BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Which part of this negotiation is where the UK is just trying to get a better deal - are you including breaking international law?Stevo_666 said:
Agree with your first two points, although the basis that it is two sovereign bodies negotiating is pretty much a given in FTAs - so as I've said before, what the EU is trying to do is exceptional and out of line.sungod said:
the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiationsStevo_666 said:
How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?kingstongraham said:
I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.Stevo_666 said:
I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.rjsterry said:
Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.Stevo_666 said:
So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?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.
To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.
This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.
The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.
the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one
brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault
And it's funny when the EU tries to get a better deal that's just negotiation,: when we do the same there's outrage on here. Especially when pretty much all of us live in the UK.0 -
I'm talking about any attempt.kingstongraham said:
Which part of this negotiation is where the UK is just trying to get a better deal - are you including breaking international law?Stevo_666 said:
Agree with your first two points, although the basis that it is two sovereign bodies negotiating is pretty much a given in FTAs - so as I've said before, what the EU is trying to do is exceptional and out of line.sungod said:
the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiationsStevo_666 said:
How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?kingstongraham said:
I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.Stevo_666 said:
I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.rjsterry said:
Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.Stevo_666 said:
So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?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.
To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.
This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.
The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.
the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one
brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault
And it's funny when the EU tries to get a better deal that's just negotiation,: when we do the same there's outrage on here. Especially when pretty much all of us live in the UK.
As has been mentioned before, not everyone is whiter than white on that front."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Brexit is turning into the French Revolution. Never radical enough. The means are always worth the end, even if it breaks the law.
It is the “will of the people” and anyone who gets in the way is an “enemy” even if they are just upholding the law.
1 -
Was a terrible politician.kingstongraham said:
Michael Howard?coopster_the_1st said:
The only people I see whining over the last 7 days are the remoaners...sungod said:
the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiationsStevo_666 said:
How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?kingstongraham said:
I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.Stevo_666 said:
I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.rjsterry said:
Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.Stevo_666 said:
So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?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.
To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.
This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.
The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.
the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one
brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault
The UK is implementing a sovereign Parliament act to stop a foreign power controlling its affairs. This can all be made completely obsolete if there is an FTA and only the UK seem to wanting that.0 -
Not exactly one of the classic remoanersTheBigBean said:
Was a terrible politician.kingstongraham said:
Michael Howard?coopster_the_1st said:
The only people I see whining over the last 7 days are the remoaners...sungod said:
the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiationsStevo_666 said:
How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?kingstongraham said:
I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.Stevo_666 said:
I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.rjsterry said:
Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.Stevo_666 said:
So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?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.
To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.
This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.
The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.
the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one
brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault
The UK is implementing a sovereign Parliament act to stop a foreign power controlling its affairs. This can all be made completely obsolete if there is an FTA and only the UK seem to wanting that.0 -
Don't be so melodramatic.rick_chasey said:Brexit is turning into the French Revolution. Never radical enough. The means are always worth the end, even if it breaks the law.
It is the “will of the people” and anyone who gets in the way is an “enemy” even if they are just upholding the law.
This is a (high profile) piece of contract law. It may well be that the implications were not fully appreciated by the UK and if so, that's an error on our side - although the EU probably played a canny game with this little Trojan Horse tactic. In the end, there is an issue with the WA in terms of it allowing continuing EU influence in UK affairs that needs to be put right one way or another."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
When people talk about the standard of politicians today, it's worth noting that Michael Howard was once the leader of the opposition. If he wasn't worth listening to then, he surely can't be now.kingstongraham said:
Not exactly one of the classic remoanersTheBigBean said:
Was a terrible politician.kingstongraham said:
Michael Howard?coopster_the_1st said:
The only people I see whining over the last 7 days are the remoaners...sungod said:
the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiationsStevo_666 said:
How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?kingstongraham said:
I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.Stevo_666 said:
I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.rjsterry said:
Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.Stevo_666 said:
So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?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.
To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.
This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.
The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.
the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one
brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault
The UK is implementing a sovereign Parliament act to stop a foreign power controlling its affairs. This can all be made completely obsolete if there is an FTA and only the UK seem to wanting that.
I presume from your comment that he is pro-Brexit.0 -
This is too obtuse for me.TheBigBean said:
When people talk about the standard of politicians today, it's worth noting that Michael Howard was once the leader of the opposition. If he wasn't worth listening to then, he surely can't be now.kingstongraham said:
Not exactly one of the classic remoanersTheBigBean said:
Was a terrible politician.kingstongraham said:
Michael Howard?coopster_the_1st said:
The only people I see whining over the last 7 days are the remoaners...sungod said:
the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiationsStevo_666 said:
How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?kingstongraham said:
I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.Stevo_666 said:
I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.rjsterry said:
Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.Stevo_666 said:
So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?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.
To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.
This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.
The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.
the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one
brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault
The UK is implementing a sovereign Parliament act to stop a foreign power controlling its affairs. This can all be made completely obsolete if there is an FTA and only the UK seem to wanting that.
I presume from your comment that he is pro-Brexit.
It's not only leftie remainders who think it's a bad idea0 -
I understood your point.kingstongraham said:
This is too obtuse for me.TheBigBean said:
When people talk about the standard of politicians today, it's worth noting that Michael Howard was once the leader of the opposition. If he wasn't worth listening to then, he surely can't be now.kingstongraham said:
Not exactly one of the classic remoanersTheBigBean said:
Was a terrible politician.kingstongraham said:
Michael Howard?coopster_the_1st said:
The only people I see whining over the last 7 days are the remoaners...sungod said:
the uk and eu are each free to do as they wish in negotiationsStevo_666 said:
How does that justify the EU desire to interfere in UK affairs?kingstongraham said:
I assume that the UK and Japan wanted things to continue much the same as they are now. That's not what the UK wants from a deal with the EU.Stevo_666 said:
I suspect that the issues with the EU trade negotiation compared to the relatively smooth progress of the Japanese deal are mainly down to the fact that the Japanese were not making ridiculous demands to be able to interfere in UK matters in return for a trade deal.rjsterry said:
Difficult to give specifics as the UK government website lists all the things Japan has agreed to give us and not very much at all on what we have given them in return.Stevo_666 said:
So specifically: what sovereignty have we ceded in this case?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.
To be clear I'm not knocking this deal at all and am very happy for us to commit to this or that in return for some reciprocating measures. It just seems to jar slightly with other government behaviour this week.
This suggests that really all the fuss about sovereignty is just there to keep the flag sha**ers on side.
The UK just want to deal with Japan (and any other trade partner) on the basis that the UK is an independent sovereign nation. The EU seems to have problems with this: I am not aware of any other trade partners or potential trade partner having this issue.
the world doesn't owe the uk a free ride, if one entity has the upper hand it'll exploit that to force a better deal from the weaker one
brexiters will keep whining about it, for them it's always someone else's fault
The UK is implementing a sovereign Parliament act to stop a foreign power controlling its affairs. This can all be made completely obsolete if there is an FTA and only the UK seem to wanting that.
I presume from your comment that he is pro-Brexit.
It's not only leftie remainders who think it's a bad idea0 -
Update from Tony Connelly. Some speculation on the reasons for the proposed breach of the withdrawal agreement, and a lot of background.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0911/1164694-tony-connelly-brexit-update/0 -
Think about it, the problems are all about legislating for future divergenceStevo_666 said:
So what? My point is that it blows the EU 'proximity' argument out of the water.surrey_commuter said:
Or that Canada/US are converging whereas this is the first FTA in history to deal with divergence.rick_chasey said:
I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.Stevo_666 said:
The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.rjsterry said:We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.
0 -
coopster_the_1st said:
This was the biggest fault of the WA negotiation. They should have tied all post leaving payments to there being an agreed FTA.spatt77 said:This may be the pre- cursor to the complete collapse of the WA and instead of the £39 billion agreed its a couple of billion! Why pay £39 billion when a FTA is obviously not on offer!
We should have refused to trigger A50 until the process was agreed, unfortunately May was not strong enough to stand up to the traitors who were determined to hand the advantage to the EU.0 -
And we would still be waiting to trigger it now.surrey_commuter said:coopster_the_1st said:
This was the biggest fault of the WA negotiation. They should have tied all post leaving payments to there being an agreed FTA.spatt77 said:This may be the pre- cursor to the complete collapse of the WA and instead of the £39 billion agreed its a couple of billion! Why pay £39 billion when a FTA is obviously not on offer!
We should have refused to trigger A50 until the process was agreed, unfortunately May was not strong enough to stand up to the traitors who were determined to hand the advantage to the EU.0 -
"Not fully appreciated"? Oh come off it, it was widely discussed on here and in the news at the time. They knew exactly what they were signing and so did you. The continuing EU influence was baked in. It's a done deal now, regardless of whether we agree an FTA or not.Stevo_666 said:
Don't be so melodramatic.rick_chasey said:Brexit is turning into the French Revolution. Never radical enough. The means are always worth the end, even if it breaks the law.
It is the “will of the people” and anyone who gets in the way is an “enemy” even if they are just upholding the law.
This is a (high profile) piece of contract law. It may well be that the implications were not fully appreciated by the UK and if so, that's an error on our side - although the EU probably played a canny game with this little Trojan Horse tactic. In the end, there is an issue with the WA in terms of it allowing continuing EU influence in UK affairs that needs to be put right one way or another.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Trojan horse?0
-
It was government policy to force it through unread. Boris forced it through, it was a great deal.
Boris should be forced to resign over this.
0 -
It wasn't apparent to me at the time - probably should have been paying more attention but tbh it wasn't top of my personal priority list. Hey ho.rick_chasey said:If you thought this about the WA why were you so smug about it when it was signed?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There is the possibility that the EU knew this would keep a degree of influence going forward, but had played this down. Our lot should have spotted it though.kingstongraham said:Trojan horse?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
There are two possibilities - either they didn't twig or they knew and signed it anyway. I'm not sure why they would go ahead if it was the latter - unless they saw this as a crafty way of getting another 11 month extension?rjsterry said:
"Not fully appreciated"? Oh come off it, it was widely discussed on here and in the news at the time. They knew exactly what they were signing and so did you. The continuing EU influence was baked in. It's a done deal now, regardless of whether we agree an FTA or not.Stevo_666 said:
Don't be so melodramatic.rick_chasey said:Brexit is turning into the French Revolution. Never radical enough. The means are always worth the end, even if it breaks the law.
It is the “will of the people” and anyone who gets in the way is an “enemy” even if they are just upholding the law.
This is a (high profile) piece of contract law. It may well be that the implications were not fully appreciated by the UK and if so, that's an error on our side - although the EU probably played a canny game with this little Trojan Horse tactic. In the end, there is an issue with the WA in terms of it allowing continuing EU influence in UK affairs that needs to be put right one way or another."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That's a big part of it for sure, but my point about the proximity argument stands. It was clear what was offered previously (Canade style agreement) and was then withdrawn because we are 'too close'.surrey_commuter said:
Think about it, the problems are all about legislating for future divergenceStevo_666 said:
So what? My point is that it blows the EU 'proximity' argument out of the water.surrey_commuter said:
Or that Canada/US are converging whereas this is the first FTA in history to deal with divergence.rick_chasey said:
I’m not sure you quite appreciate how integrated the U.K. is with the EU and what the U.K. wants out of this ‘deal’.Stevo_666 said:
The US and Canada manged to do a trade deal without any of these issues. They share quite a long border.rjsterry said:We don't have part of the UK with an open border with Japan. That might be the difference. Imagine if Hokkaido was like NI. Then I think the deal might have been more tricky.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I must be missing something. It's linked to this lie isn't it?Stevo_666 said:
There is the possibility that the EU knew this would keep a degree of influence going forward, but had played this down. Our lot should have spotted it though.kingstongraham said:Trojan horse?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-504308150 -
It's those devious furriners again, trying to outwit the plucky Brits. Though I don't remember the Trojans writing their horse plan in a contract...kingstongraham said:Trojan horse?
0 -
Part of the art of negotiation is convincing the other side that they have lost: part is convincing them that they have won. Maybe the latter worked in this case?briantrumpet said:
It's those devious furriners again, trying to outwit the plucky Brits. Though I don't remember the Trojans writing their horse plan in a contract...kingstongraham said:Trojan horse?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Could be it be that his team is good at campaigning and have not figured out how to govern so are still happy to say anything to solve the immediate problem and worry about the consequences another day.Stevo_666 said:
There are two possibilities - either they didn't twig or they knew and signed it anyway. I'm not sure why they would go ahead if it was the latter - unless they saw this as a crafty way of getting another 11 month extension?rjsterry said:
"Not fully appreciated"? Oh come off it, it was widely discussed on here and in the news at the time. They knew exactly what they were signing and so did you. The continuing EU influence was baked in. It's a done deal now, regardless of whether we agree an FTA or not.Stevo_666 said:
Don't be so melodramatic.rick_chasey said:Brexit is turning into the French Revolution. Never radical enough. The means are always worth the end, even if it breaks the law.
It is the “will of the people” and anyone who gets in the way is an “enemy” even if they are just upholding the law.
This is a (high profile) piece of contract law. It may well be that the implications were not fully appreciated by the UK and if so, that's an error on our side - although the EU probably played a canny game with this little Trojan Horse tactic. In the end, there is an issue with the WA in terms of it allowing continuing EU influence in UK affairs that needs to be put right one way or another.0 -
Part of it is readinging the contact before signing. Do you sign work stuff, that is really important without reading it?Stevo_666 said:
Part of the art of negotiation is convincing the other side that they have lost: part is convincing them that they have won. Maybe the latter worked in this case?briantrumpet said:
It's those devious furriners again, trying to outwit the plucky Brits. Though I don't remember the Trojans writing their horse plan in a contract...kingstongraham said:Trojan horse?
0 -
That's a bit harsh on the BBC.kingstongraham said:
I must be missing something. It's linked to this lie isn't it?Stevo_666 said:
There is the possibility that the EU knew this would keep a degree of influence going forward, but had played this down. Our lot should have spotted it though.kingstongraham said:Trojan horse?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-50430815"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Jesus, horrendous posting today.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
surrey_commuter said:
Could be it be that his team is good at campaigning and have not figured out how to govern so are still happy to say anything to solve the immediate problem and worry about the consequences another day.Stevo_666 said:
There are two possibilities - either they didn't twig or they knew and signed it anyway. I'm not sure why they would go ahead if it was the latter - unless they saw this as a crafty way of getting another 11 month extension?rjsterry said:
"Not fully appreciated"? Oh come off it, it was widely discussed on here and in the news at the time. They knew exactly what they were signing and so did you. The continuing EU influence was baked in. It's a done deal now, regardless of whether we agree an FTA or not.Stevo_666 said:
Don't be so melodramatic.rick_chasey said:Brexit is turning into the French Revolution. Never radical enough. The means are always worth the end, even if it breaks the law.
It is the “will of the people” and anyone who gets in the way is an “enemy” even if they are just upholding the law.
This is a (high profile) piece of contract law. It may well be that the implications were not fully appreciated by the UK and if so, that's an error on our side - although the EU probably played a canny game with this little Trojan Horse tactic. In the end, there is an issue with the WA in terms of it allowing continuing EU influence in UK affairs that needs to be put right one way or another.
If only they could have boiled the Withdrawal Agreement down to three two-word slogans, and just left out the detail, it would have been fine...0 -
In this case “Leave means Leave” was referring to leaving NI in the CU.briantrumpet said:surrey_commuter said:
Could be it be that his team is good at campaigning and have not figured out how to govern so are still happy to say anything to solve the immediate problem and worry about the consequences another day.Stevo_666 said:
There are two possibilities - either they didn't twig or they knew and signed it anyway. I'm not sure why they would go ahead if it was the latter - unless they saw this as a crafty way of getting another 11 month extension?rjsterry said:
"Not fully appreciated"? Oh come off it, it was widely discussed on here and in the news at the time. They knew exactly what they were signing and so did you. The continuing EU influence was baked in. It's a done deal now, regardless of whether we agree an FTA or not.Stevo_666 said:
Don't be so melodramatic.rick_chasey said:Brexit is turning into the French Revolution. Never radical enough. The means are always worth the end, even if it breaks the law.
It is the “will of the people” and anyone who gets in the way is an “enemy” even if they are just upholding the law.
This is a (high profile) piece of contract law. It may well be that the implications were not fully appreciated by the UK and if so, that's an error on our side - although the EU probably played a canny game with this little Trojan Horse tactic. In the end, there is an issue with the WA in terms of it allowing continuing EU influence in UK affairs that needs to be put right one way or another.
If only they could have boiled the Withdrawal Agreement down to three two-word slogans, and just left out the detail, it would have been fine...0
