UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

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...

No, this is a choice between giving what the electorate voted for rather than the alternative. Barnier is standing in the way, and threatening not to give us a no tariff free trade deal, as per the political declaration.

Given that the treaty was based on the premise that we would get such a deal, it stands to reason that if the EU is now acting in bad faith and reneging on this, we need to make some adjustments to the treaty.

These adjustments are actually relatively very minor indeed and not worth making such a fuss about.

And if the EU honour what they promised us, there will be no need to adjust the treaty.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:25 ----------

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.

And there will be no such problem if the EU give us a no tariff trade deal, either. Trust you to bat for the other side! Just as well this isn't a real war...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Trust you to bat for the other side! Just as well this isn'tva real war...

I don't bat for Labour or the EU, for the record.
I know it's doubtless meant in a light-heartened manner but it's verging on the offensive to imply I'm some kind of traitor. This isn't a war, it's just a poor implementation of a referendum result which your rose-coloured spectacles prevent you from seeing.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

I don't think Brexiteers rate him either, but he's all they've got. There isn't much talent that side of the fence, hence the cabinet of incompetents we've got now.

It's a lot worse on the other side of the House, my dear chap.

---------- Post added at 19:42 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I don't bat for Labour or the EU, for the record.
I know it's doubtless meant in a light-heartened manner but it's verging on the offensive to imply I'm some kind of traitor. This isn't a war, it's just a poor implementation of a referendum result which your rose-coloured spectacles prevent you from seeing.

Of course it was light hearted Andrew. But I think you should take a better look at who is wearing the rose coloured spectacles!

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

That doesn't seem to have been the situation.

As far as I can see our laws for UHT milk within the UK broke EEC common market rules we'd signed up to. We didn't want to check the quality of UHT milk from the EEC or have any method to do so.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...CJ0124&from=FR

So the the ruling was as we couldn't explain exactly how other EEC members could meet the criteria for imports without onerous obligations not required of UK producers, we were in breach of the treaty.

IIRC it was reported as the UK placing more onerous conditions on UK suppliers, than the French had to follow.

That also highlights the fact that there were NO common EEC rules on UHT milk. Even Scotland and NI had different rules to England. As there were no EEC level standards, what else were we expected to do? So did the other EEC countries allow UK inspectors as the Commission suggested?
My central point is still valid, in that the EEC/EU forces us to accept items which don't meet our own internal standards.
Link

Member countries are entitled to take stricter measures, if they wish - the EU welfare standards are a minimum all countries have to follow.
If the UK wanted to put further restrictions on live animal exports, it could do so while it is still in the EU.
But if it wanted to fully ban them, it would not be allowed to do so under the current EU single market rules.

...
For example, the UK, as well as most other EU countries, has domestic legislation that prohibits production of foie gras on animal welfare grounds.
Belgium, France, Hungary, Spain and Bulgaria do not prohibit the production and under the EU principle of free movement of goods, the UK is unable to ban the import of foie gras.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's a lot worse on the other side of the House, my dear chap.

Ed Milliband performed well tonight, I was very surprised to see how effectively he stepped up. https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/s...46881272029188

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1;36050127[B

]Ed Milliband performed well tonight[/B], I was very surprised to see how effectively he stepped up. https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/s...46881272029188

Jeez oh, he could put a ward of newborn babies to sleep with his blethering crap.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Ed Milliband performed well tonight, I was very surprised to see how effectively he stepped up. https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/s...46881272029188

Pity he's still on the wrong side of the argument, though!

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Some questions can't be answered by a simple yes or no or I would have done precisely this.
I believe that its everyone's right to hold the government of the day to account for its actions, whatever the colour of the government.

---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------


That's because they haven't. You're getting confused with Pritti Patel who threatened to starve the Irish. Do you condemn her threats?
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/pr...warning-318794

She didn't threaten anything. It is the EU and weirdly the Irish talking about blocking things to the UK. The net result of the EUs actions would be shortages in Ireland, as they themselves figured out some time ago.
Link

The Irish public could be in for a huge shock in the days after a hard Brexit with the country facing potential food and medicine shortages.

By agreeing to the WA we were helping them.
Link

The UK has said it would be "very unusual" for the EU to seek to block post-Brexit food imports amid a growing dispute over the issue.
The EU has cast doubt on whether it would grant Britain a "third-country listing" for exports of products of animal origin, citing "uncertainties" over its biosecurity controls.
Such exports are worth £5bn to the UK.
A government spokesman said the right to export was the foundation of any kind of agricultural relationship.

So where is it that the UK is the one blocking exports to Ireland?

Nothing wrong in pointing out what would be result of the actions of the EU. That does NOT constitute a threat. Calling it a threat, yet again highlights the complete and utter lack of "good faith" from the EU, and especially the Irish.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Show us an authoritative link to evidence that the EU has broken international law and I'm sure you'll find a change of tune from everyone.

They are breaking one right now by not acting in good faith during these negotiations. (As I have said many many times now).

---------- Post added at 20:16 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Jeez oh, he could put a ward of newborn babies to sleep with his blethering crap.

Agreed, but what startled me was how Starmer allowed this "has been", to the Labour dispatch box in the first place, especially when Starmer's Deputy, was several feet away, did he not have confidence in his deputy to take on Boris?

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Mick

They are breaking one right now by not acting in good faith during these negotiations. (As I have said many many times now).

---------- Post added at 20:16 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------



Agreed, but what startled me was how Starmer allowed this "has been", to the Labour dispatch box in the first place, especially when Starmer's Deputy, was several feet away, did he not have confidence in his deputy to take on Boris?

Yes, I noticed that and wondered why myself.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Some questions can't be answered by a simple yes or no or I would have done precisely this.
I believe that its everyone's right to hold the government of the day to account for its actions, whatever the colour of the government.

That particular question was easily answered by a yes or no.

If you approve of the EU's threat to disrupt food supplies between NI & England, then you're unpatriotic and wouldn't want to admit it.

If you disapprove, you should say so, so that other boundaries can then be drawn in the conversation.

But as a Remainer, you don't seem to want to call the EU out or criticism in any way.

As to the bit I highlighted in red - yes, of course.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Mick

They are breaking one right now by not acting in good faith during these negotiations. (As I have said many many times now).

You've said it many times, but that doesn't make it true.

I can repeatedly say that I'm Jeremy Corbyn secretly posting on this forum out of sheer pettiness, but that doesn't make it true. Or does it?

We've asked for evidence many times. We'll keep on asking you to back up your claim until you provide it. Until then, you're just wasting your breath.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That's an easy one to solve. The EU gives us the deal it said was wanted and there's no need for us to introduce the Bill.

The EU have threatened a food blockade. I haven't heard you condemn that.

What they actually said...

In a statement following the latest round of talks on Thursday, the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said there were “many uncertainties” about the UK’s animal hygiene regime.

He said “more clarity” was needed if Britain was to receive the “third-country listing” entitling it to export animal products to the EU.

Frost has interpreted this as a threat of a blockade, but the EU would be treating us no differently than any other "third country" - prove we are meeting EU standards.

Originally Posted by Kushan

You've said it many times, but that doesn't make it true.

I can repeatedly say that I'm Jeremy Corbyn secretly posting on this forum out of sheer pettiness, but that doesn't make it true. Or does it?

We've asked for evidence many times. We'll keep on asking you to back up your claim until you provide it. Until then, you're just wasting your breath.

Careful - I am beginning to believe you possibly could be him, given how rubbish he was at debating.

It is true, go look it up, I ain't your lackey.

Acting in good faith is a legal requirement, it is one of the fundamental principles the EU is suppose to have, but fail to follow when it comes to itself.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Hugh

What they actually said...

Frost has interpreted this as a threat of a blockade, but the EU would be treating us no differently than any other "third country" - prove we are meeting EU standards.

It's apparent that some people are having difficulty in accepting that we've left the EU and want to pretend we're still a member and should be treated as such.