Why this guy, repeating the same message proved wrong for the last 4 years at least, can still be interviewed like a respectable source ???

The nickname in the German car industry for us is treasure island . . . we are a highly profitable, very important market.

That's not even funny anymore.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 0f971febbc

Is this from the same David Frost which leads the UK negotiation team?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/0 ... reat-trad/

At least he's aware this is important stuff :

First, be realistic about how to negotiate Brexit. It will be our most complex negotiation ever. We can’t afford to get it wrong. Whole industries could be destroyed if we do so.

There is a solution. It is to go for Norway status for now[... ]

How times changes. Now it's doable in less than 10 months, paperwork included ? Can't wait mid-june.

As a former trade negotiator, I don’t believe we can agree, ratify, and implement a Canada or Swiss-style FTA in two years. It is just too complex.

seahawk wrote:

Depends on your point of view. One can argue that the US created a strong partner or that the US created a strong opponent with the money. The same is true for the UK. While the other Eu countries became a market for the service industries, they also became a strong competitor for the manufacturing industries. So seen from the UK the advantage in economic strength and quality of life over Spain or Poland has eroded over time and if one is honest the UK looks worse than those countries in many places. So not only would the UK have been able to spent more money at home, the money would also not have been used to create competitors - a win win for the UK.

What, exactly, is the point of maintaining an advantage in economic strength and quality of life over another country? Wouldn’t you want more countries to be rich because: more markets + less economic migration?

It’s with pointing out that the UK spends more on foreign aid than on the EU every year. What do you think that’s aimed at? Reducing education and competition?

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Nope. Just another case of using a term without understanding what it means. Seems to be a trend with Brexiteers.

Singapore is not a vassal state of ASEAN.

Egypt is not a vassal state of the African Union.

Brazil is not a vassal state of MERCOSUR.

The UK is not a vassal state of NATO.

Germany and France and Austria and others are not vassal states. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise.

When you compare the EU to all the other bodies listed it is only the EU that can make laws and has a supreme judicial system in which it affect member nations.

For instance the EU has a Parliament and Asean does not whilst.

Whilst the African Union has a Parliament (Pan-African Parliament) it is advisory only it cannot make binding regulations,

MERCOSUR has a Parliament known as Parlasur also cannot make any binding laws,

None of the above have have primacy over national law of independent nations unlike the EU, and its only the European Union that has the ECJ which has fairly broad powers in many aspects of national and local laws even down to the mundane of perhaps needing accident insurance whilst riding a lawn mover on private property.

As for NATO you really want to compare a defence treaty to supranational institutional instrument which uses its power to form laws, treaties etc with non member’s, good grief

As to Germany and France and Austria, yep they certainly are as well as they are also under yoke of supremacy of the EU over them. The only advantage that Germany/France have is now they are only two that are very influential within the EU

ElPistolero wrote:

The whole vassal state thing, like the EU empire thing, suggests a level of tone-deafness not heard since Baghdad Bob grace our TVs.

Go see Guy he will set you straight on the “Empire” thing

ElPistolero wrote:

This EU “empire” hasn’t done anything remotely as dehumanizing and racist to the UK as the UK has done to the non-white regions of the world.

Ah the good ship lollipop that the EU tries to espouse, in which you fail to recognise the colonial history of other members of the union besides the UK before the EU came into existence

Seems my post got removed, which was probably fair.

Anyway, let’s put it this way: it is impossible, by definition, to be a vassal state of an organization founded by voluntary association through a treaty. As Brexit has proven, any state can voluntarily join or leave the EU. Find me a single vassal state in history that could voluntary opt out of its vassal-feudal lord relationship.

Like I said, the vassalage rhetoric is factually incorrect.

BTW, just saw your post on NATO. Bit puzzled by it to be honest. Like CANZUK+US it fundamentally misreads who the key actor is. The success of that alliance in achieving its objective (whatever you think that is) is not predicated on UK membership. It never was.

Brexit just creates an odd situation where the UK finds itself in an alliance with countries some Brits apparently look down on. Doesn’t sound like a recipe for success.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Why this guy, repeating the same message proved wrong for the last 4 years at least, can still be interviewed like a respectable source ???

The nickname in the German car industry for us is treasure island . . . we are a highly profitable, very important market.

That's not even funny anymore.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 0f971febbc

Quite unclear what you're referring to with that article behind the FT paywall.

Klaus wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Why this guy, repeating the same message proved wrong for the last 4 years at least, can still be interviewed like a respectable source ???

The nickname in the German car industry for us is treasure island . . . we are a highly profitable, very important market.

That's not even funny anymore.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 0f971febbc

Quite unclear what you're referring to with that article behind the FT paywall.

Thats David Davis again saying out loud the EU will cut us a good deal under pressure from German car makers.

Like it's 2016 or something.

ElPistolero wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Depends on your point of view. One can argue that the US created a strong partner or that the US created a strong opponent with the money. The same is true for the UK. While the other Eu countries became a market for the service industries, they also became a strong competitor for the manufacturing industries. So seen from the UK the advantage in economic strength and quality of life over Spain or Poland has eroded over time and if one is honest the UK looks worse than those countries in many places. So not only would the UK have been able to spent more money at home, the money would also not have been used to create competitors - a win win for the UK.

What, exactly, is the point of maintaining an advantage in economic strength and quality of life over another country? Wouldn’t you want more countries to be rich because: more markets + less economic migration?

It’s with pointing out that the UK spends more on foreign aid than on the EU every year. What do you think that’s aimed at? Reducing education and competition?

Their whole empire was based on the idea of a closed economy, with the UK getting the raw materials and selling the products to the colonies.

JJJ wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Why this guy, repeating the same message proved wrong for the last 4 years at least, can still be interviewed like a respectable source ???



That's not even funny anymore.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 0f971febbc

Quite unclear what you're referring to with that article behind the FT paywall.

Thats David Davis again saying out loud the EU will cut us a good deal under pressure from German car makers.

Like it's 2016 or something.

If the past three and a half years have learnt us anything, it's that the UK has massively overestimated its own bargaining power and that when push comes to shove, ALL stakeholders in the EU will put preserving the EU's unity and the SM above cutting a deal with the UK which would see it undermine that all important SM.

I'm not sure DD still actually believes what he says today, but he sure once did: I'm increasingly starting to believe that a whole lot of Brexiteers are slowly waking up to the reality that 'they didn't hold all the cards' after all, that "the EU is not going to let us have the deal of our own choice" and that "its the easiers trade deal in history because we strart from a position of full alignment", het alone that there will in the end be "frictionless trade".

Quite a few of them must surely feel complete fools by now when looking at where the UK is heading, compared to what they genuinely believed would be the landing zone for the Brexit they were campaining for in 2016? Not least the current British chief negotiator, David Frost, who is known to be a long standing Brexiteer, yet who saw some sort of a Norway situation as the only way the British economy could be saved from a massive recession and a permanent handicap.

par13del wrote:

So essentially if the UK takes over the fishing in their waters which at present is less than 50%, a huge section now becomes available to new players if the UK government does not let the existing incumbents increase their share.

Want to bet most of those quotas will wnd up in the same hands as most of the rest?

On the other hand, if the EU refuses to buy if they are not caught by EU ships using EU methods, an export market is created for frozen fish.

That market already exists. Even "fresh" fish offen comes with an Asterix "previously frozen".

I find it interesting that the existing quotas are done scientifically but allocated based on history....what...
As for the requirement that the new negotiated quotas are permanent, is that another way of rendering the scientific mantra moot?

It is sort of both. Quotas are slowly reduced because of science, but allocated historically because people invested money to harvest their quotas and might get mighty mad if that was for nothing.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

It is sort of both. Quotas are slowly reduced because of science, but allocated historically because people invested money to harvest their quotas and might get mighty mad if that was for nothing.

Still wondering what will happen to the quota's sold by UK fishers to EU fishers. Will they vanish and will the UK government have to pay for those as well? It is not the fault of the EU fishers to have bought those.

par13del wrote:

So essentially if the UK takes over the fishing in their waters which at present is less than 50%, a huge section now becomes available to new players if the UK government does not let the existing incumbents increase their share.

On the other hand, if the EU refuses to buy if they are not caught by EU ships using EU methods, an export market is created for frozen fish. A side industry of technicians to maintain freezers etc will also be created, fish stocks will grow as the UK will not have the resources to meet the existing quotas. Not being under the EU umbrella will mean that to survive the UK will need every industry it can create and or maintain.
Environmentalist should support the stocks going to a more sustainable basis.

I find it interesting that the existing quotas are done scientifically but allocated based on history....what...
As for the requirement that the new negotiated quotas are permanent, is that another way of rendering the scientific mantra moot?

Markets for frozen fish is less valuable and brittish industry will compete on the EU market with the rest of the world. This means that brittish fish industry probably will die without access to EU markets while UK currently do not eat it anyway and like other fishes.

Very nice if you are a fish

Dutchy wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

It is sort of both. Quotas are slowly reduced because of science, but allocated historically because people invested money to harvest their quotas and might get mighty mad if that was for nothing.

Still wondering what will happen to the quota's sold by UK fishers to EU fishers. Will they vanish and will the UK government have to pay for those as well? It is not the fault of the EU fishers to have bought those.

Easy money. Move the entities holding the quotas to Slovenia, Crotia, Bulgaria, Romania or any other country the UK has a BIT with and take the money without going fishing.

best regards
Thomas

par13del wrote:

So essentially if the UK takes over the fishing in their waters which at present is less than 50%, a huge section now becomes available to new players if the UK government does not let the existing incumbents increase their share.

That would undoubtedly be true: so far, so good…
at least: if you genuinely have faith in the British government putting the interest of ordinary fishermen above that of large incumbent companies?

par13del wrote:

If the EU refuses to buy if they are not caught by EU ships using EU methods, an export market is created for frozen fish.

The EU will not refuse to buy British fish like you say, it will simply be all but impossible to export it in large quantities because of the fact administrative custom formalities and physical delays at exporting the fresh fish from British ports will render it all but impossible to deliver it on time to the continent as fresh fish.... as rotten fish, yes but I doubt there's much demand for that?
https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/fi ... ish_en.pdf

Frozen fish could be exported to the EU indeed (if it matches EU food and sanitary standards), but it will be subject to significant import taxes up to 24%, making British Northsea fish a lot more expensive than the indentical French, Belgian, Dutch German or Danish Northsea fish…
https://www.seafish.org/media/Tariffs_o ... the_EU.pdf

Not sure there's going to be a lot of demand for British fish, especially not for frozen fish, which is perceived to be off less value than fresh fish.

On top of that, British frozen fish would then be competing on the EU market against frozen fish imports from other nations in the world which are most often capable of delivering frozen fish at lower prices than the British fisherman can, especially as some of that fish comes from counties which do have a trade agreement with the EU in place and can thus benefit from lower/no import duties on their frozen fish shipments….

par13del wrote:

A side industry of technicians to maintain freezers etc will also be created..

As said above, you can create this industry, but you can't create a market for it.
British frozen fish will have to come at uncompetively high prices on the all importnat EU market...
Unless the Brits themselves start to eat fish from morning till evening, you can pretty much forget about the above scenario.

So these 350 million a week are finding new owners.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/payments ... or-farmers

Ok maybe not. I wonder about those farmers who believed the UK would make up for the loss of subsidies.

The Brexit dividend is something which exist in the minds of brexiteers only: for every pound spent on the EU, roughly 5 pounds were made/saved in the UK.

Gone are those days.
Some feel it's the price they are willing to pay to get a blue passport (made in Poland), others were made to believe the above simply wasn't true or at worst they'd get that single pound saved spent on them...

Probem is BoJo promissed it to pretty much everybody who started wondering about what would happen to him personally upon Brexit, and soon they will all come to claim their money from him: will be interesting to see their reactions when being sent away empty handed.

Things are only just starting...

Klaus wrote:

Grizzly410 wrote:

Why this guy, repeating the same message proved wrong for the last 4 years at least, can still be interviewed like a respectable source ???

The nickname in the German car industry for us is treasure island . . . we are a highly profitable, very important market.

That's not even funny anymore.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com ... 0f971febbc

Quite unclear what you're referring to with that article behind the FT paywall.

Oh sorry, can't understand, when looking for "David Davis FT interview" in google it's readable but once pasting the direction it's not anymore...

par13del wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

The EU will not refuse to buy British fish like you say, it will simply be all but impossible to export it in large quantities because of the fact administrative custom formalities and

Ok, I guess I need to be more specific when debating points, as everyone is either EU or UK focused.
When I said export frozen fish I was not talking about exporting to the EU, because it is frozen, the option exist to export to countries much further away than the EU.

No problem, there's nothing wrong with your question, it's just that I interpreted as being UK-EU focussed.

But let's answer your question then.

Exactly which "countries much further away" you are going to sell that fish to then?

The UK could have been selling its frozen fish further overseas for decades if it were such a valuable business, you know?
There's nothing in the EU rules preventing the UK from doing that today and in fact it would have been easier to do so in the past than it will soon become once the transition period if over, given that as EU exports pre-Brexit frozen fish would fall under one of the 70+ FTAs the EU has with many countries around the world, whereas as post-Brexit frozen fish it will fall under WTO tariffs no matter what. Indeed: those import duties I was talking about earlier on in relation to EU import (up to 24%), are also going to apply to all frozen fish shipments to non-EU countries, because they are not some EU invention to keep foreign fish out of Europe, they are WTO tariffs applied globally and by all, unless waivered by FTA (or other).

Remember that in my previous post I was talking about exports to the EU, but since the UK has ZERO FTA with anybody in the world, what goes for export to the EU post Brexit, also goes for export to any other country in the world ,as the EU isn't particularly harsh or punishing towards Britain at all (contrary to what you may read): the EU is simply dealing with the UK as as a third country now ,and the full consequences of that are slowly starting to be noticed already...

The only difference between exports to the EU and exports to other countries around the globe is that the transportation costs are likely going to be even bigger to wherever they may be than it is to ship them just accros the channel to France, Belgium or The Netherlands, so exactly who'd be interested to buy British frozen Northsea fish is say South America remains a mistery to me, especially knowing that IF there's such a local demand, they could also buy frozen Northsea fish from the EU then, which would have the added benefit of being up to 24% cheaper than the British competitor because contrary to the UK, the EU does have a FTA with Mercosur for instance...

Let's put it simple: frozen fish is an inferior product to fresh fish, so price becomes key in selling this product.
The fact those new markets you talk about are located half accross the globe makes it very difficult to go up against local fresh and often cheaper fish AND if you could because of quality of taste, remember that in almost all cases you'd be up against identical frozen fish from the same waters (but EU this time) which could be imported at much lower or even at no duties at all, making the business case for frozen Briitsh fish as good as non-existing.

UK need to get its governance up to better performance. In the first time for 100 years life expectancy actually going down.

Except USA is there any 1st world country with similar record?

https://www.independent.co.uk/independe ... 57466.html

A majority of the ppulation in NI would today vote to join ROI


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12465 ... c.outbrain

olle wrote:

A majority of the ppulation in NI would today vote to join ROI


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12465 ... c.outbrain

You think those "democrats" in London will allow them a vote to leave?

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

You think those "democrats" in London will allow them a vote to leave?

You misunderstand: It's only "democracy" when a majority in England tells everybody else to shut up and do as they're told!

Charles blubbered to his mummy: "you didn't leave me much!"

You may want to keep in mind that the EU is perfectly aware that the fishermen are just a distraction and what the UK wants en NEED is financial services access.
Things will go slowly until the EU can check if the UK really implement the NI protocol.
If around july 1st the NI protocol is not implemented, the CFP will be the least of its worries.
. .

par13del wrote:

olle wrote:

A majority of the ppulation in NI would today vote to join ROI


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12465 ... c.outbrain

I don't think anyone is concerned about the majority, it is the activist minority that people worry about.
It has been known for a number of years that the Catholics would ultimately be the majority in NI.

Too true, but on the other hand it would it would have made easier to negotiate the WA with no weaponizing the GFA if the border poll had taken place before the EU referenda either way which ever the result.

Olddog wrote:

You may want to keep in mind that the EU is perfectly aware that the fishermen are just a distraction and what the UK wants en NEED is financial services access.
Things will go slowly until the EU can check if the UK really implement the NI protocol.
If around july 1st the NI protocol is not implemented, the CFP will be the least of its worries.
. .

That doesn't need to start happening until 1st January

Klaus wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You think those "democrats" in London will allow them a vote to leave?

You misunderstand: It's only "democracy" when a majority in England tells everybody else to shut up and do as they're told!

The UK is one nation.

England and Wales voted leave.

Other parts of the nation, Scotland and Northern Ireland did not.

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

You may want to keep in mind that the EU is perfectly aware that the fishermen are just a distraction and what the UK wants en NEED is financial services access.
Things will go slowly until the EU can check if the UK really implement the NI protocol.
If around july 1st the NI protocol is not implemented, the CFP will be the least of its worries.
. .

That doesn't need to start happening until 1st January

I think that around July 1st it will be known if the UK will implement the customs controls as agreed.

Olddog wrote:

You may want to keep in mind that the EU is perfectly aware that the fishermen are just a distraction and what the UK wants en NEED is financial services access.

However, the UK knows it will not get the thing it wants. The only thing the EU can do is make life for the UK firms more problematic (forbidding to do business with EU clients) or decide to withdraw regulatory equivalence which would mean that UK (government) bonds become almost useless for Euro financial institutions as their regulatory liquidity value will drop to almost 0% (for the record, I'm talking about regulatory liquidity, not the actual liquidity of bonds). However, I doubt the EU will want to do that before it knows what the impact on its financial institutions is.

tommy1808 wrote:

olle wrote:

A majority of the ppulation in NI would today vote to join ROI


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12465 ... c.outbrain

You think those "democrats" in London will allow them a vote to leave?

best regards
Thomas

That same democratic institution also gave Norther Ireland under the Anglo-Irish treaty the right to choose whether to align with the Irish Free State or not in 1921

Remember as part of the GFA;

the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.

Its actually easy for the Northern Ireland to get the attention of the Secretary of State to call a border poll, start a petition if the online opinion polls are accurate it should be easy to meet the requirements to start a petition get the required number and it will be debated in Parliament.

I did a correlation a while ago for petitions on the previous thread from memory with all the different petitions related to a border poll over the last few years it came out at approx. 5000, here are a couple of samples with the two most recent I could find;

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should call a Border Poll on Irish unity: 428 signatures(Date closed 5 September 2019)
Call a Border Poll on Irish unity; 446 signatures (Date closed 22 November 2018)
Call a Border Poll in Northern Ireland if there is a No Deal Brexit;264 signatures (Date closed 23 October 2019)

Now compare that to the abortion Law debate in NI;
Stop the passing of the Abortion Law in Northern Ireland; 16,032 signatures
We demand a referendum on Abortion Law in Northern Ireland; 10,300 signatures

Now what about something that really effects Northern Irelanders;
Be fair to Bees, Plan Bee –Help farmers safeguard our valuable Nature!; 6,045 signatures

From the above it seems the people of Northern Ireland have other interest over and above if a border poll should happen

ElPistolero wrote:

Seems my post got removed, which was probably fair.

And it also appears my response to it has also been removed

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, let’s put it this way: it is impossible, by definition, to be a vassal state of an organization founded by voluntary association through a treaty. As Brexit has proven, any state can voluntarily join or leave the EU. Find me a single vassal state in history that could voluntary opt out of its vassal-feudal lord relationship.

Like I said, the vassalage rhetoric is factually incorrect.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree in regards to vassalage

ElPistolero wrote:

BTW, just saw your post on NATO. Bit puzzled by it to be honest. Like CANZUK+US it fundamentally misreads who the key actor is. The success of that alliance in achieving its objective (whatever you think that is) is not predicated on UK membership. It never was.

Brexit just creates an odd situation where the UK finds itself in an alliance with countries some Brits apparently look down on. Doesn’t sound like a recipe for success.

Yeah I stuffed up the post to whom I was replying to, but it was a meant to be a reply to Sabenapilot in post #1177 in which he posted this in one of my replies to you;

But I don't really see hoe Article 5 gives away sovereignty when the sovereign nation has agreed to come to the aid of another member of NATO, which is very different from an intrusive political body of the EU

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

None of the above have have primacy over national law of independent nations unlike the EU, and its only the European Union that has the ECJ which has fairly broad powers in many aspects of national and local laws even down to the mundane of perhaps needing accident insurance whilst riding a lawn mover on private property.

As for NATO you really want to compare a defence treaty to supranational institutional instrument which uses its power to form laws, treaties etc with non member’s, good grief

Actually, why wouldn't you?

Look, there's no doubt the European Union is by far the most important and influential supranational organisation in the field of economic collaboration, despite not being the only such kind of an organistation out there and the reason for that is to be found in it's uniquely deep integration, which makes outsiders consider at it as one -rather than 27 diffferent- counter party, similar to how NATO is (designed to be) perceived as a monotithic defence bloc too by treaty: notably article 5 effectively does that, but it also means members have given up on some very important element of their national sovereignty too: i.e. that of opting to stay neutral in a military conflict in which they are no party!
I'd say the commitment to ultimately go to war over something which is in essence none of our business is a bit more far reaching than the obligation to take accident insurance for a lawn mower, even though I agree that in our day-to-day lives we luckily come accros the later more often, than we ever will with the former, but still... the transfer of this ultimate element of a nation's independent sovereignty has happened and is still very much out there, ready to be used.

To translate it to today: if Putin were to be willing to put his hand on a part of the Baltic states for instance, BoJo could not do what Chamberlain did in Munich and fly to Moscow to sign them away 'to respect the desire of the British people never to go to war again'. He'd be in Brussels the same day to put his signature under a very strong NATO statement laying down an ultimatum to Putin: I'd say that's a MASSIVE transfer in sovereign decision making of any government of a NATO country to the supranational structure of NATO as forseen by its treaty, don't you agree?

Shouldn't you be pulling out of NATO too then (there's an article to do so under the NATO treaty, and it reads remarkably similar to article 50 of the TEU, btw), to regain full military sovereignty, so you can take back control over military operations currently conducted on your behalf too, can stop the spending on unelected bureaucrats sitting in HQs near Brussels and to happily diverge on all common military production, training and operating standards now solely set by NATO so the UK's military and its industry could finally work together with emerging military powers like for instance the PRC too and become 'Global Britain'????
According to some in the Pentagon, this would be in line with Trump's thinking too (on some days at least...), so copy-pasting this 'strategy' would definitely help the UK in being fasttracked to become the 51st US State, an ambition that seems to be gaining mommentum in the minds of some, not at least the US born British PM.

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, let’s put it this way: it is impossible, by definition, to be a vassal state of an organization founded by voluntary association through a treaty. As Brexit has proven, any state can voluntarily join or leave the EU. Find me a single vassal state in history that could voluntary opt out of its vassal-feudal lord relationship.

Like I said, the vassalage rhetoric is factually incorrect.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree in regards to vassalage

Why would he do that? He's correct and as usual, you're quite wrong.

The UK voluntarily entered the transition period.
The UK still maintains many opt outs on EU rulings and is utterly exempt from certain, specified others.
The UK can at anytime, unilaterally end the transition period.
A far cry from the definition of vassalage.

Incidentally, your assertion of vassalage directly implies the EU is the stronger entity, a rather peculiar stance from a person whose brexiteering jingoism is well documented throughout the "brexit" threads.

ChrisKen wrote:

A101 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, let’s put it this way: it is impossible, by definition, to be a vassal state of an organization founded by voluntary association through a treaty. As Brexit has proven, any state can voluntarily join or leave the EU. Find me a single vassal state in history that could voluntary opt out of its vassal-feudal lord relationship.

Like I said, the vassalage rhetoric is factually incorrect.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree in regards to vassalage

Why would he do that? He's correct and as usual, you're quite wrong.

Nope just means we have differing views on what defines vassalage, and consequently Macron appears to hold a similar view when talking about the “special relationship” between London and Washington. considering he is using vassalage when the US has no direct form of supremacy over the UK in political or legislative connections unlike the EU which has direct legislative and judicial power over the UK

Macron told France Culture radio

But now it is becoming a vassal state, meaning it is becoming the junior partner of the United State.

ChrisKen wrote:

The UK voluntarily entered the transition period.

Whilst they were negation's it was under duress coerce against better judgement to move forward to begin negotiations to a FTA

ChrisKen wrote:

The UK can at anytime, unilaterally end the transition period.
A far cry from the definition of vassalage.

No we cant actually the earliest we can leave is 31st december

ChrisKen wrote:

Incidentally, your assertion of vassalage directly implies the EU is the stronger entity,

Correct the EU is the stronger entity by the its very nature in that EU legislative and judicial holds power and supremacy over both UK Parliament and judicial sovereignty in that it can and has overruled decisions made by both chambers

ChrisKen wrote:

a rather peculiar stance from a person whose brexiteering jingoism is well documented throughout the "brexit" threads.

Have I alluded to the UK having ultimate power over the EU?...……………...not to my knowledge I haven't

noviorbis77 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You think those "democrats" in London will allow them a vote to leave?

You misunderstand: It's only "democracy" when a majority in England tells everybody else to shut up and do as they're told!

The UK is one nation.

England and Wales voted leave.

Other parts of the nation, Scotland and Northern Ireland did not.

Last time I heard UK was represented by several national teams in a number of sports. What do they know what UK government do not?

A101 wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

A101 wrote:

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree in regards to vassalage

Why would he do that? He's correct and as usual, you're quite wrong.

Nope just means we have differing views on what defines vassalage, and consequently Macron appears to hold a similar view when talking about the “special relationship” between London and Washington. considering he is using vassalage when the US has no direct form of supremacy over the UK in political or legislative connections unlike the EU which has direct legislative and judicial power over the UK

Macron told France Culture radio

But now it is becoming a vassal state, meaning it is becoming the junior partner of the United State.

ChrisKen wrote:

The UK voluntarily entered the transition period.

Whilst they were negation's it was under duress coerce against better judgement to move forward to begin negotiations to a FTA

ChrisKen wrote:

The UK can at anytime, unilaterally end the transition period.
A far cry from the definition of vassalage.

No we cant actually the earliest we can leave is 31st december

ChrisKen wrote:

Incidentally, your assertion of vassalage directly implies the EU is the stronger entity,

Correct the EU is the stronger entity by the its very nature in that EU legislative and judicial holds power and supremacy over both UK Parliament and judicial sovereignty in that it can and has overruled decisions made by both chambers

ChrisKen wrote:

a rather peculiar stance from a person whose brexiteering jingoism is well documented throughout the "brexit" threads.

Have I alluded to the UK having ultimate power over the EU?...……………...not to my knowledge I haven't

UK requested the period to be until the end of the year. Now we have that agreement. It isup to UK to define before end of summer 2020 if it want even longer.

Yes, until A50 UK had a veto over EU legislation for new or changed legislation in most serious areas where the then 28 members had not agreed that it requirred a majority of countries representing a majority of EU population to take certain decision about new legislation.

When the legislation was agreed it have a superior position compared to national law in EU countries.

So yes UK had ultimate power over EU.

Olle wrote:

UK requested the period to be until the end of the year. Now we have that agreement. It isup to UK to define before end of summer 2020 if it want even longer.

With thanks to Johnson other wise under TM deal if it had passed it would have been in perpetuity

Olle wrote:

Yes, until A50 UK had a veto over EU legislation for new or changed legislation in most serious areas where thethen 28 members had not agreed that it requirred a majority of countries representing a majority of EU population to take certain decision about new legislation.

As pointed out before it’s meaningless if you get around it by having a treaty within a treaty

Olle wrote:

So yes UK had ultimate power over EU.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion, if the EU pass a law not in its members interests it could not rescind it

A101 wrote:

Olle wrote:

Until A50 UK had a veto over EU legislation for new or changed legislation in most serious areas where the then 28 members had not agreed that it requirred a majority of countries representing a majority of EU population to take certain decision about new legislation.

As pointed out before it’s meaningless if you get around it by having a treaty within a treaty

I may have misunderstood you here, A101, but are you now complaining that when EU countries can not reach agreement amongst them all, those who do can decide to go it alone and sign a separate multilateral treaty amongst themselves??? Like the eurozone, schengenzone, …

If so, then exactly what is the problem with that, if I may ask?

Other than that no memberstate (like for instance the UK) has the power to tell others what to do and what not…

So if the main purpose of the UK's membership of the EU is/was to make sure the EU could be controlled from within, then yes, that proved impossible indeed.
The UK was never in a position to dictate its will to others in the EU (and v.v.): post Brexit, the EU will be in a much better position to do so, ironically.

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

Olle wrote:

Until A50 UK had a veto over EU legislation for new or changed legislation in most serious areas where the then 28 members had not agreed that it requirred a majority of countries representing a majority of EU population to take certain decision about new legislation.

As pointed out before it’s meaningless if you get around it by having a treaty within a treaty

I may have misunderstood you here, A101, but are you now complaining that when EU countries can not reach agreement amongst them all, those who do can decide to go it alone and sign a separate multilateral treaty amongst themselves??? Like the eurozone, schengenzone, …

If so, then exactly what is the problem with that, if I may ask?

Other than that no memberstate (like for instance the UK) has the power to tell others what to do and what not…

So if the main purpose of the UK's membership of the EU is/was to make sure the EU could be controlled from within, then yes, that proved impossible indeed.
The UK was never in a position to dictate its will to others in the EU (and v.v.): post Brexit, the EU will be in a much better position to do so, ironically.

Even more ironically, UK has built much of its special relation ship with USA on the terms of being the USA trojan horse into EU, in practise given USA a defacto veto in EU thru UK. With armed forces and a navy, and economy in size or smaller then France, without the EU veto over major EU policy like EU army etc what will this special relation be built on? UK has even supplied EU shared intel to USA without permission frm the rest of EU against treaties letting imports from china into EU against treaties etc.

By the way, the UK government has helped us in the conversation regarding if UK can skip the treaty before end of 2020 by saying that it now is considering to leave the agreement and go on WTO terms during the summer. Can we agree that mr Gove is a trustful source at least in this matter?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... eal-update

olle wrote:

By the way, the UK government has helped us in the conversation regarding if UK can skip the treaty before end of 2020 by saying that it now is considering to leave the agreement and go on WTO terms during the summer. Can we agree that mr Gove is a trustful source at least in this matter?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... eal-update

The express is not an approved news outlet on this thread.

Michel Gove seems to change the goals every few months, aiming ever lower:

Prior to the referendum:
-> exactly the same benefits as the single market

Right after the referendum:
-> unique economic partnership, but friction free

Prior to the elections:
-> Canada+++, minimal friction

Right after the elections:
-> Canada, with friction

And now clearly the end goal is cited for the first time:
-> nothing at all

I bet no deal was the real plan all along to get ERG on board

Olddog wrote:

I bet no deal was the real plan all along to get ERG on board

You mean the million to one chance that it wouldn't come to a deal, as BoJo promissed himself to all those MPs who feared this could have been on his mind as his prefered outcome, all along?

A whole lot of non-ERG Tories in Westminster must -once again- be starting to feel like complete fools and indiots now…
I mean: how far can you take them for a ride away from their personal convictions and beliefs, before they feel betrayed?
Not to mention the British public: wonder if there's still going to be a 52% majority in favour of the end result delivered by BoJo vs full EU membership, once the outcome will be known, because the least you can say is that it's no longer looking like anything he said it would during the campaign.
Panta Rhei...

Well, we can use another source;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ks-in-june

sabenapilot wrote:

Michel Gove seems to change the goals every few months, aiming ever lower:

Prior to the referendum:
-> exactly the same benefits as the single market

Right after the referendum:
-> unique economic partnership, but friction free

Prior to the elections:
-> Canada+++, minimal friction

Right after the elections:
-> Canada, with friction

And now clearly the end goal is cited for the first time:
-> nothing at all

This is my view of the whole brexit.

Brexit 2021 seems to become something much different compared what was presented.

Interesting is that the powerpoint stairway presentation is not the full truth very close to the truth.

Davis davis, erg, gove, farage and boris all thought that germany was going to dictate an agreement based on uk exportmarket was more important then preserving single market with 450000 consumers.

How could brexit representants get it so wrong and how is it possible that intelligent people now representing the uk government has not learnt something?

Uk abandon eu arrest warrant

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... st-warrant

olle wrote:

Uk abandon eu arrest warrant

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... st-warrant

Only consistent when you're turning the UK into a safe haven for tax evaders and other wealthy scoundrels to further incentivize Tory donations.

And this:

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unter ... 0a2ebdc599

UK car manufacturers demand the UK government to help them by agreeing to a reasonable deal.

At the same time industry in the EU27 still puts the priority on preserving the integrity of the Single Market instead of pressuring their own governments for Brexit leniency.

Are there any things that are actually going the way the Leave politicians had claimed they would?

olle wrote:

How could brexit representants get it so wrong and how is it possible that intelligent people now representing the uk government has not learnt something?

They bread themselves enough fundamentalist in the electorate to make realism political suicide.

Best regards
Thomas