Britain outside the EU

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We reneged because the EU has made an absurd interpretation on a signed document.

The EU interpreted it in a way that no reasonable party to an agreement would.

Once again, batting for the other side.

Incidentally, when has the EU ever fitted your ‘reasonable person’ definition?

Has the EU done anything legally wrong ? Or, broken the terms of the treaty in anyway?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Again, after the election Boris had the numbers to take us out on no deal, why didn’t he ?

Because of all the previous remainer narratives about how ‘no deal’ would be disastrous for us, the PM had to accept the deal that was available, because otherwise there were too many doubts in the minds of the public. He may have had the majority (just) but he needed to retain public trust.

The PM has already made clear there is agent out clause. We can give notice of termination if we cannot make it work. By that time, the public will probably agree.

---------- Post added at 00:18 ---------- Previous post was at 00:16 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Has the EU done anything legally wrong ? Or, broken the terms of the treaty in anyway?

I guess morality and trustworthiness doesn’t come into it in your mind.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Because of all the previous remainer narratives about how ‘no deal’ would be disastrous for us, the PM had to accept the deal that was available, because otherwise there were too many doubts in the minds of the public. He may have had the majority (just) but he needed to retain public trust.

The PM has already made clear there is agent out clause. We can give notice of termination if we cannot make it work. By that time, the public will probably agree.

He didn’t have to accept it at all, he clearly stated that no deal was better than a bad deal. He put that forward as part of his election manifesto and the tories were returned based on that.

---------- Post added at 00:22 ---------- Previous post was at 00:19 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Because of all the previous remainer narratives about how ‘no deal’ would be disastrous for us, the PM had to accept the deal that was available, because otherwise there were too many doubts in the minds of the public. He may have had the majority (just) but he needed to retain public trust.

The PM has already made clear there is agent out clause. We can give notice of termination if we cannot make it work. By that time, the public will probably agree.

---------- Post added at 00:18 ---------- Previous post was at 00:16 ----------



I guess morality and trustworthiness doesn’t come into it in your mind.

I hardly think you’re in a position to level criticisms regarding morality & trustworthiness as you would have the U.K. breach our legally binding obligations.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

He didn’t have to accept it at all, he clearly stated that no deal was better than a bad deal. He put that forward as part of his election manifesto and the tories were returned based on that..

As I said, a ‘no deal’ would have caused a crisis of confidence amongst the public.

Best to let the public see that the deal is not working in order to get that support.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

As I said, a ‘no deal’ would have caused a crisis of confidence amongst the public.

Best to let the public see that the deal is not working in order to get that support.

Why would it ? He campaigned on it, the public knew what no deal would entail. The tories were elected.

Doesn’t seem like a crisis of confidence to me, if anything he had the electorates backing to push it through.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I hardly think you’re in a position to level criticisms regarding morality & trustworthiness as you would have the U.K. breach our legally binding obligations.

Oh, my God, listen to yourself!

You have completely ignored the fact that the EU is deliberately interpreting tha agreements we have made in the most obstructive way.

If you are happy with that, fine. Clearly you are happy for the EU to walk all over us.

I’ve got news for you. We have elected a government that will not let that happen. And I dare say you will be squealing like a pig every step of the way as we extricate ourselves from this position.

---------- Post added at 00:30 ---------- Previous post was at 00:28 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Why would it ? He campaigned on it, the public knew what no deal would entail. The tories were elected.

Doesn’t seem like a crisis of confidence to me, if anything he had the electorates backing to push it through.

It was very clear, if you were concentrating very hard, that the public was anxious about a no-deal because of the scare tactics of the remainers.

You may think we’ve forgotten, but we have not.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Oh, my God, listen to yourself!

You have completely ignored the fact that the EU is deliberately interpreting tha agreements we have made in the most obstructive way.

If you are happy with that, fine. Clearly you are happy for the EU to walk all over us.

I’ve got news for you. We have elected a government that will not let that happen. And I dare say you will be squealing like a pig every step of the way as we extricate ourselves from this position.

They’re doing nothing outside of the scope of the treaty. So, unless the U.K. intends to break that treaty and btw the US has already reiterated in the past couple of days that should this cause issues with the NI peace agreement there will be no U.K. / US trade deal.

I’ll bet you a grand to the charity of your choice that says we won’t crash out of the treaty. Put your money where your mouth is ?

[Carth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

That would have been prior to the election. I’ll grant you there were still those decrying no deal afterwards but Boris had the numbers to force it through

The majority of people voted to leave, but that didn't stop lots of 'legal shenanigans' to prevent it though.
Forcing the 'no deal' would undoubtedly have led to further mischief from those who said yes but had their fingers crossed behind their backs

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Carth

The majority of people voted to leave, but that didn't stop lots of 'legal shenanigans' to prevent it though.
Forcing the 'no deal' would undoubtedly have led to further mischief from those who said yes but had their fingers crossed behind their backs

They couldn’t have done anything except perhaps slightly delay the process, he had the means to go no deal, he had the electorates mandate to go no deal. He didn’t

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

They couldn’t have done anything except perhaps slightly delay the process, he had the means to go no deal, he had the electorates mandate to go no deal. He didn’t

You’re not listening.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You’re not listening.

Oh, I am, I’m just not buying the supposed reasons.

He declared no deal a wonderful thing. He told the British public to prepare for it.

He bluffed, he failed

[Carth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Oh, I am, I’m just not buying the supposed reasons.

He declared no deal a wonderful thing. He told the British public to prepare for it.

He bluffed, he failed

I think - without checking back - that you certainly didn't want a 'no deal' Brexit . . . seems to me you got what you wanted

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

You have indeed, which begs the question, why are you so angry at the EU for the U.K. governments shortcomings/failures ?

Good question. I'm particularly angry at the EC, Macron and Varadkar.
The EU stood behind Varadkar so I'm angry with them too,

The anger is both historic and evolving:

1. The EU threatened the UK with 'consequences'; they're delivering on that. Nasty.

2. The French fisheries business in Jersey waters - how they demand the benefits of when the UK was in the EU. Hypocrisy.

3. The NI Protocol and the EU's intransigence over its application. I'm even angrier with Theresa May.

I could go on.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

M&S announced the closure of eleven stores in France, nothing to do with covid

Correct. It is due to EU interpretation pedantry.

The sandwich fiasco that seph refers to, nothing to do with covid

Correct. It is due to EU interpretation pedantry.

Reintroduction of roaming fees, nothing to do with covid

Correct, but we could legislate to prevent this from happening if all operators decided to go down that route.

Collapse in exports of shellfish, nothing to do with covid

Correct. It is due to EU intransigence and sheer obstinacy.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

They’re doing nothing outside of the scope of the treaty. So, unless the U.K. intends to break that treaty and btw the US has already reiterated in the past couple of days that should this cause issues with the NI peace agreement there will be no U.K. / US trade deal.

I’ll bet you a grand to the charity of your choice that says we won’t crash out of the treaty. Put your money where your mouth is ?

Dole day loan?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Dole day loan?

Is that really the best you can do Billy?

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

I think - without checking back - that you certainly didn't want a 'no deal' Brexit . . . seems to me you got what you wanted

Correct, I didn’t want Brexit at all. However, are you suggesting we shouldn’t question or query the governments performance?