special section which says "The United Kingdom will be associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement".
So has the UK signed the Horizon Europe Association agreement? No. Why not? Because they've already signed another document that takes precedence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Has the Horizon Europe Association agreement been signed?
Here's a link from the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation:
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/updates-association-third-countries-horizon-europe-2021-12-21_en
It lists at the top all of the countries which have signed up to the Horizon Europe Association agreement. Then it has a special section which says "The United Kingdom will be associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement".
So has the UK signed the Horizon Europe Association agreement? No. Why not? Because they've already signed another document that takes precedence."
You are correct however the GFA takes precedence over all and a court will acknowledge that the UK broke it.
That would be the basis of any argument by the EU |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just for clarity, the first line of your link says this: with capitalisation added for emphasis:
"The UK is EXPECTED to become an associated country to the
EU’s R&I Framework Programme Horizon Europe."
Does that mean that the UK is or is not associated?
Even your own "evidence" indicates clearly that we are not yet."
Yes, that's what I said earlier when I talked about the EU reneging on the deal.
The UK currently should be associated to the Horizon programme, because that's part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which both sides signed. However the UK currently isn't associated to it because the EU have failed to honour that agreement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You are correct however the GFA takes precedence over all and a court will acknowledge that the UK broke it."
The court might agree that at some point in the future if the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is implemented. But as it stands today, the UK hasn't broken the agreement yet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You are correct however the GFA takes precedence over all and a court will acknowledge that the UK broke it.
The court might agree that at some point in the future if the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is implemented. But as it stands today, the UK hasn't broken the agreement yet."
But will a court acknowledge that we haven't? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You are correct however the GFA takes precedence over all and a court will acknowledge that the UK broke it."
"The court might agree that at some point in the future if the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is implemented. But as it stands today, the UK hasn't broken the agreement yet."
"But will a court acknowledge that we haven't?"
Good point. I suspect that might depend on where the court is based. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You are correct however the GFA takes precedence over all and a court will acknowledge that the UK broke it.
The court might agree that at some point in the future if the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is implemented. But as it stands today, the UK hasn't broken the agreement yet.
But will a court acknowledge that we haven't?
Good point. I suspect that might depend on where the court is based."
Everywhere it will be the same outcome |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Has the Horizon Europe Association agreement been signed?
Here's a link from the European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation:
https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/news/all-research-and-innovation-news/updates-association-third-countries-horizon-europe-2021-12-21_en
It lists at the top all of the countries which have signed up to the Horizon Europe Association agreement. Then it has a special section which says "The United Kingdom will be associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement".
So has the UK signed the Horizon Europe Association agreement? No. Why not? Because they've already signed another document that takes precedence."
You found a document which contradicted your position.
You then found another document which still contradicts your position. Again, capitalisation for emphasis:
"The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
Words have meaning.
Your first link explained:
"The UK is EXPECTED to become an associated country"
and: "How will the UK be associated to Horizon Europe?"
"The association will enter into force through
the formal adoption of a Protocol that is already agreed in PRINCIPLE."
This is why I find your insistence on being correct so mystifying. Everything that you find tells you that you aren't correct in this instance.
What are you, actually, trying to prove? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place."
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you."
I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you."
No. The Horizon association agreement is not signed.
Find it.
A future tense conditional on the the signing of an agreement means "if".
The fact fact is exactly that the EU WAS going to let us in. Nothing was signed, nothing has been paid for and therefore we are not in.
Again, show us when and where the association agreement was signed.
What do you think these phrases mean?
"This protocol is still in DRAFT form"
"However, grant agreements can only be signed IF the association has come into
force."
If you really believe that an unsigned agreement is valid then you are going to have to think very hard about your view of the legal system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on). "
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on).
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically."
I don't disagree. But this was about fees (where the new approach means it's pretty much cost neutral for us). And also the terms of the trade agreement, which irrc said ascensión shall be granted as soon as possible, or words to that affect.
I can understand why the EU are stalling. I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman I can't see how they'd argue the case on points of contract law. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on).
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically.I don't disagree. But this was about fees (where the new approach means it's pretty much cost neutral for us). And also the terms of the trade agreement, which irrc said ascensión shall be granted as soon as possible, or words to that affect.
I can understand why the EU are stalling. I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman I can't see how they'd argue the case on points of contract law. "
It's not a contract if you haven't signed it.
Intending to do something doesn't compel anything.
Of course, if it is possible to provide the (non-existent) text to indicate that the trade agreement includes a non-conditional agreement then there's a discussion to be had... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on).
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically.I don't disagree. But this was about fees (where the new approach means it's pretty much cost neutral for us). And also the terms of the trade agreement, which irrc said ascensión shall be granted as soon as possible, or words to that affect.
I can understand why the EU are stalling. I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman I can't see how they'd argue the case on points of contract law.
It's not a contract if you haven't signed it.
Intending to do something doesn't compel anything.
Of course, if it is possible to provide the (non-existent) text to indicate that the trade agreement includes a non-conditional agreement then there's a discussion to be had..."
has the trade deal not been signed ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on).
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically.I don't disagree. But this was about fees (where the new approach means it's pretty much cost neutral for us). And also the terms of the trade agreement, which irrc said ascensión shall be granted as soon as possible, or words to that affect.
I can understand why the EU are stalling. I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman I can't see how they'd argue the case on points of contract law.
It's not a contract if you haven't signed it.
Intending to do something doesn't compel anything.
Of course, if it is possible to provide the (non-existent) text to indicate that the trade agreement includes a non-conditional agreement then there's a discussion to be had...has the trade deal not been signed ?"
It has.
Does that mean that the Horizon Europe Association Agreement has been finalised or signed? The protocol is around how the contributions and returns are negotiated... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on).
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically.I don't disagree. But this was about fees (where the new approach means it's pretty much cost neutral for us). And also the terms of the trade agreement, which irrc said ascensión shall be granted as soon as possible, or words to that affect.
I can understand why the EU are stalling. I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman I can't see how they'd argue the case on points of contract law.
It's not a contract if you haven't signed it.
Intending to do something doesn't compel anything.
Of course, if it is possible to provide the (non-existent) text to indicate that the trade agreement includes a non-conditional agreement then there's a discussion to be had...has the trade deal not been signed ?
It has.
Does that mean that the Horizon Europe Association Agreement has been finalised or signed? The protocol is around how the contributions and returns are negotiated..."
it hasnt and I'm not arguing that. The special committee hasn't sat.
For me the word shall on the TCA suggests the intent is there. If the EU are delaying because of other parts of the relationship with the UK, that feels shakey legal ground to me. Even the EU said that no further negotiations were foreseen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on).
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically.I don't disagree. But this was about fees (where the new approach means it's pretty much cost neutral for us). And also the terms of the trade agreement, which irrc said ascensión shall be granted as soon as possible, or words to that affect.
I can understand why the EU are stalling. I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman I can't see how they'd argue the case on points of contract law.
It's not a contract if you haven't signed it.
Intending to do something doesn't compel anything.
Of course, if it is possible to provide the (non-existent) text to indicate that the trade agreement includes a non-conditional agreement then there's a discussion to be had...has the trade deal not been signed ?
It has.
Does that mean that the Horizon Europe Association Agreement has been finalised or signed? The protocol is around how the contributions and returns are negotiated...it hasnt and I'm not arguing that. The special committee hasn't sat.
For me the word shall on the TCA suggests the intent is there. If the EU are delaying because of other parts of the relationship with the UK, that feels shakey legal ground to me. Even the EU said that no further negotiations were foreseen. "
Why is there a discussion then?
No agreement exists. You cannot say that someone not doing something that they "intended" to do but have not formally agreed to do as legally "shaky". There's legally nothing there.
Everything was expected to be fine. Nothing was foreseen as a problem. Something unforeseen has happened (the UK threatening to renege on something that has been signed in the NI protocol). The EU waits.
We appear to be poor negotiators. The EU appears to be better as academic teams are migrating to the EU which would otherwise have stayed here, not vice versa. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on).
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically.I don't disagree. But this was about fees (where the new approach means it's pretty much cost neutral for us). And also the terms of the trade agreement, which irrc said ascensión shall be granted as soon as possible, or words to that affect.
I can understand why the EU are stalling. I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman I can't see how they'd argue the case on points of contract law.
It's not a contract if you haven't signed it.
Intending to do something doesn't compel anything.
Of course, if it is possible to provide the (non-existent) text to indicate that the trade agreement includes a non-conditional agreement then there's a discussion to be had...has the trade deal not been signed ?
It has.
Does that mean that the Horizon Europe Association Agreement has been finalised or signed? The protocol is around how the contributions and returns are negotiated...it hasnt and I'm not arguing that. The special committee hasn't sat.
For me the word shall on the TCA suggests the intent is there. If the EU are delaying because of other parts of the relationship with the UK, that feels shakey legal ground to me. Even the EU said that no further negotiations were foreseen.
Why is there a discussion then?
No agreement exists. You cannot say that someone not doing something that they "intended" to do but have not formally agreed to do as legally "shaky". There's legally nothing there.
Everything was expected to be fine. Nothing was foreseen as a problem. Something unforeseen has happened (the UK threatening to renege on something that has been signed in the NI protocol). The EU waits.
We appear to be poor negotiators. The EU appears to be better as academic teams are migrating to the EU which would otherwise have stayed here, not vice versa. "
I don't believe they expected too much further discussion. Just The text could not be finalised during the negotiations of
the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom, as the
Multiannual Financial Framework and corresponding Union legal instruments had not yet been
adopted at the time of signature of the Agreement.
now there is wiggle room via
"European Union reserve their right to reconsider participation in
the programmes, activities and services listed in Protocols [I and II] before they are adopted since the
legal instruments governing the Union programmes and activities may be subject to change"
And while the joint decalaration probably isn't a legal document it is telling on the intent
"It is the Parties’ firm intention that the Specialised Committee on Participation in Union Programmes
will adopt the Protocols at the earliest opportunity to allow their implementation as soon as possible,
in particular with the ambition that United Kingdom entities would be able to participate from the
beginning of the programmes and activities identified, ensuring relevant arrangements and
agreements are in place, insofar as possible and in accordance with Union legislation."
I agree the EU have played this better wet to the various documents. We need them etc etc. And while we probably deserve being played, given the games we are playing, if they are delaying the setting up of committees then I don't see that as being within the spirit of the joint declarations.
Do you think they are right to be delaying setting up committees, given what was in the trade agreement and joint declarations? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on).
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically.I don't disagree. But this was about fees (where the new approach means it's pretty much cost neutral for us). And also the terms of the trade agreement, which irrc said ascensión shall be granted as soon as possible, or words to that affect.
I can understand why the EU are stalling. I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman I can't see how they'd argue the case on points of contract law.
It's not a contract if you haven't signed it.
Intending to do something doesn't compel anything.
Of course, if it is possible to provide the (non-existent) text to indicate that the trade agreement includes a non-conditional agreement then there's a discussion to be had...has the trade deal not been signed ?
It has.
Does that mean that the Horizon Europe Association Agreement has been finalised or signed? The protocol is around how the contributions and returns are negotiated...it hasnt and I'm not arguing that. The special committee hasn't sat.
For me the word shall on the TCA suggests the intent is there. If the EU are delaying because of other parts of the relationship with the UK, that feels shakey legal ground to me. Even the EU said that no further negotiations were foreseen.
Why is there a discussion then?
No agreement exists. You cannot say that someone not doing something that they "intended" to do but have not formally agreed to do as legally "shaky". There's legally nothing there.
Everything was expected to be fine. Nothing was foreseen as a problem. Something unforeseen has happened (the UK threatening to renege on something that has been signed in the NI protocol). The EU waits.
We appear to be poor negotiators. The EU appears to be better as academic teams are migrating to the EU which would otherwise have stayed here, not vice versa.
I don't believe they expected too much further discussion. Just The text could not be finalised during the negotiations of
the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom, as the
Multiannual Financial Framework and corresponding Union legal instruments had not yet been
adopted at the time of signature of the Agreement.
now there is wiggle room via
"European Union reserve their right to reconsider participation in
the programmes, activities and services listed in Protocols [I and II] before they are adopted since the
legal instruments governing the Union programmes and activities may be subject to change"
And while the joint decalaration probably isn't a legal document it is telling on the intent
"It is the Parties’ firm intention that the Specialised Committee on Participation in Union Programmes
will adopt the Protocols at the earliest opportunity to allow their implementation as soon as possible,
in particular with the ambition that United Kingdom entities would be able to participate from the
beginning of the programmes and activities identified, ensuring relevant arrangements and
agreements are in place, insofar as possible and in accordance with Union legislation."
I agree the EU have played this better wet to the various documents. We need them etc etc. And while we probably deserve being played, given the games we are playing, if they are delaying the setting up of committees then I don't see that as being within the spirit of the joint declarations.
Do you think they are right to be delaying setting up committees, given what was in the trade agreement and joint declarations?"
Again, it doesn't matter. Intent is not an agreement. Spirit is not an agreement.
Are we right to be threatening to renegotiate the NI protocol that we have signed? No. Are they right to use this as a bargaining tool? Why not. I wouldn't wish to in a commercial negotiation, but these are international negotiations and this is part of a display of power.
They are putting the EU first. We are no longer the EU. We have put ourselves in this position with Brexit and complex negotiations for an unknown goal. We decided to play a game that we are currently no good at. We had better learn fast because it is a big world to be in on our own.
Accept the failure and learn from it. We can't bleat, whine and make excuses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on).
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically.I don't disagree. But this was about fees (where the new approach means it's pretty much cost neutral for us). And also the terms of the trade agreement, which irrc said ascensión shall be granted as soon as possible, or words to that affect.
I can understand why the EU are stalling. I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman I can't see how they'd argue the case on points of contract law.
It's not a contract if you haven't signed it.
Intending to do something doesn't compel anything.
Of course, if it is possible to provide the (non-existent) text to indicate that the trade agreement includes a non-conditional agreement then there's a discussion to be had...has the trade deal not been signed ?
It has.
Does that mean that the Horizon Europe Association Agreement has been finalised or signed? The protocol is around how the contributions and returns are negotiated...it hasnt and I'm not arguing that. The special committee hasn't sat.
For me the word shall on the TCA suggests the intent is there. If the EU are delaying because of other parts of the relationship with the UK, that feels shakey legal ground to me. Even the EU said that no further negotiations were foreseen.
Why is there a discussion then?
No agreement exists. You cannot say that someone not doing something that they "intended" to do but have not formally agreed to do as legally "shaky". There's legally nothing there.
Everything was expected to be fine. Nothing was foreseen as a problem. Something unforeseen has happened (the UK threatening to renege on something that has been signed in the NI protocol). The EU waits.
We appear to be poor negotiators. The EU appears to be better as academic teams are migrating to the EU which would otherwise have stayed here, not vice versa.
I don't believe they expected too much further discussion. Just The text could not be finalised during the negotiations of
the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom, as the
Multiannual Financial Framework and corresponding Union legal instruments had not yet been
adopted at the time of signature of the Agreement.
now there is wiggle room via
"European Union reserve their right to reconsider participation in
the programmes, activities and services listed in Protocols [I and II] before they are adopted since the
legal instruments governing the Union programmes and activities may be subject to change"
And while the joint decalaration probably isn't a legal document it is telling on the intent
"It is the Parties’ firm intention that the Specialised Committee on Participation in Union Programmes
will adopt the Protocols at the earliest opportunity to allow their implementation as soon as possible,
in particular with the ambition that United Kingdom entities would be able to participate from the
beginning of the programmes and activities identified, ensuring relevant arrangements and
agreements are in place, insofar as possible and in accordance with Union legislation."
I agree the EU have played this better wet to the various documents. We need them etc etc. And while we probably deserve being played, given the games we are playing, if they are delaying the setting up of committees then I don't see that as being within the spirit of the joint declarations.
Do you think they are right to be delaying setting up committees, given what was in the trade agreement and joint declarations?
Again, it doesn't matter. Intent is not an agreement. Spirit is not an agreement.
Are we right to be threatening to renegotiate the NI protocol that we have signed? No. Are they right to use this as a bargaining tool? Why not. I wouldn't wish to in a commercial negotiation, but these are international negotiations and this is part of a display of power.
They are putting the EU first. We are no longer the EU. We have put ourselves in this position with Brexit and complex negotiations for an unknown goal. We decided to play a game that we are currently no good at. We had better learn fast because it is a big world to be in on our own.
Accept the failure and learn from it. We can't bleat, whine and make excuses."
here endeths today's lesson |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement."
Future tense. It is not on the list of countries with an association agreement actually in place.
I've already said, several times, that the UK is not associated to Horizon. It should be, because all the agreements are in place and signed, but the EU hasn't let us in.
The words "The United Kingdom WILL BE associated by means of a Protocol to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement" show that the EU has agreed to let us in (since the TaCA was signed and sealed ages ago), but they've not done so.
If you can't see that those documents show that the EU was going to let us in, but then changed their minds, then I really can't help you.I largely agree but imagine the eu will say they haven't changed their mind but haven't yet approved.
Which means the UK haven't yet paid anything.
Hence the EU not paying out.
But the terms of approval mean thay the UK will get broadly the same as they put in.
So in theory the UK could simply use those unoaid membership fees to the unis.
Instead they will save the pennies while bleating at the EU.
(As above I think the EU are likely in the wrong here. But the UK has more ability to fund than it lets on).
The value is not in direct financial accounting.
The value is in being able to conduct work with a wider group with a different range of skills.
It means that with the same amount of money and it is possible to achieve something far broader/more innovative/more inventive/better.
Pick your adjective, but the point is more can be achieved in scientific terms within Horizon than purely domestically.I don't disagree. But this was about fees (where the new approach means it's pretty much cost neutral for us). And also the terms of the trade agreement, which irrc said ascensión shall be granted as soon as possible, or words to that affect.
I can understand why the EU are stalling. I'm not a lawyer, but as a layman I can't see how they'd argue the case on points of contract law.
It's not a contract if you haven't signed it.
Intending to do something doesn't compel anything.
Of course, if it is possible to provide the (non-existent) text to indicate that the trade agreement includes a non-conditional agreement then there's a discussion to be had...has the trade deal not been signed ?
It has.
Does that mean that the Horizon Europe Association Agreement has been finalised or signed? The protocol is around how the contributions and returns are negotiated...it hasnt and I'm not arguing that. The special committee hasn't sat.
For me the word shall on the TCA suggests the intent is there. If the EU are delaying because of other parts of the relationship with the UK, that feels shakey legal ground to me. Even the EU said that no further negotiations were foreseen.
Why is there a discussion then?
No agreement exists. You cannot say that someone not doing something that they "intended" to do but have not formally agreed to do as legally "shaky". There's legally nothing there.
Everything was expected to be fine. Nothing was foreseen as a problem. Something unforeseen has happened (the UK threatening to renege on something that has been signed in the NI protocol). The EU waits.
We appear to be poor negotiators. The EU appears to be better as academic teams are migrating to the EU which would otherwise have stayed here, not vice versa.
I don't believe they expected too much further discussion. Just The text could not be finalised during the negotiations of
the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom, as the
Multiannual Financial Framework and corresponding Union legal instruments had not yet been
adopted at the time of signature of the Agreement.
now there is wiggle room via
"European Union reserve their right to reconsider participation in
the programmes, activities and services listed in Protocols [I and II] before they are adopted since the
legal instruments governing the Union programmes and activities may be subject to change"
And while the joint decalaration probably isn't a legal document it is telling on the intent
"It is the Parties’ firm intention that the Specialised Committee on Participation in Union Programmes
will adopt the Protocols at the earliest opportunity to allow their implementation as soon as possible,
in particular with the ambition that United Kingdom entities would be able to participate from the
beginning of the programmes and activities identified, ensuring relevant arrangements and
agreements are in place, insofar as possible and in accordance with Union legislation."
I agree the EU have played this better wet to the various documents. We need them etc etc. And while we probably deserve being played, given the games we are playing, if they are delaying the setting up of committees then I don't see that as being within the spirit of the joint declarations.
Do you think they are right to be delaying setting up committees, given what was in the trade agreement and joint declarations?
Again, it doesn't matter. Intent is not an agreement. Spirit is not an agreement.
Are we right to be threatening to renegotiate the NI protocol that we have signed? No. Are they right to use this as a bargaining tool? Why not. I wouldn't wish to in a commercial negotiation, but these are international negotiations and this is part of a display of power.
They are putting the EU first. We are no longer the EU. We have put ourselves in this position with Brexit and complex negotiations for an unknown goal. We decided to play a game that we are currently no good at. We had better learn fast because it is a big world to be in on our own.
Accept the failure and learn from it. We can't bleat, whine and make excuses. here endeths today's lesson"
Precisely!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
