BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
You would think so. Although within less than a year the PM has held mutually contradictory positions on a number of subjects. Brexit is just one of them. Famously he could only chose a side at the last minute. Maybe at one point he wanted a deal and now doesn't.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Honestly, it's very sad that people seem to think breaking international laws is fine.spatt77 said:
More insults of Brexiteers! Bravo! Hearts and Minds! your doing well taking people with you Rick!rick_chasey said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836
In case it's not clear to the thickos.Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law'
You won't see it that way, but the position gives legitimacy for the government to break the law again.0 -
Do you really believe that that the supermarket shelves will be bare? There is plenty of contingency planning going on to mitigate possible customs delays. And if you hadn't noticed, there is more than one way for goods to enter the UK.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
And just fyi, lorries queuing in Kent will cause shortages in Europe, not the UK
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
But there wasn’t a supply problem with toilet paper in March. At the first sign of disruption...coopster_the_1st said:
More remoaner hyperbole and fake news.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
Baked Beans (Heinz) are canned in Wigan, in the largest baked bean factory in the world.
The beans are shipped from North America.
I'm guessing you are stupid enough to think the EU will blockage our ports hence stopping the beans arrival.0 -
I rest my casecoopster_the_1st said:
More remoaner hyperbole and fake news.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
Baked Beans (Heinz) are canned in Wigan, in the largest baked bean factory in the world.
The beans are shipped from North America.
I'm guessing you are stupid enough to think the EU will blockage our ports hence stopping the beans arrival.
It does make me laugh when you use words which are technically correct but would never be used by a native English Speaker.0 -
I actually expect some disruption for channel/tunnel crossings. Not because of the logistics as the companies will have that sorted out but because the French fishermen will blockade the port and the French farmers will come out in support and blockade the tunnel.Stevo_666 said:
Do you really believe that that the supermarket shelves will be bare? There is plenty of contingency planning going on to mitigate possible customs delays. And if you hadn't noticed, there is more than one way for goods to enter the UK.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
And just fyi, lorries queuing in Kent will cause shortages in Europe, not the UK
If I was in logistics I would be sending freight via a non-French ports for the first couple of months to stick 2 fingers up at the militant Frenchies...0 -
My baked beans come from Italysurrey_commuter said:
I rest my casecoopster_the_1st said:
More remoaner hyperbole and fake news.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
Baked Beans (Heinz) are canned in Wigan, in the largest baked bean factory in the world.
The beans are shipped from North America.
I'm guessing you are stupid enough to think the EU will blockage our ports hence stopping the beans arrival.
It does make me laugh when you use words which are technically correct but would never be used by a native English Speaker.0 -
Good luck with that.coopster_the_1st said:
I actually expect some disruption for channel/tunnel crossings. Not because of the logistics as the companies will have that sorted out but because the French fishermen will blockade the port and the French farmers will come out in support and blockade the tunnel.Stevo_666 said:
Do you really believe that that the supermarket shelves will be bare? There is plenty of contingency planning going on to mitigate possible customs delays. And if you hadn't noticed, there is more than one way for goods to enter the UK.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
And just fyi, lorries queuing in Kent will cause shortages in Europe, not the UK
If I was in logistics I would be sending freight via a non-French ports for the first couple of months to stick 2 fingers up at the militant Frenchies...0 -
You have problems, you are more literal than me.Stevo_666 said:
Do you really believe that that the supermarket shelves will be bare? There is plenty of contingency planning going on to mitigate possible customs delays. And if you hadn't noticed, there is more than one way for goods to enter the UK.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
And just fyi, lorries queuing in Kent will cause shortages in Europe, not the UK
Let me spell it out. Most people in this country have no idea what GDP is and would have no idea about the consequences of it growing at a slower rate than preBrexit. And if they did notice it will be decades from now.
Immediately post Brexit there may be disruption to the supply chain resulting in inconvenience, this will have an immediate impact on Boris.
As for the lorry park there is a whole debate about how many pick ups they can make once they have dropped off. It really is like peeling an onion, that lorry park in Kent really will have an impact on the UK supply chain.
Anyway the French fishermen will be blockading Calais and providing a convenient scapegoat
You should Google Raab to find out how busy Dover is.0 -
Can't work out whether companies will have 'sorted' the logistics out, or will be doing things inefficiently just to wind up foreigners.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I'm guessing you don't work with logisitics professionals who have been planning for this scenario for some time - as I am.surrey_commuter said:
You have problems, you are more literal than me.Stevo_666 said:
Do you really believe that that the supermarket shelves will be bare? There is plenty of contingency planning going on to mitigate possible customs delays. And if you hadn't noticed, there is more than one way for goods to enter the UK.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
And just fyi, lorries queuing in Kent will cause shortages in Europe, not the UK
Let me spell it out. Most people in this country have no idea what GDP is and would have no idea about the consequences of it growing at a slower rate than preBrexit. And if they did notice it will be decades from now.
Immediately post Brexit there may be disruption to the supply chain resulting in inconvenience, this will have an immediate impact on Boris.
As for the lorry park there is a whole debate about how many pick ups they can make once they have dropped off. It really is like peeling an onion, that lorry park in Kent really will have an impact on the UK supply chain.
Anyway the French fishermen will be blockading Calais and providing a convenient scapegoat
You should Google Raab to find out how busy Dover is."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What i admire is you lack of any knowledge of history. China, russia and the USA constantly break international law regularly. Look at Hong Kong recently. Germany handed 9 billion to one of their national airline carriers without getting much in return which is clearly state aid. The look we are better than everyone else does not seem to have historically worked for us but i am sure you can provide a solid reason for us bending over everytime someone asks.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it's very sad that people seem to think breaking international laws is fine.spatt77 said:
More insults of Brexiteers! Bravo! Hearts and Minds! your doing well taking people with you Rick!rick_chasey said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836
In case it's not clear to the thickos.Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law'
You won't see it that way, but the position gives legitimacy for the government to break the law again.0 -
If you dont trust the joint committe process maybe it is sensible to bounce them into their first decision before the end if the year.0
-
The view is that the disruption wil be temporary until things settle down to the 'new normal'.coopster_the_1st said:
I actually expect some disruption for channel/tunnel crossings. Not because of the logistics as the companies will have that sorted out but because the French fishermen will blockade the port and the French farmers will come out in support and blockade the tunnel.Stevo_666 said:
Do you really believe that that the supermarket shelves will be bare? There is plenty of contingency planning going on to mitigate possible customs delays. And if you hadn't noticed, there is more than one way for goods to enter the UK.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
And just fyi, lorries queuing in Kent will cause shortages in Europe, not the UK
If I was in logistics I would be sending freight via a non-French ports for the first couple of months to stick 2 fingers up at the militant Frenchies...
Some people are acting as if we never import from/export to non EU countries when the reality is this is about half of our trade and has been for some time.
And yes, avoiding bottlenecks like Diver-Calais is an obvious part of the strategy."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Well if sprockets stoo uo on three times the normal ammounts if beans then yes their will be a shortage but that wont be the UKs or EUs fault. It will be the twat that thinks he needs the beans.morstar said:
But there wasn’t a supply problem with toilet paper in March. At the first sign of disruption...coopster_the_1st said:
More remoaner hyperbole and fake news.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
Baked Beans (Heinz) are canned in Wigan, in the largest baked bean factory in the world.
The beans are shipped from North America.
I'm guessing you are stupid enough to think the EU will blockage our ports hence stopping the beans arrival.0 -
I don't think you're involved with food export, are you? A bit different from widgets. If the gov are bringing in emergency legislation to allow them to bypass the local authority planning process to build lorry parks in a whole list of places, this suggests things will get a lot more difficult, even allowing for the preparation that people undoubtedly have in place.Stevo_666 said:
I'm guessing you don't work with logisitics professionals who have been planning for this scenario for some time - as I am.surrey_commuter said:
You have problems, you are more literal than me.Stevo_666 said:
Do you really believe that that the supermarket shelves will be bare? There is plenty of contingency planning going on to mitigate possible customs delays. And if you hadn't noticed, there is more than one way for goods to enter the UK.surrey_commuter said:
When the lorries are queueing across Kent and there are no Baked Beans on the shelves it is best to have plucky Boris who would not be bullied by Brussels than Boris the clown who brought this inconvenience upon us through sheer incompetence.Stevo_666 said:
I have a feeling that if they really did not want an agreement they would have backed out of the negotiations of collapsed them by now.rjsterry said:
If there's no FTA then yesterday's antics make sense. The WA would still apply and would constrain the UK through the NI Protocol => attempt to pass a Bill to disapply those parts of the WA.Stevo_666 said:
Let's see shall we. It is informed speculation as to the real reasons behind it, but if ifhe threat forces concessions then all well and good. Hopefully it will.rjsterry said:
How is advertising that you will welch on the deal if it's inconvenient a negotiating tactic? What possible encouragement does it give to the other side?Stevo_666 said:
Now you've mentioned the 'f'-word (probably not unexpected as its the Tories, after all), it's worth pointing out that this could well be a negotiating tactic. That was also the view of one of the investment banking commentators this morning.rick_chasey said:
That's how they get you, seriously.kingstongraham said:It's the natural end point of signing up to something that wasn't what they said they were signing up to, and not allowing time to scrutinise it, and highlight exactly the problems that were always there. It's where lying and deceit gets you.
It's a terrible situation to get into.
But I'm not shocked.
When the supporters of the party will be happy that the government is breaking its own word, and international law because it makes you angry and it annoys the EU, regardless of the consequences for the country, what can you do?
It's in the fascist playbook. They grind down expectations and count liberal shock as a victory. And then you're at the whim of how benevolent or not the lot at the top are.
Their money is still on a basic trade deal by year end, but let's see.
This suggests that Johnson is not bothered about an FTA, rather than trying to bounce the EU into concessions.
They will not trade sovereignty for £££££
I actually think that they believed that we would leave with equal or better trading terms than we previously had. That is probably because they have no understanding of the world and why they don’t care about leaving with a deal.
And just fyi, lorries queuing in Kent will cause shortages in Europe, not the UK
Let me spell it out. Most people in this country have no idea what GDP is and would have no idea about the consequences of it growing at a slower rate than preBrexit. And if they did notice it will be decades from now.
Immediately post Brexit there may be disruption to the supply chain resulting in inconvenience, this will have an immediate impact on Boris.
As for the lorry park there is a whole debate about how many pick ups they can make once they have dropped off. It really is like peeling an onion, that lorry park in Kent really will have an impact on the UK supply chain.
Anyway the French fishermen will be blockading Calais and providing a convenient scapegoat
You should Google Raab to find out how busy Dover is.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Oh look. Having stated that the IMB will break international law, the ERG have said "why stop there? Let's see what else we can bolt on. No point in only breaking the law a little bit."1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
If he is aware of it, he ignores it as it doesn't fit in with his agenda. But what's new?john80 said:
What i admire is you lack of any knowledge of history. China, russia and the USA constantly break international law regularly. Look at Hong Kong recently. Germany handed 9 billion to one of their national airline carriers without getting much in return which is clearly state aid. The look we are better than everyone else does not seem to have historically worked for us but i am sure you can provide a solid reason for us bending over everytime someone asks.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it's very sad that people seem to think breaking international laws is fine.spatt77 said:
More insults of Brexiteers! Bravo! Hearts and Minds! your doing well taking people with you Rick!rick_chasey said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836
In case it's not clear to the thickos.Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law'
You won't see it that way, but the position gives legitimacy for the government to break the law again."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
0 -
What is it about an@l sex that makes brexiters keep coming back to that analogy?john80 said:
What i admire is you lack of any knowledge of history. China, russia and the USA constantly break international law regularly. Look at Hong Kong recently. Germany handed 9 billion to one of their national airline carriers without getting much in return which is clearly state aid. The look we are better than everyone else does not seem to have historically worked for us but i am sure you can provide a solid reason for us bending over everytime someone asks.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it's very sad that people seem to think breaking international laws is fine.spatt77 said:
More insults of Brexiteers! Bravo! Hearts and Minds! your doing well taking people with you Rick!rick_chasey said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836
In case it's not clear to the thickos.Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law'
You won't see it that way, but the position gives legitimacy for the government to break the law again.
Anyway, the answer, obviously, is context.
Signing something as part 1 of a 2 part negotiation and in the middle of part two declare, 9 months after singing part 1 that you didn’t see the problems that your own team published before signing, is moronic.
It gets more moronic when you use the excuse “we didn’t have enough time to read it” when the government did political backflips to make sure they restricted the amount of time it could be considered in parliament.
It says a lot of the state of the nation that this behaviour is being defended by people.
0 -
That hardly distinguishes him on here 😉Stevo_666 said:
If he is aware of it, he ignores it as it doesn't fit in with his agenda. But what's new?john80 said:
What i admire is you lack of any knowledge of history. China, russia and the USA constantly break international law regularly. Look at Hong Kong recently. Germany handed 9 billion to one of their national airline carriers without getting much in return which is clearly state aid. The look we are better than everyone else does not seem to have historically worked for us but i am sure you can provide a solid reason for us bending over everytime someone asks.rick_chasey said:
Honestly, it's very sad that people seem to think breaking international laws is fine.spatt77 said:
More insults of Brexiteers! Bravo! Hearts and Minds! your doing well taking people with you Rick!rick_chasey said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836
In case it's not clear to the thickos.Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law'
You won't see it that way, but the position gives legitimacy for the government to break the law again.
Russia and China aren't usually as stupid as to openly announce in advance that they intend to break international law, though.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Intellectually this makes more sense. How can you have disdain for the benefits of the SM yet crave a FTA with the USA? Giving up on both and interference from any intl. body makes more senserjsterry said:Oh look. Having stated that the IMB will break international law, the ERG have said "why stop there? Let's see what else we can bolt on. No point in only breaking the law a little bit."
0 -
True. Not that a US FTA will be on offer if we screw up the GFA as a result of this.surrey_commuter said:
Intellectually this makes more sense. How can you have disdain for the benefits of the SM yet crave a FTA with the USA? Giving up on both and interference from any intl. body makes more senserjsterry said:Oh look. Having stated that the IMB will break international law, the ERG have said "why stop there? Let's see what else we can bolt on. No point in only breaking the law a little bit."
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.0 -
Eh? surely it just defaults to what would have happened without a withdrawal agreement? i.e. hard border etc.TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.0 -
You missed someone who refused to accept democracy and lead remoaner. He has no credibility whatsoever to speak about anything Brexit relatedrick_chasey said:0 -
Bit of a mistake to have signed it then?TheBigBean said:
I don't know why, but I will try again.tailwindhome said:
I'm sorry but it is.TheBigBean said:
That's not what I said.tailwindhome said:
So the dispute isn't an interpretation of the agreement, it's that the UK don't want to do what they agreed. Ok.TheBigBean said:
We've done this. It says it will be agreed by the Joint Committee. If it isn't, it will be referred to arbitration, and take six months.tailwindhome said:
What does the agreement say?TheBigBean said:The UK government's position is that in the absence of agreement, it will decide what needs an export form, what is state aid etc. The EU's position is opposite - everything will need an export form etc.
There's now going to be an urgent Joint Committee meeting.
If the Joint Committee can't agree and refer it to arbitration, it will take six months. Therefore, if there isn't an agreement by the end of this year, the withdrawal agreement is silent on what treatment should be adopted in January before the arbitration process has reached a conclusion. As much as giving NI the silent treatment appeals to many, it doesn't work in practice. Therefore, there is no agreement on what to do, and it requires interpretation.
It sounds like the proposed legislation does go a bit further which is the reason for the outrage. It could, for example, only be until the arbitration process has concluded. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem possible to simply follow the agreement.0
