BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

tailwindhome

I mean, for fuck sake, I've no sympathy for the DUP, but they spent the whole election campaign and every day since explaining their view of the deal that Boris had signed.

briantrumpet

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

Don't be so melodramatic.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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...

In this case “Leave means Leave” was referring to leaving NI in the CU.

I wish they had just said "Custard means custard", and left it at that, everyone could have agreed.

darkhairedlord

pblakeney

Since politics is now being treated as if it was football....
"You don't know what you're doing, you...."

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1304715879280766976?s=20

darkhairedlord

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1304715879280766976?s=20

I just clicked on it and was reminded why I dont go on social media. Absolute hateful bile with flags on.

briantrumpet

darkhairedlord said:

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1304715879280766976?s=20

I just clicked on it and was reminded why I dont go on social media. Absolute hateful bile with flags on.

I still find it informative (in many ways) to read The Telegraph, and whilst the range of writers does have a few nut-jobs amongst them (not least one Mr Farage), the comments below articles are extraordinary for the most part. It doesn't fill one with optimism that the divisive rhetoric employed by politicians, and amplified by social media etc, is going to be toned down and the schism of political views be nudged towards finding argued consensus for the best way forward.

rjsterry

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?

😂

I look forward to your version of the Art of the Deal.

rjsterry

darkhairedlord said:

tailwindhome said:

https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1304715879280766976?s=20

I just clicked on it and was reminded why I dont go on social media. Absolute hateful bile with flags on.

A flag in the Twitter profile is a pretty sure indicator of what to expect.

rjsterry

tailwindhome said:

I mean, for censored sake, I've no sympathy for the DUP, but they spent the whole election campaign and every day since explaining their view of the deal that Boris had signed.

Well quite. The idea that he wasn't aware what he was signing is laughable. And there's various accounts of hard-line Brexiters being assured that they needn't worry about the awkward division of the UK stuff, this would allow them to say it was done, claim victory, and they'd change the bits they didn't like later.

TheBigBean

tailwindhome said:

Jesus, horrendous posting today.

I've provided a link to a Tony Connelly piece which is far from horrendous. Otherwise, what do you expect? It's a internet discussion about Brexit!

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

tailwindhome said:

Jesus, horrendous posting today.

I've provided a link to a Tony Connelly piece which is far from horrendous. Otherwise, what do you expect? It's a internet discussion about Brexit!

This quote is just too perfect.

(At one point, the UK government’s Technical Alternative Arrangements Advisory Group was exploring facial recognition for sheep.)

😂

briantrumpet

For those who can't access it, here's Johnson's Telegraph wordy version of "I signed a contract I want to break"

"t is now more than seven months since this country left the EU on January 31, and since then we have been working hard to build what I am sure will be a great new future relationship.

We want a thoroughgoing free trade deal. We want a deal like the one between the EU and Canada; and since we currently conform with every jot and tittle of EU regulation, and since we have been loyal and paid-up members for more than four decades, it strikes me that if the EU is willing to offer these terms to Canada then it makes sense to offer the same to us.

Our partners know that, whatever happens, the UK is their friend, their biggest single export market and committed forever to the peace and security of the European continent. They know that there are ways in which we want to continue and even deepen our relations, not just in trade.

As I have never tired of saying, we have left the EU, but we have not left Europe. But they also know – or at least they know now – that leaving the EU means the UK is serious about its new-found sovereignty.

In forging our new relationships, we can't have our lives or our economy regulated by the European Court; we must have the right to devise our own laws and regulations. And we must have sole control of our spectacular marine wealth – our fisheries.

Those are some of our conditions, and in the last few months I believe we have made considerable progress. If both sides want it, there is a great free trade deal there to be done.

So I have become anxious in the last few weeks to discover that there is an obstacle. Our negotiators believe that there may be a serious misunderstanding about the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement that we reached last October.

You may remember those days. They were torrid. We were negotiating with one hand tied behind our back, since Parliament had voted to deprive the UK side of the right to walk away. We had a deadline of October 31 – which Parliament decided to flout. MPs were in a state of constant turmoil and recrimination. And yet, provided it was applied in good faith, the Withdrawal Agreement we reached was extremely good.

We excised the baleful presence of the Northern Ireland "backstop", which effectively kept this country locked in the EU's legal orbit, forced to accept EU laws, unable to do free trade deals. We made sure that Northern Ireland was explicitly recognised as part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, and able to take part fully in new free trade agreements (such as the one Liz Truss has just done with Japan). And we also took steps to protect free movement at the all-important border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

We agreed that, in some limited ways, Northern Ireland would continue to conform with EU law for four years. We agreed that this limited alignment would end, unless the Northern Irish assembly voted to continue it. We agreed to do some light-touch checks on goods arriving in Northern Ireland, in case they should go on to Ireland, in order to avoid checks at the North-South border.

And on the basis of that excellent deal we left the EU – and so it is deeply regrettable that what seemed so simple and clear to us is seen very differently by our EU friends.

We decided in the Withdrawal Agreement to create a Joint Committee, in which we would thrash out the details of these new arrangements. It is here that things risk coming unstuck. We are now hearing that, unless we agree to the EU's terms, the EU will use an extreme interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol to impose a full-scale trade border down the Irish Sea.

We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.

I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.

By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) – and it is therefore vital that we close that option down.

We want an agreement in the Joint Committee on how we can implement the protocol. We have consistently shown that we are willing to help our friends – to the extent that is possible and reasonable – to protect the integrity of their Single Market and to keep a fluid North-South border.

But we cannot leave the theoretical power to carve up our country – to divide it – in the hands of an international organisation. We have to protect the UK from that disaster, and that is why we have devised a legal safety net – in the UK Internal Market Bill – to clarify the position and to sort out the inconsistencies.

This Bill protects jobs and growth across the UK by preventing barriers to trade between the nations and regions. It means that anything approved for sale in Scotland or Wales must be good for sale in England or Northern Ireland, and vice-versa.

The Bill gives freedoms and certainties for businesses and citizens that were previously set out in EU law. That is why, as we now come out of the EU, it is absolutely vital. It is now also clear that we need this Bill to protect the free flow of goods and services between NI and the rest of the UK, and to make sense of that commitment in the EU withdrawal agreement – that NI is part of the UK customs territory. It is therefore crucial for peace, and for the Union itself. We must get this Bill through.

So I say to my fellow parliamentarians that we cannot go back to the dark days of last year – the squabbling that so undermined our negotiators. If we fail to pass this Bill, or if we weaken its protections, then we will in fact reduce the chances of getting that Canada-style deal.

As it happens, I believe that this country will prosper mightily in either event. We could do very well indeed if we left on Australian terms. But there is no doubt that, in the short term at least, the Canada deal would be better and smoother – and that is what we are pitching for.

So let's end any potential for misunderstanding. Let's remove this danger to the very fabric of the United Kingdom. Let's make the EU take their threats off the table. And let's get this Bill through, back up our negotiators and protect our country.

briantrumpet

All that's missing is something about "fighting them on the beaches" or similar.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

All that's missing is something about "fighting them on the beaches" or similar.

He talks so much sh1te it is a wonder that anybody bothers reporting it.

briantrumpet

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

All that's missing is something about "fighting them on the beaches" or similar.

He talks so much sh1te it is a wonder that anybody bothers reporting it.

Because his 'base' laps it up (I'm afraid I did read the comments). It's so Trumpian, but with a gloss of some intelligence (sadly misapplied).

The bottom line, which there's no escaping from, however many words he uses: he signed something he wants to wriggle ouf of, by breaking international law. Incompetence and/or (point taken by it not being a dichotomy) mendacity are the only options.

Signed hastily. Fücked up. Break law.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Trojan horse?

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.

I must be missing something. It's linked to this lie isn't it?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-50430815

That's a bit harsh on the BBC.

So was it? If so, it's more a Trojan open topped bus.

pblakeney

There is nothing in that BJ of an article that was not discussed at great length in this thread. To claim a misunderstanding is either gross incompetence, gross negligence, or blatant lying. It could even be all three, as has been pointed out.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that they have finally realised that what they will settle for is a Canadian deal, and N.I. will be collateral damage. Or no deal.

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

There is nothing in that BJ of an article that was not discussed at great length in this thread. To claim a misunderstanding is either gross incompetence, gross negligence, or blatant lying. It could even be all three, as has been pointed out.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that they have finally realised that what they will settle for is a Canadian deal, and N.I. will be collateral damage. Or no deal.

It would be interesting to see some of the internal communications on this matter - you can bet your bottom Euro that it was also discussed at great length within the government. My guess would be that Tory Party politics trumped expert advice.

briantrumpet

Do words mean anything these days?

"Braverman was asked what had changed since former justice minister Lord Faulks stated in 2015 that ministers would not breach international law. She said his statement reflected “government policy at the time”. The proposals were needed to resolve tensions between domestic and international law created by the EU withdrawal agreement, she said, but the government remained “committed to the rule of law”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/12/top-lawyers-slam-suella-braverman-for-wrecking-uks-reputation

sungod

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

Don't be so melodramatic.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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...

In this case “Leave means Leave” was referring to leaving NI in the CU.

I wish they had just said "Custard means custard", and left it at that, everyone could have agreed.

but is it custard or is it crème anglaise?

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/gideonrachman/status/1304834183651614720?s=21

Quite right

tailwindhome

Theresa May also voted for the current WA.

tailwindhome

How would the EU *actually* stop food transports from GB to NI?

The state of these people.

surrey_commuter

I am amazed at the level of amazement at the position we now find ourselves.

There is only one driving force for Brexit and that is a dislike of foreigners whether that be them coming here or ruling us. The purer the Brexit the less foreigners come here and the less say they have over us.

Now with the above in mind ask yourself how much they care about breaking an intl. treaty? It is a treaty with foreigners and the only downside is being judged by foreigners.

darkhairedlord

tailwindhome said:

How would the EU *actually* stop food transports from GB to NI?

The state of these people.

How are any international treaty obligations enforced?
Exclusion, sanctions, cod-war, blockade, closure of border. Whole raft of options to pressure the uk.
Of course, the uk could reclassify ferries as floating bridges and remove the term "port" from the dock. That would get around the WA part mentioned up thread.

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1305066526718996482?s=20

Stevo_666

Regardless of how we came into this situation, the issue still remains that there will be on-going EU influence over UK affairs and It needs to 've solved.

The WA was passed in parallel with a promise from the EU to conclude a swift and comprehensive free trade accord: “It is the clear intent of both parties to develop in good faith agreements giving effect to this relationship… such that they can come into force by the end of 2020”. The EU is refusing to reconsider, even though they themselves are clearly acting in bad faith after offering a Canada style deal and then withdrawing it on the basis the we are somehow now 'too close'.

The WA also contains the following clause: “If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.” The EU threat to carve up the UK down the Irish Sea clearly fits that bill in my view, so we have every right to take action.

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Jesus, horrendous posting today.

Maybe try posting something to improve it then? Your last post doesn't really manage to do that.

Stevo_666

darkhairedlord said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

Trojan horse?

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...

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?

Part of it is readinging the contact before signing. Do you sign work stuff, that is really important without reading it?

See my post two above this one.