scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

One can only hope that come the 31st October we are out of the EU.

Hope? Boris promised it, so it's got to happen*. Would you be willing to bet your house on it, though?


* Very sorry, banned word in there. Oh, and again. That's completely unacceptable. Doh!

Careful, next thing on the to-do list is the reintroduction of traditional English punishments!
For offenses like yours, you'd risk being hung, drawn and quartered.
High treason for not believing in Brexit Britain.

Anyway... can't wait for Nov 1st, when Brexiteers discover that the same issues holding up ratification of the WA are simply turned into pre-conditions to any FTA with the EU: taking Britain out of Europe doesn't take Europe out of Britain.
Oh, that's right: WTO and all that stuff.
Let the exodus begin.

sabenapilot wrote:

Careful, next thing on the to-do list is the reintroduction of traditional English punishments!
For offenses like yours, you'd risk being hung, drawn and quartered.
High treason for not believing in Brexit Britain.

I'm not worried, because the clown that is Rees-Mogg can't follow his own guidelines!

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-27/jac ... -itv-news/

Jacob Rees-Mogg - single-handedly dragging the UK out of the EU and into the 1800s.

scbriml wrote:

I'm not worried, because the clown that is Rees-Mogg can't follow his own guidelines!

You just don't understand: Of course Rees-Mogg himself doesn't have to follow his own rules – those are just for the peasants!

(He's very obviously still not over being just a noveau-riche peasant himself! )

But the most telling is really the demand to use imperial measures again: It's all intended as nostalgic salve for old Tory and Leave voters, keeping them on board as long as possible, younger people be damned.

I'm not a fan of polls, especially on such low participant number but interesting none the less

https://www.nasdaq.com/article/boris-bo ... 0727-00006

LONDON, July 27 (Reuters) - Britain's Conservative Party has opened up a 10-point lead over the opposition Labour Party since Boris Johnson took over as prime minister, an opinion poll showed.
The Sunday Times newspaper said the "Boris bounce" had pushed support for Johnson's Conservatives to 31%, up six percentage points from the previous poll, while Labour was on 21%, up two points.
The newspaper said the poll by YouGov could fuel speculation that Johnson, who faces a Brexit deadlock in Britain's parliament, will call an early election.
The Liberal Democrats were down three points on 20% and the new Brexit Party, led by veteran eurosceptic Nigel Farage, was down four points on 13%, half its peak level in May.

YouGov questioned 1,697 adults on July 25 and 26.

A second poll showed a smaller increase in support for the Conservatives.
The poll by ComRes showed Johnson's party with 28%, up three points and only one percentage point ahead of Labour.
The ComRes poll, conducted for the Sunday Express newspaper, showed the Conservatives would fall further short of a majority in parliament than they are now.
While preferred as a leader to Labour's Jeremy Corbyn, most voters think Johnson will be a bad prime minister, ComRes said.
"As Boris Johnson begins his premiership we have seen an anticipated bump in Conservative support, generally at the expense of the Brexit Party," Chris Hopkins, head of politics at ComRes, said.
"However, while the public agree that he should be given the necessary time to deliver Brexit, a majority are sceptical as to how good he may be as prime minister."
If the poll figures were replicated at a national election, the Conservatives would be the largest party but would fall 48 seats short of a majority, ComRes said.
The poll was conducted for the Sunday Express newspaper and interviewed 2,029 British adults on July 24 and 25.

A101 wrote:

I'm not a fan of polls, especially on such low participant number but interesting none the less

It always intrigues me how they can reliably predict the result of a national election held under the FPTP system by means of a relatively small opinion poll?
Do they poll in each constituency? And how many people per constituency do they question then?

Anyway,

A101 wrote:

If the poll figures were replicated at a national election, the Conservatives would be the largest party but would fall 48 seats short of a majority, ComRes said.

Which is extremely worrying, as it is even worse than now!
Fragmentation continues and even accelerates in Westminster.
it's a given the next government would have to be a coalition government then.
Any estimates of seat numbers per party and thus the possible coalitions?

And it is one of the reasons why I think the UK needs to leave the EU. It needs first to clean inside its house, maybe a written constitution, a better electoral system and mostly open the ministers job to competent people not just to the narrow pool within the ones elected ....

Olddog wrote:

And it is one of the reasons why I think the UK needs to leave the EU. It needs first to clean inside its house, maybe a written constitution, a better electoral system and mostly open the ministers job to competent people not just to the narrow pool within the ones elected ....

I think the UK is slowly unraveling in front of our eyes and like most dying animals, it goes into full retreat and hiding first...

According to the Telegraph, the UK government is now planning on enforcing direct rule in Northern Ireland if the UK crashes out of the EU at the end of October.

Now that will go down well overthere...

And help calm the Scottish independence demands….

What are these guys doing???

Meanwhile, I've done some searching on the web and projections based on the latest opinion polls make the Tories the biggest party, but without likely coalition partner(s) large enough to gain a majority! Indeed, even the DUP and the BP combined may not yield them enough votes for a stable majority in Parliament!!!!
it seems only a monstruous Labour - SNP - LibDem coalition is the only outcome which is mathematically possible, unless you can imagine a Tory-Labour government of national unity, that is...

Has it not become obvious? Look at Boris Johnson´s fixation with old Rome or Rees-Mogg´s fetish for the UK in the 19th century, they want to return to the times of the British empire, when Britain was a global power looking down on those lesser states in Europe.
They do not want to work with Portugal or Greece to find an agreement in the EU, much less do they want to be overruled by a French-German led coalition when it comes to decision making. This is something like a religious crusade, with a promise of paradise but a very uncertain outcome and with a lot of suffering on the way.

Olddog wrote:

And it is one of the reasons why I think the UK needs to leave the EU. It needs first to clean inside its house, maybe a written constitution, a better electoral system and mostly open the ministers job to competent people not just to the narrow pool within the ones elected ....

That wish list might take ten years or more. But I agree, that will be quite an improvement over the current system, but it is up to the UK (probably minus Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the Brexitremist are prepared to pay that .price)

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

I think think it’s different strokes for different folks, I don’t think you or I will persuade each other or anyone to alter their own view points. The WA is just a rotten deal at its core. This paper gives an overveiew on the legalities on the WA, it’s not a Twitter account by a journalist but by accomplished professional group within their fields,

Martin Howe QC is a barrister in the fields of intellectual property and EU law:

Sir Richard Aikens PC is an arbitrator and Visiting Professor at King’s College London and Queen Mary University of London. He specializes in shipping, insurance, banking, international trade and arbitration., and

Thomas Grant is an international lawyer and Fellow of the Lauterpracht Centre for International Law in Cambridge and Senior Research Fellow at Wolfson College.

https://briefingsforbrexit.com/wp-conte ... -Grant.pdf

You can't be serious, I point you to a guy explaining why the Backstop is not desired by the EU side (it's a safety net, nobody wants to use a safety net, even less remain trapped insiste!).
And you come back with this junk??

It's ridiculous :

A ‘no deal’ exit from the EU means no Withdrawal Agreement under
Article 50; it does not mean leaving the EU with no deals of any kind unless
the EU refused to enter negotiations, despite the UK’s willingness to do so.

Really you pointed to a twitter account that showed no legal basis in fact on the withdrawal agreement. It’s not like I expect you to understand the legal implications within the WA, as I said I don’t think you or I will persuade each other or anyone to alter their own view points.

Sorry but I at least quoted WA previously, for example in post #2047 to demonstrate you were wrong with the PESCO, or in #1925 after your caricature of the backstop exit mechanism. But hey, feel free continue enjoying the spoon fed unicorn balls shaped in legal words from guys like this Martin Howe if you think it makes you understand something on this matter.
“This paper gives an overview on the legalities on the WA”, seriously, the thing wants an international arbitration for a bill incurred under EU law. It’s like requesting an international arbitration if you disagree the bill after a meal in the favorite restaurant in the city you live.
It is also interesting to note that in conclusion the only solution for borders is “temporary agreements on zero tariffs and on regulatory recognition”. Temporary for how long ? What’s happening after ? What about the Irish border ? ….

Anyway, I didn’t try to persuade you or whatever, just wanted you to catch the feeling from the EU side seeing UK poised with a backstop a) their Gov designed and b) is a huge concession from 27 member states. The UK-wide backstop secure tariff and quota free access to the SM with few string attached even before negotiations about future relationship begin.
EU conceded this generous UK-wide backstop and is now portrayed as evil EU who wants to trap the poor Britons in a offer not any other country was offered.
Truth is EU doesn’t want the backstop to be activated, just as it doesn’t want no deal, as simple as that. Even if you can demonstrate UK could be legally trapped in the backstop that doesn’t have much relevance because EU would want UK out of the backstop ASAP if it were to be activated.
What would EU seek in maintaining UK in the backstop against its will ( having a workable solution too, of course) anyway ? Wouldn’t this put the EU in an extremely bad light on the international scene ?

I’ve read some brexiters wanting “no deal” and sort out the border details during the transition period (can’t find the article right now to back that up, unfortunately). Leaving aside the nonsense, would it make the trick to extend the Transition Period to give confidence future relationship deal will be reached before backstop kicks in ? After all in the draft version of the WA the Transition Period ended in 20xx, so it must be rather flexible.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

ps - there is little doubt that the referendum would pass. NI population gets to stay in the UK, also as ROI citizens they have full access to the EU. They already are separated from the rest of the UK by a sea. IIRC they need to show a passport when entering the UK via air or sea. Their goods would need to remain per EU regs, and most things coming from the rest of the UK likely will be EU acceptable. I believe the EU is prepared to be generous in dealing with the exceptions - marmalade and the such.

Not true because of the Common Travel Area (CTA). Anyone travelling from Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland to Great Britain and vice versa do not need a passport. Same with anyone travelling to/from Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. However, it is up to the airline/ferry operator what form of ID is mandated. I know Ryanair say you need a passport if you fly with them between RoI and UK, but it would seem if you fly with them between anywhere in GB and BFS you're OK with any form of photo ID.

More reading here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Travel_Area

noviorbis77 wrote:

As for the Imperial measurement use, well that is just common sense. Most everyday measurements in the UK use the Imperial system.

Really? When I was at primary school in the 1990's (aged 4-11 for the benefit of those outside the UK) I was taught metric measurements such as measuring in centimetres and metres. The only imperial measurement I use on a daily basis is speed limits (simply because all the signs and speed limits are in mph), then less often clothes sizes such as when buying a pair of jeans or body weight when I decide to weigh myself or when specifying say a quarter pound burger or an 8oz steak. Granted I use pint measurements when buying a beer in a pub, but that's the standard measurement for a large or a small beer in most places and use of the word "pint" is ingrained in culture, plus I don't expect most bar staff to know what I'm after if I say "can I have 568ml of beer, please?". Everything else I use is predominantly metric. That's not me deliberately shunning imperialism: it's how I go about things on a daily basis and what I was brought up with.

The only place I can think of where I had to use imperial measurements more regularly is whenever I visit the USA.

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

I’m all for letting the NI people decide and let the chips fall where they may and that includes the Scottish.

An honourable position as it is entirely consequent throughout: sadly it is NOT the position of the British government.
it does not want to give the Scottish there second indyref, this time informed
it does not want to honour the result of the brexit referendum in NI in a dedicated way, despite the GFA making it clear the territory is not an eternal part of the UK by simple claim of sovereignty on it.

With respect to "indyref2" in Scotland, the only people really wanting this are the SNP/hardcore Scottish nationalists. Support for Scottish independence has dwindled since the referendum 5 years ago and that's reflected in a lot of opinion polls that have taken place on the subject since then. That's not to say it could change in the future, but at this time it seems to me it's not wanted by the majority. SNP support has also fallen in this time - they lost seats at the 2017 general election after gaining 56/59 Scottish seats in Parliament just two years before.

With Nothern Ireland, part of this was down to the decision at the time to make it a simple UK-wide majority instead of making Brexit conditional upon a UK-wide super-majority or all four nations voting for it.

olle wrote:

The problem is that if a majority of Catholics in NI push for NI to join ROI still the Protestant minority want to remain in uk.

Well yes, there are entrenched views on both sides which will never change. It goes to show that anyone advocating for a United Ireland need to get everyone from all communities on board, not just Catholics/republicans or sit and wait for demographics to change on the presumption they will have the same viewpoint as their ancestors. If you don't then there's a risk of violence returning.

olle wrote:

Normally the best ending is that let a part that want to leave leave for both parties. Example Slovakia contra Kosovo, Bosnia etc.

There is a mechanism in place for Northern Ireland if change is wanted by the majority. Remember though, the GFA calls for a poll to take place in Ireland as well as within Northern Ireland, but the GFA binds both the British and Irish governments to implement that choice. I am not going to speculate whether this will be the best ending as you put it.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

And it is peculiar that the Tories have simply not offered NI a referendum to accomplish this. But of course the simple reason is that DUP are bomb throwers and happy to have the GFA fail.

The DUP are obliged to comply with the GFA as much as the other parties in Northern Ireland. My beef is that they're not offering any practical solutions that satisfies both their raison d'etre (which is NI being part of the UK) and their desire to leave the EU.

A101 wrote:

YouGov questioned 1,697 adults on July 25 and 26.

A second poll showed a smaller increase in support for the Conservatives.

Word of warning: I had previously noticed that YouGov consistently puts Conservatives and pro-Brexit questions a few percentage points higher than any other pollster. So much so that it caused me to do a bit of digging and discover that YouGov was actually founded by Tories to perform polling for the Tory party! Their bias was strong enough for me to perceive in a "blind test", so all their data is slightly tainted in my opinion.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

A101 wrote:

YouGov questioned 1,697 adults on July 25 and 26.

A second poll showed a smaller increase in support for the Conservatives.

Word of warning: I had previously noticed that YouGov consistently puts Conservatives and pro-Brexit questions a few percentage points higher than any other pollster. So much so that it caused me to do a bit of digging and discover that YouGov was actually founded by Tories to perform polling for the Tory party! Their bias was strong enough for me to perceive in a "blind test", so all their data is slightly tainted in my opinion.

It is, however, not unheard of for a new PM to reciece a slight boost in the polls once they're in place. As I understand it, both Brown and May had one as well. And while the former should probably have called an early GE (before the financial crash really began to bite), the latter learned the hard way why it's not always a good idea.

Boris and his band of Brexitards are already having a significant impact with their Brexit "strategy" (aka suicide)...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49156403

The pound sank to a 28-month low against the dollar as Boris Johnson's government toughened its rhetoric on Brexit.

Sterling dipped 1.1% to $1.2242 and €1.1004 respectively.

But this is probably just more project fear.

seahawk wrote:

Has it not become obvious? Look at Boris Johnson´s fixation with old Rome or Rees-Mogg´s fetish for the UK in the 19th century, they want to return to the times of the British empire, when Britain was a global power looking down on those lesser states in Europe.
They do not want to work with Portugal or Greece to find an agreement in the EU, much less do they want to be overruled by a French-German led coalition when it comes to decision making. This is something like a religious crusade, with a promise of paradise but a very uncertain outcome and with a lot of suffering on the way.

Yes.... but..... they get the unicorns, pots of gold and streams with milk and honey in return!

marcelh wrote:

Yes.... but..... they get the unicorns, pots of gold and streams with milk and honey in return!

I was thinking that a good deal with Irish leprechauns could be useful for that ?

scbriml wrote:

Boris and his band of Brexitards are already having a significant impact with their Brexit "strategy" (aka suicide)...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49156403

The pound sank to a 28-month low against the dollar as Boris Johnson's government toughened its rhetoric on Brexit.

Sterling dipped 1.1% to $1.2242 and €1.1004 respectively.

But this is probably just more project fear.

More to come, Prime Minister Alexander - Boris - Johnson seems to be not willing to negotiate if the backstop is still on the table, so 31st of October it is. Good luck, the willing sensible part of the British population, we know we you are out there, but unfortunately, the Brexitremist have won. Here you can see them in action.

On a lighter note: LastWeekTonight

Like playing a game of chicken with a mountain. maybe it will move if you keep going at it at full speed.

CPH-R wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

A101 wrote:

YouGov questioned 1,697 adults on July 25 and 26.

A second poll showed a smaller increase in support for the Conservatives.

Word of warning: I had previously noticed that YouGov consistently puts Conservatives and pro-Brexit questions a few percentage points higher than any other pollster. So much so that it caused me to do a bit of digging and discover that YouGov was actually founded by Tories to perform polling for the Tory party! Their bias was strong enough for me to perceive in a "blind test", so all their data is slightly tainted in my opinion.

It is, however, not unheard of for a new PM to reciece a slight boost in the polls once they're in place. As I understand it, both Brown and May had one as well. And while the former should probably have called an early GE (before the financial crash really began to bite), the latter learned the hard way why it's not always a good idea.

My point was that YouGov puts them a few points up, while the other polls apparently show a much smaller boost. I would trust the other polls...

seahawk wrote:

Like playing a game of chicken with a mountain. maybe it will move if you keep going at it at full speed.

The utterly predictable, obvious and just plain badly-performed attempt to shift the blame on the EU is transparent and pathetic.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Sorry but I at least quoted WA previously, for example in post #2047 to demonstrate you were wrong with the PESCO

That PESCO you think I’m am wrong.......PESCO is built into the frame work of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy, and is mentioned in both the WA and PD was meant to begin in the transition period time frame of the WA. Do you really think once it has started in the transition period it would be dropped in the future relationship....come on who’s being naive

From the WA

PART FOUR TRANSITION

2. In the event that the Union and the United Kingdom reach an agreement governing their future relationship in the areas of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy which becomes applicable during the transition period, Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU and the acts adopted on the basis of those provisions shall cease to apply to the United Kingdom from the date of application of that agreement.

And the PD

104. The future relationship should benefit from research and industrial cooperation between the Parties' entities in specific European collaborative projects to facilitate interoperability and to promote joint effectiveness of Armed Forces. In this regard, while both Parties should preserve their respective strategic autonomy and freedom of action underpinned by their respective robust domestic defence industrial bases, the Parties agree to enable to the extent possible under the conditions of Union law:

a. the United Kingdom's collaboration in relevant existing and future projects of the European Defence Agency (EDA) through an Administrative Arrangement;
b. the participation of eligible United Kingdom entities in collaborative defence projects bringing together Union entities supported by the European Defence Fund (EDF); and
c. the United Kingdom's collaboration in projects in the framework of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), where invited to participate on an exceptional basis by the Council of the European Union in PESCO format.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Or in 1925 after your caricature of the backstop exit mechanism

All the EU has to show during arbitration at the ECJ that it acted in good faith and best endeavours under EU law. How you could say they are not complying with the provision as the analysis suggests is impossible.

Grizzly410 wrote:

But hey, feel free continue enjoying the spoon fed unicorn balls shaped in legal words from guys like this Martin Howe if you think it makes you understand something on this matter.

I don’t know about you, but I would take the analysis on the legality of the WA from someone who is a Queen's Counsel in the field of intellectual property and EU law over a Journalist and his Twitter account

Grizzly410 wrote:

This paper gives an overview on the legalities on the WA”, seriously

Well if you think you are more qualified, please list your experiences dealing with EU law at the CJEU, least I don’t pretend to know more than a QC

Grizzly410 wrote:

the thing[ ]wants an international arbitration for a bill incurred under EU law

The whole intent of the referenda and invoking Article 50 was that we would be leaving the European Union and become a third nation under the laws of the EU, I know no international trade agreement that willing let’s the other party let their court system become the arbitrator instead of an independent arbitrator. It’s like if the EU/USA concluded a free trade agreement and the EU let the US Supreme Court become the arbitrator, would you do it......

Grizzly410 wrote:

It is also interesting to note that in conclusion the only solution for borders is “temporary agreements on zero tariffs and on regulatory recognition”. Temporary for how long ? What’s happening after ? What about the Irish border ? ….

Really the conclusion is based on no deal exit and that trying to fix the WA is like polishing a turd, you might get it nice and shiny but it’s still a peice of shit. Once we are out of the EU then Negotiations can happen on a level playing field.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Anyway, I didn’t try to persuade you or whatever,

I understood what you where trying to do, but because of the complexity of the situation I think you need to rely on more than a twitter account view point.

Grizzly410 wrote:

The UK-wide backstop secure tariff and quota free access to the SM with few string attached even before negotiations about future relationship begin.

A few strings attached ........more like we were just fitted with a straight jacket and the key thrown away

Grizzly410 wrote:

Truth is EU doesn’t want the backstop to be activated, just as it doesn’t want no deal, as simple as that. Even if you can demonstrate UK could be legally trapped in the backstop that doesn’t have much relevance because EU would want UK out of the backstop ASAP if it were to be activated.

If you really believe that I know of a bridge in Sydney Australia I can sell you!

Grizzly410 wrote:

What would EU seek in maintaining UK in the backstop against its will ( having a workable solution too, of course) anyway ? Wouldn’t this put the EU in an extremely bad light on the international scene ?

I don’t think the perception worries the EU too much as they are getting a lot of bully boy press from the Swiss situation

Grizzly410 wrote:

Leaving aside the nonsense, would it make the trick to extend the Transition Period to give confidence future relationship deal will be reached before backstop kicks in ? After all in the draft version of the WA the Transition Period ended in 20xx, so it must be rather flexible.

In my honest opinion no I just think you are prolonging the uncertainty as either way it dosnt mean anything different from the EU perspective just means more procrastination from the EU for the backstop to be invoked, as I have said numerous times if it came down to a choice of either revoking A50 or accepting the WA I’d vote revoke every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But a choice of the WA or no deal it’s no deal for me even if revoke was on the card

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Leaving aside the nonsense, would it make the trick to extend the Transition Period to give confidence future relationship deal will be reached before backstop kicks in ? After all in the draft version of the WA the Transition Period ended in 20xx, so it must be rather flexible.

In my honest opinion no I just think you are prolonging the uncertainty as either way it dosnt mean anything different from the EU perspective just means more procrastination from the EU for the backstop to be invoked, as I have said numerous times if it came down to a choice of either revoking A50 or accepting the WA I’d vote revoke every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But a choice of the WA or no deal it’s no deal for me even if revoke was on the card

We know, you are the resident defender of the Brexitremist point of view. The kind of deal you want is not on the table, never has, never will. It will always be better on the inside, than the outside. But it is a choice. Your country is divided and it is indeed better for your country and the EU that you will be outside, even for a little while. Go and explore for your own, see if project fear is project fear or just a harsh reality, see if the UK remains the UK or that it will be halved, see if the troubles return because of hard Brexit, see if all the consequences that are known only a result of logical thinking, will become the harsh reality. It is not the job of the EU to protect the UK from itself. The EU has moved on, too much time is wasted on an unwilling negotiation partner.

Just pick one, with all the benefits and consequences attached to it. No cherry-picking, just one, those are your options, nothing more, nothing less.

In one of the comments, I see that uk going for no deal and then sort it out "during the transition period". I hope that Brexit uk understands that transition period is part of a deal.


No deal means that uk eu relations will be down to the bare bones for a period and new arrangements will be negotiated in that framework.

All this uk or tory games regarding the "divorce bill" and other obligations means that when uk goverment meet with eu27 all comments in the press comes back and stab them in the back.

Talking about eussr, using royal navy to attack fishingboats and paris (!?!) etc is not helpful.

By the way brexit uk show the truth of EU. It is a peace project.


Any time earlier in the history, this model of behavour from a national goverment would had created a total breakdown in relationships between uk and the continent normally leading to war.

Now thanks lord we have intelligent people leading most EU27 countries and we can lay back over the summer and look at this madness with a smile

This will be interesting

Dutchy wrote:

We know, you are the resident defender of the Brexitremist point of view. The kind of deal you want is not on the table, never has, never will.

And just what is the deal I have been advocating?

olle wrote:

Talking about eussr, using royal navy to attack fishingboats and paris (!?!) etc is not helpful.

Indeed. Fishing boats that are only fishing where they are because UK companies sold their quota's to other EU nations fishing fleets.

Which no other EU country does.

But oh yes it's the fault of the pesky EU.

Sigh.

Reinhardt wrote:

olle wrote:

Talking about eussr, using royal navy to attack fishingboats and paris (!?!) etc is not helpful.

Indeed. Fishing boats that are only fishing where they are because UK companies sold their quota's to other EU nations fishing fleets.

Which no other EU country does.

But oh yes it's the fault of the pesky EU.

Sigh.

And the funny thing is, the fishermen are against a no deal Brexit, simply because the British don't eat enough of the British caught fish, so they need an export marked, guess who? You are right, the EU27.

A101 wrote:

This will be interesting

Dutchy wrote:

We know, you are the resident defender of the Brexitremist point of view. The kind of deal you want is not on the table, never has, never will.

And just what is the deal I have been advocating?

Cherry-picking Brexit, but be my guest and tell us more about your kind of deal........

olle wrote:

By the way brexit uk show the truth of EU. It is a peace project.


Any time earlier in the history, this model of behavour from a national goverment would had created a total breakdown in relationships between uk and the continent normally leading to war.

Now thanks lord we have intelligent people leading most EU27 countries and we can lay back over the summer and look at this madness with a smile

Fundamentally yes, the EU was born out of the ashes of WWII and the desire to never have another war and they succeded, there hasn't been another war within the boundaries of the EU.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

This will be interesting

Dutchy wrote:

We know, you are the resident defender of the Brexitremist point of view. The kind of deal you want is not on the table, never has, never will.

And just what is the deal I have been advocating?

Cherry-picking Brexit, but be my guest and tell us more about your kind of deal........

Oh you mean what you think TM was trying to do, but anyway I haven’t actually presented a deal as I’m not in a position in government to do so, not sure what I’m cherry picking out of that graphic you posted as they do not apply to the UK when we leave the EU

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Sorry but I at least quoted WA previously, for example in post #2047 to demonstrate you were wrong with the PESCO

That PESCO you think I’m am wrong.......PESCO is built into the frame work of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security and Defence Policy, and is mentioned in both the WA and PD was meant to begin in the transition period time frame of the WA. Do you really think once it has started in the transition period it would be dropped in the future relationship....come on who’s being naive

UK is NOT a PESCO member, and only EU members can be PESCO members anyway. WA only provides UK to keep the option of third party participation, on invite and only if the terms offered suits.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... y/CBP-8149

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

But hey, feel free continue enjoying the spoon fed unicorn balls shaped in legal words from guys like this Martin Howe if you think it makes you understand something on this matter.

I don’t know about you, but I would take the analysis on the legality of the WA from someone who is a Queen's Counsel in the field of intellectual property and EU law over a Journalist and his Twitter account

I’m not taking his words for gospel, I just said he expresses the feeling we have this side of the Channel. By the way, I’d be happy to see you trusting what specialist have to say more often, not only when they are Brexiters.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

the thing[ ]wants an international arbitration for a bill incurred under EU law

The whole intent of the referenda and invoking Article 50 was that we would be leaving the European Union and become a third nation under the laws of the EU, I know no international trade agreement that willing let’s the other party let their court system become the arbitrator instead of an independent arbitrator. It’s like if the EU/USA concluded a free trade agreement and the EU let the US Supreme Court become the arbitrator, would you do it......

And the whole idea behind the FINANCIAL PROVISIONS is write down and set the debt and engagement of UK as a member and during the Transition period. Ie BEFORE becoming a third nation. ECJ is UK court system as much as all others members state until (if…) you become a third nation.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

It is also interesting to note that in conclusion the only solution for borders is “temporary agreements on zero tariffs and on regulatory recognition”. Temporary for how long ? What’s happening after ? What about the Irish border ? ….

Really the conclusion is based on no deal exit and that trying to fix the WA is like polishing a turd, you might get it nice and shiny but it’s still a peice of shit. Once we are out of the EU then Negotiations can happen on a level playing field.

Oh yes you are right the conclusion is to say that the WA is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad, but it also says “The temporary agreements on zero tariffs and on regulatory recognition which we propose are far simpler and much less wide ranging than the all-embracing ‘transition period’ in the WA but would achieve much the same effect”. Hence I’m wondering, Temporary for how long ? What’s happening after ? What about the Irish border ?

Just in case, the “level playing field” mentioned in the conclusion have nothing to do with “Negotiations can happen on a level playing field” which is an impossible concept. The simple size difference between UK and the others 27 members united makes already a big, big difference.

A101 wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

The UK-wide backstop secure tariff and quota free access to the SM with few string attached even before negotiations about future relationship begin.

A few strings attached ........more like we were just fitted with a straight jacket and the key thrown away

Grizzly410 wrote:

Truth is EU doesn’t want the backstop to be activated, just as it doesn’t want no deal, as simple as that. Even if you can demonstrate UK could be legally trapped in the backstop that doesn’t have much relevance because EU would want UK out of the backstop ASAP if it were to be activated.

If you really believe that I know of a bridge in Sydney Australia I can sell you!

You may find it’s too much, that doesn’t change the fact it’s a generous offer from EU pov. Something no other country was offered, and UK would have it even before any negotiation.
Thanks for your bridge, but I'd rather know what you think would be EU interest to trap UK in the backstop forever ?

Dutchy wrote:

Just pick one, with all the benefits and consequences attached to it. No cherry-picking, just one, those are your options, nothing more, nothing less.

Right now even if not expressed clearly I’d say they want an FTA (independent trade policy seems a must), compared to the current situation an FTA creates an awful lot of non-tariff barrier. All country tries to diminish trade barriers but UK want to go in the opposite direction with its biggest export market (without speaking the effect of the service Industry), I think everybody is fine with that even if somewhat bemused (to be fine doesn’t mean there is no issue to solve, the Irish border for exemple).
The graph represent very well the option and the famous red lines from Theresa May. Would be interesting if it could also show the border actual consequences and the ROI red line regarding the GFA.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

This will be interesting




And just what is the deal I have been advocating?

Cherry-picking Brexit, but be my guest and tell us more about your kind of deal........

Oh you mean what you think TM was trying to do, but anyway I haven’t actually presented a deal as I’m not in a position in government to do so, not sure what I’m cherry picking out of that graphic you posted as they do not apply to the UK when we leave the EU

That's easy, only leaving comments on anything and everything, but no commitment on anything what you actually want. You voted for Brexit, you voted with an idea what you actually wanted with this, right? Or am I wrong and was your vote based on nothing.

https://www.independent.ie/business/bre ... 57800.html

It could well be politicking in Ireland, but it looks like a small number of TD's in the second biggest party in the Dail - Fianna Fail - are attacking Varadkar over the backstop. Either way, division within Ireland over the issue plays into Johnson's hands.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Right now even if not expressed clearly I’d say they want an FTA (independent trade policy seems a must), compared to the current situation an FTA creates an awful lot of non-tariff barrier. All country tries to diminish trade barriers but UK want to go in the opposite direction with its biggest export market (without speaking the effect of the service Industry), I think everybody is fine with that even if somewhat bemused (to be fine doesn’t mean there is no issue to solve, the Irish border for exemple).
The graph represent very well the option and the famous red lines from Theresa May. Would be interesting if it could also show the border actual consequences and the ROI red line regarding the GFA.

It is indeed interesting which red lines, mr. Johnson will see fit to lift. If none, we are nowhere and that just leaves the Canada style agreement or a hard Brexit.

The Ireland/EU red line is a frictionless border between Northern Ireland and Ireland otherwise the GFA is void. And what that means has been spread out over these pages, numerous times: same rules on both sides of the border, plain and simple. No wizardry or wishful thinking has shown that it can be done otherwise.

Dutchy wrote:

olle wrote:

By the way brexit uk show the truth of EU. It is a peace project.


Any time earlier in the history, this model of behavour from a national goverment would had created a total breakdown in relationships between uk and the continent normally leading to war.

Now thanks lord we have intelligent people leading most EU27 countries and we can lay back over the summer and look at this madness with a smile

Fundamentally yes, the EU was born out of the ashes of WWII and the desire to never have another war and they succeded, there hasn't been another war within the boundaries of the EU.

You're comparing a country exercising its democratic right to depart a political and economic union with the kind of military excursions that led to, say, World War II? Where did you study history?

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

olle wrote:

By the way brexit uk show the truth of EU. It is a peace project.


Any time earlier in the history, this model of behavour from a national goverment would had created a total breakdown in relationships between uk and the continent normally leading to war.

Now thanks lord we have intelligent people leading most EU27 countries and we can lay back over the summer and look at this madness with a smile

Fundamentally yes, the EU was born out of the ashes of WWII and the desire to never have another war and they succeded, there hasn't been another war within the boundaries of the EU.

You're comparing a country exercising its democratic right to depart a political and economic union with the kind of military excursions that led to, say, World War II? Where did you study history?

Did you study reading at all? Complete and utter ridiculous question given what I said.

KLDC10 wrote:

You're comparing a country exercising its democratic right to depart a political and economic union with the kind of military excursions that led to, say, World War II? Where did you study history?

Democratic. Ha. Good laugh.

We're so far down the rabbit hole of non-democratic I'm suprised anyone in the UK know's what the word really means any more.

Dutchy wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Fundamentally yes, the EU was born out of the ashes of WWII and the desire to never have another war and they succeded, there hasn't been another war within the boundaries of the EU.

You're comparing a country exercising its democratic right to depart a political and economic union with the kind of military excursions that led to, say, World War II? Where did you study history?

Did you study reading at all? Complete and utter ridiculous question given what I said.

Question posed to 'olle', but your reasoning is just as specious. NATO has kept the peace in Europe, not the EU.

KLDC10 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

KLDC10 wrote:

You're comparing a country exercising its democratic right to depart a political and economic union with the kind of military excursions that led to, say, World War II? Where did you study history?

Did you study reading at all? Complete and utter ridiculous question given what I said.

Question posed to 'olle', but your reasoning is just as specious. NATO has kept the peace in Europe, not the EU.

Where exactly was NATO when Turkey invaded Cyprus? NATO may or may not have kept the USSR from doing something stupid, but as peace keeper in western Europe they have quite clearly failed.

Best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

It is indeed interesting which red lines, mr. Johnson will see fit to lift. If none, we are nowhere and that just leaves the Canada style agreement or a hard Brexit

Is that true, though? I think the UK is fine with a Canada style agreement but that agreement is not on offer until the UK signs the WA. It is the WA that is forcing the UK into a hard Brexit, not their famous red lines.

[quote="AeroVega"]

I think you missed several years/steps for that brexit saga

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Cherry-picking Brexit, but be my guest and tell us more about your kind of deal........

That's easy, only leaving comments on anything and everything, but no commitment on anything what you actually want. You voted for Brexit, you voted with an idea what you actually wanted with this, right? Or am I wrong and was your vote based on nothing.

I voted to l leave the EU, which means just that leave the EU out of the CU/SM, ie become a third nation. I knew what that meant and I have been on that bandwagon for some time as you actually know

Dutchy wrote:

The Ireland/EU red line is a frictionless border between Northern Ireland and Ireland otherwise the GFA is void. And what that means has been spread out over these pages, numerous times: same rules on both sides of the border, plain and simple. No wizardry or wishful thinking has shown that it can be done otherwise.

And you know that the GFA actually does not say that it has to be frictionless for trade as it’s not a trade agreement, it is the government on both side would actually like to keep it that way

And you perfectly knows what an external border needs to be under wto rules. Stop going back to square one every times you are cornered.

Grizzly410 wrote:

but I'd rather know what you think would be EU interest to trap UK in the backstop forever ?

In a nut shell it basically comes to financial and trade protection, by keeping the UK inside the EU it puts a barrier in to protect its operating budget whereas other member nations do not have to increase there membership to pay for the loss of UK contributions. But more importantly it locks out trade competition to protect its trade surplus with no increase in tariffs, if the UK has its own independent trade policy that means more competition for EU products by either having to reducing the cost of said product or absorb the extra tariffs for the product to be competitive in the UK market, most likely scenario is the EU products loses market share

Grizzly410 wrote:

UK is NOT a PESCO member, and only EU members can be PESCO members anyway. WA only provides UK to keep the option of third party participation, on invite and only if the terms offered suits.

As I pointed out under TM vision of leaving with a BRINO that was going to happen in the transition phase of the WA and locked in, its hardly leaving the EU would you agree?

Grizzly410 wrote:

I’m not taking his words for gospel, I just said he expresses the feeling we have this side of the Channel. By the way, I’d be happy to see you trusting what specialist have to say more often, not only when they are Brexiters.

Well if you can find an analysis by a pro remain Queen's Counsel who specialises in EU law I would be happy to read it.

Grizzly410 wrote:

And the whole idea behind the FINANCIAL PROVISIONS is write down and set the debt and engagement of UK as a member and during the Transition period. Ie BEFORE becoming a third nation. ECJ is UK court system as much as all others members state until (if…) you become a third nation.

The overall objective of Article 50 is to create the foundations of an orderly exist from the EU, the actual transition period is not an extension of A50 but a leeway so business have time to adjust to the new operating norm's. The WA is only meant to operated for two years unless an extension is granted as it is hoped that both entities have sorted the future relationship in that time frame, the actual WA is not meant to run in perpetuity, once the backstop provisions have been enacted the transition time frame has ended then its is acceptable for an independent arbitrator to act independently for disputes after all it is recognised as an international agreement as the disagreement is over the Irish border provisions not the divorce bill or future agreement,

Olddog wrote:

And you perfectly knows what an external border needs to be under wto rules. Stop going back to square one every times you are cornered.

No,and I have shown you provisions within WTO rules that can be used for a different operating conditions at the border, so no I have not been cornered as you put it you choose to ignore it

You have shown nothing. None in the world is falling for the fairy tale story that BoJo and his hard right "war cabinet" is trying to sell. You want a hard brexit and blame the EU for it? Just do it, only some village idiots could fall for that.


Your provisions have a little problem, it needs that the EU to agree for theses as the UK was so nice.....

Olddog wrote:

You have shown nothing. None in the world is falling for the fairy tale story that BoJo and his hard right "war cabinet" is trying to sell. You want a hard brexit and blame the EU for it? Just do it, only some village idiots could fall for that.


Your provisions have a little problem, it needs that the EU to agree for theses as the UK was so nice.....

Actually no we don't, if it happens take us to the Hague you have nothing to lose right?

Oh and the only one I blame for the current mess is TM a remainer at heart in charge of something she disagrees with.

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

You have shown nothing. None in the world is falling for the fairy tale story that BoJo and his hard right "war cabinet" is trying to sell. You want a hard brexit and blame the EU for it? Just do it, only some village idiots could fall for that.


Your provisions have a little problem, it needs that the EU to agree for theses as the UK was so nice.....

Actually no we don't, if it happens take us to the Hague you have nothing to lose right?

Oh and the only one I blame for the current mess is TM a remainer at heart in charge of something she disagrees with.

Many politicians disagree with Brexit, because they want to do good with their term in office. But luckily for you, you have an opportunist as Prime Minister, not a Brexiteer at heart.

It is not the way it works. If the Eu refuse to play ball, and it will, the UK can't impose a deal and it is the UK that needs to find a court to litigate. Good luck with that I know you are on a 50 years project to see progress but still....