UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

For God's sake! The vote was to leave the EU.

How that is achieved is for the politicians, whenever they get their acts together.

The 'how we leave' issue is just the spanner in the works thrown in by Luddite remainers.

Our future trading arrangements with our largest trading partner - and indeed the possibility of the UK being flooded by tariff free goods from around the world as WTO countries claim their right to the same "no tariffs" we offer the UK, is hardly a "spanner in the works".

British jobs are at risk.

Originally Posted by Hugh

You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team.

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------



From a barrister...

Oh, Twitter. Well that’s alright then.

I wonder exactly what it is the secret barrister is getting so angry about, seeing as the “Downing Street source” has pointedly not said exactly what is being done, other than to confirm they will send the letter as required, but they believe they have a way round the Surrender Act and have been privately briefing EU governments about it.

It seems to me that a number of options are open to the government, one of them being a warning that if the UK continues in membership beyond 31 October it will begin to obstruct the orderly running of the EU by, for example, refusing to agree the budget or to appoint its EU Commissioner.

The Surrender Act may force the Prime Minister to do one specific thing but it does not prohibit him doing anything else. And at the end of the day an extension beyond 31 October requires the unanimous agreement of the EU27. No amount of squealing from the Opposition benches can change that. If BoJo is to comply with British law yet also ensure there is no extension beyond 31 October, then that has to be fought for and gained in Brussels, not Westminster.

Our excitable barrister’s robbery illustration is great satire, but Twitter remains a poor forum for legal debate, even after they lifted the 140 character limit.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team.

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------



From a barrister...

In what other context could X be held accountable for Y & Z not coming to an agreement, where Y won't say what they would agree to, other than saying(3 times) that they refuse to accept the only thing Z is prepared to offer? Even if Y or Z agree to a particular plan, it still takes BOTH of them to have to agree. The onus is on Y & Z, not X. How can something that is LEGALLY described as being a transitional phase, unambiguously limited in time, have something that is not limited in time?
Examples please of where those things would and have been, allowed legally?


In a trade union dispute, would a trade union leader be held legally responsible for 2 sides(employer and union members) not reaching an agreement? Would the trade union leader be forced to accept whatever the employer proposed, if no agreement was reached within a certain time? Would the trade union leader have to go into negotiations with no threats of strikes or other disruptions allowed? Not sure all that would be in the negotiating handbook for trade unions(or any other organisation). It certainly wouldn't be allowed in any contract or Law.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

<SNIP>

]Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...[COLOR="Silver"]


<SNIP>

No I didn't. I said in different words that if the voters heard Cameron say that one of the choices was "leave altogether" then you can't claim that "nobody voted for no deal". The English language, in this case, is quite plain.

The then PM did not say we must leave altogether - he was merely offering the choice. What you've opined has nothing to with my point.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

No I didn't. I said in different words that if the voters heard Cameron say that one of the choices was "leave altogether" then you can't claim that "nobody voted for no deal". The English language, in this case, is quite plain.

The then PM did not say we must leave altogether - he was merely offering the choice. What you've opined has nothing to with my point.

How many more times? Deal still means leave, or is meant to.
Any 2nd referendum could only ask "Leave with a delay" or "Leave without any delay". That is what "deal or no deal" entails.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The "deal"/WA is an OPTIONAL(on the UKs part, the EU is obliged to seek one) step, on the path to Leave. Even a vote FOR the WA is a vote for Leave. The WA just means LEAVING later. NOTHING ELSE. It does NOT(or isn't meant to) mean Remain. Either way, Deal and no deal both lead to LEAVING.

Your posts are starting to read like Daily Express articles The use of block capitals is unnecessary ..

To be honest, I do not really understand your reply ... too many words in uppercase

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team.

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------



From a barrister...

Is it the same legal source that created a letter to the EU not to accept an agreement offered by the government on behalf or the LibDems?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Your posts are starting to read like Daily Express articles The use of block capitals is unnecessary ..

To be honest, I do not really understand your reply ... too many words in uppercase

You don't understand words such as "leaving"? There's a surprise.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Your posts are starting to read like Daily Express articles The use of block capitals is unnecessary ..

To be honest, I do not really understand your reply ... too many words in uppercase

At least he’s gave up on giving me hysterical and irrelevant replies.

Originally Posted by Chris

Oh, Twitter. Well that’s alright then.

I wonder exactly what it is the secret barrister is getting so angry about, seeing as the “Downing Street source” has pointedly not said exactly what is being done, other than to confirm they will send the letter as required, but they believe they have a way round the Surrender Act and have been privately briefing EU governments about it.

Or they're making as much as noise as possible to provoke the opposition into doing the VoNC thing and getting them to do it, along with the electoral benefits that'll give em.

Or just as much noise so that when he does extend he can say he did all he could.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You should probably offer your services to the Attorney General, as you seem to think you know more/better than him and the entire Government legal team.

---------- Post added at 15:18 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

Relevant word in bold/underlined...

But you also seem to be missing a/the point - you are stating that something should happen because the (then) PM said so, and his word must be believed; he also said something else, which wasn't true, but that doesn't need to believed.

As I said - chosing your "promises" from DC selectively...

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------



From a barrister...

"I have been instructed to send this request to you on behalf of our lily livered members of parliament who have decided they want me to beg for an extention."

I don't want one and it is me and my team you have to deal with.

Originally Posted by pip08456

"I have been instructed to send this request to you on behalf of our lily livered members of parliament who have decided they want me to beg for an extention."

I don't want one and it is me and my team you have to deal with.

You appear to have mis-remembered it...

Dear Mr President,

The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.

I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.

Yours sincerely,

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You appear to have mis-remembered it...

Only has to be “ in the form” of that example, not a replica of it.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Only has to be “ in the form” of that example, not a replica of it.

Once again, your expert legal advice is much appreciated - you and nomadking should get together and provide BJ/Cummings with legal support, to avoid further fiascos like Prorogation being declared null and void.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Once again, your expert legal advice is much appreciated - you and nomadking should get together and provide BJ/Cummings with legal support, to avoid further fiascos like Prorogation being declared null and void.

Woooo, hoooo. ( lifts up imaginary skirt)

I’ll take no direction from a person that gets their legal advice from twitter thank you.