UK ready to quit EU on 'Australia terms' if no Brexit deal, Johnson says

[IvorBiggun2]

2 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

The referendum in the U.K. was a 52/48 result.

A win's a win.

[luckyluke]

8 minutes ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

A win's a win.

Sure.

And a landslide victory is =

" an electoral victory in a political system, when a change in people's views on political matters results in one candidate or party receiving an overwhelming majority of the votes."

[paddypower]

21 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I had a minor part in the Y2K furore - I had to review and assess the threat it posed on Shell's very first platform in the North Sea, the Auk Alpha. Built in the early 70s, this place ran on what we called 'wind and p!ss' and had next to no automation or DCS. After months of reviewing virtually every component on the place, we concluded that the biggest (and only) threat came from the running machine in the gym in case someone was on it at midnight and it stopped, slamming them into the wall. The mitigation measure, therefore, was to hang a sign on it saying 'do not use at midnight on 31/12/99'. 

excuse further off topic; but I do have to admit to half-believing the salesman at Tesco Phuket when he told me that the electric iron I was buying was Y2K proofed.

 

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

That the other member's have differing views is obvious. But the political endgame of the EU, itself, should also now be obvious. 

 

???

the other members? other than??? which countries do you refer to?

 

EU itself, what is that? There are EU member states, not one or some self/selves in addition

 

EU is the members and the future of integration and coop between them is determined by what the

members fancy at any point in time 

pt, the members are split re degree of federalism and political integration

[tebee]

3 hours ago, IvorBiggun2 said:

And how long did it take the UK government to decide what their citizens wanted? It didn't, it let the citizens decide in a referendum for themselves and just to nail it on the head they gave the Brexiteers a landslide election victory to boot.

But what they voted for was a version of leave where we would all be better off - remember the all the benefits without any of the cost line? 

 

Not a version of leave where food costs 20% more, 20% of the people have lost their jobs and the £ os worth 20% less.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

???

the other members? other than??? which countries do you refer to?

 

EU itself, what is that? There are EU member states, not one or some self/selves in addition

 

EU is the members and the future of integration and coop between them is determined by what the

members fancy at any point in time 

pt, the members are split re degree of federalism and political integration

 

The other members - i.e. the remaining 27 of today. The EU itself, is the institution of political and economic union that members have become part of.

 

Yes, the members are split re the degree of federalism, political integration AND economic integration that they want to accept.

 

But the EU project goal is for total political and economic integration into a single state.   

[melvinmelvin]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The other members - i.e. the remaining 27 of today. The EU itself, is the institution of political and economic union that members have become part of.

 

Yes, the members are split re the degree of federalism, political integration AND economic integration that they want to accept.

 

But the EU project goal is for total political and economic integration into a single state.   

this reminds me somewhat of British barstool slogans, this is brexiteer project fear speak

 

where on earth would you find that goal?

of course there are prominent people in EU advocating what is rendered in bold above

but this total integration/single state is not written and not spoken as a common policy or goal,

the opposition within EU would be large and loud

[Rookiescot]

14 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The other members - i.e. the remaining 27 of today. The EU itself, is the institution of political and economic union that members have become part of.

 

Yes, the members are split re the degree of federalism, political integration AND economic integration that they want to accept.

 

But the EU project goal is for total political and economic integration into a single state.   

And every one of those 27 members have a veto which they can use any time they dont like something.

How do you know that the EU wants to become a single state?

 

[transam]

13 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

this reminds me somewhat of British barstool slogans, this is brexiteer project fear speak

 

where on earth would you find that goal?

of course there are prominent people in EU advocating what is rendered in bold above

but this total integration/single state is not written and not spoken as a common policy or goal,

the opposition within EU would be large and loud

Yet..............

The UK is now out of all that future infighting....

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

this reminds me somewhat of British barstool slogans, this is brexiteer project fear speak

 

where on earth would you find that goal?

of course there are prominent people in EU advocating what is rendered in bold above

but this total integration/single state is not written and not spoken as a common policy or goal,

the opposition within EU would be large and loud

Ya think? Maybe that's why they don't like to talk about it? If you read the Lisbon Treaty then you might see what I mean.

 

By the way, Project Fear belonged to the remainers, the large remain element of the UK Parliament of the day and, of course, the EU itself.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

And every one of those 27 members have a veto which they can use any time they dont like something.

How do you know that the EU wants to become a single state?

 

No. They don't anymore. You should read the Lisbon Treaty too. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by nauseus

[7by7]

25 minutes ago, nauseus said:

<snip>

Ya think? Maybe that's why they don't like to talk about it? If you read the Lisbon Treaty then you might see what I mean.

 

23 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No. They don't anymore. You should read the Lisbon Treaty too. 

It is you who should read the Lisbon Treaty as your knowledge of it's contents is obviously based upon the falsehoods spread by rabid Brexiteers!

 

The full text can be found at Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007. 

 

If that is too complicated for you, have a look at There’s a lot wrong with this viral list about the Lisbon Treaty.

 

One blatant lie being put about is that the treaty comes into force in 2020; it doesn't! From the Full Fact article.

Quote

It’s wrong to say that the Lisbon Treaty comes into force in 2020. It was agreed by all EU member countries in 2007 and came into force in 2009, and has been in place ever since

The liars can't even get the start date correct! 

 

Are the liars really that stupid, or do they just believe that their target audience is?

 

 

 

[7by7]

I can't be bothered to read 97 pages of this, so forgive me if this has already been asked and answered while I was away.

 

How can we leave with no deal if we leave on 'Australian terms?'

 

Surely leaving on any terms will require the EU agreeing to those terms, i.e. a deal! 

 

Is this yet another pup Cummings and co are trying to sell the British public?

[kingdong]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

And every one of those 27 members have a veto which they can use any time they dont like something.

 

 

which explains why it takes so long for a country to do a trade deal with the eu

Edited July 14, 2020 by kingdong

[candide]

50 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No. They don't anymore. You should read the Lisbon Treaty too. 

Except for the cases below. So There's no way member states can be embarked against their will towards a single State EU.

 

membership of the Union (opening of accession negotiations, association, serious violations of the Union's values, etc.);

change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.[29]

taxation;

the finances of the Union (own resources, the multiannual financial framework);

harmonisation in the field of social security and social protection;

certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.);

the flexibility clause (352 TFEU) allowing the Union to act to achieve one of its objectives in the absence of a specific legal basis in the treaties;

the common foreign and security policy, with the exception of certain clearly defined cases;

the common security and defence policy, with the exception of the establishment of permanent structured cooperation;

citizenship (the granting of new rights to European citizens, anti-discrimination measures);

certain institutional issues (the electoral system and composition of the Parliament, certain appointments, the composition of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the seats of the institutions, the language regime, the revision of the treaties, including the bridging clauses, etc.).

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

this reminds me somewhat of British barstool slogans, this is brexiteer project fear speak

 

where on earth would you find that goal?

of course there are prominent people in EU advocating what is rendered in bold above

but this total integration/single state is not written and not spoken as a common policy or goal,

the opposition within EU would be large and loud

It's not generally written in law or openly stated. It's the EU after all. Nothing is transparent. Lots of smoke and mirrors. Lots of statements of intent followed by denials and then 'clarifications'. Flip flopping on the EU army is one example.

 

Look at the direction of travel the last 30 years and listen to the likes of Verhofstadt. You don't need to be Columbo to work it out where it is heading. History is a better indication of the future than politiciand empty promises or statements.

 

Anyway it's not the UK problem any more, we're long gone. Do whatever you like. If you want to sleepwalk into a federal superstate that's your problem. Fill yer boots. No need to try to convince us any more.

[pagan1]

The current bunch of headless chickens leading the UK make Teresa May look like a statesman (statesperson). Even after 4 years the Leave crew (Johnson, Gove, Patel, Raab et al) have no idea of what they are doing. The recent statements by Gove and letter by Liz Truss just highlight what a bunch of donkeys are leading the country. 

Having confirmed that there will be no extension to the transition period at the begining of July this weekend Gove wanted to the country to celebrate the fact we will have border checks in place 6 months after the transition period ends !! Meanwhile the French have extended the Calais Facility, introduced systems and even tested them. How is UK business to cope with this farce ?

I still fail to understand

-how the Leave crew have moved from Lets take control of our borders, to we do not need borders, to only the EU will establish border controls, to we might need some controls, to we are building checkpoints which will be ready middle of next year (if we have an IT system that works)

-What happened to the Oven Read Deal ?

-What an Australian Deal is when Australia does not have a deal (only some agreements)

-Where are all the countries that were lining up to make free trade agreements with us ??? 

 

These are just a few of the questions I have. Given the UK Governments have no idea of what they are doing it would be interesting to hear the thoughts from someone who voted for Brexit

 

 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

It is you who should read the Lisbon Treaty as your knowledge of it's contents is obviously based upon the falsehoods spread by rabid Brexiteers!

 

The full text can be found at Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007. 

 

If that is too complicated for you, have a look at There’s a lot wrong with this viral list about the Lisbon Treaty.

 

One blatant lie being put about is that the treaty comes into force in 2020; it doesn't! From the Full Fact article.

The liars can't even get the start date correct! 

 

Are the liars really that stupid, or do they just believe that their target audience is?

 

 

 

You assume too much with your condescending post. I have had the full text for years. It is very confusing, I must admit, as it is regularly necessary to refer back to both the Treaty of Rome and The Masstricht Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty is basically a very messy list of amendments to both of these previous treaties and is essentially a successful attempt at getting the (previously rejected) European Constitution passed. Such a confusing mess!

 

 The further loss of vetos occurs after the Lisbon Treaty introduces QMV (effective from 2014).

 

The "blatant 2020 lie" that you mention is nothing to do with me.   

[kingdong]

4 hours ago, tebee said:

But what they voted for was a version of leave where we would all be better off - remember the all the benefits without any of the cost line? 

 

Not a version of leave where food costs 20% more, 20% of the people have lost their jobs and the £ os worth 20% less.

20% job losses when we,ve got 2.7 million eu citizens living and working in the uk,says a lot for their conditions in the eu.£ s dropped 20%? thats down to those shiny ars**d spivs in the city, " you can,t buck the markets " to quote maggie,as you appear to be one of a mob of brits who seem to take grea t pleasure in running the uk down can only say if thailand is your home now look at whats unfolding with china and thailands relationship with it,with no signs of corona abating or a cure being found the worlds future is in flux,so personally if i was you i,d be planning an escape route not wasting my time whingeing about an irreversible event that happened years ago,you might invoke kharma.

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

And every one of those 27 members have a veto which they can use any time they dont like something.

How do you know that the EU wants to become a single state?

 

Yes in theory they can veto most things. But don't think there won't be a serious price to pay the next time your country needs something from the commission. Basically you fall in line or you are cut off.

 

Then consider how the commission was 'elected'. It makes Thailand's last elections look positively righteous.

 

 

[nauseus]

23 minutes ago, candide said:

Except for the cases below. So There's no way member states can be embarked against their will towards a single State EU.

 

membership of the Union (opening of accession negotiations, association, serious violations of the Union's values, etc.);

change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.[29]

taxation;

the finances of the Union (own resources, the multiannual financial framework);

harmonisation in the field of social security and social protection;

certain provisions in the field of justice and home affairs (the European prosecutor, family law, operational police cooperation, etc.);

the flexibility clause (352 TFEU) allowing the Union to act to achieve one of its objectives in the absence of a specific legal basis in the treaties;

the common foreign and security policy, with the exception of certain clearly defined cases;

the common security and defence policy, with the exception of the establishment of permanent structured cooperation;

citizenship (the granting of new rights to European citizens, anti-discrimination measures);

certain institutional issues (the electoral system and composition of the Parliament, certain appointments, the composition of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the seats of the institutions, the language regime, the revision of the treaties, including the bridging clauses, etc.).

True - they can leave - at the moment anyway.

[Isaan sailor]

Congrats to the Brits.  They will reject, rip out and replace all Huawei 5G spy router networks in due time.  Payback for HongKong and Wuhan virus.

[welovesundaysatspace]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yes in theory they can veto most things. But don't think there won't be a serious price to pay the next time your country needs something from the commission. Basically you fall in line or you are cut off.

Like BoJo cut off the people who didn’t vote with him? 
 

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Then consider how the commission was 'elected'. It makes Thailand's last elections look positively righteous.

The UK’s head of state and commander-in-chief doesn’t even get elected. It makes every banana republic look more righteous. 

 

33 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It's not generally written in law or openly stated. It's the EU after all. Nothing is transparent.

“transparent” and “written in law” like the UK’s constitution you mean? 

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

No. They don't anymore. You should read the Lisbon Treaty too. 

Nonsense. Every country (and a few regions) all retain their veto.

Why are you saying they do not?

Please point out where in the Lisbon Treaty that veto was removed.

[IvorBiggun2]

8 hours ago, luckyluke said:

And a landslide victory is =

Quote

How did Boris Johnson achieve his landslide victory? A visual guide

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/dec/13/boris-johnson-achieves-landslide-victory-visual-guide

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

I can't be bothered to read 97 pages of this, so forgive me if this has already been asked and answered while I was away.

 

How can we leave with no deal if we leave on 'Australian terms?'

 

Surely leaving on any terms will require the EU agreeing to those terms, i.e. a deal! 

 

Is this yet another pup Cummings and co are trying to sell the British public?

Australia trades with the EU on WTO terms.

Johnson thinks that we are all morons.

He likes to say "Australian type deal" because it sounds better than "No deal" which is what we are going to get.

Brexiteers demand total separation from the EU but also want special access to the EU market without having to comply with the EU's rules.

The EU is having none of that.

Brexiteers blame everyone and everything else for this failure. 

There I have summed up the 97 pages for you.

[Rookiescot]

54 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Yes in theory they can veto most things. But don't think there won't be a serious price to pay the next time your country needs something from the commission. Basically you fall in line or you are cut off.

 

Then consider how the commission was 'elected'. It makes Thailand's last elections look positively righteous.

 

 

Conspiracy theory nonsense.

[evadgib]

On topic from HMG today:

 

Quote

We are now one step closer to an ambitious, wide-ranging free trade agreement with one of our oldest friends. An FTA with Australia can bring investment, better jobs, higher wages and lower prices just when we need them the most.

Both teams of negotiators recognised the unprecedented circumstances we find ourselves in and reiterated that more global trade is essential to support post-Covid economic recovery.

Negotiations were conducted virtually and covered discussions on all areas of a comprehensive trade agreement. The discussions covered the following areas....

 

Negotiations on the UK’s future trading relationship with Australia: Update

[Loiner]

5 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Nonsense. Every country (and a few regions) all retain their veto.

Why are you saying they do not?

Please point out where in the Lisbon Treaty that veto was removed.

Those vetos are disappearing rapidly. The EU commissioners are targeting the Irish, Belgian, Luxembourg and Dutch harboured multinationals taxes now. They will invoke Article 116 of their treaty, which will only need a qualified majority.

So where will those multinats move their registered addresses for tax purposes? To Singapore on Thames of course, which we will be able to do, without their restrictions or accursed 'level playing field'. That's what the EU is so scared of and what they doublespeak about taxation - nothing to do with the leftist fallacy about rich people's offshore investments.

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

20% job losses when we,ve got 2.7 million eu citizens living and working in the uk,says a lot for their conditions in the eu.£ s dropped 20%? thats down to those shiny ars**d spivs in the city, " you can,t buck the markets " to quote maggie,as you appear to be one of a mob of brits who seem to take grea t pleasure in running the uk down can only say if thailand is your home now look at whats unfolding with china and thailands relationship with it,with no signs of corona abating or a cure being found the worlds future is in flux,so personally if i was you i,d be planning an escape route not wasting my time whingeing about an irreversible event that happened years ago,you might invoke kharma.

Those spivs in the city have forgotten more about money markets than you and I ever knew.

They hate Brexit because they project massive damage to the UK economy because of it.

Hence the devaluation of the pound.

And yes living in Thailand on my UK company pension this stupidity has cost me a fortune.

For what?