UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Originally Posted by Kushan

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.

You have failed again I see.

Most of those Remainiac MPs ran on a ticket of get Brexit done, so they were democratically elected on this premise, so to go against this and defy the Democratic result of the 2016 referendum and then join parties to stop Brexit, they were a disgrace, funny innit how absolutely none of them got elected again in the last General Election just gone.

Justice served in true Democratic fashion.

Originally Posted by Kushan

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.

And now they are correcting that fault.

Originally Posted by Kushan

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....

Drop the attitude, it will not work with me.

I do not need Boris or any other politician to tell me how shit and corrupt the EU is, I have a pair of eyes and I can see for myself, pity you are as blind as a bat when it comes to your pathetic love for them.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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/

The statement was;

There are also many uncertainties about Great Britain's sanitary and phyto-sanitary regime as from 1 January 2021. More clarity is needed for the EU to do the assessment for the third-country listing of the UK.

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?

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Mick

You have failed again I see.

Most of those Remainiac MPs ran on a ticket of get Brexit done, so they were democratically elected on this premise, so to go against this and defy the Democratic result of the 2016 referendum and then join parties to stop Brexit, they were a disgrace, funny innit how absolutely none of them got elected again in the last General Election just gone.

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.

Originally Posted by Mick

And now they are correcting that fault.

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.

[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".

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.

Several Tory MPs jumped ship, after winning their seats on a get Brexit done, they certainly did not campaign on a stopping Brexit, they left their party after they formed the party of many names, Change UK?

They then jumped ship again to a totally irrelevant party, think it's called something like the Illiberal Undemocrats. Each of the MPs that left their parties, Labour ones included, all lost their seats at the last election.

As I said, justice served.

Originally Posted by Kushan

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.

Well actually this is a rather poor analogy, if ever I saw one.

You signed a legal document that clearly states the APR is variable, which means they can change it, as long as they notify you as per the terms of the agreement, all perfectly legal and above board, you cannot say you have a problem with the wording, as all that has changed is the APR, which was said in the agreement that was variable, i.e, it can change to go either higher or lower.

Originally Posted by Kushan

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.

The EU has broken it, they have failed in the legal obligation to act in good faith in these negotiations, so if they can break/ignore the law, why can't we?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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 ----------



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.

You can't take these things in isolation. If we do have to follow EU guidelines on food standards then what do we gain by this?
If the gain outweighs the disbenefit then it might be worth it.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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

Because this is not like supporting a football team where one side can do no wrong and the other side is the 'enemy'. I get the feeling sometimes (not from you I might add) That getting one over on Johnny Foreigner is more important than doing well ourselves.

A mutually beneficial deal with the minimum of disruption is my ideal end game and, if either side are putting in place things to disrupt this, then I will call it out.

Idealist, I know...

[Carth]

I still don't see what all the fuss is about. A 'no deal' seems to be nearer than it ever has been - and time's running out.

Will this change to a previously agreed deal change that?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You can't take these things in isolation. If we do have to follow EU guidelines on food standards then what do we gain by this?
If the gain outweighs the disbenefit then it might be worth it.

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.

Andrew, You must know that you're dodging the question. Nothing is taken in isolation. The nub of the problem is the possibility that the EU can interfere with food traffic between England and NI.

There is no gain in disrupting the Union by this means.

So, again: Do you agree that that the EU should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

The EU has broken it, they have failed in the legal obligation to act in good faith in these negotiations, so if they can break/ignore the law, why can't we?

I think BoJo could have tried to take the moral high ground but he blew it with the current bill that his own ministers admit breaks international law, albeit in a specific and limited way. It means the EU will be less likely to concede ground and is a poor political judgment. He's now left with the tricky task of bullying his own MPs into backing him whilst the party's original Eurosceptics like Michael Howard condemn his reputation-damaging approach.

---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

I still don't see what all the fuss is about. A 'no deal' seems to be nearer than it ever has been - and time's running out.

Will this change to a previously agreed deal change that?

No deal and no WA means a hard border between NI and Eire which breaks the Good Friday Agreement.
Whilst neither the EU or UK wants a hard border, membership of the WTO would mandate this.
BoJo's current WA places a border between GB and NI.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Andrew, You must know that you're dodging the question. Nothing is taken in isolation. The nub of the problem is the possibility that the EU can interfere with food traffic between England and NI.

There is no gain in disrupting the Union by this means.

So, again: Do you agree that that the EU should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

I agree there should be processes in place that would stop food that doesn’t meet EU Standards getting into the EU (from Northern Ireland to Ireland) - don’t you?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree there should be processes in place that would stop food that doesn’t meet EU Standards getting into the EU (from Northern Ireland to Ireland) - don’t you?

Is there a process in place that prevents movement in the opposite direction?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I agree there should be processes in place that would stop food that doesn’t meet EU Standards getting into the EU (from Northern Ireland to Ireland) - don’t you?

I always answer questions put to me even if you answered a question I did not put.

Given that the WA recognises that NI is inseparably part of the UK and within the UK's customs territory, I see that this causes conflict when seen against the no border provisions. They are incompatible, it seems to me, because the consequences of the latter enables the EU to split the EU or at least try to.

Now, your question to me, like much of what Andrew says, takes the EU perspective and not the UK's. So, were I a German, for example, I would agree with you. But I'm British and I don't agree if the price is that the EU can dictate what happens when food is exported in either direction.

Personally, I don't see a problem with processes that simulate a NI/Eire border in respect of food products. But with Barnier offering threats that we won't be recognised as a supplier to the EU unless we put our national interests at risk, I can't stomach that.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

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".

There's a wealth of difference, but one of those differences is not whether or not a legally binding document is erm...legally binding.

Originally Posted by Mick

Several Tory MPs jumped ship, after winning their seats on a get Brexit done, they certainly did not campaign on a stopping Brexit, they left their party after they formed the party of many names, Change UK?

They then jumped ship again to a totally irrelevant party, think it's called something like the Illiberal Undemocrats. Each of the MPs that left their parties, Labour ones included, all lost their seats at the last election.

As I said, justice served.

I don't think any of this was contested by anyone in this thread. But I do think "Get Brexit done" as a slogan is a Boris special, for whatever little that's worth. I think in 2017 we were still on "Brexit means Brexit".

Originally Posted by Mick

Well actually this is a rather poor analogy, if ever I saw one.

You signed a legal document that clearly states the APR is variable, which means they can change it, as long as they notify you as per the terms of the agreement, all perfectly legal and above board, you cannot say you have a problem with the wording, as all that has changed is the APR, which was said in the agreement that was variable, i.e, it can change to go either higher or lower.

Great, so we agree that signed legal documents are legally binding. Glad that's cleared up.

Originally Posted by Mick

The EU has broken it, they have failed in the legal obligation to act in good faith in these negotiations, so if they can break/ignore the law, why can't we?

I keep seeing this, but where's the legal obligation here?

If the EU has broken a legal obligation, why aren't we getting lawyers involved? Why are our own lawers claiming we're in the wrong here? IF the EU had broken the law, the treaty would be void from their doing and we'd be off the hook. So why is everyone saying the UK is trying to break the law?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Andrew, You must know that you're dodging the question. Nothing is taken in isolation. The nub of the problem is the possibility that the EU can interfere with food traffic between England and NI.

There is no gain in disrupting the Union by this means.

So, again: Do you agree that that the EU should be able to affect food imports to England from NI?

Seph, your doggedness here is bordering on the No True Scotsman logical fallacy. What exactly are you trying to get Andrew to say here? Whether he thinks it's okay or not isn't really up for debate, what matters is what's legal or not.


Anyway.....


Another Tory MP quits over this.

Before peopel get the pitchforks out, note that Rehman Chishti voted leave in 2016. So he's not a remainer and he thinks the government is wrong - enoguh to quit his position over it.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think BoJo could have tried to take the moral high ground but he blew it with the current bill that his own ministers admit breaks international law, albeit in a specific and limited way. It means the EU will be less likely to concede ground and is a poor political judgment. He's now left with the tricky task of bullying his own MPs into backing him whilst the party's original Eurosceptics like Michael Howard condemn his reputation-damaging approach.

---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 17:03 ----------


No deal and no WA means a hard border between NI and Eire which breaks the Good Friday Agreement.
Whilst neither the EU or UK wants a hard border, membership of the WTO would mandate this.
BoJo's current WA places a border between GB and NI.

The IRA still being supported, armed, and active, breaks the GFA. The constant threats of ending the "peace process" also breaks the GFA, and prevents any decision taken as being invalid, as it's under duress. What other situation would a decision be valid when made under the threat of violence?

The bill DOESN'T mean a hard border UNLESS the EU wants it that way. The CURRENT NI protocol allows for it to be stopped sometime in the future anyway.