Brexit

[jonbxx]

I can see how Article XXIV is an attractive solution to the question of goods imports and exports and yes, it is theoretically possible but it answers one of many issues only. It doesn't answer issues like;

• Citizens rights (EU citizens in UK and UK citizens in EU)
• The Good Friday Agreement
• Money already committed in the current EU budget
• Arbitration in the matters above

Yes, we could go to the EU proposing Article XXIV but you can be pretty sure they will ask about the above and boom, we are back where we started.

Remember 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'?

Originally Posted by pip08456

Wrong as usual HUGH.



To be determined means it is not a crime as yet but may be if the crown court sets a precedent.

She has done a Pontius Pilate and passed it on to someone else to decide.

The judge believes there is Prima Facie evidence of a possible crime having been committed, and that it should go to a court case.

I did not say Boris had committed a crime, I stated that misconduct in public office was a crime.

Boris has not been found guilty or not guilty, because no court case has yet happened, and under our legal system (quite rightly), he is innocent until proven guilty. He has, however, been accused, of a crime (misconduct in public office) so it would appear your statement is not based in actuality - misconduct in public office is a criminal offence, and Boris has been accused of it.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by pip08456

I am not in a predicament.

Well, so long are YOU'RE OK.......

[pip08456]

OK Hugh.

Originally Posted by pip08456

OK Hugh.

OK, Pip

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I can see how Article XXIV is an attractive solution to the question of goods imports and exports and yes, it is theoretically possible but it answers one of many issues only. It doesn't answer issues like;

• Citizens rights (EU citizens in UK and UK citizens in EU)
• The Good Friday Agreement
• Money already committed in the current EU budget
• Arbitration in the matters above

Yes, we could go to the EU proposing Article XXIV but you can be pretty sure they will ask about the above and boom, we are back where we started.

Remember 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'?

The fact that we don't need a solution to the Good Friday Agreement border issue for 10 years is surely a bonus.

The other bullet points can be resolved separately with the EU.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The fact that we don't need a solution to the Good Friday Agreement border issue for 10 years is surely a bonus.

The other bullet points can be resolved separately with the EU.

I see that Article XXIV would cover the GFA in terms of tariffs but not the single market or rules of origin. And what about cross border services? If we make other agreements, then aren't we slipping away from an Article XXIV Brexit and going back to some kind of withdrawal agreement?

I am more than willing to be surprised but I can't see the EU agreeing to Article XXIV without a number of other conditions in place which then means we're not in Article XXIV territory any more.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Maybe it should be a matter of law, then the politicians couldn't get away with all the porky pies.

Such a law would be worth all this imo especially if we could revamp the voting system whilst we were at it, people bang on about protecting our democracy but why would you want to protect it when it allows for millions of votes to be wasted in safe seats or for a party to get 5 million votes and no mps, we aren't a two party country anymore and that should be represented proportionally

Originally Posted by Mick
What?

And tie up our judicial system for every politician that lies...

Okay let's get Tony Blair for the Iraq War.

Let's get Nick Clegg for lying about not increasing tuition fees...

Let's go that extra mile and prosecute all these Remainers who said on TV there should not be another referendum and that the first should be honoured but are now saying there should be one...

The whole thing is just Banana republic crazy, this is 2019, not the 1930's FFS.

Yes let's just let them of with it instead and carry on as we are, then when voters are completely disillusioned and disenfranchised it'll just be the fanatics that bother to vote, bright future with momentum running the show and I'm all for bliar going on trial, not sure how Clegg would be held accountable seeing as he was never in power but why not let them fight that out in court regardless

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I see that Article XXIV would cover the GFA in terms of tariffs but not the single market or rules of origin. And what about cross border services? If we make other agreements, then aren't we slipping away from an Article XXIV Brexit and going back to some kind of withdrawal agreement?

I am more than willing to be surprised but I can't see the EU agreeing to Article XXIV without a number of other conditions in place which then means we're not in Article XXIV territory any more.

There is no restriction on non-EU compliant products being in the EU. In some cases it is an EU company making them. At the very least the difference between UK complaint and EU compliant is going to be minimal.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I see that Article XXIV would cover the GFA in terms of tariffs but not the single market or rules of origin. And what about cross border services? If we make other agreements, then aren't we slipping away from an Article XXIV Brexit and going back to some kind of withdrawal agreement?

I am more than willing to be surprised but I can't see the EU agreeing to Article XXIV without a number of other conditions in place which then means we're not in Article XXIV territory any more.

Article 24 does not prevent countries from agreeing on other matters.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Article 24 does not prevent countries from agreeing on other matters.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Such a law would be worth all this imo especially if we could revamp the voting system whilst we were at it, people bang on about protecting our democracy but why would you want to protect it when it allows for millions of votes to be wasted in safe seats or for a party to get 5 million votes and no mps, we aren't a two party country anymore and that should be represented proportionally

Yes let's just let them of with it instead and carry on as we are, then when voters are completely disillusioned and disenfranchised it'll just be the fanatics that bother to vote, bright future with momentum running the show and I'm all for bliar going on trial, not sure how Clegg would be held accountable seeing as he was never in power but why not let them fight that out in court regardless

Originally Posted by Hugh

A District Judge, with 41 years legal experience, disagrees with you.

And you know I am going to say I stand by my posts so the above is irrelevant.

A politician lying is a crime is it? -

Don't think so, otherwise we'd be locking up every bloody one of them and you know that is what I meant. But nice try at sub diffusion.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by nomadking

There is no restriction on non-EU compliant products being in the EU. In some cases it is an EU company making them. At the very least the difference between UK complaint and EU compliant is going to be minimal.

Oh, of course. The company I work for makes UL certified equipment for the US market in Europe with no problems at all. Those products just cannot be sold in Europe.

When (or if?) Brexit happens, it would make sense to harmonise UK technical standard with EU ones but whether that is politically feasible or not is another question. See vacuum cleaner efficiency standards for example. If we don’t harmonise, a small divergence of standards may make UK goods unsellable in the EU.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

And you know I am going to say I stand by my posts so the above is irrelevant.

A politician lying is a crime is it? -

Don't think so, otherwise we'd be locking up every bloody one of them and you know that is what I meant. But nice try at sub diffusion.

A lot of politicians would indeed fail the honesty test.
It's the fact that he held public office at the time that is the issue.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

A lot of politicians would indeed fail the honesty test.
It's the fact that he held public office at the time that is the issue.

So have many others that have lied. Have they received a summons?

No - this is political hit job and a poor one at that because it's going to HELP BOOST Boris, not hinder him.