Johnson lashes out at EU as he clears first hurdle for Brexit treaty breach

[transam]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

UKIP conference? 

It still looks like good old Nige on the far left dont it?

The resemblance is uncanny. 

Nige, he hasn't posted here for a while.....????

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Nige, he hasn't posted here for a while.....????

He does look a little bit worried in that picture.

Probably taken when he was trying to get himself a German passport.

Must have been a worrying time for him.

[bannork]

45 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

UKIP conference? 

It still looks like good old Nige on the far left dont it?

The resemblance is uncanny. 

Perhaps his grandfather.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

UKIP conference? 

It still looks like good old Nige on the far left dont it?

The resemblance is uncanny. 

Another one ripped off by Specsavers.

[superal]

17 hours ago, david555 said:

E.U. State of the union....E.U. shall never back track on the W.A. agreement....

So here you have it ....count the days ....WTO is yours ….

 

Margeret Thatcher famous line brought in remembrance....!!!

 

 

Just another power stricken EU wannabe

[superal]

3 hours ago, luckyluke said:

I don't see the problem with an E.U. army.

Should it represent a greater danger than any other army?

Would they than intend to invade the U.S.A. or Russia or...

Happy to be informed what the concrete risks may be. 

 

odds on that the UK and USA leave NATO  and the USA build significant bases in the UK and dump EU bases eventually

[RayC]

5 hours ago, Victornoir said:

Again these old-fashioned and irrelevant bluster.

It was Russia that defeated the Nazi army and the Americans who finished the work in Western Europe, mainly to block the Russians.

Without them you would probably be speaking German today.

This in no way detracts from the courage of your fathers who bravely fought the aggressor, like that of all resistance fighters in the occupied countries.

I agree that the UK - indeed, all countries - should look to the future.

 

Having said that, your comment is selective, incomplete and underplays the crucial contribution the UK made in winning WW2. 

 

I would agree that it is very unlikely that the Nazis would have been defeated without Russian and US involvement. However, you neglect to mention that the UK and its Commonwealth allies stood alone against the Nazis in 1940/41. If the UK had fallen during this period, who knows what would have happened? Perhaps, Germany would have broken its pact with Japan? Would the US then joined the war in Europe? Would Russia have been able to stand alone in Europe indefinitely?

[7by7]

13 hours ago, Loiner said:

Full of yourself again, and got it all wrong again. 

You said:  Now Johnson wants to remove his Northern Ireland Protocol from his withdrawal agreement. This will break the Belfast agreement as it effectively places a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. 

This is simply not what the IMB says. Try get it right rather than drifting into your made up consequences, with which you hope to return to Project Fear. Well it didn't work last time round and it won't work this time.

 

 

The Internal Markets Bill is more complex than just abolishing the Northern Ireland Protocol; true. But that abolition is part of it, and that abolition would result in a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That may not break the wording of the Belfast Agreement, but it would break not only the spirit of the agreement but the interpretation every UK and RoI government and all other interested parties have placed upon it since it was signed 22 years ago.

 

Read Brexit: What changes is the government planning for the Northern Ireland deal? and be educated on the effects on Northern Ireland of Johnson reneging on his own agreement.

 

There is now a good chance that this will not happen, though, as it appears Boris is beginning to see sense rather than risk a humiliating defeat in the Commons. Brexit: PM in compromise with Tory critics over Internal Market Bill.

 

It's not perfect, but it's a start.

 

You should also educate

[7by7]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

I think it is the EU with the obsession. Read the paper and let me know your thoughts?

 I have done that on at least two separate occasions in at least two separate topics.

 

I did the same earlier in this topic.

 

 

 

I'll let you search for the others Should easy for you to find as they were all posted in response to your nonsense and contained quotes of that nonsense, so a search of your own posting history find them.

[Loiner]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The Internal Markets Bill is more complex than just abolishing the Northern Ireland Protocol; true. But that abolition is part of it, and that abolition would result in a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. That may not break the wording of the Belfast Agreement, but it would break not only the spirit of the agreement but the interpretation every UK and RoI government and all other interested parties have placed upon it since it was signed 22 years ago.

 

Read Brexit: What changes is the government planning for the Northern Ireland deal? and be educated on the effects on Northern Ireland of Johnson reneging on his own agreement.

 

There is now a good chance that this will not happen, though, as it appears Boris is beginning to see sense rather than risk a humiliating defeat in the Commons. Brexit: PM in compromise with Tory critics over Internal Market Bill.

 

It's not perfect, but it's a start.

 

You should also educate

Yes, you are the one I need to educate first I think. You howl and wail about Boris reneging on the trick WA, when in fact he hasn't. The EU threatens to do though, through their own underhand tactics.

 

Regardless of that, I think he should ditch the whole thing as soon as the transition period is over.  

[7by7]

6 hours ago, transam said:

What are you on about, my points are nothing to do with WHO won the war, it is about WHO were complicit in aiding the German government of the day, whether 100% or factions, that is the reason some of you here want to forget that period in time, I don't, because if folk could do then perhaps they could do it again....

Your blatant accusation that some members here are proto Nazis is shameful.

 

Particularly when one considers your comments elsewhere about dark skinned members of a certain religion makes it obvious that it is you and your ilk who given the chance would be rounding people up into camps pending a final solution.

Edited September 17, 2020 by 7by7
typos

[7by7]

5 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

UKIP conference? 

It still looks like good old Nige on the far left dont it?

The resemblance is uncanny. 

 Nige on the far left?

 

Shome mishtake, shurely!

[nauseus]

12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 I have done that on at least two separate occasions in at least two separate topics.

 

I did the same earlier in this topic.

 

 

 

I'll let you search for the others Should easy for you to find as they were all posted in response to your nonsense and contained quotes of that nonsense, so a search of your own posting history find them.

Veering off course again. Refer to the link that I added rather than than repost other people's misguided opinions.

[androokery]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

I agree that the UK - indeed, all countries - should look to the future.

 

Having said that, your comment is selective, incomplete and underplays the crucial contribution the UK made in winning WW2. 

 

I would agree that it is very unlikely that the Nazis would have been defeated without Russian and US involvement. However, you neglect to mention that the UK and its Commonwealth allies stood alone against the Nazis in 1940/41. If the UK had fallen during this period, who knows what would have happened? Perhaps, Germany would have broken its pact with Japan? Would the US then joined the war in Europe? Would Russia have been able to stand alone in Europe indefinitely?

To paint an even fuller picture you may want to add why Hitler was reluctant to invade the British isles, how he was holding out for the Brits to see sense and acknowledge that they actually had a lot in common. Hitler never seemed to fully realise why he was not accepted by the British establishment. 

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Yes, you are the one I need to educate first I think. You howl and wail about Boris reneging on the trick WA, when in fact he hasn't. The EU threatens to do though, through their own underhand tactics.

The trick WA?

 

I remind you that Boris hailed the WA as his; saying it would get Brexit done!

 

I remind you that Boris prorogued Parliament because they wouldn't pass his Act to make it UK statute law.

 

I remind you that Boris fought and won an election based upon his WA getting Brexit done!

 

I remind you that Boris signed the WA in January with great triumphalism, loudly proclaiming, amongst much other bluster, that his WA would get Brexit done.

 

Are you now saying that he was tricked into all this by the EU? 

 

If he is that gullible then he is not fit to run a whelk stall, let alone a country!

 

10 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Regardless of that, I think he should ditch the whole thing as soon as the transition period is over. 

 

Thus proving to the world that he and his government are ready, willing and able to break international agreements at the top of a hat.

 

That's going to really help with future trade negotiations; NOT!

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Veering off course again. Refer to the link that I added rather than than repost other people's misguided opinions.

 I am referring to that document.

 

You asked for my thoughts about it's contents. I linked to where I had already expressed them in this topic and referred you to the many other times I have done likewise in other topics.

[nauseus]

16 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 I am referring to that document.

 

You asked for my thoughts about it's contents. I linked to where I had already expressed them in this topic and referred you to the many other times I have done likewise in other topics.

You links go back to your own posted opinions but you do not directly comment on the EU's "vision" that I linked. Typical sidetracking and twisting to avoid the question. Should have known. 

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You links go back to your own posted opinions but you do not directly comment on the EU's "vision" that I linked. Typical sidetracking and twisting to avoid the question. Should have known. 

 

You have raised this (non)issue many times, and each time I have demolished your arguments in minute detail.

 

Those details can be summed up by the two posts I made in this topic.

 

I am not going to join you in dragging this topic any further off topic by indulging your fantasies yet again.

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You have raised this (non)issue many times, and each time I have demolished your arguments in minute detail.

 

Those details can be summed up by the two posts I made in this topic.

 

I am not going to join you in dragging this topic any further off topic by indulging your fantasies yet again.

I am starting to wonder if you could even demolish a house of cards.

 

This is an EU document - not my fantasy - it is an EU fantasy. Try and deny it. Relevant pages are 5 and 6.

 

Again: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20171023RES86651/20171023RES86651.pdf

[david555]

3 hours ago, superal said:

Just another power stricken EU wannabe

Better get used to it ...as it shall go on ...????

[luckyluke]

3 hours ago, superal said:

odds on that the UK and USA leave NATO  and the USA build significant bases in the UK and dump EU bases eventually

Great,

but my question was =

what are the concrete problems to have an E.U. army. 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

I am starting to wonder if you could even demolish a house of cards.

 

This is an EU document - not my fantasy - it is an EU fantasy. Try and deny it. Relevant pages are 5 and 6.

 

Again: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20171023RES86651/20171023RES86651.pdf

 For the last time; you have brought this document up as proof of your fantasies many times and each time I have demolished your house of cards; showing what the proposals in that document actually means; a proposed alliance, not the army you are trying to convince yourself of.

 

I summarised the proof used in that demolition in the posts I made in this topic.

 

End of.

 

BTW, admonishing me for posting my opinion when what you had asked me for were my thoughts! Really? Do you ever understand your own posts, let alone other people's?

 

 

Edited September 17, 2020 by 7by7
Addendum

[Loiner]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The trick WA?

 

I remind you that Boris hailed the WA as his; saying it would get Brexit done!

 

I remind you that Boris prorogued Parliament because they wouldn't pass his Act to make it UK statute law.

 

I remind you that Boris fought and won an election based upon his WA getting Brexit done!

 

I remind you that Boris signed the WA in January with great triumphalism, loudly proclaiming, amongst much other bluster, that his WA would get Brexit done.

 

Are you now saying that he was tricked into all this by the EU? 

 

If he is that gullible then he is not fit to run a whelk stall, let alone a country!

 

 

Thus proving to the world that he and his government are ready, willing and able to break international agreements at the top of a hat.

 

That's going to really help with future trade negotiations; NOT!

Yes the trick WA, that May, the EU and Remainers thought would allow the EU to still control the UK. Well Boris saw through it. although he even took it through Parliament to get Brexit done, but still can find ways to override it. He's pulled it off, right before your very eyes and you are all now shafted.

 

Trade deals are still going on. The rest of the world doesn't care about the EU being shafted at their own game.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 For the last time; you have brought this document up as proof of your fantasies many times and each time I have demolished your house of cards; showing what the proposals in that document actually means; a proposed alliance, not the army you are trying to convince yourself of.

 

I summarised the proof used in that demolition in the posts I made in this topic.

 

End of.

 

BTW, admonishing me for posting my opinion when what you had asked me for were my thoughts! Really? Do you ever understand your own posts, let alone other people's?

 

 

You haven't given an opinion on the content of the link. You won't acknowledge that these are not my fantasies but those of the EU. Hopeless. 

 

Here are some extracts:

 

Defence Union

PARLIAMENT’S VIEWS Calls on the members of a future convention to: Establish the European Armed Forces, capable of deploying combat forces for high intensity conflicts, stabilisation forces which secure cease-fires or peace agreements and evacuation tasks medical services including mobile field hospitals as well as forces for military logistics and military engineering; Stresses the importance of creating a permanent EU headquarters for civilian and military CSDP missions and operations; Supports enhancing the role of the EDA. European Parliament resolution of 16 March 2017 on constitutional, legal and institutional implications of a common security and defence policy: possibilities offered by the Lisbon Treaty (2015/2343(INI).

 

STATE OF THE UNION - JUNCKER Calls for creation of a fully-fledged Defence Union by 2025.

 

INITIATIVE FOR EUROPE - MACRON Calls for a European initiative and a fully deployable European armed force ‘by the beginning of the next decade’.

 

Institutionalisation of military structures

PARLIAMENT’S VIEWS Calls for the institutionalisation of the various European military structures (among others the different battle groups, Euroforces, France-UK defence cooperation and Benelux air defence cooperation) into the EU framework (Resolution of 16 February 2017 on improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty (2014/2249(INI).

 

 

Edited September 17, 2020 by nauseus

[luckyluke]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

 

Here are some extracts:

 

Defence Union

PARLIAMENT’S VIEWS Calls on the members of a future convention to: Establish the European Armed Forces, capable of deploying combat forces for high intensity conflicts, stabilisation forces which secure cease-fires or peace agreements and evacuation tasks medical services including mobile field hospitals as well as forces for military logistics and military engineering; Stresses the importance of creating a permanent EU headquarters for civilian and military CSDP missions and operations; Supports enhancing the role of the EDA. European Parliament resolution of 16 March 2017 on constitutional, legal and institutional implications of a common security and defence policy: possibilities offered by the Lisbon Treaty (2015/2343(INI).

 

STATE OF THE UNION - JUNCKER Calls for creation of a fully-fledged Defence Union by 2025.

 

INITIATIVE FOR EUROPE - MACRON Calls for a European initiative and a fully deployable European armed force ‘by the beginning of the next decade’.

 

Institutionalisation of military structures

PARLIAMENT’S VIEWS Calls for the institutionalisation of the various European military structures (among others the different battle groups, Euroforces, France-UK defence cooperation and Benelux air defence cooperation) into the EU framework (Resolution of 16 February 2017 on improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty (2014/2249(INI).

 

 

Looks reasonable to me. 

I don't see anything negative in this. 

Maybe I overlook it, will be glad to read what I missed. 

[luckyluke]

Great you are honest nauseus.

You are sad because you found out there is nothing negative, despite you wished there was. 

[luckyluke]

Nauseus, there is a "Like" emoticon, you don't have to use the "Haha" one. 

 

[Surelynot]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54195658

 

Very clear and succinct explanation of the hole Johnson has dug for the whole UK

[nauseus]

11 hours ago, luckyluke said:

Nauseus, there is a "Like" emoticon, you don't have to use the "Haha" one. 

 

Not for you though! ????

[nauseus]

12 hours ago, luckyluke said:

Great you are honest nauseus.

You are sad because you found out there is nothing negative, despite you wished there was. 

This link is proof that that EU wish to form an army but 49 was denying this fact.

 

Now whether it is a +ve or - ve is a matter of opinion. You of course can have yours. I only see it as all negative.

 

That is all.