5 hours ago, evadgib said:

What do you make of mine (& why do you think we're using them)?

" What do you make of mine "

 

Simple !....same like a poster for a "missed person "....in the alarming disapearance  category ????

It's been leaked that the EU threatened to use the WA to block British food supplies to Northern Ireland as leverage in the trade talks, which is why the government has taken the action that it has.

 

The EU is denying it of course, like the sniveling weasels they are. Once again refusing to act in good faith and themselves breaking the WA.

 

https://www.cityam.com/brexit-eu-threatened-to-block-great-britain-exports-to-northern-ireland/

 

 

No Deal it is then. As every day passes I am more and more glad to be out of this corrupt, protectionist, undemocratic organization. 

7 hours ago, candide said:

And a good start for a country expecting to strike multiple deals! Surely the best way to convince future partners to trust UK! ????

One would in future refer to as untrustworthy as a Brit.  With good reason if you blow up agreements like this. The UK would end up among other trustworthy countries like North Korea and Russia. 

 

Who would ever agree to anything with the Brits again knowing they would break any agreement.

 

Having said that why can't the Scots not hold a referendum right now to leave the UK, I mean if the Brits can break agreements and laws why can't the Scots. ? 

Supporters of Brexit accuse “<deleted>” of being undemocratic for not accepting the result of the 2016 referendum. But the Brexit being delivered bears no resemblance to that with which voters were wooed with in 2016, and there is thus no democratic mandate for it any more than there would be for overturning the original vote.

 

If the Brexit that was promised turns out to be undeliverable the prime minister should come out and say so, and either offer another referendum or call a general election. To have made those promises in the full knowledge that they would later be broken is an act of the utmost cynicism and dishonesty, and undermines our democracy.

14 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Yeah, except what johnson is doing breeches international law and shows how untrustworthy the uk govt is, you may not care but that doesn't make a jot of difference.

 

This is a major **** ** and one that will have consequences going forward unless johnson performs another of his u turns...

You see  God was an Englishman,named Boris.

Jan 1.2021..out of EU

 Jan 2.2021 English elections called,..getting shut of scotland

 Jan 3.2021  Scotland  got shut of

 Jan 4.2021 All ferry ,flights to Ireland scrapped

  Jan 5 .2021   UTOPIA

4 minutes ago, izod10 said:

You see  God was an Englishman,named Boris.

Jan 1.2021..out of EU

 Jan 2.2021 English elections called,..getting shut of scotland

 Jan 3.2021  Scotland  got shut of

 Jan 4.2021 All ferry ,flights to Ireland scrapped

  Jan 5 .2021   UTOPIA

Deflection, deflection, deflection, but if you intend to do all as you say, make sure you don't break international law...

15 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Supporters of Brexit accuse “<deleted>” of being undemocratic for not accepting the result of the 2016 referendum. But the Brexit being delivered bears no resemblance to that with which voters were wooed with in 2016, and there is thus no democratic mandate for it any more than there would be for overturning the original vote.

 

If the Brexit that was promised turns out to be undeliverable the prime minister should come out and say so, and either offer another referendum or call a general election. To have made those promises in the full knowledge that they would later be broken is an act of the utmost cynicism and dishonesty, and undermines our democracy.

Is that your own analysis or have you read it and claiming it as your own work?

Just now, vogie said:

Is that your own analysis or have you read it and claiming it your own work?

Its recorded history.

1 minute ago, polpott said:

Its recorded history.

Should it not have quotation marks and a source?

1 minute ago, vogie said:

Should it not have quotation marks and a source?

OK. "it". 555

25 minutes ago, vogie said:

Is that your own analysis or have you read it and claiming it as your own work?

Extracts from a letter.....but it's okay.....I only used it in a very specific and limited way.

 

I think you can do that now

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Extracts from a letter.....but it's okay.....I only used it in a very specific and limited way.

 

I think you can do that now

Looks pretty much in it's entirety to me, best to give your sources and use quotes as people might begin to think you are much cleverer than you actually are.????????

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/broken-brexit-promises-leave-britain-on-the-brink/ar-BB18P7Z6

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

Looks pretty much in it's entirety to me, best to give your sources and use quotes as people might begin to think you are much cleverer than you actually are.????????

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/broken-brexit-promises-leave-britain-on-the-brink/ar-BB18P7Z6

Not sure anyone has ever been fooled by me into thinking I am cleverer than I am...........never mind.....there is always hope.

14 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Extracts from a letter.....but it's okay.....I only used it in a very specific and limited way.

 

I think you can do that now

At least try and match the font to normal TV posts. It might not be so obvious you've ripped it off then ????.

 

7 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

At least try and match the font to normal TV posts. It might not be so obvious you've ripped it off then ????.

 

Point well made. Check out post #289 and spot the plagiarism. Doesn't take much effort.

12 hours ago, Loiner said:

Down playing what part? Enough of the hysterics. 

the repercussions that decision, deal/agreement changing will have in the international community it's unimaginable/ inconceivable,  only time will tell

18 hours ago, Alex80 said:

It seems you don't know what you're talking about.

A trade deal must be profitable for everyone, not just UK. EU countries already had quotas (quotas, not "full access") on UK fishing grounds (and viceversa), so, EU ask them as counterpart in the trade deal. This is not bad faith or undermining UK sovereignty, it's a trade deal. Give something to get something.

Of course it is undermining UK sovereignty. 

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Looks pretty much in it's entirety to me, best to give your sources and use quotes as people might begin to think you are much cleverer than you actually are.????????

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/broken-brexit-promises-leave-britain-on-the-brink/ar-BB18P7Z6

Plagiarism, oh my sweet lord.

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Of course it is undermining UK sovereignty. 

Agreed but a deal is a deal.

Mogmentum has quoted:

 

"Sovereign nations have the right to change their minds even if it breaks a previously signed international treaty. If the UK suffers reputational damage then so be it.

We're fully behind Boris & Cummings overriding the Withdrawal Agreement which is an attempt to split the UK up."

Becoming a 3th country is not so bright ....but risking to become a paryah state ......is the end ????

 

This an end quote from long article:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/09/brexit-bill-northern-ireland-criticised-as-obvious-breach-of-international-law

 

And in a statement yesterday, Pelosi said: “Whatever form it takes, Brexit cannot be allowed to imperil the Good Friday agreement, including the stability brought by the invisible and frictionless border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland.

“The UK must respect the Northern Ireland protocol as signed with the EU to ensure the free flow of goods across the border.

“If the UK violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress.”

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

Mogmentum has quoted:

 

"Sovereign nations have the right to change their minds even if it breaks a previously signed international treaty. If the UK suffers reputational damage then so be it.

We're fully behind Boris & Cummings overriding the Withdrawal Agreement which is an attempt to split the UK up."

Well he would say that, he's got a lot riding on the UK going bankrupt.

2 minutes ago, Victornoir said:

Perfidious Albion.

A name that sounds like perfectly justified.

You had your chance of a deal, after all the UK wasn't asking for anything that other nations havn't been already granted, we warned you at the time, it's no good crying over spilt milk now.

1 minute ago, vogie said:

You had your chance of a deal, after all the UK wasn't asking for anything that other nations havn't been already granted, we warned you at the time, it's no good crying over spilt milk now.

please explain that one because it's kind of a non sense.... why should the UK (a previous EU member enjoying all the benefits of such) get the same deal as any other nation(s) that had never been a member of the EU and they had been granted specific/individual deals from the EU, why would the UK want that? does the UK not understand they had a preferential treatment and they screw it up, does the UK not understand their deal it's specific to the Uk and can't/will not be copied, does the UK understands that going ahead with their silly (I didn't call it stupid) decision they are jeopardizing any future deal(s) with any potential interested nations, they all will be holding back afraid the UK would/will do to them what the UK is trying to do to the EU, does the UK know the US is already stepping/holding back from any potential future deal with the UK if the Uk go ahead with their lost of face actions.... now, tell us, who's crying over spilt milk

27 minutes ago, vogie said:

Mogmentum has quoted:

 

"Sovereign nations have the right to change their minds even if it breaks a previously signed international treaty. If the UK suffers reputational damage then so be it.

We're fully behind Boris & Cummings overriding the Withdrawal Agreement which is an attempt to split the UK up."

A bit hypocritical from Mogg.

The WA was a central plank of the Conservative manifesto in the last general election.

The Conservatives won the election based upon this manifesto.

 

Back in 2019 Mogg declared that Sovereignty comes from the people to Parliament. 

 

Surely now if Mogg believes in Sovereignty he should put the question back to the people.

1 minute ago, Mavideol said:

please explain that one because it's kind of a non sense.... why should the UK (a previous EU member enjoying all the benefits of such) get the same deal as any other nation(s) that had never been a member of the EU and they had been granted specific/individual deals from the EU, why would the UK want that? does the UK not understand they had a preferential treatment and they screw it up, does the UK not understand their deal it's specific to the Uk and can't/will not be copied, does the UK understands that going ahead with their silly (I didn't call it stupid) decision they are jeopardizing any future deal(s) with any potential interested nations, they all will be holding back afraid the UK would/will do to them what the UK is trying to do to the EU, does the UK know the US is already stepping/holding back from any potential future deal with the UK if the Uk go ahead with their lost of face actions.... now, tell us, who's crying over spilt milk

Why should the UK get the same deal as any other nation, you ask. 

Is that not obvious, why should Canada get all the benefits who has never been a member, yet the UK who has been a very consistant cash cow for 40+ years get as of yet nothing, and Mr Barnier will only negotiate after we have given him all the fish that we possess. So it was very kind of Barnier to say that we can have sovereignty over our waters, but we don't have any say who fishes them, many would say, myself included the your negotiator is acting in very bad faith, now most people would recognise this, but followers of the EU idealogy are not most people I guess.

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

Why should the UK get the same deal as any other nation, you ask. 

Is that not obvious, why should Canada get all the benefits who has never been a member, yet the UK who has been a very consistant cash cow for 40+ years get as of yet nothing, and Mr Barnier will only negotiate after we have given him all the fish that we possess. So it was very kind of Barnier to say that we can have sovereignty over our waters, but we don't have any say who fishes them, many would say, myself included the your negotiator is acting in very bad faith, now most people would recognise this, but followers of the EU idealogy are not most people I guess.

Come on this is rubbish.

Every FTA is different , because every nation's requirements are not the same.

As regards fishing   the UK do not want sovereignty over their waters. The UK is asking for Zonal quotas re -nogotatiated every yearan untested concept .

5 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Come on this is rubbish.

Every FTA is different , because every nation's requirements are not the same.

As regards fishing   the UK do not want sovereignty over their waters. The UK is asking for Zonal quotas re -nogotatiated every yearan untested concept .

They're ???????? waters that ???????? are protecting, not something ???????? can bully their way into plundering.

???????? never bothered with ????????'s waters (or ????????, ???????? etc) so why do they feel they can bully ???????? into rolling over?

8 minutes ago, evadgib said:

They're ???????? waters that ???????? are protecting, not something ???????? can bully their way into plundering.

???????? never bothered with ????????'s waters (or ????????, ???????? etc) so why do they feel they can bully ???????? into rolling over?

It is this government that want Zonal attachment. Nothing to do with bullying. 

Almost guaranteed whatever quotas are agreed the government will give them to whoever is the most profitable.

There is little point in UK fishing fleets catching stock that they cannot sell.

Prime example is when Fleetwood fishermen sold their quotas to the Spanish.

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Mogmentum has quoted:

 

"Sovereign nations have the right to change their minds even if it breaks a previously signed international treaty. If the UK suffers reputational damage then so be it.

We're fully behind Boris & Cummings overriding the Withdrawal Agreement which is an attempt to split the UK up."

In Scotland the people are sovereign. Can we assume should the people choose to break the Act of Union, you will give us your full support?