Johnson warns EU against any 'Napoleonic' tariffs in no-deal Brexit

[CG1 Blue]

On 7/1/2019 at 1:18 PM, bomber said:

the trade deal the EU signed with south america last week took TEN YEARS to complete,yet brexiteers say its will be a piece of cake,and they moan when we call them thick.

Negotiating trade deals as a bloc of 28 member states is much more complicated than negotiating as a single nation. That's why the EU trade deals take such a long time to be executed.

 

Read about the Walloons in Belgium and you'll understand:

 

Belgium Walloons block key EU Ceta trade deal with Canada

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37749236

[stephenterry]

9 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Yes, I would expect every E.U. Country to respect the UK electorates votes and to reject the UK Governments request for an extension , my point was that the E.U. politicians  are the reason as to why the UK is still in the EU  

Not factual. Clearly, we disagree on fundamentals. The Eu is responding to the UK government's request. Nothing whatsoever to do with why the UK is still in the EU.

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, tebee said:

Very fake 

 

All bananas are curved 

 

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-bananas-shaped-the-way-they-are

 

There is a world of difference between abnormally curved and naturally curved . 

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html

 

Have you ever seen a perfectly straight banana in the shops ?

I saw a straight one once, except it was bent quite markedly right at one end. But abnormally was the key word. If they were abnormally straight I suppose that would have been a problem too. ????

[stephenterry]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

The point being I was responding to anothers members post, however if you want my honest opinion or my thoughts on the whole issue, which I'm sure you will disagree with me wholeheartedly on.

When The Brexit Party remained seated when the performance of the 'Ode to Joy Quintet' began they felt (I would assume) that they had no duty to stand for this piece of music or any other for that matter. 

The European Parliaments president Antonio Tajani said to them if you listen to an anthem of another country, you rise to your feet, suggesting that they consider the EU a Country. Many would disagree with that interpretation, the EU is not a country, although as one member pointed out it has it's own flag, money and anthem. So whether they sat, stood or flew around the gallery, they were not disrespecting a country although I am sure many in the EU would like it to be one.

 

 

No, I didn't respond to this. As far as I'm concerned Farage is a leech taking his salary and pension off the EU, that UK tax-payers support.    

[stephenterry]

8 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Negotiating trade deals as a bloc of 28 member states is much more complicated than negotiating as a single nation. That's why the EU trade deals take such a long time to be executed.

 

Read about the Walloons in Belgium and you'll understand:

 

Belgium Walloons block key EU Ceta trade deal with Canada

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37749236

and you think UK deals are  going to be a piece of cake? Get real.

[CG1 Blue]

On 7/2/2019 at 4:21 AM, wilcopops said:

They are promising billions to save the fisheries....if Brexit was so good for fishing, why is that needed........?

If my understanding is correct, the funding would be short term to help our now tiny fishing industry get through the immediate impact of leaving the EU. Longer term, once we've taken back our fishing waters, our coastal towns can reestablish the thriving fishing industries they once had. 

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, CG1 Blue said:

If my understanding is correct, the funding would be short term to help our now tiny fishing industry get through the immediate impact of leaving the EU. Longer term, once we've taken back our fishing waters, our coastal towns can reestablish the thriving fishing industries they once had. 

get real.

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Okay, I will. The  WAG agreement was the only deal on offer. That MPs didn't like it resulted in it being rejected. if they had passed it, the UK would have left already.

 

Whatever the non-merits of the deal, it is a FACT that Tory ERG members rejected the opportunity to enact Brexit.

 

That is the bottom line, whichever way you try to spin it.

Bottom line is that your pet WAG does not let us leave the EU if any normal definition of leave is used.

[stephenterry]

Just now, nauseus said:

Bottom line is that your pet WAG does not let us leave the EU if any normal definition of leave is used.

Unfortunately, it does. Leave is leave, which is what every brexiteer has demanded. Or are you aiming to dispute this?

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, stephenterry said:

Unfortunately, it does. Leave is leave, which is what every brexiteer has demanded. Or are you aiming to dispute this?

I just did. Get real.

[CG1 Blue]

8 hours ago, petemoss said:

The EU wan't imposed on us, we begged and pleaded to be allowed to join. In 1975 we had a referendum, the result of which was to remain in the EU by a majority of 2 to 1. Where's our democratic right?

Correction; in 1975 we voted to remain in the EEC/Common Market. In 1975 we did not vote to remain in the EU because the EU did not exist.

 

I suspect the UK would vote to remain in an EU Common Market if that existed today. It's such a shame the EU federalist egotists turned it into something completely different. 

 

[tebee]

24 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

If my understanding is correct, the funding would be short term to help our now tiny fishing industry get through the immediate impact of leaving the EU. Longer term, once we've taken back our fishing waters, our coastal towns can reestablish the thriving fishing industries they once had. 

The problems are firstly we gave quotas for those waters to our fishermen who promptly decided it was easier to sell those to other EU fishermen. If we claim them back we are going to have to compensate the current owners. Most other EU countries don't allow quotas to be sold out of country.

 

Second problem is much of the catch in those waters is things that are not in high demand in the UK like shellfish and squid, so much of it is landed and sold in  the European mainland. This may not be possible post a hard brexit and if it is will be subject to tariffs of around 35%

 

We, on the other hand, import much of the fish we actually eat.

[CG1 Blue]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

4 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Go to the source of the claimant 

Robin Tilbrooke

Agreed - we have to go to the source, to discover pretty much any evidence that this court case even exists ☹️.

That's right. The anti-remain Tilbrooke court case might as well be on the dark net the way it has been under reported. Whereas the anti-leave court cases (Gina Miller + Boris lies cases) were in the main headlines almost every day until they reached conclusion. 

[CG1 Blue]

A huge vote of confidence in the UK here from a Japanese giant. This story mysteriously went under the radar yesterday. Didn't see or hear of it in any of the mainstream media outlets. Yet they jump all over the negative stories around Japanese car manufacturing! ???? 

 

Japanese telecoms giant NTT has unveiled the launch of its new $11bn (£8.7bn) merged business, which will be headquartered in London.

NTT said it had considered a number of locations for its new headquarters before choosing London.

“It has many benefits, including a stable economy, wealth of skills and talent, diversity in population and thinking, strong infrastructure, schools and housing for global talent moving to the city,” said NTT president and chief executive Jun Sawada. 

https://www.cityam.com/ntt-launches-new-london-headquarters-after-mega-merger/

 

 

 

[petemoss]

37 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Correction; in 1975 we voted to remain in the EEC/Common Market. In 1975 we did not vote to remain in the EU because the EU did not exist.

 

I suspect the UK would vote to remain in an EU Common Market if that existed today. It's such a shame the EU federalist egotists turned it into something completely different. 

 

Semantics.

[CG1 Blue]

37 minutes ago, petemoss said:

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Correction; in 1975 we voted to remain in the EEC/Common Market. In 1975 we did not vote to remain in the EU because the EU did not exist.

 

I suspect the UK would vote to remain in an EU Common Market if that existed today. It's such a shame the EU federalist egotists turned it into something completely different. 

 

Semantics.

Please do some research on the differences between the EEC/Common Market in 1975 and the current EU. You'll find it's far from semantics! 

[NightSky]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

Not fake and I read it. It barred abnormally curved (i.e. bendy) bananas of "Extra" class. "Class 2" bananas were exempt but "Class 1" were allowed to have only slight defects of shape. I know it was repealed and can only assume that that was because they realized what a particularly dumb regulation it was - even for the EU - hurrah for the democratic bendy rights of bananas!

 

 

 

 

 

Does this mean if Brexit goes ahead, the EU will receive all the straight bananas and the UK will end up with all the bendy ones..? 

[evadgib]

3 hours ago, vogie said:

The point being I was responding to anothers members post, however if you want my honest opinion or my thoughts on the whole issue, which I'm sure you will disagree with me wholeheartedly on.

When The Brexit Party remained seated when the performance of the 'Ode to Joy Quintet' began they felt (I would assume) that they had no duty to stand for this piece of music or any other for that matter. 

The European Parliaments president Antonio Tajani said to them if you listen to an anthem of another country, you rise to your feet, suggesting that they consider the EU a Country. Many would disagree with that interpretation, the EU is not a country, although as one member pointed out it has it's own flag, money and anthem. So whether they sat, stood or flew around the gallery, they were not disrespecting a country although I am sure many in the EU would like it to be one.

In his own words...

 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, tebee said:

The problems are firstly we gave quotas for those waters to our fishermen who promptly decided it was easier to sell those to other EU fishermen. If we claim them back we are going to have to compensate the current owners. Most other EU countries don't allow quotas to be sold out of country.

 

Second problem is much of the catch in those waters is things that are not in high demand in the UK like shellfish and squid, so much of it is landed and sold in  the European mainland. This may not be possible post a hard brexit and if it is will be subject to tariffs of around 35%

 

We, on the other hand, import much of the fish we actually eat.

Don't worry, the Spaniards will do anything for their calamari paella.

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, NightSky said:

 

Does this mean if Brexit goes ahead, the EU will receive all the straight bananas and the UK will end up with all the bendy ones..? 

Absolutely. One of the clear but forgotten benefits of leaving! ????

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, petemoss said:

Semantics.

No. Mutation.

[beautifulthailand99]

6 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

You seem to be gloating, you horrible man.

 

Thai Baht strength not a factor - or does that not suit your agenda?

You Brexit lot are causing this so you OWN IT. Keep up the wrecking work smashing the pound and the British economy. It's not me who needs to examine his conscience. 

[wilcopops]

19 hours ago, nauseus said:

I didn't know you were there!

So this is a Brexiteer's perspective on history? If you weren't there it didn't happen?

[wilcopops]

7 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Please do some research on the differences between the EEC/Common Market in 1975 and the current EU. You'll find it's far from semantics! 

Whereas it is quite clear you have never "researched" the history of Britain in Europe since the seventies.

 

I fear like so many Brexiteers you don't know the difference between search and research.

[emptypockets]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 9:16 AM, Bluespunk said:

 

He ducked the Sky debate between him and hunt. 

 

That’s two now. 

 

Man’s a coward. 

 

On the subject of the itv debate, is that before or after a tiny minority of the uk public are given the chance to start voting for the uks next pm?

Why don't you step up? Take on Boris or the other guy?

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

16 hours ago, tebee said:

The problems are firstly we gave quotas for those waters to our fishermen who promptly decided it was easier to sell those to other EU fishermen. If we claim them back we are going to have to compensate the current owners. Most other EU countries don't allow quotas to be sold out of country.

 

Second problem is much of the catch in those waters is things that are not in high demand in the UK like shellfish and squid, so much of it is landed and sold in  the European mainland. This may not be possible post a hard brexit and if it is will be subject to tariffs of around 35%

 

We, on the other hand, import much of the fish we actually eat.

That is true, or so I hear. The British public haven't, for some years, eaten quite a lot of the very high quality sea-food that is caught in British waters, sticking to traditional favourites. This is changing and will continue to though, as culinary and cultural tastes do shift over time. Moreover (post Brexit) we will have the chance to land a lot more of this cache of quality seafood and thus have the ability to introduce it to the British consumer once again.

 

'our fishermen who promptly decided it was easier to sell those to other EU fishermen' - this only happened because the UK government allowed itself to be emasculated by the CFP, allocating a large chunk of our national waters to continental fisherman - largely the French, so selling quotas is how many of these fisherman made their living, as the amount / specific stocks they were able to fish themselves had been drastically reduced and restricted to ensure foreign fishermen made a living fishing our waters. As the world's foremost maritime power for centuries - this to me seems an almost symbolic affront by the EU, one that should never have been allowed to happen. Look what it did to thousands of people who had before worked in a large and thriving industry employing large numbers in many coastal towns in the UK - especially the east and northeast of England and Scotland. 

 

'This may not be possible post a hard brexit and if it is will be subject to tariffs of around 35%' - this would simply mean that people on the continent would be paying that much more for their fish or importing it from elsewhere, but the former seems more likely given the tastes of those living in Europe, they have a prediliction for the fish caught in our waters. What's more is that French fish/seafood markets will have a much reduced supply from domestic fishing fleets, as fishermen from Charente to Normandy / Pas De Calais (after Brexit) will have nearly 70% of their fresh fish catch taken away from them and handed back rightfully to our fishermen to export / sell within the UK. I for one hope that we see an ancient industry in our country return to it's former glory in the advent of Brexit. The CFP was a con from the very beginning -

 

'The CFP was hastily stitched together by the founding six member states just before the start of the accession negotiations with Denmark, Ireland, Norway and the UK. At a hastily arranged meeting on 30 June 1970, six hours before the date an agreement was reached on the principle of 'equal access' ... just two weeks after Edward Heath’s election victory triggered UK entry negotiations with the EU, and just six hours before the talks actually started. negotiations began, the agriculture ministers of the “six” adopted the principle of ‘equal access’ to EU waters. This meant that the principle of free access was an integral part of EU law - an arrangement which any then EU membership candidate had to accept. The timing was no accident. The waters of these four applicants contain well over 90 per cent of western Europe’s fish, some 80 per cent in seas controlled by Britain' 

 

Drake must be spinning in his grave! ????

 

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[7by7]

21 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

My school had a 'school song', and we were all required to stand up when it was performed....

 

As a kid, obviously I conformed to this stupid, pointless requirement.

 

As an adult, I am not as easily intimidated.

 

Which is why I still think the brexit EMPs should have just remained seated.

 Standing for an anthem whether a school's an organisation's, a country's, an international union or any other group is not a matter of intimidation, it's a mark of respect. That you would refuse to show that respect is your choice. But I wonder how you would feel if foreigners disrespected the UK in such a manner.

 

As for the Brexit party's protest, I still believe that a more appropriate and meaningful protest would have been for them not to have turned up at all.

 

But, of course, that would have meant each of them losing tens of thousands of pounds in MEP salary and expenses; plus losing out on their MEP pension and redundancy money when Brexit finally happens.

 

I'm sure their leader, Farage, has educated each and everyone of them in how to get the most cash, paid by the British taxpayer, out of the European Parliament for the absolute minimum of effort. Something he's an expert at having been doing it for years.

[evadgib]

Of particular interest to the 'Coward' brigade:

 

[7by7]

21 hours ago, evadgib said:

21 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 The decision to extend Article 50 was also approved by Parliament.

 

Do your remarks include those Brexiteers who are against this extension approved by Parliament?

 

Especially to those who appear to be supporting the ludicrous court case to overturn it?

What did you make of this identical effort in t'other direction and the wall-to-wall coverage it received & how do you feel about the precedent it set....? 

 

I would have thought you Brexiteers would be grateful to Miller. After all, without her case Article 50 would have been triggered via prerogative powers, May's deal would not have been debated, let alone voted on, in Parliament and we would have left the EU on those terms last March.

 

Yes, her case did receive more coverage at the time; much of it due to the racist abuse and threats of violence directed at her and her solicitor by Brexiteers!

[7by7]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

Of particular interest to the 'Coward' brigade:

 

 So Johnson has finally bowed to public pressure and, no doubt reluctantly, agreed to participate.