Comments by "Karsten Schuhmann" (@karstenschuhmann8334) on "Brexit: ‘The EU will stand in full solidarity with Ireland’. The moment of truth for #BrexitReality" video.

Sure they did. The EU changed the Lisbon treaty and the new version was approved by Ireland.
7
Do you have any reason for your assumptions.
3
@paulwood6729 The WA, the "oven-ready deal" was front and center of the elections. "As I've shown, borders down the Irish Sea breaches the GFA until the people of NI have voted for it." Well, Brexit breaches the (edit out WA) GFA (edit in). There will be a change in respect to the UK or the ROI or both. The Irish protocol minimizes these breaches. NI will stay a part of the UK, but it will be part of a different customs arrangement.
2
@paulwood6729 Well, as you said WTO rules and therefor a hard border are the legal default for a member of the WTO. But the EU is a long established member of the WTO, while the UK just rejoined the club. Therefore the UK needs to follow WTO rules to the letter, while the EU ca takes its time to build the hard border.
1
@paulwood6729 Well, nice of you to agree that the UK will have to build a hard border. It would be nice if you could also agree that your government agreed that this hard border will be instituted in the Irish Sea. Regarding the WTO: Your schedules are still under review. In case you do not want to violate WTO rules.
1
@paulwood6729 Isn't it astonishing that Brexiteres always claim they could get "special exemptions" in core principles of large organizations. How should schedules be instituted without controlling of borders? It is a bit like asking to be exempt from British criminal laws when entering London.
1
@paulwood6729 Well, you started the mess, it is you that want the change, why should the EU compromise. I would guess the custom border in the Irish sea is a useful compromise and in the general election, most people of the UK seemed to agree.
1
@paulwood6729 Well, the GE was as much about the WA and the PD as it is possible in an election. Legally, however, this does not even make a difference. The WA is signed and ratified international treaty and "Pacta sunt servanda." If you do not like the WA you need to negotiate with the EU and replace it with something that is better for the EU.
1
@paulwood6729 Not really: Article 42 Validity and continuance in force of treaties 1. The validity of a treaty or of the consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be impeached only through the application of the present Convention. 2. The termination of a treaty, its denunciation or the withdrawal of a party, may take place only as a result of the application of the provisions of the treaty or of the present Convention. The same rule applies to suspension of the operation of a treaty. As far as I understand, the treaty can only be terminated or suspended if certain rules for the termination or suspension are part of the treaty itself. The WA, however, is a safeguard to protect the GFA any termination clause would render the WA useless.
1
@paulwood6729 Once again, Brexit violates the GFA, the WA protects it. That is the general view all around the Globe and especially in the EU and the USA. Actually there is a mechanism for the unilateral dismissal of the Irish protocol. The assembly of NI will vote on the treaty every 4 years. So it seems Artikel 42 applies.
1
@paulwood6729 I have red the GFA, and Brexit is breaking the it. The NIP is the only way to protect the GFA despite of Brexit. This is the way it is seen in the EU and the USA. As you have already said, Ireland and the GFA is of central importance to the USA. If the UK would not implement the NIP, it would not only start a conflict with Ireland and the EU but also with the USA.
1
Even the British government agreed to this view, otherwise they would not have signed the WA.
1
@paulwood6729 Well, the WA names the ECJ explicitly as the final arbitrator of disputes about the WA, this was also signed and ratified by the British government. Let us see if and how this is settled.
1
@paulwood6729 The article does not seem to be very good. It claims, that in case of a breach "the EU could raise tariffs, maybe to WTO levels, but it could not hold the UK". That is simply wrong. Without a trade deal the EU is required to raise the tariffs to WTO level, that is no punishment but simply following the rules. In case the UK breaks the WA, we can expect much higher tariffs.
1
@paulwood6729 "You're right that applying tariffs is simply following the rules, but it is their schedule that would be applied under the MFN rule. I take the 'maybe' to mean a change in their schedules, although that would apply to all imports not covered by a FTA, not just from the UK so it would be a significant move." Therefore it ain't going to happen. "The EU could apply sanctions if the WA is broken but not increase tariffs solely on the UK." Punitive tariffs are a frequently used type of sanctions. "In that case, we would probably remove our armed forces from Estonia & Cyprus. Why would we defend countries that are applying sanctions on us?" I guess we would find a solution. Well, I know, German troops in these countries have a strange connotation. I doubt this would be the way to go. But your decision might accelerate the institution of an EU army. "There will be a deal, and that is the solution to the NI Protocol. Brinksmanship is the EU way, consider the Maastricht negotiations as a prime example, so the current state of affairs was inevitable." I would think brinksmanship is the way of the UK, trying to blackmail the EU. But you need to consider, you are no longer a member of the EU. You will find the EU much less flexible to external pressure, compare to internal pressure. "Barnier being in London on Thursday evening suggests they are prepared for a deal to be made in time for the Council session. The question is how do the EU dig themselves out of the hole they've made and not lose face?" It is the UK that needs a deal, not the EU. We can continue the negotiations in 2021, we can weather the moderate disruption until the UK comes to its senses.
1
@paulwood6729 I do not think we will see the movement this week. In any case, the EU will not sign and ratifie anything until the IMB is dropped or changed not to contradict the WA. I expect some movement in the UK in about a month. But this would not give enough time to ratify and implement any far reaching change. Therefore, I expect a barebone deal and some contingency measures on both sides. I expect the whole issue to continue in 2021 maybe even in 2022.
1
@paulwood6729 Well, I do not expect big changes to the border in Ireland in the trade deal. The deeper the alignment of the UK to the EU the softer the border in the Irish sea. It is the only way to protect the GFA. Everyone outside the UK sees it this way, especially the USA.
1
@paulwood6729 Well, as I have said, this opinion is only seen in the UK, nowhere else on the globe. The ruling of any international court has a very high likelihood to agree.
1
@paulwood6729 Well, my opinion does not matter as I am not an international lawyer. Informed and non partisan opinions of US politicians dos matter. I have neither the time nor the qualifications to evaluate all aspects properly.
1
@paulwood6729 Well, US politicians are surely less partial then British politicians. Your comment renders the opinion of Lord Trimble irrelevant.
1
@paulwood6729 I have red the GFA and I have seen some passages that would require NI and the ROI to be part of the EU. But I do not see these passages as of the highest priority. As I told you, I see the GFA in combination with the WTO rules as in conflict with Brexit. You do not expect me to write a PhD thesis about this topic, do you?
1
These are WTO rules. Every member of the WTO needs to control its borders (aka hard border).
1
@Anymonkey70 Who wants to use what law?
1