FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Brexit showdown
Brexit showdown
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is heating up as it is few months left and it seems that boris wants to undermine the divorce treaty, unless the bloc agrees to a free trade deal by october 15, what do you think will happen? I cant see them getting a free trade deal from it." Have you seen the detail of the Bill being introduced tomorrow ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If some of the details circulating are correct then its a safety net - protecting the union and Ireland peace process. It’s totally acceptable that pro-Eu folk see it as something else" Let's be honest there are those who supported Brexit who also see this latest game by Boris as not exactly a good idea.. Boxes I'll for other deals when the other side will be rightly wondering when we will renege on any deal signed.. Is this what we've come to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I suspect there’s some posturing going on for public consumption as mentioned, however if it does turn out to be reneging on an agreement I don’t care if you’re pro or anti Brexit that is just bad for this country’s standing on any level. " Just seen this.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is heating up as it is few months left and it seems that boris wants to undermine the divorce treaty, unless the bloc agrees to a free trade deal by october 15, what do you think will happen? I cant see them getting a free trade deal from it. Have you seen the detail of the Bill being introduced tomorrow ?" No. I havent seen it yet, do you know the details of it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” " What is the strategy?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is heating up as it is few months left and it seems that boris wants to undermine the divorce treaty, unless the bloc agrees to a free trade deal by october 15, what do you think will happen? I cant see them getting a free trade deal from it. Have you seen the detail of the Bill being introduced tomorrow ?No. I havent seen it yet, do you know the details of it?" No and no  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy? "chicken! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!"The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place. I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!"Sounds about right, I see the governments most senior lawyer has resigned in protest, it’s going down well  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
Sounds about right, I see the governments most senior lawyer has resigned in protest, it’s going down well "Isn’t that normally what a lawyer will do when the client wants to go ahead and break international law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
Sounds about right, I see the governments most senior lawyer has resigned in protest, it’s going down well
Isn’t that normally what a lawyer will do when the client wants to go ahead and break international law? "This guy ‘ Sir Jonathan, who is a QC, was knighted in December 2019 for his legal services to the government. The honour recognised his work on constitutional issues and the EU Withdrawal Agreement‘ . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
Sounds about right, I see the governments most senior lawyer has resigned in protest, it’s going down well
Isn’t that normally what a lawyer will do when the client wants to go ahead and break international law?
This guy ‘ Sir Jonathan, who is a QC, was knighted in December 2019 for his legal services to the government. The honour recognised his work on constitutional issues and the EU Withdrawal Agreement‘ . "They should have held off with the honour then... Turns out there is quite a lot of vagueness around the Ireland protocol - hence the need for some new U.K. law, in the event there isn’t an agreement and we need to ensure the Ireland protocol is maintained appropriately ... Should he return the knighthood? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!"Hmmm I’m thinking Turkey! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
Sounds about right, I see the governments most senior lawyer has resigned in protest, it’s going down well
Isn’t that normally what a lawyer will do when the client wants to go ahead and break international law?
This guy ‘ Sir Jonathan, who is a QC, was knighted in December 2019 for his legal services to the government. The honour recognised his work on constitutional issues and the EU Withdrawal Agreement‘ .
They should have held off with the honour then...
Turns out there is quite a lot of vagueness around the Ireland protocol - hence the need for some new U.K. law, in the event there isn’t an agreement and we need to ensure the Ireland protocol is maintained appropriately ...
Should he return the knighthood?"If you take that logic Boris should quit in that case as I see no evidence of an oven ready deal. I don’t care where anyone sits on Brexit if we break an international agreement and I don’t care if it’s just moving a full stop that is making us a third world country. Sorry to use that term but it describes us well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party "The people have spoken etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy? "bumble mumble deflect obfuscate blame covid blame the eu blame corbyn harrumph use Latin oh and fail | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc."like they did in 2016 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
Sounds about right, I see the governments most senior lawyer has resigned in protest, it’s going down well
Isn’t that normally what a lawyer will do when the client wants to go ahead and break international law?
This guy ‘ Sir Jonathan, who is a QC, was knighted in December 2019 for his legal services to the government. The honour recognised his work on constitutional issues and the EU Withdrawal Agreement‘ .
They should have held off with the honour then...
Turns out there is quite a lot of vagueness around the Ireland protocol - hence the need for some new U.K. law, in the event there isn’t an agreement and we need to ensure the Ireland protocol is maintained appropriately ...
Should he return the knighthood?"The EU were very exacting in the language of the WA. This is Boris reneging on his agreement. The UK does not get to unilaterally clarify or renegotiate legally binding agreements to their own liking. Try that with your mortgage or phone company. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016"Erm..that's what I mean. So congrats.well done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
Sounds about right, I see the governments most senior lawyer has resigned in protest, it’s going down well
Isn’t that normally what a lawyer will do when the client wants to go ahead and break international law?
This guy ‘ Sir Jonathan, who is a QC, was knighted in December 2019 for his legal services to the government. The honour recognised his work on constitutional issues and the EU Withdrawal Agreement‘ .
They should have held off with the honour then...
Turns out there is quite a lot of vagueness around the Ireland protocol - hence the need for some new U.K. law, in the event there isn’t an agreement and we need to ensure the Ireland protocol is maintained appropriately ...
Should he return the knighthood?
The EU were very exacting in the language of the WA. This is Boris reneging on his agreement. The UK does not get to unilaterally clarify or renegotiate legally binding agreements to their own liking. Try that with your mortgage or phone company. "... and if there is no joint committee to oversee and interpret the WA/Ireland protocol? Is there provision within the exacting language of the WA to support this scenario? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brandon Lewis saying we are breaking international law in a very specific and limited away. So I was doing 90 in a 30 zone but in a limited and specific way ." Think of it more in terms of doing 32 in a 30 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brandon Lewis saying we are breaking international law in a very specific and limited away. So I was doing 90 in a 30 zone but in a limited and specific way . Think of it more in terms of doing 32 in a 30 " So its just breaking the law a bit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Brandon Lewis saying we are breaking international law in a very specific and limited away. So I was doing 90 in a 30 zone but in a limited and specific way . Think of it more in terms of doing 32 in a 30 So its just breaking the law a bit?" well it's still breaking the law, but only just | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
Sounds about right, I see the governments most senior lawyer has resigned in protest, it’s going down well
Isn’t that normally what a lawyer will do when the client wants to go ahead and break international law?
This guy ‘ Sir Jonathan, who is a QC, was knighted in December 2019 for his legal services to the government. The honour recognised his work on constitutional issues and the EU Withdrawal Agreement‘ .
They should have held off with the honour then...
Turns out there is quite a lot of vagueness around the Ireland protocol - hence the need for some new U.K. law, in the event there isn’t an agreement and we need to ensure the Ireland protocol is maintained appropriately ...
Should he return the knighthood?
The EU were very exacting in the language of the WA. This is Boris reneging on his agreement. The UK does not get to unilaterally clarify or renegotiate legally binding agreements to their own liking. Try that with your mortgage or phone company.
... and if there is no joint committee to oversee and interpret the WA/Ireland protocol? Is there provision within the exacting language of the WA to support this scenario?"The only party that has a problem with the WA is uk. They never liked it but that was the price of doing the deal. The same deal Boris campaigned on. They didn't have to accept the WA, they could have just left at that point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016"And in 1975 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016
And in 1975 "well in 41 yrs we can have another vote then lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016
And in 1975 well in 41 yrs we can have another vote then lol"Why wait 41 years? The majority of the people who voted for Brexit will dead in 20 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016
And in 1975 well in 41 yrs we can have another vote then lol
Why wait 41 years? The majority of the people who voted for Brexit will dead in 20 "well the majority of the ppl who voted in 1975 would of been dead in 2016 lol when would you like a vote and do you think it would be reversed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016
And in 1975 well in 41 yrs we can have another vote then lol
Why wait 41 years? The majority of the people who voted for Brexit will dead in 20 well the majority of the ppl who voted in 1975 would of been dead in 2016 lol when would you like a vote and do you think it would be reversed?"I think it would be reversed if there was a vote today. Maybe have another one in 10 years, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is heating up as it is few months left and it seems that boris wants to undermine the divorce treaty, unless the bloc agrees to a free trade deal by october 15, what do you think will happen? I cant see them getting a free trade deal from it. Have you seen the detail of the Bill being introduced tomorrow ?"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If some of the details circulating are correct then its a safety net - protecting the union and Ireland peace process. It’s totally acceptable that pro-Eu folk see it as something else" If this bill was not put through what happens in a no deal scenario and if a deal is struck is there any need for this change in other words if a deal is struck does the uk scrap this bill or is it still useful | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
Sounds about right, I see the governments most senior lawyer has resigned in protest, it’s going down well
Isn’t that normally what a lawyer will do when the client wants to go ahead and break international law?
This guy ‘ Sir Jonathan, who is a QC, was knighted in December 2019 for his legal services to the government. The honour recognised his work on constitutional issues and the EU Withdrawal Agreement‘ .
They should have held off with the honour then...
Turns out there is quite a lot of vagueness around the Ireland protocol - hence the need for some new U.K. law, in the event there isn’t an agreement and we need to ensure the Ireland protocol is maintained appropriately ...
Should he return the knighthood?
The EU were very exacting in the language of the WA. This is Boris reneging on his agreement. The UK does not get to unilaterally clarify or renegotiate legally binding agreements to their own liking. Try that with your mortgage or phone company.
... and if there is no joint committee to oversee and interpret the WA/Ireland protocol? Is there provision within the exacting language of the WA to support this scenario?
The only party that has a problem with the WA is uk. They never liked it but that was the price of doing the deal. The same deal Boris campaigned on. They didn't have to accept the WA, they could have just left at that point."That’s an opinion... what about the question of overseeing/monitoring/interpreting the Ireland protocol should we be in the situation where there is no agreement and no joint committee? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is heating up as it is few months left and it seems that boris wants to undermine the divorce treaty, unless the bloc agrees to a free trade deal by october 15, what do you think will happen? I cant see them getting a free trade deal from it. Have you seen the detail of the Bill being introduced tomorrow ?No. I havent seen it yet, do you know the details of it? No and no "It will be interesting to see what it will be lol  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is heating up as it is few months left and it seems that boris wants to undermine the divorce treaty, unless the bloc agrees to a free trade deal by october 15, what do you think will happen? I cant see them getting a free trade deal from it. Have you seen the detail of the Bill being introduced tomorrow ?No. I havent seen it yet, do you know the details of it? No and no It will be interesting to see what it will be lol "Yes and yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016
And in 1975 well in 41 yrs we can have another vote then lol
Why wait 41 years? The majority of the people who voted for Brexit will dead in 20 well the majority of the ppl who voted in 1975 would of been dead in 2016 lol when would you like a vote and do you think it would be reversed?
I think it would be reversed if there was a vote today. Maybe have another one in 10 years, "i don’t think it would and 10 yrs sounds good to me I’d be happy with that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is just another ‘dead cat’ being thrown by the government to divert attention from Covid. A deal will be done- guaranteed- this government needs a win badly and it needs some kind of deal, that said I would be surprised if they accidentally trigger a no deal by not getting a deal done in time. " True | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016
And in 1975 "That was for membership of the EEC, which was about trade primarily, the 2016 vote was to leave the EU and its European project which is about far more than trade and is miles away from what people signed upto in 1975. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
Sounds about right, I see the governments most senior lawyer has resigned in protest, it’s going down well
Isn’t that normally what a lawyer will do when the client wants to go ahead and break international law?
This guy ‘ Sir Jonathan, who is a QC, was knighted in December 2019 for his legal services to the government. The honour recognised his work on constitutional issues and the EU Withdrawal Agreement‘ .
They should have held off with the honour then...
Turns out there is quite a lot of vagueness around the Ireland protocol - hence the need for some new U.K. law, in the event there isn’t an agreement and we need to ensure the Ireland protocol is maintained appropriately ...
Should he return the knighthood?
The EU were very exacting in the language of the WA. This is Boris reneging on his agreement. The UK does not get to unilaterally clarify or renegotiate legally binding agreements to their own liking. Try that with your mortgage or phone company.
... and if there is no joint committee to oversee and interpret the WA/Ireland protocol? Is there provision within the exacting language of the WA to support this scenario?
The only party that has a problem with the WA is uk. They never liked it but that was the price of doing the deal. The same deal Boris campaigned on. They didn't have to accept the WA, they could have just left at that point.
That’s an opinion... what about the question of overseeing/monitoring/interpreting the Ireland protocol should we be in the situation where there is no agreement and no joint committee?"As previously stated the WA was negotiated and agreed to by both parties. This is a legally binding agreement. In the real world a party to a joint agreement cannot unilaterally decide redraft agreements to their liking. The WA was ratified both by the UK and EU. Do I really have to explain to you what this means if the UK govt unilaterally decides to void their commitment to the WA. Saying now that the agreement is flawed and unworkable means he lied to the UK electorate (again1). There already is a joint committee negotiating the protocol. Up to very recently the UK was trying to incentivise Ireland to intercede with the EU by offering favourable terms with the land bridge. They are now threatening the stick. I think its bluff and bluster, if they do go through with it, the case will end up in European Court of Justice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the EU had done what the gvt is about to do, no doubt that the brexshiteers would be telling us that the EU is a disgrace and that they always try to shaft the U.K. this gvt has no morals and dignity. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016
And in 1975 well in 41 yrs we can have another vote then lol
Why wait 41 years? The majority of the people who voted for Brexit will dead in 20 well the majority of the ppl who voted in 1975 would of been dead in 2016 lol when would you like a vote and do you think it would be reversed?
I think it would be reversed if there was a vote today. Maybe have another one in 10 years, "If there was a vote to take the U.K. back into the EU either no or 10 years time I doubt many in the EU would want the UK back The blase approach to international treaties amongst a myriad of other things is going to live long in the collective EU memory | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016
And in 1975
That was for membership of the EEC, which was about trade primarily, the 2016 vote was to leave the EU and its European project which is about far more than trade and is miles away from what people signed upto in 1975."True, would it be fair to say that the Brexit that will be delivered at the end of 2020 will be miles away from what people voted for in 2016?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016
And in 1975 well in 41 yrs we can have another vote then lol
Why wait 41 years? The majority of the people who voted for Brexit will dead in 20 well the majority of the ppl who voted in 1975 would of been dead in 2016 lol when would you like a vote and do you think it would be reversed?
I think it would be reversed if there was a vote today. Maybe have another one in 10 years,
If there was a vote to take the U.K. back into the EU either no or 10 years time
I doubt many in the EU would want the UK back
The blase approach to international treaties amongst a myriad of other things is going to live long in the collective EU memory "This is my fear, I think it is inevitable that we will want to re join, I am not so confident that the EU will allow it to happen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The gvt is looking more and more desperate. They’re the ones setting artificial deadlines, threatening no deal, throwing their toys out of the pram, telling us that no deal would be a good outcome ( who are you fooling Boris the clown Johnson?) etc... On the other side, they look composed and Barnier keeps sticking to his words. Desperation is the English way as Pink Floyd would say." It is pathetic and embarrassing to watch, god know what they will try next, it isn't a good sign when the governments senior lawyer resigns in protest . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The gvt is looking more and more desperate. They’re the ones setting artificial deadlines, threatening no deal, throwing their toys out of the pram, telling us that no deal would be a good outcome ( who are you fooling Boris the clown Johnson?) etc... On the other side, they look composed and Barnier keeps sticking to his words. Desperation is the English way as Pink Floyd would say. It is pathetic and embarrassing to watch, god know what they will try next, it isn't a good sign when the governments senior lawyer resigns in protest . " This does not apply to brexshiteers. Everything is ok for them and they admire their hero who has no honor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The gvt is looking more and more desperate. They’re the ones setting artificial deadlines, threatening no deal, throwing their toys out of the pram, telling us that no deal would be a good outcome ( who are you fooling Boris the clown Johnson?) etc... On the other side, they look composed and Barnier keeps sticking to his words. Desperation is the English way as Pink Floyd would say. It is pathetic and embarrassing to watch, god know what they will try next, it isn't a good sign when the governments senior lawyer resigns in protest . " All part of the clear out of remainer civil servants | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The gvt is looking more and more desperate. They’re the ones setting artificial deadlines, threatening no deal, throwing their toys out of the pram, telling us that no deal would be a good outcome ( who are you fooling Boris the clown Johnson?) etc... On the other side, they look composed and Barnier keeps sticking to his words. Desperation is the English way as Pink Floyd would say. It is pathetic and embarrassing to watch, god know what they will try next, it isn't a good sign when the governments senior lawyer resigns in protest . All part of the clear out of remainer civil servants "I genuinely fail to see what’s funny about this. What a laughing stock this country is becoming. More pathetic with every day that passes. A mini America run by a mini Trump. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The gvt is looking more and more desperate. They’re the ones setting artificial deadlines, threatening no deal, throwing their toys out of the pram, telling us that no deal would be a good outcome ( who are you fooling Boris the clown Johnson?) etc... On the other side, they look composed and Barnier keeps sticking to his words. Desperation is the English way as Pink Floyd would say. It is pathetic and embarrassing to watch, god know what they will try next, it isn't a good sign when the governments senior lawyer resigns in protest . All part of the clear out of remainer civil servants
I genuinely fail to see what’s funny about this. What a laughing stock this country is becoming. More pathetic with every day that passes. A mini America run by a mini Trump. "Ooops .... emoji typo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In the event of no agreement there will not be a committee to oversee, monitor and interpret the Withdrawal Agreement and the Irish Protocol. In the event of no agreement, being able to interpret the protocol in U.K. law, which would prevent internal borders within the U.K., is very appropriate, and something any other country in the same position would prepare for Of course the safety net may not be required . Given the timing, alongside the 15th October deadline there is an element of a strategy to this, rather than a wholehearted “let’s be totally underhand and completely forget about the WA” What is the strategy?
chicken!
The UK can't win, and they know it. If Boris is serious about this, then its the prelude to a no deal exit and a hard border in Ireland. The UK's reputation will be destroyed, they won't get a trade deal from the US. WTO rules will cause hunger and riots. If he proceedes with this, he will be condemning the UK to a very bad place.
I should also mention his oven ready deal that he campaigned on, shut down parliament to stop scrutiny of said deal and expel (60?) from his party
The people have spoken etc. like they did in 2016
And in 1975 well in 41 yrs we can have another vote then lol
Why wait 41 years? The majority of the people who voted for Brexit will dead in 20 well the majority of the ppl who voted in 1975 would of been dead in 2016 lol when would you like a vote and do you think it would be reversed?
I think it would be reversed if there was a vote today. Maybe have another one in 10 years,
If there was a vote to take the U.K. back into the EU either no or 10 years time
I doubt many in the EU would want the UK back
The blase approach to international treaties amongst a myriad of other things is going to live long in the collective EU memory
This is my fear, I think it is inevitable that we will want to re join, I am not so confident that the EU will allow it to happen "They need us more than we need them Etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The gvt is looking more and more desperate. They’re the ones setting artificial deadlines, threatening no deal, throwing their toys out of the pram, telling us that no deal would be a good outcome ( who are you fooling Boris the clown Johnson?) etc... On the other side, they look composed and Barnier keeps sticking to his words. Desperation is the English way as Pink Floyd would say. It is pathetic and embarrassing to watch, god know what they will try next, it isn't a good sign when the governments senior lawyer resigns in protest . All part of the clear out of remainer civil servants "He was knighted for his work on the withdrawal agreement. Lets be honest, most civil servants need to be intelligent to get and do their job , so the vast majority will be remain voters | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"His title is the Treasury Solicitor (or TSol, as it is known in Whitehall) TSol responsible for ensuring government operates within the law on a day to day basis, Government lawyers -- may often disagree with policy, but they will ensure it has soundest possible legal basis and will, if possible, defeat any legal challenge. The last time this happened was 2003 when Elizabeth Wilmhurst resigned because she believed a 2nd UN resolution was required before the Iraq invasion. So today's resignation signifies that that there is a serious attempt within government to disregard or subvert the rule of law." The high point was when Brandon Lewis, N. Ireland Secretary, stood up in the Commons and admitted the new Brexit bill will break international law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"His title is the Treasury Solicitor (or TSol, as it is known in Whitehall) TSol responsible for ensuring government operates within the law on a day to day basis, Government lawyers -- may often disagree with policy, but they will ensure it has soundest possible legal basis and will, if possible, defeat any legal challenge. The last time this happened was 2003 when Elizabeth Wilmhurst resigned because she believed a 2nd UN resolution was required before the Iraq invasion. So today's resignation signifies that that there is a serious attempt within government to disregard or subvert the rule of law. The high point was when Brandon Lewis, N. Ireland Secretary, stood up in the Commons and admitted the new Brexit bill will break international law." Indeed. None of this is good. Although I can't help wondering why so many resignations, on principle, from working for this government, mainly in relation to its stance regarding relations with the EU; and so very few from Blair's government, in relation to the Iraq War. Elizabeth Wilmshurst has already been mentioned. The only major resignation from government was Robin Cook (what Claire Short did doesn't count). So, why the difference? Are the needless deaths of foreigners - and your own soldiers - less troubling to the morals of civil servants than the damage Brexit will bring (and they are wealthy enough, on a personal level, to avoid) to the UK economy? I'm not suggesting a double standard here - and, as you all know, I am no fan of the current UK Government - but I do wonder about how far the threshold for moral outrage seems to have changed. Breaking international law is wrong; but shit though Brexit is, it's clearly not in the same league as an illegal war. As for the remark Theresa May made about the future of the UK's reputation; that ship sailed a long time ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"His title is the Treasury Solicitor (or TSol, as it is known in Whitehall) TSol responsible for ensuring government operates within the law on a day to day basis, Government lawyers -- may often disagree with policy, but they will ensure it has soundest possible legal basis and will, if possible, defeat any legal challenge. The last time this happened was 2003 when Elizabeth Wilmhurst resigned because she believed a 2nd UN resolution was required before the Iraq invasion. So today's resignation signifies that that there is a serious attempt within government to disregard or subvert the rule of law. The high point was when Brandon Lewis, N. Ireland Secretary, stood up in the Commons and admitted the new Brexit bill will break international law. Indeed. None of this is good. Although I can't help wondering why so many resignations, on principle, from working for this government, mainly in relation to its stance regarding relations with the EU; and so very few from Blair's government, in relation to the Iraq War. Elizabeth Wilmshurst has already been mentioned. The only major resignation from government was Robin Cook (what Claire Short did doesn't count). So, why the difference? Are the needless deaths of foreigners - and your own soldiers - less troubling to the morals of civil servants than the damage Brexit will bring (and they are wealthy enough, on a personal level, to avoid) to the UK economy? I'm not suggesting a double standard here - and, as you all know, I am no fan of the current UK Government - but I do wonder about how far the threshold for moral outrage seems to have changed. Breaking international law is wrong; but shit though Brexit is, it's clearly not in the same league as an illegal war. As for the remark Theresa May made about the future of the UK's reputation; that ship sailed a long time ago." You are trying to compare apples and oranges No one cared enough to resign during your illegal war because it was happening to brown people off over there This is about the great british economy,much more important And at least blair was somewhat competent,if a complete liar Boris the clown is an even bigger liar and completely incompetent for the job | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much." But by leaving a club you couldnt and shouldnt expect to get a better deal, so what this is about is to not get the worst of deal tho. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much.But by leaving a club you couldnt and shouldnt expect to get a better deal, so what this is about is to not get the worst of deal tho." thing is shag I dont see where the Uk is asking for a better deal than we had, they are not asking to stay in the common market and carry on, they wish to walk away with a canada style deal which is far from what we had. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much.But by leaving a club you couldnt and shouldnt expect to get a better deal, so what this is about is to not get the worst of deal tho. thing is shag I dont see where the Uk is asking for a better deal than we had, they are not asking to stay in the common market and carry on, they wish to walk away with a canada style deal which is far from what we had." I see, didnt he also want to try to get a free trade deal as well? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much.But by leaving a club you couldnt and shouldnt expect to get a better deal, so what this is about is to not get the worst of deal tho. thing is shag I dont see where the Uk is asking for a better deal than we had, they are not asking to stay in the common market and carry on, they wish to walk away with a canada style deal which is far from what we had." Wonder why eu dont trust uk and their "political declaration" about level playing field Bojos and british government have shown themselves to be completely untrustworthy As their actions over last day or 2 clearly shows Prefidious albion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much." then the default is that you either have to have borders on the island of ireland..... or you have a border running down the irish sea between northern ireland and the mainland.... so which would you like... pick your poison! its not like we didn't see this coming as soon as johnson signed his Withdrawal Agreement.... and every time it was pointed out johnson said it wasn't true! this is an admission that it was and he once again lied to the british people! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much." The UK told the EU back in March they wouldn’t be looking for an extension to talks The UK also told the EU that if the EU looked for an extension they would reject it also So no there won’t be any “waking away and look at things later” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much. The UK told the EU back in March they wouldn’t be looking for an extension to talks The UK also told the EU that if the EU looked for an extension they would reject it also So no there won’t be any “waking away and look at things later” " i mean in relation to a possible trade deal, this can still be done after the transition period, and the dust has settled a bit, the only difference being both the EU and the UK would have to default to WTO terms until such time as they made an agreement, if ever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much. then the default is that you either have to have borders on the island of ireland..... or you have a border running down the irish sea between northern ireland and the mainland.... so which would you like... pick your poison! its not like we didn't see this coming as soon as johnson signed his Withdrawal Agreement.... and every time it was pointed out johnson said it wasn't true! this is an admission that it was and he once again lied to the british people!" They are both poison as you say _abio, I really don't know what the answer is the irish border problem, I guess maybe a border in the sea would cause less problems in Ireland but i may be totally wrong as I will be the first to admit I dont fully understand things from the people of Ireland perspective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much. then the default is that you either have to have borders on the island of ireland..... or you have a border running down the irish sea between northern ireland and the mainland.... so which would you like... pick your poison! its not like we didn't see this coming as soon as johnson signed his Withdrawal Agreement.... and every time it was pointed out johnson said it wasn't true! this is an admission that it was and he once again lied to the british people! They are both poison as you say _abio, I really don't know what the answer is the irish border problem, I guess maybe a border in the sea would cause less problems in Ireland but i may be totally wrong as I will be the first to admit I dont fully understand things from the people of Ireland perspective." Problem 1: The UK electorate gave no consideration to the land border in the 2016 referendum. Both Blair and Major warned of it's implications but neither side gave it any consideration. Problem 2: The GFA requires an undertaking to reduce and eliminate Border infrastructure. The EU and USA acted as guarantors for the GFA. The leave vote ran contrary to the spirit of the GFA as it might mean new Border infrastructure. (see problem 1) Problem 3: Since the SEA in 1992 the economies both sides of the border has become integrated on an all island basis. The leave vote has economic implications for the republic of Ireland and the North (see problem 2) Problem 4. The Border has been a problem since partition in 1921. The elimination of the Border benefited everyone on the Island and caused a major factor in causation of violence. (duh!) The WA that Boris negotiated with the EU last november meant that Northern Ireland would remain within a customs union with the EU and there would be a customs border between NI and the UK. The WA was agreed and ratified but both parties and was requirement to go forward to the next stage in negotiating a trade agreement with the EU. So in reneging on the WA Boris is threatening the economic, social and political stability of Ireland and raises the question is the UK still a country of laws. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much. then the default is that you either have to have borders on the island of ireland..... or you have a border running down the irish sea between northern ireland and the mainland.... so which would you like... pick your poison! its not like we didn't see this coming as soon as johnson signed his Withdrawal Agreement.... and every time it was pointed out johnson said it wasn't true! this is an admission that it was and he once again lied to the british people! They are both poison as you say _abio, I really don't know what the answer is the irish border problem, I guess maybe a border in the sea would cause less problems in Ireland but i may be totally wrong as I will be the first to admit I dont fully understand things from the people of Ireland perspective. Problem 1: The UK electorate gave no consideration to the land border in the 2016 referendum. Both Blair and Major warned of it's implications but neither side gave it any consideration. Problem 2: The GFA requires an undertaking to reduce and eliminate Border infrastructure. The EU and USA acted as guarantors for the GFA. The leave vote ran contrary to the spirit of the GFA as it might mean new Border infrastructure. (see problem 1) Problem 3: Since the SEA in 1992 the economies both sides of the border has become integrated on an all island basis. The leave vote has economic implications for the republic of Ireland and the North (see problem 2) Problem 4. The Border has been a problem since partition in 1921. The elimination of the Border benefited everyone on the Island and caused a major factor in causation of violence. (duh!) The WA that Boris negotiated with the EU last november meant that Northern Ireland would remain within a customs union with the EU and there would be a customs border between NI and the UK. The WA was agreed and ratified but both parties and was requirement to go forward to the next stage in negotiating a trade agreement with the EU. So in reneging on the WA Boris is threatening the economic, social and political stability of Ireland and raises the question is the UK still a country of laws. " All compounded by the EU in trade ‘negotiations ‘ threatening to block exports of food from mainland U.K. to Northern Ireland ! With this threat on the table it’s only right the government act to make sure this could not happen in the event of no deal being agreed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much. then the default is that you either have to have borders on the island of ireland..... or you have a border running down the irish sea between northern ireland and the mainland.... so which would you like... pick your poison! its not like we didn't see this coming as soon as johnson signed his Withdrawal Agreement.... and every time it was pointed out johnson said it wasn't true! this is an admission that it was and he once again lied to the british people! They are both poison as you say _abio, I really don't know what the answer is the irish border problem, I guess maybe a border in the sea would cause less problems in Ireland but i may be totally wrong as I will be the first to admit I dont fully understand things from the people of Ireland perspective. Problem 1: The UK electorate gave no consideration to the land border in the 2016 referendum. Both Blair and Major warned of it's implications but neither side gave it any consideration. Problem 2: The GFA requires an undertaking to reduce and eliminate Border infrastructure. The EU and USA acted as guarantors for the GFA. The leave vote ran contrary to the spirit of the GFA as it might mean new Border infrastructure. (see problem 1) Problem 3: Since the SEA in 1992 the economies both sides of the border has become integrated on an all island basis. The leave vote has economic implications for the republic of Ireland and the North (see problem 2) Problem 4. The Border has been a problem since partition in 1921. The elimination of the Border benefited everyone on the Island and caused a major factor in causation of violence. (duh!) The WA that Boris negotiated with the EU last november meant that Northern Ireland would remain within a customs union with the EU and there would be a customs border between NI and the UK. The WA was agreed and ratified but both parties and was requirement to go forward to the next stage in negotiating a trade agreement with the EU. So in reneging on the WA Boris is threatening the economic, social and political stability of Ireland and raises the question is the UK still a country of laws. All compounded by the EU in trade ‘negotiations ‘ threatening to block exports of food from mainland U.K. to Northern Ireland ! With this threat on the table it’s only right the government act to make sure this could not happen in the event of no deal being agreed. " Why did the lawyer resign then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much. then the default is that you either have to have borders on the island of ireland..... or you have a border running down the irish sea between northern ireland and the mainland.... so which would you like... pick your poison! its not like we didn't see this coming as soon as johnson signed his Withdrawal Agreement.... and every time it was pointed out johnson said it wasn't true! this is an admission that it was and he once again lied to the british people! They are both poison as you say _abio, I really don't know what the answer is the irish border problem, I guess maybe a border in the sea would cause less problems in Ireland but i may be totally wrong as I will be the first to admit I dont fully understand things from the people of Ireland perspective. Problem 1: The UK electorate gave no consideration to the land border in the 2016 referendum. Both Blair and Major warned of it's implications but neither side gave it any consideration. Problem 2: The GFA requires an undertaking to reduce and eliminate Border infrastructure. The EU and USA acted as guarantors for the GFA. The leave vote ran contrary to the spirit of the GFA as it might mean new Border infrastructure. (see problem 1) Problem 3: Since the SEA in 1992 the economies both sides of the border has become integrated on an all island basis. The leave vote has economic implications for the republic of Ireland and the North (see problem 2) Problem 4. The Border has been a problem since partition in 1921. The elimination of the Border benefited everyone on the Island and caused a major factor in causation of violence. (duh!) The WA that Boris negotiated with the EU last november meant that Northern Ireland would remain within a customs union with the EU and there would be a customs border between NI and the UK. The WA was agreed and ratified but both parties and was requirement to go forward to the next stage in negotiating a trade agreement with the EU. So in reneging on the WA Boris is threatening the economic, social and political stability of Ireland and raises the question is the UK still a country of laws. All compounded by the EU in trade ‘negotiations ‘ threatening to block exports of food from mainland U.K. to Northern Ireland ! With this threat on the table it’s only right the government act to make sure this could not happen in the event of no deal being agreed. " Apologies but I don't regard the Sun as a serious credible source for political news, so I can't really respond, but you do you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" All compounded by the EU in trade ‘negotiations ‘ threatening to block exports of food from mainland U.K. to Northern Ireland !" spin... that has been pointed out by every person when someone mentioned the words "no deal/WTO Rules".... this isn't an EU demand.. it has always been an international law issue brought about by the GFA, and not one person that wanted the WTO option ever came up with a solution!!! for farage downwards its always been silence! to comply unless some sort of "common trade area" it was going to be border on ireland or border across irish sea! remember when even your besties in the DUP were propping you up and still trying to point this precise situation out to you!!! and people said they were lying, and johnson saying it wasn't true funny enough that was accounted for in the Teresa may version of the WA... the one that so many brexiteers and leavers were vermantly against! "With this threat on the table it’s only right the government act to make sure this could not happen in the event of no deal being agreed. " its the UK running roughshod over international law and effecting the sovereignty of another nation.... and if i were the republic of ireland i'd remind you of your commitments under international law rather than making a unilateral decision that affects my country! also... since trades talks as so important... if i was another country watching this, the first question i would ask if "how can we trust you to keep your word if you don't like the terms YOU agreed!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Enough of this charade EU should just walk away from this clown" Of course the EU can walk away but think that would play into boris's hands as it makes it easier to blame them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much.But by leaving a club you couldnt and shouldnt expect to get a better deal, so what this is about is to not get the worst of deal tho. thing is shag I dont see where the Uk is asking for a better deal than we had, they are not asking to stay in the common market and carry on, they wish to walk away with a canada style deal which is far from what we had.I see, didnt he also want to try to get a free trade deal as well?" The Canada deal is a free trade deal but without the restrictions the EU propose for the UK. For some reason Canada and Japan don't need to sign up to the same restrictions the uk does | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Enough of this charade EU should just walk away from this clown Of course the EU can walk away but think that would play into boris's hands as it makes it easier to blame them" Blame them for what? Apparently a no deal is a ‘great result’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Enough of this charade EU should just walk away from this clown Of course the EU can walk away but think that would play into boris's hands as it makes it easier to blame them Blame them for what? Apparently a no deal is a ‘great result’ "yes but they will want to blame someone for the deal not going through. I think if the EU walk away it makes it to easy for Boris to then blame the EU | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pacta sunt servanda" Doesn't apply to rogue states. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pacta sunt servanda Doesn't apply to rogue states." lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Pacta sunt servanda Doesn't apply to rogue states." Sad but true | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"that much fabled UK-US trade deal.... on the rocks much? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: “The U.K. must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU ..If the U.K. violates that international treaty/ undermines GFA ..there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing Congress”." I expect this legislation will be knocked back in the lords and challenged in the courts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"that much fabled UK-US trade deal.... on the rocks much? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: “The U.K. must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU ..If the U.K. violates that international treaty/ undermines GFA ..there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing Congress”." Who is there left to trade with? Canada? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"that much fabled UK-US trade deal.... on the rocks much? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: “The U.K. must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU ..If the U.K. violates that international treaty/ undermines GFA ..there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing Congress”. Who is there left to trade with? Canada?" Do you think anyone will want to talk and sign any agreements with the UK if the government breaks international law? I don't think so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Both the EU and the UK should walk away, neither side is prepared to give any ground even though on both sides what is being asked is unreasonable of the other, be better to walk away and look at things again later when all sides have calmed and the media ain't shit stirring as much. then the default is that you either have to have borders on the island of ireland..... or you have a border running down the irish sea between northern ireland and the mainland.... so which would you like... pick your poison! its not like we didn't see this coming as soon as johnson signed his Withdrawal Agreement.... and every time it was pointed out johnson said it wasn't true! this is an admission that it was and he once again lied to the british people! They are both poison as you say _abio, I really don't know what the answer is the irish border problem, I guess maybe a border in the sea would cause less problems in Ireland but i may be totally wrong as I will be the first to admit I dont fully understand things from the people of Ireland perspective." I watch the commons yesterday and the northern ireland secretary brandon lewis told boris said something towards boris, that the deal has 'eroded' trust towards the uk, how will trust be regained or can it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Enough of this charade EU should just walk away from this clown Of course the EU can walk away but think that would play into boris's hands as it makes it easier to blame them Blame them for what? Apparently a no deal is a ‘great result’
yes but they will want to blame someone for the deal not going through. I think if the EU walk away it makes it to easy for Boris to then blame the EU"Boris has no credibility, no morals and no idea, only the stupid would believe anything he says | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"that much fabled UK-US trade deal.... on the rocks much? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: “The U.K. must respect the Northern Ireland Protocol as signed with the EU ..If the U.K. violates that international treaty/ undermines GFA ..there will be absolutely no chance of a U.S.-U.K. trade agreement passing Congress”. Who is there left to trade with? Canada? Do you think anyone will want to talk and sign any agreements with the UK if the government breaks international law? I don't think so" So England shall return to being a nation of hunter gatherers? When you look at the real reason behind Brexit (to escape EU law that would prevent us being the money laundering caput of the world) then it is hardly surprising that our government act like criminals when it is organised crime whose money we are cleaning. EU trade can be measured in billions. Money laundering in the Square Mile, trillions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bill Cash’s amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement is worth a read ." Section 38 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bill Cash’s amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement is worth a read ." the fabled clause 38..... nice wording.... doesn't solve the issue... the issue at hand is that there is not deal then it is a joint UK/Irish taskforce (group) that decides what tarriffs need to be levy'd and where.... what the UK have trying to do is change that in this bill to ONLY the UK would make that decision, and thus giving the Irish (and by extension the EU) no say no amount of "clause 38" would get round that.... because that then impinges on the Good Friday Agreement where all those types of issues would be "joint bodies" it was a nice try though.... back to square one..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bill Cash’s amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement is worth a read . the fabled clause 38..... nice wording.... doesn't solve the issue... the issue at hand is that there is not deal then it is a joint UK/Irish taskforce (group) that decides what tarriffs need to be levy'd and where.... what the UK have trying to do is change that in this bill to ONLY the UK would make that decision, and thus giving the Irish (and by extension the EU) no say no amount of "clause 38" would get round that.... because that then impinges on the Good Friday Agreement where all those types of issues would be "joint bodies" it was a nice try though.... back to square one..... "The government are making sure the EU can not weaponise the Irish border which is in the interests of the U.K. clause 38 which the EU signed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bill Cash’s amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement is worth a read . the fabled clause 38..... nice wording.... doesn't solve the issue... the issue at hand is that there is not deal then it is a joint UK/Irish taskforce (group) that decides what tarriffs need to be levy'd and where.... what the UK have trying to do is change that in this bill to ONLY the UK would make that decision, and thus giving the Irish (and by extension the EU) no say no amount of "clause 38" would get round that.... because that then impinges on the Good Friday Agreement where all those types of issues would be "joint bodies" it was a nice try though.... back to square one..... "I’m not a fan of Johnson or the U.K. government but it’s fair to say the EU are not negotiating a free trade agreement in good faith which I believe is covered by WA | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bill Cash’s amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement is worth a read . the fabled clause 38..... nice wording.... doesn't solve the issue... the issue at hand is that there is not deal then it is a joint UK/Irish taskforce (group) that decides what tarriffs need to be levy'd and where.... what the UK have trying to do is change that in this bill to ONLY the UK would make that decision, and thus giving the Irish (and by extension the EU) no say no amount of "clause 38" would get round that.... because that then impinges on the Good Friday Agreement where all those types of issues would be "joint bodies" it was a nice try though.... back to square one..... I’m not a fan of Johnson or the U.K. government but it’s fair to say the EU are not negotiating a free trade agreement in good faith which I believe is covered by WA "Those evil Eurocrats are nowhere near as trustworthy as us. Look at how open and honest we've been through this entire process. It's almost as if they forced us to break international law. Sneaky of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bill Cash’s amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement is worth a read . the fabled clause 38..... nice wording.... doesn't solve the issue... the issue at hand is that there is not deal then it is a joint UK/Irish taskforce (group) that decides what tarriffs need to be levy'd and where.... what the UK have trying to do is change that in this bill to ONLY the UK would make that decision, and thus giving the Irish (and by extension the EU) no say no amount of "clause 38" would get round that.... because that then impinges on the Good Friday Agreement where all those types of issues would be "joint bodies" it was a nice try though.... back to square one..... I’m not a fan of Johnson or the U.K. government but it’s fair to say the EU are not negotiating a free trade agreement in good faith which I believe is covered by WA
Those evil Eurocrats are nowhere near as trustworthy as us. Look at how open and honest we've been through this entire process. It's almost as if they forced us to break international law. Sneaky of them."yawn ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bill Cash’s amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement is worth a read . the fabled clause 38..... nice wording.... doesn't solve the issue... the issue at hand is that there is not deal then it is a joint UK/Irish taskforce (group) that decides what tarriffs need to be levy'd and where.... what the UK have trying to do is change that in this bill to ONLY the UK would make that decision, and thus giving the Irish (and by extension the EU) no say no amount of "clause 38" would get round that.... because that then impinges on the Good Friday Agreement where all those types of issues would be "joint bodies" it was a nice try though.... back to square one..... I’m not a fan of Johnson or the U.K. government but it’s fair to say the EU are not negotiating a free trade agreement in good faith which I believe is covered by WA
Those evil Eurocrats are nowhere near as trustworthy as us. Look at how open and honest we've been through this entire process. It's almost as if they forced us to break international law. Sneaky of them. yawn !"Good point and well made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bill Cash’s amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement is worth a read . the fabled clause 38..... nice wording.... doesn't solve the issue... the issue at hand is that there is not deal then it is a joint UK/Irish taskforce (group) that decides what tarriffs need to be levy'd and where.... what the UK have trying to do is change that in this bill to ONLY the UK would make that decision, and thus giving the Irish (and by extension the EU) no say no amount of "clause 38" would get round that.... because that then impinges on the Good Friday Agreement where all those types of issues would be "joint bodies" it was a nice try though.... back to square one..... I’m not a fan of Johnson or the U.K. government but it’s fair to say the EU are not negotiating a free trade agreement in good faith which I believe is covered by WA
Those evil Eurocrats are nowhere near as trustworthy as us. Look at how open and honest we've been through this entire process. It's almost as if they forced us to break international law. Sneaky of them. yawn !"Tired? I know how you feel. I'm v tired of this government too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We haven't broken it yet, i think this is all bluster and nothing more tbh." Playing with loaded weapons can backfire. This may just be a gesture for the swivel eyed wing of the Tory party before Boris capitulates. If they do go through with it, it is indicative that the Tory Party of Thatcher is no more. A no deal exit now would feed Scottish independence, invite sanctions for the EU, the end of a trade deal with the US and the loss of all international credibility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The government are making sure the EU can not weaponise the Irish border which is in the interests of the U.K. clause 38 which the EU signed " two parties signed the withdrawal agreement in good faith... its not like you can say "there was fine detail" because everyone pointed out the fine detail!!! and in doing do take any say away from ireland over cross border issues as defined in the Good Friday Agreement.... now if you think leaving the EU is worth Ripping up the Good Friday agreement just be man enough and say so, but the good friday agreement has held the peace on the island of ireland for the best part of 25 years! it wasn't like you did not know that obsticle was there... because teresa may's administration came up with a solution for it.. and leavers and brexiteers hated it... johnsons solution isn't to come up with a solution, its to blow everything up! (maybe not the best choice of words.. but the point stands) you knew what the default position would be in the situation of a no deal/WTO terms, you just decides to stick your fingers in your ears and your heads in the sand and just pretend like it wouldn't be there! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The government are making sure the EU can not weaponise the Irish border which is in the interests of the U.K. clause 38 which the EU signed two parties signed the withdrawal agreement in good faith... its not like you can say "there was fine detail" because everyone pointed out the fine detail!!! and in doing do take any say away from ireland over cross border issues as defined in the Good Friday Agreement.... now if you think leaving the EU is worth Ripping up the Good Friday agreement just be man enough and say so, but the good friday agreement has held the peace on the island of ireland for the best part of 25 years! it wasn't like you did not know that obsticle was there... because teresa may's administration came up with a solution for it.. and leavers and brexiteers hated it... johnsons solution isn't to come up with a solution, its to blow everything up! (maybe not the best choice of words.. but the point stands) you knew what the default position would be in the situation of a no deal/WTO terms, you just decides to stick your fingers in your ears and your heads in the sand and just pretend like it wouldn't be there!" You seem not to like people having an opinion that differs in anyway to yourself , trying to put words into the mouths of others . Johnson’s solution to blow everything up , yes very bad choice of words ! Definitely need at least two signatories for a treaty . I’m sure the U.K. will negotiate with Eire on border issues (my opinion ) I’m from brum as a young apprentice I worked on the aftermath of the pub bombings I’ve seen the results of the violence No need to try preaching to me you have an opinion nothing more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The government are making sure the EU can not weaponise the Irish border which is in the interests of the U.K. clause 38 which the EU signed two parties signed the withdrawal agreement in good faith... its not like you can say "there was fine detail" because everyone pointed out the fine detail!!! and in doing do take any say away from ireland over cross border issues as defined in the Good Friday Agreement.... now if you think leaving the EU is worth Ripping up the Good Friday agreement just be man enough and say so, but the good friday agreement has held the peace on the island of ireland for the best part of 25 years! it wasn't like you did not know that obsticle was there... because teresa may's administration came up with a solution for it.. and leavers and brexiteers hated it... johnsons solution isn't to come up with a solution, its to blow everything up! (maybe not the best choice of words.. but the point stands) you knew what the default position would be in the situation of a no deal/WTO terms, you just decides to stick your fingers in your ears and your heads in the sand and just pretend like it wouldn't be there! You seem not to like people having an opinion that differs in anyway to yourself , trying to put words into the mouths of others . Johnson’s solution to blow everything up , yes very bad choice of words ! Definitely need at least two signatories for a treaty . I’m sure the U.K. will negotiate with Eire on border issues (my opinion ) I’m from brum as a young apprentice I worked on the aftermath of the pub bombings I’ve seen the results of the violence No need to try preaching to me you have an opinion nothing more " Could be worse. At least he didn't yawn at you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I almost regret yawning at you now mrmanslut "*yawn* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I almost regret yawning at you now mrmanslut
*yawn*"ill let you have the last yawn ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I almost regret yawning at you now mrmanslut
*yawn*ill let you have the last yawn !" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I almost regret yawning at you now mrmanslut
*yawn*ill let you have the last yawn !
"Isn't yawning a sign of not enough oxygen in the blood stream? Doesn't the brain require oxygen to function properly? Ok. That all makes sense now... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The EU is not amused and is giving the UK until the end of the month. Their position is the Uk is already in breach of the agreement by tabling the bill." saw Gina Miller explain last night on TV that it did not break the law until implementation so be interesting to see, she is a fairly respected lawyer so she must have some idea i would think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the EU does take the UK to court as threatened and win what actually happens then? Is the UK forced to withdraw the bill? I understand the political fall out and loss of trust but in practice what actually happens" This is from Tony Connolly's twitter: If the EU takes such legal action the ECJ could impose a lump sum or penalty payment on the UK, if London does not abide by any ruling on the court, if and when the ECJ establishes a breach of the treaty, the advice says The EU could also use the dispute settlement mechanism under the Withdrawal Agreement, “which may ultimately also result in the imposition of financial sanctions by the arbitration panel. The document states that if the UK does not comply with an ECJ ruling on the matter, or pay the fine, the EU is entitled to suspend its obligations arising from the Withdrawal Agreement, with the exception of the parts related to EU and UK citizens... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the EU does take the UK to court as threatened and win what actually happens then? Is the UK forced to withdraw the bill? I understand the political fall out and loss of trust but in practice what actually happens This is from Tony Connolly's twitter: If the EU takes such legal action the ECJ could impose a lump sum or penalty payment on the UK, if London does not abide by any ruling on the court, if and when the ECJ establishes a breach of the treaty, the advice says The EU could also use the dispute settlement mechanism under the Withdrawal Agreement, “which may ultimately also result in the imposition of financial sanctions by the arbitration panel. The document states that if the UK does not comply with an ECJ ruling on the matter, or pay the fine, the EU is entitled to suspend its obligations arising from the Withdrawal Agreement, with the exception of the parts related to EU and UK citizens..." Ok so basically a fine and if not paid sanctions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the EU does take the UK to court as threatened and win what actually happens then? Is the UK forced to withdraw the bill? I understand the political fall out and loss of trust but in practice what actually happens This is from Tony Connolly's twitter: If the EU takes such legal action the ECJ could impose a lump sum or penalty payment on the UK, if London does not abide by any ruling on the court, if and when the ECJ establishes a breach of the treaty, the advice says The EU could also use the dispute settlement mechanism under the Withdrawal Agreement, “which may ultimately also result in the imposition of financial sanctions by the arbitration panel. The document states that if the UK does not comply with an ECJ ruling on the matter, or pay the fine, the EU is entitled to suspend its obligations arising from the Withdrawal Agreement, with the exception of the parts related to EU and UK citizens... Ok so basically a fine and if not paid sanctions?" And the EU is entitled to suspend its obligations arising from the Withdrawal Agreement with the above exception. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so." Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible" We have two choices, bad and worse. Is that seriously what Brexiters had in mind. And right now we're giving ourselves a reputation where no one will want to enter into any form of agreement. Nice! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible" No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages'" I think No Deal has been our plan from the outset. We will walk away with nothing and the gullible English public will pat Boris on the back and say "You tried your best old chap". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' I think No Deal has been our plan from the outset. We will walk away with nothing and the gullible English public will pat Boris on the back and say "You tried your best old chap"." Maybe it is or just going through the motions for the arch brexiteers before succumbing to the evil empire for the good of the country. Throughout the entire brexit negotiations, the UK has tried to divide the EU and failed thus far. I think this is just another one of the same moves. I understand that Priti Patel is hosting 5 of her EU counterparts in a fortnight to discuss post exit security concerns. No doubt there will be another attempt to divide the EU. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' I think No Deal has been our plan from the outset. We will walk away with nothing and the gullible English public will pat Boris on the back and say "You tried your best old chap". Maybe it is or just going through the motions for the arch brexiteers before succumbing to the evil empire for the good of the country. Throughout the entire brexit negotiations, the UK has tried to divide the EU and failed thus far. I think this is just another one of the same moves. I understand that Priti Patel is hosting 5 of her EU counterparts in a fortnight to discuss post exit security concerns. No doubt there will be another attempt to divide the EU." So here's a bit of useless trivia. During the Boer war there lived a man named Siener Van Rensburg. He was a prophet whose predictions were so uncannily accurate that the Boers used him as a military strategist. Most notable was his prediction of the assassination of Boer general De la Rey where he predicted the hotel and room number where he was killed. Why do I mention him? Because amongst his many predictions (both world wars, aids, 911 etc) he predicted a war between England and Europe. Everyone scoffed at this prediction because he obviously didn't know Europe wasn't a country. Bear in mind this was a century before the formation of the EU... Anyway think this is kind of interesting because if anyone could provoke a war it would probably be Priti Patel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages'" But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign" Did the people of Britain vote for a No Deal Brexit or did they vote for "the easiest deal ever"? Because if a hard Brexit leaves us worse of than we were before then all we have done is cut off our nose to spite our face. In the Autumn Budget Rishi is expected to raise taxes. In October 2 million people are expected to lose their jobs because of furlough ending. In April next year IR35 kicks in and we will lose many of our skilled professionals. The pound is losing value in the face of the Brexit showdown.... but apart from that we're nailing it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign" If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' I think No Deal has been our plan from the outset. We will walk away with nothing and the gullible English public will pat Boris on the back and say "You tried your best old chap"." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club." Not quite I was simply saying the statement we have to accept whatever the EU offer is not true and gave an example to try to help explain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign Did the people of Britain vote for a No Deal Brexit or did they vote for "the easiest deal ever"? Because if a hard Brexit leaves us worse of than we were before then all we have done is cut off our nose to spite our face. In the Autumn Budget Rishi is expected to raise taxes. In October 2 million people are expected to lose their jobs because of furlough ending. In April next year IR35 kicks in and we will lose many of our skilled professionals. The pound is losing value in the face of the Brexit showdown.... but apart from that we're nailing it!" Is that a yes you would sign or no you would not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder at what point do brexiters start being ashamed of the shot they have brought on this country. This country is an embarrassment. Survey in Le Figaro, right wing French paper: Do you regret seeing the U.K. leave the EU: No: 61% Yes 39%. They’re so pleased to see the back of the U.K. that’s been whinging about the EU pretty much for 50 years..." well they won’t have to much longer will they we are giving them what they want and since when as the french had much love for the U.K. lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder at what point do brexiters start being ashamed of the shot they have brought on this country. This country is an embarrassment. Survey in Le Figaro, right wing French paper: Do you regret seeing the U.K. leave the EU: No: 61% Yes 39%. They’re so pleased to see the back of the U.K. that’s been whinging about the EU pretty much for 50 years... well they won’t have to much longer will they we are giving them what they want and since when as the french had much love for the U.K. lol" In English please - or in French if you prefer. I’d just like to be able to understand you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club. Not quite I was simply saying the statement we have to accept whatever the EU offer is not true and gave an example to try to help explain" Like I said your suggestion is a bizarre hypothetical that has no basis in reality, lets try and keep it factual. No deal is certainly an option the UK can take. It is difficult to envisage a worse possible outcome. One journalist described a no deal exit as both the EU and UK having a bloody nose but the UK also having a severe concussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder at what point do brexiters start being ashamed of the shot they have brought on this country. This country is an embarrassment. Survey in Le Figaro, right wing French paper: Do you regret seeing the U.K. leave the EU: No: 61% Yes 39%. They’re so pleased to see the back of the U.K. that’s been whinging about the EU pretty much for 50 years..." So your mind is made up and you will be moving to another country? I remember you mentioned it a while ago but you were hanging on to see how things developed. Is this now the final straw? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club. Not quite I was simply saying the statement we have to accept whatever the EU offer is not true and gave an example to try to help explain Like I said your suggestion is a bizarre hypothetical that has no basis in reality, lets try and keep it factual. No deal is certainly an option the UK can take. It is difficult to envisage a worse possible outcome. One journalist described a no deal exit as both the EU and UK having a bloody nose but the UK also having a severe concussion. " It is hypothetical but was on the extreme side to highlight that its incorrect to state the uk has to accept anything the EU says. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder at what point do brexiters start being ashamed of the shot they have brought on this country. This country is an embarrassment. Survey in Le Figaro, right wing French paper: Do you regret seeing the U.K. leave the EU: No: 61% Yes 39%. They’re so pleased to see the back of the U.K. that’s been whinging about the EU pretty much for 50 years... So your mind is made up and you will be moving to another country? I remember you mentioned it a while ago but you were hanging on to see how things developed. Is this now the final straw?" I never said I would move country but that’s probably because you often struggle to understand messages or to be more precise because you often interpret them in a way that suits your rhetoric. I said I could abandon my British nationality to feel a bit less ashamed of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club. Not quite I was simply saying the statement we have to accept whatever the EU offer is not true and gave an example to try to help explain Like I said your suggestion is a bizarre hypothetical that has no basis in reality, lets try and keep it factual. No deal is certainly an option the UK can take. It is difficult to envisage a worse possible outcome. One journalist described a no deal exit as both the EU and UK having a bloody nose but the UK also having a severe concussion. It is hypothetical but was on the extreme side to highlight that its incorrect to state the uk has to accept anything the EU says. " I have no idea where you are getting this idea the UK has to accept anything the EU says. The actual reality is the UK has to accept what the UK has already agreed to in the WA and ratified by parliament. In the words of the school playground, 'no backsies' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign Did the people of Britain vote for a No Deal Brexit or did they vote for "the easiest deal ever"? Because if a hard Brexit leaves us worse of than we were before then all we have done is cut off our nose to spite our face. In the Autumn Budget Rishi is expected to raise taxes. In October 2 million people are expected to lose their jobs because of furlough ending. In April next year IR35 kicks in and we will lose many of our skilled professionals. The pound is losing value in the face of the Brexit showdown.... but apart from that we're nailing it! Is that a yes you would sign or no you would not" As I said earlier we two choices. Bad and worse. Of course we would take bad over worse i.e. walking away and not signing. But then if was up to me we wouldn't be in that position in the first place. So now my question. Is this the easiest deal in human history? Yes or no. Because if it isn't then we were mislead by our own government. That's a good track record don't you think? Lied to the nation, lied to the Queen and lied to the EU. Our government is running out of people we haven't lied to. How does this make you feel? Someone has said embarrassed and ashamed. I concur. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club. Not quite I was simply saying the statement we have to accept whatever the EU offer is not true and gave an example to try to help explain Like I said your suggestion is a bizarre hypothetical that has no basis in reality, lets try and keep it factual. No deal is certainly an option the UK can take. It is difficult to envisage a worse possible outcome. One journalist described a no deal exit as both the EU and UK having a bloody nose but the UK also having a severe concussion. It is hypothetical but was on the extreme side to highlight that its incorrect to state the uk has to accept anything the EU says. I have no idea where you are getting this idea the UK has to accept anything the EU says. The actual reality is the UK has to accept what the UK has already agreed to in the WA and ratified by parliament. In the words of the school playground, 'no backsies' " If you look to the top of this conversation its what someone posted. They put we have no option and we have to accept whatever we get. I'm saying that's not correct | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign Did the people of Britain vote for a No Deal Brexit or did they vote for "the easiest deal ever"? Because if a hard Brexit leaves us worse of than we were before then all we have done is cut off our nose to spite our face. In the Autumn Budget Rishi is expected to raise taxes. In October 2 million people are expected to lose their jobs because of furlough ending. In April next year IR35 kicks in and we will lose many of our skilled professionals. The pound is losing value in the face of the Brexit showdown.... but apart from that we're nailing it! Is that a yes you would sign or no you would not As I said earlier we two choices. Bad and worse. Of course we would take bad over worse i.e. walking away and not signing. But then if was up to me we wouldn't be in that position in the first place. So now my question. Is this the easiest deal in human history? Yes or no. Because if it isn't then we were mislead by our own government. That's a good track record don't you think? Lied to the nation, lied to the Queen and lied to the EU. Our government is running out of people we haven't lied to. How does this make you feel? Someone has said embarrassed and ashamed. I concur." So you would walk away. Thank you for answering. I was trying to explain that its not true we have to accept whatever is offered. At no point did I mention easy or not easy deals. I'm afraid you will have to ask others about that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club. Not quite I was simply saying the statement we have to accept whatever the EU offer is not true and gave an example to try to help explain Like I said your suggestion is a bizarre hypothetical that has no basis in reality, lets try and keep it factual. No deal is certainly an option the UK can take. It is difficult to envisage a worse possible outcome. One journalist described a no deal exit as both the EU and UK having a bloody nose but the UK also having a severe concussion. It is hypothetical but was on the extreme side to highlight that its incorrect to state the uk has to accept anything the EU says. I have no idea where you are getting this idea the UK has to accept anything the EU says. The actual reality is the UK has to accept what the UK has already agreed to in the WA and ratified by parliament. In the words of the school playground, 'no backsies' If you look to the top of this conversation its what someone posted. They put we have no option and we have to accept whatever we get. I'm saying that's not correct" When PM May triggered article 50, that set the clock in motion for a 2 year countdown before exit, that was unwise and ridiculous to trigger the exit process before negotiating a deal on the part of the UK. That put the UK on the back foot from the start. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder at what point do brexiters start being ashamed of the shot they have brought on this country. This country is an embarrassment. Survey in Le Figaro, right wing French paper: Do you regret seeing the U.K. leave the EU: No: 61% Yes 39%. They’re so pleased to see the back of the U.K. that’s been whinging about the EU pretty much for 50 years... So your mind is made up and you will be moving to another country? I remember you mentioned it a while ago but you were hanging on to see how things developed. Is this now the final straw? I never said I would move country but that’s probably because you often struggle to understand messages or to be more precise because you often interpret them in a way that suits your rhetoric. I said I could abandon my British nationality to feel a bit less ashamed of it. " That’s right, I remember now. Apologies I thought it was you moving country. So is this the last straw and you will now abandon your british nationality ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Frankie Boyle once said people will happily vote tory as long as they are fucking someone else (the poor,the low paid,unemployed,public sector sector worker's),however I'm guessing a no deal could affect quite a big chunk of the population. " This is a great quote. And it’s so true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club. Not quite I was simply saying the statement we have to accept whatever the EU offer is not true and gave an example to try to help explain Like I said your suggestion is a bizarre hypothetical that has no basis in reality, lets try and keep it factual. No deal is certainly an option the UK can take. It is difficult to envisage a worse possible outcome. One journalist described a no deal exit as both the EU and UK having a bloody nose but the UK also having a severe concussion. It is hypothetical but was on the extreme side to highlight that its incorrect to state the uk has to accept anything the EU says. I have no idea where you are getting this idea the UK has to accept anything the EU says. The actual reality is the UK has to accept what the UK has already agreed to in the WA and ratified by parliament. In the words of the school playground, 'no backsies' If you look to the top of this conversation its what someone posted. They put we have no option and we have to accept whatever we get. I'm saying that's not correct When PM May triggered article 50, that set the clock in motion for a 2 year countdown before exit, that was unwise and ridiculous to trigger the exit process before negotiating a deal on the part of the UK. That put the UK on the back foot from the start." front foot or back foot we do not have to sign up to anything we don't want to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign Did the people of Britain vote for a No Deal Brexit or did they vote for "the easiest deal ever"? Because if a hard Brexit leaves us worse of than we were before then all we have done is cut off our nose to spite our face. In the Autumn Budget Rishi is expected to raise taxes. In October 2 million people are expected to lose their jobs because of furlough ending. In April next year IR35 kicks in and we will lose many of our skilled professionals. The pound is losing value in the face of the Brexit showdown.... but apart from that we're nailing it! Is that a yes you would sign or no you would not As I said earlier we two choices. Bad and worse. Of course we would take bad over worse i.e. walking away and not signing. But then if was up to me we wouldn't be in that position in the first place. So now my question. Is this the easiest deal in human history? Yes or no. Because if it isn't then we were mislead by our own government. That's a good track record don't you think? Lied to the nation, lied to the Queen and lied to the EU. Our government is running out of people we haven't lied to. How does this make you feel? Someone has said embarrassed and ashamed. I concur. So you would walk away. Thank you for answering. I was trying to explain that its not true we have to accept whatever is offered. At no point did I mention easy or not easy deals. I'm afraid you will have to ask others about that" Yeah but that's like asking if I'd prefer to have my head chopped of or my hand chopped off. Of course I'd prefer to have my hand chopped off. This isn't to say that having my hand chopped off is an ambition of mine. I'd prefer to be on the beach sipping a cocktail with both hands firmly attached. So you believe that UK voters went to the Brexit polls knowing exactly what we are in for? Do they even know now what we are in for? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club. Not quite I was simply saying the statement we have to accept whatever the EU offer is not true and gave an example to try to help explain Like I said your suggestion is a bizarre hypothetical that has no basis in reality, lets try and keep it factual. No deal is certainly an option the UK can take. It is difficult to envisage a worse possible outcome. One journalist described a no deal exit as both the EU and UK having a bloody nose but the UK also having a severe concussion. It is hypothetical but was on the extreme side to highlight that its incorrect to state the uk has to accept anything the EU says. I have no idea where you are getting this idea the UK has to accept anything the EU says. The actual reality is the UK has to accept what the UK has already agreed to in the WA and ratified by parliament. In the words of the school playground, 'no backsies' If you look to the top of this conversation its what someone posted. They put we have no option and we have to accept whatever we get. I'm saying that's not correct When PM May triggered article 50, that set the clock in motion for a 2 year countdown before exit, that was unwise and ridiculous to trigger the exit process before negotiating a deal on the part of the UK. That put the UK on the back foot from the start. front foot or back foot we do not have to sign up to anything we don't want to " This is true. But given three options, a shitty deal, no deal, or no Brexit at all, which is the best outcome for the common people of the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club. Not quite I was simply saying the statement we have to accept whatever the EU offer is not true and gave an example to try to help explain Like I said your suggestion is a bizarre hypothetical that has no basis in reality, lets try and keep it factual. No deal is certainly an option the UK can take. It is difficult to envisage a worse possible outcome. One journalist described a no deal exit as both the EU and UK having a bloody nose but the UK also having a severe concussion. It is hypothetical but was on the extreme side to highlight that its incorrect to state the uk has to accept anything the EU says. I have no idea where you are getting this idea the UK has to accept anything the EU says. The actual reality is the UK has to accept what the UK has already agreed to in the WA and ratified by parliament. In the words of the school playground, 'no backsies' If you look to the top of this conversation its what someone posted. They put we have no option and we have to accept whatever we get. I'm saying that's not correct" You've taken this out of context. From the standpoint of negotiating a deal we have no position of strength from which to bargain. So within the context of negotiation we have no options. We can not negotiate as you point out but then this falls outside the context of negotiation. The point I was making is we can lose big or lose small. But we can't win. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually because we were mandated to withdraw from the EU before negotiating a deal we were always on the back foot because we have to accept whatever we end up with. We can't at this stage say no way that's not a fair deal, we aren't leaving. Good negotiations take place from a position of strength not when you have no other option. We did this to ourselves. No one else to blame. At the risk of this sounding like we told you so... We told you so. Why do we have to accept what we end up with. This latest bill aside as far as I know we can still leave without a deal/ walk away. I know that's not what's wanted but it is possible No deal? I really don't think the uk wants to do that. And then there's the fallout of an acrimonious exit from the EU. Then the USA will say 'no chicken for you until you say sorry and pay for the damages' But we don't have to accept anything as suggested we can walk away. Granted that means no deal but it is an option. If the EU said right the deal is the UK hand over all money earned from now on,ditch the pound for the euro and all laws and decisions are to be made in Brussels from now on would you say ok that's better than no deal so we will sign If I understand you, you're saying no deal would be better than some bizarre hypothetical alternative. Maybe. But what would be better again be honouring agreements that have already been made, keeping your good name and reputation and not having to join rogue state club. Not quite I was simply saying the statement we have to accept whatever the EU offer is not true and gave an example to try to help explain Like I said your suggestion is a bizarre hypothetical that has no basis in reality, lets try and keep it factual. No deal is certainly an option the UK can take. It is difficult to envisage a worse possible outcome. One journalist described a no deal exit as both the EU and UK having a bloody nose but the UK also having a severe concussion. It is hypothetical but was on the extreme side to highlight that its incorrect to state the uk has to accept anything the EU says. I have no idea where you are getting this idea the UK has to accept anything the EU says. The actual reality is the UK has to accept what the UK has already agreed to in the WA and ratified by parliament. In the words of the school playground, 'no backsies' If you look to the top of this conversation its what someone posted. They put we have no option and we have to accept whatever we get. I'm saying that's not correct You've taken this out of context. From the standpoint of negotiating a deal we have no position of strength from which to bargain. So within the context of negotiation we have no options. We can not negotiate as you point out but then this falls outside the context of negotiation. The point I was making is we can lose big or lose small. But we can't win." I was saying we do not have accept anything offered there is more than one option. I was not debating the beginning or the referendum or the tactics or anything else | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can see no one agreeing from over the water - Northern Ireland. They think Boris is full of BS" I can see a few paramilitary groups rubbing their hands though, they have said if there is a border then they will have some fun again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder at what point do brexiters start being ashamed of the shot they have brought on this country. This country is an embarrassment. Survey in Le Figaro, right wing French paper: Do you regret seeing the U.K. leave the EU: No: 61% Yes 39%. They’re so pleased to see the back of the U.K. that’s been whinging about the EU pretty much for 50 years..." i bet they are too, if I remember correctly they never wanted us to join the EEC, as it was back then anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder at what point do brexiters start being ashamed of the shot they have brought on this country. This country is an embarrassment. Survey in Le Figaro, right wing French paper: Do you regret seeing the U.K. leave the EU: No: 61% Yes 39%. They’re so pleased to see the back of the U.K. that’s been whinging about the EU pretty much for 50 years... well they won’t have to much longer will they we are giving them what they want and since when as the french had much love for the U.K. lol In English please - or in French if you prefer. I’d just like to be able to understand you. " Can I ask why you cannot understand what foxychick posted? It is not difficult to read and is in plain English, so what is the issue? I often see that you post you cannot understand what people write yet just about every other person that posts in the thread is able too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about a United ireland , problem solved ? Note the question mark not a statement of fact !" While I’m fully in favor of a United ireland and hope to see it in my lifetime The idea that Northern Ireland can be dumped at the doorstep like an abandoned child to suit the whims of a Conservative party wouldn’t wash with me A United Ireland can only come about with the consent of the majority within NI That’s the terms of the GFA and unless you want to break another international law,those are the terms that apply I know the British have cut and run from all their colonies in the last leaving chaos and division behind in their wake ireland/ni and India/Pakistan being two prime examples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about a United ireland , problem solved ? Note the question mark not a statement of fact ! While I’m fully in favor of a United ireland and hope to see it in my lifetime The idea that Northern Ireland can be dumped at the doorstep like an abandoned child to suit the whims of a Conservative party wouldn’t wash with me A United Ireland can only come about with the consent of the majority within NI That’s the terms of the GFA and unless you want to break another international law,those are the terms that apply I know the British have cut and run from all their colonies in the last leaving chaos and division behind in their wake ireland/ni and India/Pakistan being two prime examples. " I agree with some of your points on a United ireland Do not agree about the brits “cutting and running from all their colonies “ many were left stable and happy to have the brits gone The brits have not left NI India , Pakistan At the time what more could have been done ? Not easy to keep everyone happy . Made plenty of mistakes but hind-site is a wonderful thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
