BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
0
-
He's fine doctor... Except for the axe imbedded in his head.briantrumpet said:Quite an amusing little thread:
0 -
Does anybody know if Mark Francois is still alive? He has been very quiet and it even seems ambiguous as to whether he is Chair of the ERG anymore and deleted his social media accounts, which is a shame.0
-
Well we still don’t know who the rapist is but he falls in the age category.surrey_commuter said:Does anybody know if Mark Francois is still alive? He has been very quiet and it even seems ambiguous as to whether he is Chair of the ERG anymore and deleted his social media accounts, which is a shame.
0 -
Isn't the alleged rapist barred from Westminster?rick_chasey said:
Well we still don’t know who the rapist is but he falls in the age category.surrey_commuter said:Does anybody know if Mark Francois is still alive? He has been very quiet and it even seems ambiguous as to whether he is Chair of the ERG anymore and deleted his social media accounts, which is a shame.
0 -
I haven’t followed it closely so the link might be nonsense.
Surely re the WA renege, aren’t the conservative voters here not annoyed they were lied to in the election? It was “oven ready” etc?
Or is that baked into your calculation?0 -
Does the withdrawal agreement talk about agreeing fishing before anything else can be discussed. Still think the EU is working to the wording of the withdrawal agreement. I would hazard a guess that if we were not still talking about fishing then the uk government might not be doing what it is doing. You are a very one sided kind of guy.rick_chasey said:
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 -
What do you think they have learned about BoJo that they did not know when they cast their vote.rick_chasey said:I haven’t followed it closely so the link might be nonsense.
Surely re the WA renege, aren’t the conservative voters here not annoyed they were lied to in the election? It was “oven ready” etc?
Or is that baked into your calculation?
What % of the population do you think give a sh1t about breaking an intl treaty and how much bigger a % understand why they should give a sh1t?0 -
Probably In my mind there a lot of Ronnie Pickering types who are all 'my word is my bond' types. You''re probably right.surrey_commuter said:
What do you think they have learned about BoJo that they did not know when they cast their vote.rick_chasey said:I haven’t followed it closely so the link might be nonsense.
Surely re the WA renege, aren’t the conservative voters here not annoyed they were lied to in the election? It was “oven ready” etc?
Or is that baked into your calculation?
What % of the population do you think give a censored about breaking an intl treaty and how much bigger a % understand why they should give a censored ?0 -
I suspect it's "the EU is bad, it doesn't matter if we screw them over". Combined with "remoaners don't like it".0
-
-
Do you not think the fact we are talking about fish is a sign that the UK is not serious about a trade deal.john80 said:
Does the withdrawal agreement talk about agreeing fishing before anything else can be discussed. Still think the EU is working to the wording of the withdrawal agreement. I would hazard a guess that if we were not still talking about fishing then the uk government might not be doing what it is doing. You are a very one sided kind of guy.rick_chasey said:
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.
Anybody would laugh at the EU’s sentimental attachment to a virtually worthless industry and extract maximum concessions for their own high value industries.
Why do you think they have not traded it for FS passporting and no tariffs on cars and their parts?
0 -
You cant extract any concessions from the EU by following their approach of agree with us on fishing before we will discuss anything else. This is the EUs position for some months and their decision has consequences that most on here would seek to put at the UKs door instead of calling it out for what it is. The Eu has been negotiating in bad faith for years but yet the EUs cheerleaders on here are blind to it. Maybe those europeans who were going to miss the UKs pragmatism at the table had a point.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the fact we are talking about fish is a sign that the UK is not serious about a trade deal.john80 said:
Does the withdrawal agreement talk about agreeing fishing before anything else can be discussed. Still think the EU is working to the wording of the withdrawal agreement. I would hazard a guess that if we were not still talking about fishing then the uk government might not be doing what it is doing. You are a very one sided kind of guy.rick_chasey said:
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.
Anybody would laugh at the EU’s sentimental attachment to a virtually worthless industry and extract maximum concessions for their own high value industries.
Why do you think they have not traded it for FS passporting and no tariffs on cars and their parts?0 -
Varoufakis' book was enlightening. I had no illusions that the EU would negotiate in any way other than the way they always have.
0 -
Is that bad faith or maximising the strength of their negotiating position? If I was one of the EU27, I'd be doing that...john80 said:
You cant extract any concessions from the EU by following their approach of agree with us on fishing before we will discuss anything else. This is the EUs position for some months and their decision has consequences that most on here would seek to put at the UKs door instead of calling it out for what it is. The Eu has been negotiating in bad faith for years but yet the EUs cheerleaders on here are blind to it. Maybe those europeans who were going to miss the UKs pragmatism at the table had a point.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the fact we are talking about fish is a sign that the UK is not serious about a trade deal.john80 said:
Does the withdrawal agreement talk about agreeing fishing before anything else can be discussed. Still think the EU is working to the wording of the withdrawal agreement. I would hazard a guess that if we were not still talking about fishing then the uk government might not be doing what it is doing. You are a very one sided kind of guy.rick_chasey said:
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.
Anybody would laugh at the EU’s sentimental attachment to a virtually worthless industry and extract maximum concessions for their own high value industries.
Why do you think they have not traded it for FS passporting and no tariffs on cars and their parts?0 -
I find this argument a bit weird.kingstongraham said:Varoufakis' book was enlightening. I had no illusions that the EU would negotiate in any way other than the way they always have.
UK does something bad => Terrible UK, dastardly Boris etc.
EU does something bad => It was to be expected, should just be accepted etc.0 -
A lot of people think there is a deal to be done on fish, but the UK won't do it until the end when it has extracted the maximum concessions. Exactly the approach you describe.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the fact we are talking about fish is a sign that the UK is not serious about a trade deal.john80 said:
Does the withdrawal agreement talk about agreeing fishing before anything else can be discussed. Still think the EU is working to the wording of the withdrawal agreement. I would hazard a guess that if we were not still talking about fishing then the uk government might not be doing what it is doing. You are a very one sided kind of guy.rick_chasey said:
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.
Anybody would laugh at the EU’s sentimental attachment to a virtually worthless industry and extract maximum concessions for their own high value industries.
Why do you think they have not traded it for FS passporting and no tariffs on cars and their parts?0 -
I think undermining the entire way you conduct foreign policy and international relations in the middle of a negotiation is stupid and it's sensible to call it out as that.TheBigBean said:
I find this argument a bit weird.kingstongraham said:Varoufakis' book was enlightening. I had no illusions that the EU would negotiate in any way other than the way they always have.
UK does something bad => Terrible UK, dastardly Boris etc.
EU does something bad => It was to be expected, should just be accepted etc.0 -
Japan trade deal agreed
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement1 -
That's not the argument. EU does what EU does - I wouldn't say it is bad, just to be expected. They aren't breaking any rules. The UK should be expecting it, and act accordingly.TheBigBean said:
I find this argument a bit weird.kingstongraham said:Varoufakis' book was enlightening. I had no illusions that the EU would negotiate in any way other than the way they always have.
UK does something bad => Terrible UK, dastardly Boris etc.
EU does something bad => It was to be expected, should just be accepted etc.
The key message I took from the book was that you shouldn't set out a negotiating platform of "if you don't give us this, we'll do this thing that you think is bad for us" unless you genuinely think that the thing that the EU says is bad for us is actually better than giving in. If you don't, you will end up rolling over.
0 -
It cuts both ways. As I said before, no one seems fussed about Japan and Korea's trade war. I imagine it just looks like a messy divorce to the outside world.rick_chasey said:
I think undermining the entire way you conduct foreign policy and international relations in the middle of a negotiation is stupid and it's sensible to call it out as that.TheBigBean said:
I find this argument a bit weird.kingstongraham said:Varoufakis' book was enlightening. I had no illusions that the EU would negotiate in any way other than the way they always have.
UK does something bad => Terrible UK, dastardly Boris etc.
EU does something bad => It was to be expected, should just be accepted etc.0 -
Some good news for onceTheBigBean said:Japan trade deal agreed
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreementSo Far!0 -
Exactly as you suggested it would 100s of pages ago.TheBigBean said:
How do you feel the "no exemptions" policy will affect the peace process? As ever the focus is always on the other border.tailwindhome said:
Fair play.TheBigBean said:Anyway, I've changed my mind. The position on 1st Jan is clear, and UK needs to go to arbitration over points it doesn't agree with.
There is no defence for the action the UK government are taking here.
It's simply extraordinary
If the NI protocol becomes too onerous on NI the middle ground who currently reluctantly support the protocol (*only* in the absence of an alternative) will come under increasing pressure to withdraw support or lose electorally at the 2022 (?) assembly elections and the escape clause may come into play.
The bigger more immediate threat is coming from the riling up of support from unionism for the abandonment of the WA. 6 days ago Arlene Foster publicly accepted that the Irish Sea Border was fact and would have to be implemented, yesterday there was an argument in the executive as the DUP DEFRA minister proposed suspending all preparations at the ports. The most likely outcome in my view is that this blows over and Boris has led Unionism up the garden path for the xth time over the same issue.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏TheBigBean said:Japan trade deal agreed
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.rjsterry said:
Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏TheBigBean said:Japan trade deal agreed
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement
What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I feel that we can not move on until you accept there are no "EU cheerleaders" on here, it really is not that sort of issue. I think I speak for many when I say that we just appreciated the upsides of membership and that they far outweighed the downsides.john80 said:
You cant extract any concessions from the EU by following their approach of agree with us on fishing before we will discuss anything else. This is the EUs position for some months and their decision has consequences that most on here would seek to put at the UKs door instead of calling it out for what it is. The Eu has been negotiating in bad faith for years but yet the EUs cheerleaders on here are blind to it. Maybe those europeans who were going to miss the UKs pragmatism at the table had a point.surrey_commuter said:
Do you not think the fact we are talking about fish is a sign that the UK is not serious about a trade deal.john80 said:
Does the withdrawal agreement talk about agreeing fishing before anything else can be discussed. Still think the EU is working to the wording of the withdrawal agreement. I would hazard a guess that if we were not still talking about fishing then the uk government might not be doing what it is doing. You are a very one sided kind of guy.rick_chasey said:
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.
Anybody would laugh at the EU’s sentimental attachment to a virtually worthless industry and extract maximum concessions for their own high value industries.
Why do you think they have not traded it for FS passporting and no tariffs on cars and their parts?
I see it more as they are very experienced and good at these sorts of negotiation rather than bad faith. it was widely discussed pre-referendum that if we left they would owe us nothing and drive a hard bargain, this was why the leave campaign kept blithering on about the 5th largest economy, German carmakers, Prosecco and them needing us more than them, making it a negotiation of equals.0 -
4 paras down they seem to have moved the decimal pointStevo_666 said:
Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.rjsterry said:
Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏TheBigBean said:Japan trade deal agreed
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement
What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?
UK businesses will benefit from tariff-free trade on 99% of exports to Japan. Government analysis shows that a deal with Japan will deliver a £1.5 billion boost to the UK economy and increase UK workers’ wages by £800 million in the long run.
the easiest way to see what we traded would be to see the equivalent japanese press release0 -
It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.Stevo_666 said:
Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.rjsterry said:
Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏TheBigBean said:Japan trade deal agreed
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement
What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
This is a particularly ridiculous argument.rjsterry said:
It is good news. It's a treaty: by definition all treaties involve some ceding of sovereignty.Stevo_666 said:
Definitely good news and an estimated £15bn pa boost to the economy.rjsterry said:
Ah, I see. So it's OK to cede some degree of sovereignty in a treaty, just so long as it's not with the EU. 😏TheBigBean said:Japan trade deal agreed
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-japan-agree-historic-free-trade-agreement
What ceding of sovereignty do you see in this treaty?
Unless of course you take the AG's view that treaties are only binding as long as we feel like it.1
