[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The statement was;

I guess you good perceive this as a threat or a request for more clarity on the UKs SPS standards post 2020. If SPS standards are just being carried over with no regression, surely couldn't Defra just pull an file and it's done?

That was verbal trickery from Barnier. He was merely saying, in weasel wording, that the UK hadn't yet published its future regime. "Many uncertainties"? What's that about?

But again, you are right. Barnier's approach can be seen as either a threat or a request for more information. The way the EU has been negotiating, I side with it being a threat.

Why would you, a Brit, give the benefit of the doubt to the EU?



---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

Originally Posted by Kushan

Wasn't "Get Brexit done" the slogan of the 2019 Conservative Election manifesto, not the 2017 election? Genuine question, as I don't remember much about May's 2017 campaign other than how awful it was.



I've just noticed the APR on my credit card is higher than I would like. I'm going to just stop paying my bill until they correct it. The Bank is being unfair by holding me to the consequences of the legal document I signed.

Breaking the law, even if you absolutely don't agree with the wording (or an interpretation of the wording) just to spite the EU isn't going to do us any favours. That's true cutting your nose off to spite your face territory.

If I might just comment on your reply to Mick ...

There is a wealth of difference at many levels between international political agreements (treaties) and a piddling civil contract. The analogy doesn't hold because the former affects millions of people whilst the latter afeects "you".