UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

Originally Posted by Kushan

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



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".

Well then, my point still stands, there were no Tory MPs from 2017 Election that stood on a mantra of stopping Brexit, like you claimed there had been.

Originally Posted by Kushan

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

You have cleared nothing up, you posted a poor analogy and then got it wrong in spectacular fashion.

You would not be able to stop paying your credit card bill on the basis that you do not agree with the increase in APR.

WTF has this got anything in common with Irish Protocol?

Originally Posted by Kushan

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?

There you go again with the "If the EU has broken international law", they have!

They are cretins and you still support these morons is beyond me.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

It's the WTO who would insist upon a hard border. And which trading block would be most capable of resisting the WTO:
a) A 27-nation trading bloc with trade deals in place with all major trading blocs and countries in the World?
b) A country with a couple of trade deals in place which has recently admitted the bill being debated in Parliament right now breaks international law?

[nomadking]

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?

How does the bill change that? No plans for there to be any differences.

We're forced to accept food related items that don't meet our standards. Eg Many years ago we had different rules to France on UHT milk. We tried to stop French UHT milk coming into the UK. The EU stopped us. It may seem a small example, but an example it still is. There may have been others I'm not aware of.

The horse meat scandal originated in the EU.
Where else in the world does the EU insist on following their rules, simply because of a shared border?
Does anything stop the EU changing their rules and it not fitting UK rules?
The current outstanding issues cover an AWFUL LOT MORE than this, eg letters and parcels.

The fact the entire country is arguing about Brexit again is probably the best thing Boris Johnson wanted out of this.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

There you go again with the "If the EU has broken international law", they have!

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.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Mick

Well then, my point still stands, there were no Tory MPs from 2017 Election that stood on a mantra of stopping Brexit, like you claimed there had been.

Woah! Where did I claim this? Can you quote me please?

Originally Posted by Mick

You have cleared nothing up, you posted a poor analogy and then got it wrong in spectacular fashion.

You would not be able to stop paying your credit card bill on the basis that you do not agree with the increase in APR.

WTF has this got anything in common with Irish Protocol?

I love that this is such a sticking point. Legally binding is legally binding, be it a credit card or international treaty. If you decide 6 months down the line after signing it that you no longer like the terms, well...tough...you signed it. You can try renegotiating but you can't just break the law without consequence.

And that's exactly what's being discussed here, consequence.

Originally Posted by Mick

There you go again with the "If the EU has broken international law", they have!

They are cretins and you still support these morons is beyond me.

Can you link to an actual, legal source that shows where the EU has broken international law? I'm begging for a source now. Enlighten me.

Originally Posted by Damien

The fact the entire country is arguing about Brexit again is probably the best thing Boris Johnson wanted out of this.

Sadly I think you're right. Keeping us divided has worked well for him for the longest time. It doesn't help that there are people out there who feel he can do no wrong.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by nomadking

We're forced to accept food related items that don't meet our standards. Eg Many years ago we had different rules to France on UHT milk. We tried to stop French UHT milk coming into the UK. The EU stopped us. It may seem a small example, but an example it still is. There may have been others I'm not aware of.

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.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Kushan

It doesn't help that there are people out there who feel he can do no wrong.

If there's one think that Boris is still great at, it's this.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If there's one think that Boris is still great at, it's this.

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.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Kushan

<SNIP>




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.

[/URL]

<SNIP>

Kush,

I'm trying to show that Andrew cannot answer a pointed question about the EU putting the UK union at risk. He is a Remainer who cannot bring himself to admit the wrong doing of the EU.

If Andrew were to concede my point, it would make less credible his constant siding with the EU (which he'll deny) and his constant sniping at the British Government (which he wants to continue doing).

Originally Posted by Kushan

Woah! Where did I claim this? Can you quote me please?

I am not playing your stupid games, you posted earlier that MPs were elected after the referendum, and that they were allowed to be elected to stop brexit and this was manifestly ridiculous given many of them were elected to continue the democratic mandate to leave the EU, hence why I called them Remainiacs for going against what got them elected to their seat.

Originally Posted by Kushan

I love that this is such a sticking point. Legally binding is legally binding, be it a credit card or international treaty. If you decide 6 months down the line after signing it that you no longer like the terms, well...tough...you signed it. You can try renegotiating but you can't just break the law without consequence.

Well as I keep pointing out, which you are conveniently ignoring and generally being a complete troll, the EU breaks laws, so why can't we?

Several times you ignored this question!

Originally Posted by Kushan

Can you link to an actual, legal source that shows where the EU has broken international law? I'm begging for a source now. Enlighten me.

Beg all you want, they have broken rules/laws/international treaties fact, they are breaking one now by not acting in good faith which is a legal requirement, another fact you keep ignoring.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Kush,

I'm trying to show that Andrew cannot answer a pointed question about the EU putting the UK union at risk. He is a Remainer who cannot bring himself to admit the wrong doing of the EU.

If Andrew were to concede my point, it would make less credible his constant siding with the EU (which he'll deny) and his constant sniping at the British Government (which he wants to continue doing).

Boris couldn't answer pointed questions about anything. He hid in a fridge, remember?

I think you would be better off just letting it go. There are people on both sides who have dug their heels in and won't back down (I'm sure people would accuse me of the same) and you may as well talk to a brick wall in that case.

But in this specific debate, about the WA and the legalities and the government's attempt to subvert it, it almost doesn't matter what the EU has or hasn't done - what should matter is what is and isn't legal.

We left the EU. We left under an agreement that Boris promoted and pushed, that was scruitanised by our own MPs in our own parliament. It had all sorts of legal eyes on it (eventually) and any issues with it were raised as necesary. It was signed by our government.

The EU has it's flaws, but they're just the current in a long line of boogeymen that the likes of Boris throws up in front of you to rile you up and get you on their side. And it's working.

If nothing else, this should be a hint that whomever is in government now isn't doing a very good job of it, particularly if they have to resort to breaking the law.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mick

Well as I keep pointing out, which you are conveniently ignoring and generally being a complete troll, the EU breaks laws, so why can't we?

Several times you ignored this question!

Beg all you want, they have broken rules/laws/international treaties fact, they are breaking one now by not acting in good faith which is a legal requirement, another fact you keep ignoring.

Why can't you put us all out of our miseries and provide an authoritative link?

[OLD BOY]

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.

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.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Kush,

I'm trying to show that Andrew cannot answer a pointed question about the EU putting the UK union at risk. He is a Remainer who cannot bring himself to admit the wrong doing of the EU.

If Andrew were to concede my point, it would make less credible his constant siding with the EU (which he'll deny) and his constant sniping at the British Government (which he wants to continue doing).

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 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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

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