UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Originally Posted by Kushan

1) Is this an official doctrine/warning as a moderator on this forum, or just your opinion as a brexiteer?

Well if it was an opinion as a Brexiteer, it's ok for you as a Remainer to tell us Brexiteers to stop "rabbiting on" but when I tell you to stop, you ask a mundane question such as the one above.

But yeah, I was telling you to cease telling others to be silent and in future, if you have a question regarding a site matter/member of the forum team/instruction, raise it via the site owners, that is myself or Paul, if you have an issue with me, as I am one of the site owners, you will need to go to Paul, asking such questions in this thread is not the correct avenue.

Originally Posted by Kushan

]2) I'm not telling anyone to be quiet.

Good stuff.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Mick

You wind your neck in as well.

I have absolutely no need to pick it up with Boris, he's seen the flaw and is now correcting it via the Internal Market Bill, I couldn't give a shit if it breaks International Law, the EU has little respect for it, so you and others stop being hypocrites about following International Law when your "precious EU" doesn't do the same.

So were the government negligent, incompetent or intransigent is signing the agreement in the first place?

Originally Posted by jonbxx

So were the government negligent, incompetent or intransigent is signing the agreement in the first place?

Yes.

But I am now happy they are trying to correct it via IMB.

It should have been spotted and dealt with sooner but, you know, there was a Pandemic that kind of took precedent.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Boris signed the deal for the UK. If you've belatedly got an issue with it, pick it up with him.

A silly reply.

As with all Remainers on this thread, you refuse to address the matter of the EU using an extreme interpretation of the WA?

Again, do you agree that that the Eu should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Of course I recognise that it'd be bad for the UK. I recognised that leaving the EU in any capacity would be bad for the UK, but we wanted that sovreignty, right?

You can't tell remainers who were screaming until they were blue in the face that "this is a terrible idea and the UK will suffer for it" to get over it, then do a shocked pikachu face when it turns out that this whole thing is bad for the UK.


This was highlighted way back in January, before anything was signed. Shouldn't have signed it if it had such a legal flaw in it.

The "no deal is better than a bad deal" REFERS TO ANY FUTURE DEAL. Certainly not one that is only meant to be in place for a matter of months, and is meant to have an END. Gets quite tedious and ridiculous when the Remain side of things constantly misattributes comments to the wrong deal etc.
Link

What happens on 1 February 2020?
When the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on 31 January 2020, after full ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, we will enter into the transition period. This time-limited period was agreed as part of the Withdrawal Agreement and will last until at least 31 December 2020.
...
The EU and the United Kingdom will use these months to agree on a new and fair partnership for the future, based on the Political Declaration agreed between the EU and the United Kingdom in October 2019.

From recent Barnier speech

Yet the UK government's position would lock out Ireland's fishermen and women from waters they fished in long before Ireland or the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973.
And of course, the fishermen and women of many other EU countries.
That is just not acceptable.
We fully understand and respect that the UK will become an independent coastal state, outside the Common Fisheries Policy.

It is 1982 UN Conference of the Laws of the Seas that decided that States were precluded from making historic claims to fishing rights in other countries. The EU is insisting on breaking that UN Treaty/Law(or whatever).

Without a long-term, fair and sustainable solution on fisheries, there will simply be no new economic partnership with the UK.

That was NOT in the Political Declaration, quite the opposite.

British proposals on road transport would allow British truckers to drive on EU roads without having to comply with the same working conditions as EU drivers.

Nonsense as usual. Drivers driving on EU roads have to follow EU rules, JUST AS ANY OTHER NON-EU COUNTRY DOES. There are wider driving rules set that include non-EU countries such as Turkey and Russia. Currently if you drive in only in GB, then you are subject to GB rules, but if your journey includes the EU, then you are subject to EU/AETR rules for that part of the journey. Nothing wrong with that approach, and nobody apart from the EU is suggesting otherwise.

The UK's proposals on air transport would allow British airlines to operate inside the EU without having to respect the same labour and environmental standards.

Are EU airlines the only ones flying in EU airspace? Of course not.

In this area, as in others: without a common framework on state aid, the UK government would be free to hand out subsidies at will.

We've quite a long way to go to match Germany's levels of state aid.

Link

The EU measures how much money countries spend on state aid, as a proportion of their economy.
The UK ranks very low down, spending just 0.38% of its gross domestic product - the total value of all good and services produced. This is far lower than Germany (1.31%), France (0.76%) and Poland (1.59%).
Therefore, it seems likely that EU single market rules are not the only thing limiting state aid.

Level playing field? Not even within the EU.

While Germany makes up for about a quarter of the EU’s GDP, it accounts for some 52% of the total value of the emergency coronavirus state aid cleared so far, Commission data shows.

Continuing with Barnier speech.

If English farmers and industrials are no longer bound by high standards on water pollution – wouldn't they gain a decisive – and unfair – cost advantage?

How likely is it that we would widely diverge from EU standards?

We have no issue with regulatory divergence.

Really? Since when?

It is normal that the UK wants to set its own standards and rules.
But if these serve to distort competition with us, then we have a problem.

Does the EU insist on EU standards and rules for all trade deals? Does Vietnam have it's own internal standards and rules set by the EU?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

A silly reply.

As with all Remainers on this thread, you refuse to address the matter of the EU using an extreme interpretation of the WA?

Again, do you agree that that the Eu should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

Again? This is the first time you've asked the question.

If Boris was silly enough to sign up to this, he should resign and call an election as he was elected on the basis of an oven-ready deal that doesn't exist. The new Prime Minister should then raise this point via the disputes committee whilst seeking an extension to allow enough time to get a good deal and not making mess-ups like this one.

A competent Leave Government could have tackled matters in a better way:

A declaration of intent in 2016 to leave the EU at the end of the budget period on 31 December 2020, or possibly even later, would have given a breathing space in which to prepare. Above all, the government would have had to level with the public about what was to come.

There would have been an outcry. The Northern Ireland peace process was very much an international effort and there would have been widespread disapproval of anything that threatened it. Even so, the UK government could have constructed a reasonable argument to say that the Good Friday Agreement is over 20 years old and was concluded in very different circumstances. It would be unconscionable for such a treaty to prevent a sovereign nation from leaving a trading bloc when its people had expressed their wish to do so through a democratic vote. There would have been complaints about the UK breaching a treaty but the government could have put forward a moral case for doing so. It would not have convinced everyone but it would have been good enough for many.

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpres...e-word-slogan/

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Exactly. Theresa May's deal was better but Boris's ego wouldn't allow him to keep it intact. Instead, he called criticism at the time Project Fear whilst rolling over and letting the EU tickle his tummy.

Back in February 2018, Theresa May rejected the EU’s proposal for Northern Ireland to remain aligned with the Republic after Brexit, insisting “no United Kingdom prime minister could ever agree to it”. Unfortunately, BoJo did.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8232631.html

May's deal that she agreed to, had it applying "unless and until" the EU agreed otherwise. How is that better than "after 4 years NI can decide that it isn't to continue"? There were other differences.
Parliament had REJECTED May's deal, so something had to change.

---------- Post added at 14:06 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Again? This is the first time you've asked the question.

If Boris was silly enough to sign up to this, he should resign and call an election as he was elected on the basis of an oven-ready deal that doesn't exist. The new Prime Minister should then raise this point via the disputes committee whilst seeking an extension to allow enough time to get a good deal and not making mess-ups like this one.

A competent Leave Government could have tackled matters in a better way:

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpres...e-word-slogan/

Yet again....The "oven-ready" referred to the revised Withdrawal Agreement ALONE, and whether Parliament would agree to it. IT DIDN'T, AND COULDN'T POSSIBLY APPLY TO ANY FUTURE TRADE DEAL. Negotiations couldn't start until the WA was activated.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Again? This is the first time you've asked the question.

If Boris was silly enough to sign up to this, he should resign and call an election as he was elected on the basis of an oven-ready deal that doesn't exist. The new Prime Minister should then raise this point via the disputes committee whilst seeking an extension to allow enough time to get a good deal and not making mess-ups like this one.

A competent Leave Government could have tackled matters in a better way:

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpres...e-word-slogan/

Whatever. So, please answer the question and stop ducking and weaving.

Again, do you agree that that the Eu should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Whatever. So, please answer the question and stop ducking and weaving.

Again, do you agree that that the Eu should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

If we've agreed to it then we're plonkers for doing so and need to invoke the disputes mechanism in the first instance without impacting trade negotiatons adversely.

Do you think that the Government's handling of Brexit is better than its handling of Covid-19, worse, or about the same?

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Mick

You are now just taking the piss, here we go again with this crap about "we the remainers were right about leaving", it's utter bollocks, if it has escaped your attention, because of the last four years of Remainiac MPs in the last parliament trying to thwart Brexit, trying to cancel one of the largest democratic processes in this country. Because of this dither and deliberate delay from the Remainiac MPs - We are still in a transitional phase of Brexit, we trying to negotiate an arrangement with the EU still.

Those "Remainiac MP's of the last parliament" were voted in after the referrendum. Those Remainiac MP's were voted in via the same democratic process this country has used for centuries. But sure, let's just say remainers went on a rampage and thwarted everything, it was a shambles it was a disaster. Sure.

We then had another election where Tory/leaver MPs were overwhelmingly voted in, in a landslide not seen for decades. It was those MP's that voted for this WA. It was those MP's that ignored the warnings.

But it's the EU that's at fault, right?

Never mind that the likes of yourselves have been cursing the EU for years now, that Boris himself doesn't miss a beat in telling you how awful the EU are and that the ERG couldn't wait to walk away from the EU - they still signed an agreement that allowed the corrupt EU to get one over our country? Really? If the EU is so terrible, why would you sign something that could clearly be interpereted in such a way? Why give them that ammunition?

Couldn't be short-sighted politicians or sheer incompetance, nooo....

[Admin Edit(Mick): Ridiculous accusations removed - I said, if you have an issue with the site - use the correct channels, ignore this again at your own peril!]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The "no deal is better than a bad deal" REFERS TO ANY FUTURE DEAL. Certainly not one that is only meant to be in place for a matter of months, and is meant to have an END. Gets quite tedious and ridiculous when the Remain side of things constantly misattributes comments to the wrong deal etc.

But that's my point. The question asked was "what was the alternative to the WA?". The alternative was nothing. No deal. Always has been. The slogan has been battered around that many times, how could we forget?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

A silly reply.

As with all Remainers on this thread, you refuse to address the matter of the EU using an extreme interpretation of the WA?

Again, do you agree that that the Eu should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

I thought this was answered, but I'll do it again - we signed the WA. It's a legally binding document. The EU is as legally bound to it as we are and they're exercising their legal rights.

Is it bad for the UK? Yes. Is the EU taking advantage of a bad agreement? Maybe. Hell, lets say yes as well. I would want our country to get the best deal possible using any legal means possible. The EU is playing their hand, you can like it, you can lump it, but the time to stop it was back in January.

Much like the time to stop brexit was 2016. Both ships have sailed. The only thing you can possibly do to stop it is to burn the whole ship down.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If we've agreed to it then we're plonkers for doing so and need to invoke the disputes mechanism in the first instance without impacting trade negotiatons adversely.

Do you think that the Government's handling of Brexit is better than its handling of Covid-19, worse, or about the same?

Everyone on this thread can see that you are avoiding the answer; ducking and weaving.

Again, do you agree that that the Eu should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

In reply to your question, the Government's current handling of Brexit is very poor. It's handling of CV is poor as regards testing.

Now, answer my question properly, please?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Everyone on this thread can see that you are avoiding the answer; ducking and weaving.

Again, do you agree that that the Eu should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

In reply to your question, the Government's current handling of Brexit is very poor. It's handling of CV is poor as regards testing.

Now, answer my question properly, please?

I've answered it fully. In an ideal world it shouldn't and if Boris has agreed to it then we should raise the issue via the disputes mechanism.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Kushan

<SNIP>

I thought this was answered, but I'll do it again - we signed the WA. It's a legally binding document. The EU is as legally bound to it as we are and they're exercising their legal rights.

Is it bad for the UK? Yes. Is the EU taking advantage of a bad agreement? Maybe. Hell, lets say yes as well. I would want our country to get the best deal possible using any legal means possible. The EU is playing their hand, you can like it, you can lump it, but the time to stop it was back in January.

Much like the time to stop brexit was 2016. Both ships have sailed. The only thing you can possibly do to stop it is to burn the whole ship down.

Kush, I wasn't asking you. I was asking a ducking and weaving Andrew.

Albeit, you've loosely answered. You haven't explicitly said whether or not you agree that the EU should be able to affect food imports from NI to England?

The rest of what you've is said is perfectly valid even though I would forgive Boris if in fact he had taken the cynical view just to fulfil his electoral obligation to leave the EU. My preference now is that we don't break International Law by reneging on the WA, because we can take action down the line if necessary should the EU try to pull that trick.




---------- Post added at 14:49 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I've answered it fully. In an ideal world it shouldn't and if Boris has agreed to it then we should raise the issue via the disputes mechanism.

Andrew, you haven't answered the question at all. I'm trying to get to the bottom of YOUR view and take the Remainer aspect out of it.

This "ideal world it shouldn't" phrase is pure weasel wording. It doesn't get to the root of your belief.

The problem you have here is that of course you don't want the EU to screw us over - but you can't bring yourself to say so. I don't find that particularly honest.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Everyone on this thread can see that you are avoiding the answer; ducking and weaving.

Again, do you agree that that the Eu should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

In reply to your question, the Government's current handling of Brexit is very poor. It's handling of CV is poor as regards testing.

Now, answer my question properly, please?

IF Northern Ireland staying in the Single Market is the only way to preserve the Good Friday Agreement, respecting views on both sides of the border, then adherence to Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) is a consequence of this.

This is only an issue if we were to accept food standards lower than the EU SPS standards. If we match or exceed EU SPS, then we are golden as a 'third country'.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

IF Northern Ireland staying in the Single Market is the only way to preserve the Good Friday Agreement, respecting views on both sides of the border, then adherence to Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) is a consequence of this.

This is only an issue if we were to accept food standards lower than the EU SPS standards. If we match or exceed EU SPS, then we are golden as a 'third country'.

I can't dispute what you've said. But - we currently adhere to all their standards yet the EU has explicitly threatened the UK with not being recognised as a third country food supplier. The EU is not acting in good faith.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...-food-exports/