Nigel Garvie

20 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Well if you have an idea how the EEC started and the EU formed you would understand that it came from the second world war.

 

If you haven't that understanding then we have little to discuss. It is fine for posters to talk about the break up of a union that has been in existence for a few hundred years but the fact we tried a trade union that is not what was written on the paper and you are up in arms.

 

You can yawn, I find you ignorant of the actual facts.

The EU started with an agreement over Iron and Steel aimed at benefitting all the parties and avoiding unwanted competition.  To say that it "Came" from the second world war, would have to be justified by some evidence that it derived directly from it, rather than just followed on from it in time.

I'm simply tired of WW11 references in all these Brexit related forums, which I think are not relevant to these days or times. 

17 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

And I hope the Germans take control of Europe like in the 1940s and dictate what is law and how to do things with the countries bending over and taking it up the... I forgot they already are.

Germany are the the largest country by population and GDP in Europe, certainly, but the idea that they control everything in the EU is silly. However it fits neatly into the Cummings inspired paranoid delusion that we (The people of UK) are being controlled by others. 

It is now 2020, we are in a much changed world, it is over 75 years since WW11. Do you think it is possible for certain Brexiteers on TV to grow up enough to recognise this era is long past, and almost entirely irrelevant to 2020, or are we going to have to go on endlessly listening to assorted versions of "Actung Spitfire"...............Yawn.

15 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Looks like Pelosi's threat means nowt.

And Biden, the next loser, has been told to stay out of it because he doesn't know what he's talking about anyway.

It is Congress that agrees trade deals, not the secretary of state Pompeo, no chance the Dems will lose the house in November. Please do your homework.

6 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

the oven ready deal was fine when he signed the WA but the EU has moved the goal posts so he has to bring in other measures to rectify the situation as thepower mad EU wnats a spanner in the works as theyre so bitter about the monthly payments cesing

The changes that Boris wants to the WA are almost entirely concerned with NI, and it's trade, borders, etc. 

I am intrigued to know exactly how the EU has moved the goal posts on this in the few short months since the agreement was signed.  

8 hours ago, Bruntoid said:

lol you don’t get a lot of humour on TVF nowadays so cheers for that ????????

 

Brexit was based purely on hate - there’s nothing to suggest otherwise 

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

To a large extent yes, agree. But also the memory of a great past played a major part. But same as everywhere, also for the UK the past can't be brought back.

Many factors appear to have motivated Brexit voters, hate certainly, phantasies of returning to a glorious past, no doubt. The scapegoating of Immigrants and the poor by the sick Tory tabloids, was a major one also, it worked wonders for the Nazis in the 1930s. 

Fear was a huge one, "Take back control" was a clever slogan of course. Sadly many in the UK were so ill informed, deluded, or just plain stupid, that they believed it when they were told that the EU was controlling their lives, and was planning to turn into a federal superstate, run by Germany and France. The irony is that the UK were made welcome at the heart of Europe before, and their input to many aspects of EU affairs was much appreciated. 

A long history of civilisation in individual European countries has helped the EU become a leader in promoting the decent standards of modern civilisation. 

Sadly Brexiteers have fought instead to turn the UK in a pariah state, that cannot even adhere to international agreements that it signed only a few months ago.

9 hours ago, 7by7 said:

snip

 

You have not answered the question; how is breaking an agreement that Boris not only agreed to but presented as a triumph for his government, thus showing that his government cannot be trusted, good for the UK?

 

But your final words prove what you consider important; and it's not what's good for my country.

It looks like this to me 

1) Boris touts the original agreement as a triumph.

2) Boris wants to change the agreement and asks for support for his new move which will apparently be good for all the UK.

WAS HE RIGHT FIRST TIME OR SECOND TIME?

WAS HE LYING THEN OR NOW?

Any one with even the tiniest brain can realise that there is a contradiction here. That is what you have been asking Brexiteers to address, and they have put huge effort into avoiding commenting on it. Why was it so wonderful then, and so bad now? Can't Boris and his chums read what they are signing?

4 hours ago, elliss said:

 

    Indeed .

     Starmer,  along with the previous labour/opposition party leader , Corbyn.

    Have shown , no  opposition  whatsoever to the Tory Government .

      A sad time for democracy . Vote for a change of government ..? 

       Those were the days ..

 

There is a vast difference between Starmer and Corbyn which surely anyone can see. Starmer takes Boris apart week after week at PMQ. Corbyn was inadequate to say the least. A man of very limited intelligence who neither had the flexibility or imagination to rise above the Socialism of the 70s, mostly no longer relevant. I have noticed that it is an unfortunate habit of some of my fellow Independence supporters to launch attacks on Starmer because of his stance on Scotland. The fact is that he is the real deal, a genuine politician, in this case trying to rescue his party from oblivion. 

   His problem is that Corbyn was incredibly unpopular with the ordinary voter all over the UK, and Corbyn handed Boris an 85 seat majority. Anyone imagining that Boris won this through his own ability is in the terminal stages of self- delusion. 

Without this large majority Boris/Cummings would not be quite so keen to break international law.

4 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

So it is quite acceptable for him to post offensive comments generalising about what he perceives as a national trait within my country, but to comment on his spelling is "below the belt"?

 

If one ventures to post such "robust comments" then one must expect equally  "robust" responses.

Nothing to do with robust, according to my memory of Forum rules,  spelling and grammar Nazis are discouraged (My words). That is twice recently on this topic "Brake" was another. 

Try responding to the other posters argument rather than nit-picking - maybe.

3 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Yep, the Democrats are at it again. This took me right back to the Obama "back of the queue" days.

 

I hope this Nancy Pelosi warning simply strengthens the UK government's resolve, the same way Obama's warning strengthened the Brexit vote.  

You can't really compare one with the other. Obama was saying yes you could get a deal, but don't imagine that you would get any preferential treatment. Pelosi's position is quite different, and actually nothing to do with being pro or anti Brexit. She is saying that if we mess with the Friday agreement (Which the American's understandably care deeply about) then we have descended to the International scum level that very few countries would want to deal with, and the US certainly wouldn't for a start.

Boris's protestations that the proposed changes are going to be good for Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and will have no effect on the GFA are only believed by the terminally brain dead. I can't imagine that Boris, (A serial lier) Cummings, or Gove believe them themselves. 

54 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Yeah but according to you Brexiteers Barnier managed to sell Johnson a right pup of a deal ????

Johnson is famous for being uninterested in detail,  however it was his responsibility to have the WA thoroughly checked AT THE TIME, whoever he got to do it, he is the PM for heavens sake, he had the entire civil service at his beck and call. 

He signed the deal - it is part of international law - no point in trying to go back now and change it, that should have been attempted at the time if they wanted to. 

The sad whining from various Brexiteers here that the EU has not treated them fairly and thus the WA is void is beyond pathetic, and a pointless attempt to slide - like a slimy snake - out of the UKs obligations.

HE SIGNED IT! Full stop end of story. 

NOBODY LIKES TO DO DEALS WITH PEOPLE WHO CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO KEEP THEIR WORD. 

Our International reputation is being holed below the waterline.

Heaven knows how many more basic standards of International and domestic political decency have to be sacrificed to the great god Brexit. How much further down into the gutter are Boris and Co prepared to go to appease it. 

It now has that very worrying look about the whole situation that Cummings and his puppet have entered a mindless slash and burn stage. 

1 hour ago, david555 said:

That has bin brought up as a question in HOC. today by ex PM  May .....

So international law signatures from U.K. could not be trusted by future ones.....

U.K legal specialists see this could end in the E.C.J. and U.K. risk to become hefty fined and possible  embargo on some trade ...

Not a legacy that any government of any colour would want to leave in the annals of UK political history you would have thought, breaking international law, leading to the UK being seen as no longer a country whose word you could trust. Very hard not to imagine the reptilian hand of Cummings here, Johnson simply hasn't got the brains to do this on his own. 

I did read the odd idea that somehow this was the EU's fault for having the audacity to ask for a level playing field. I can't see what possible link there could be to cause us to break the terms of a legal document that we have signed. The EU have been saying a level playing field is necessary for years, so what new impact could that have now.

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

EU has new trade deals with the US, Japan and China. 

UK remains just an itch in the hinny. UK blinking not necessary.

Exactly: This pathetic "We won't blink first" is the kind of puff chested, grandiose, conceited, and pretentious, posturing, that you would expect from those with tiny brains who have lost contact with reality. HMG is now reduced to a perfect caricature of an empty vessel.

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I agree and that goes for the fishing too. The trouble with the EU, the Scottish mafia on here and the EU sympathisers is that they are a protectionist racquet.

 

When a country like the UK wants to protect itself like its fishing, like its business then the named lot start stamping and kicking their feet.

<snip>

How many times does it have to be said that England's fishing rights owners have ALREADY sold over 50% of them to various EU companies, before Brexiteers actually take it on board. 

The fishing issue is totemic for many, but actually in money terms, in the real world, it is insignificant. If UK leaves on WHO terms then London will be slowly but surely stripped of much of it's financial business, which will go to Frankfurt, Amsterdam, and Paris. Now THAT WILL HURT, massively. But logically, why would the EU countries want to do any of their financial business through London anymore. 

But ho, ho, let's carry on cutting of our noses to spite our faces, we have mastered that one thing for sure.

Yours Sincerely,  "The Scottish mafia".  ????????????

4 hours ago, stevenl said:

 

 

You're right, it seems protests are not ok anyway in your opinion.

I can't understand what the fuss is about, little protests happen all the time. This one may result in a temporary shortage of Daily Mail, and Sun pages as toilet paper but just use Andrex. 

"Freedom of speech", from the sad coward who wouldn't face Andrew Neil's questions, and restricts access to certain HMG briefings to those who tow the party line - now that's a laugh.

7 minutes ago, faraday said:

What political leaning is The Guardian, then?

 

 

Soft left to centre left mainly. The occasional fairly radical piece to be sure, just in the same way as you get the occasional unhinged Neo-facist far right article in the Tory papers. But why ask since the Grauniad is not one of the "The so-called newspapers concerned" anyway, so irrelevant. 

1 minute ago, pixelaoffy said:

They were part of being member of the club, Now no longer a member of the club it returns to pre 1972

English fishing rights owners have already sold over half their quota to various EU members. This mainly happened in the 90s when the prospects for fishing looked poor, so we sold out. The buyers were thinking long term (Something uncommon in the profit taking UK) and they were proved right. 

If we try to take back what we have sold, we will face massive legal action. Try telling the neighbour that you sold your field to that, "Things are returning to 1972" and he no longer owns the field. 

21 minutes ago, RayC said:

So your defence of this debacle is that you trust what the government is saying which amounts to: "Move along now. Nothing to see here. Everything's good"? 

 

I am not as trusting or seemingly gullible as you. I'd like the government which represents me to be able to give an outline its plans for its term in office. This one hasn't and seemingly can't.

 

And that's it? We leave the EU and then what? Puff ... magically everything falls into place? What's the backup plan in the unlikely event that that doesn't work? We all close our eyes and wish really, really, really hard that the UK becomes a happier, healthier and wealthier place?

It really is worrying, if Boris and his Brexiteer cabinet had shown themselves to be well organised, competent leaders, skilful negotiators, etc we would have been surprised but at least relieved. The reality - as perfectly illustrated by the mind numbingly incompetent, slow car crash littered with U turns, of the Covid response - is that headless chickens would have been a better bet for the job. 

We may never know what Dominic Cummings (The UK's answer to Rasputin) has over Boris, but I cannot help thinking that the the UK has never been serious about these negotiations, although Boris may not actually know what he wants, apart from being PM. 

Is it unreasonable for the EU to want us to adhere to the same standards regarding goods quality/safety, and employment law etc, as they do, if we want free trade access to their market. Why invite us to undercut them by having the freedom to lower our standards. I would have thought it was just common sense. 

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

isn't it amazing how all this vitrolic,insulting nonsense emulates mainly from brits who are guests in someone elses country and eu residents,well i for one am sick to the back teeth of the eu and the damage its done to the country i live in,we got brexit because the people voted it in because they like me saw through project fear and saw the damage being done to our country,and who was this so called "rich elite "who supposedly backed it?not the residents of the working class areas of sunderland surely?

I think you have answered your own questions when you ask  "who was this so called "rich elite "who supposedly backed it?" I think that if you are so blissfully unaware of who actually has huge power in the country, and is going to save the most money from not having to sign up to the EU tax directive, then it is hardly surprising that they played you like like a penny whistle, must have been easy. 

Amongst the "Rich elite" are the owners of the Sun, the Mail, and the Express.

Sadly "the residents of the working class areas of sunderland" appear to believe all the anti EU bs of the day, that the owners require that they print. Have any of these papers owners got their money stashed in offshore tax havens - guess. Do they pay much tax in the UK that could be used to support our austerity ravaged working class communities, not if they can help it for sure.