What happens next with UK plan to breach Brexit divorce treaty?

[kingdong]

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Not sure what you’re referring to and what that has to do with the fact that leaving the EU is each member state’s own business as a sovereign nation.  

and how many member states have granted their citizens a binding referendum  on if they would like to leave?

[david555]

7 minutes ago, kingdong said:

and how many member states have granted their citizens a binding referendum  on if they would like to leave?

Not all country's PM. have the need to slip a binding referendum out their sleeve to try to stop a split in their party ...as Cameron was hoping to save Conservatives unity and stop the party catfight ...

 

And we ALL can see the result now ????

[7by7]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

Thanks for watching. Understanding the situation is entirely down to the individual regardless of which side they happen to agree with

 

The situation in Northern Ireland is complex.

 

But the situation regarding the Withdrawal Agreement is simple.

 

Whether your source is right or wrong, it was Johnson who brought in the Northern Ireland Protocol with it's customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and all the consequences of that which your source claims. 

 

Whilst the idea of a customs border in the Irish Sea originally came from the EU, Johnson's predecessor, May, roundly rejected it; declaring in Parliament that no UK Prime Minister could ever contemplate such.

 

Johnson not only contemplated it; he made sure it was included in his much trumpeted Withdrawal Agreement. The agreement he claimed credit for.

 

Myself and many others at the time called this a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland. Whereas Brexiteers joined their leader and his puppet in proclaiming it a triumph.

 

I still believe it to be a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland, just as I still believe Brexit to be a massive mistake; the effects of which we will be suffering for decades to come.

 

But an international treaty is an international treaty. If one side decides they want to change it, that should be done via negotiation with the other side; not unilaterally.

 

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

I hope the Ponti's find it useful too ????

Well, you did, so the others may.

 

[Loiner]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The situation in Northern Ireland is complex.

 

But the situation regarding the Withdrawal Agreement is simple.

 

Whether your source is right or wrong, it was Johnson who brought in the Northern Ireland Protocol with it's customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and all the consequences of that which your source claims. 

 

Whilst the idea of a customs border in the Irish Sea originally came from the EU, Johnson's predecessor, May, roundly rejected it; declaring in Parliament that no UK Prime Minister could ever contemplate such.

 

Johnson not only contemplated it; he made sure it was included in his much trumpeted Withdrawal Agreement. The agreement he claimed credit for.

 

Myself and many others at the time called this a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland. Whereas Brexiteers joined their leader and his puppet in proclaiming it a triumph.

 

I still believe it to be a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland, just as I still believe Brexit to be a massive mistake; the effects of which we will be suffering for decades to come.

 

But an international treaty is an international treaty. If one side decides they want to change it, that should be done via negotiation with the other side; not unilaterally.

 

It's all very simple when looking at the WA and EU's subsequent threats. It needs the IMB to override the parts of it that threaten trade between within the UK between NI and GB mainland. That's Brexit and UK sovereignty for you, no need for any further negotiation with the external EU.

[7by7]

@Loiner

You posts are again merely repeating themselves and proving that you have no knowledge of Northern Ireland politics and the way our Parliament works.

 

I see no point in trying to educate you further on either subject; your mind is clearly closed.

 

One last thing, though

39 minutes ago, Loiner said:

I wouldn't have placed you as a Unionist

Then you'd be wrong; as usual.

 

As my remarks in Scottish independence topics prove; I am a Unionist.

 

But whether it's Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales; if the majority there decide to leave the Union, and in Northern Ireland's case join with the Republic, that is their choice.

 

Just as Brexit was our choice; the wrong choice I believe, but a choice the majority made.

 

44 minutes ago, Loiner said:

are you playing devil's advocate or trolling? 

Your, and others of your ilk's, usual response when presented with truths you cannot deny!

[7by7]

24 minutes ago, kingdong said:

and how many member states have granted their citizens a binding referendum  on if they would like to leave?

 None; including the UK!

 

But doing so is up to the member states, not the EU!

[Loiner]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

@Loiner

You posts are again merely repeating themselves and proving that you have no knowledge of Northern Ireland politics and the way our Parliament works.

 

I see no point in trying to educate you further on either subject; your mind is clearly closed.

 

One last thing, though

Then you'd be wrong; as usual.

 

As my remarks in Scottish independence topics prove; I am a Unionist.

 

But whether it's Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales; if the majority there decide to leave the Union, and in Northern Ireland's case join with the Republic, that is their choice.

 

Just as Brexit was our choice; the wrong choice I believe, but a choice the majority made.

 

Your, and others of your ilk's, usual response when presented with truths you cannot deny!

I also see no point in your trying to propagate your usual pony on any aspect of Brexit, but you continue to do so.
Brexit was the choice of the UK and will be the best for UK, regardless of how those of your ilk attempt to portray your doom and gloom, or support the EU's failing attempts to undermine the UK. You do not present truths but deceit and false prophecy. 
I'm sure we will be proved right.

[evadgib]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 None; including the UK!

 

But doing so is up to the member states, not the EU!

????????'s would have been binding if we'd lost! ????

[7by7]

11 minutes ago, evadgib said:

????????'s would have been binding if we'd lost! ????

 

I don't recall there ever being a referendum on the Union Flag!

 

The result of any and all UK referendums is only binding if the Act which provides for it says so.

 

I don't know if this has ever been the case; but it certainly wasn't in 2016.

 

 

[RayC]

59 minutes ago, kingdong said:

and how many member states have granted their citizens a binding referendum  on if they would like to leave?

Your question rests on the assumption that referendums are, by definition, beneficial to a nation. Recent experience might suggest otherwise. Imo we elect governments to make decisions and govern on our behalf; we shouldn't govern by referendums.

[RayC]

44 minutes ago, Loiner said:

It's all very simple when looking at the WA and EU's subsequent threats. It needs the IMB to override the parts of it that threaten trade between within the UK between NI and GB mainland. That's Brexit and UK sovereignty for you, no need for any further negotiation with the external EU.

But for the umpteenth time: The fact that a border was being drawn in the Irish Sea was implicit in the WA when it was signed in January. Whether it is right or wrong is open to debate. What is not open to debate is that the WA was signed. The only conclusion that can be drawn is either that a) Johnson didn't know what he was signing and/or b) he had no intention of adhering to the WA. Either way, it's not a good look.

[Loiner]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

But for the umpteenth time: The fact that a border was being drawn in the Irish Sea was implicit in the WA when it was signed in January. Whether it is right or wrong is open to debate. What is not open to debate is that the WA was signed. The only conclusion that can be drawn is either that a) Johnson didn't know what he was signing and/or b) he had no intention of adhering to the WA. Either way, it's not a good look.

The EU threatened to blockade GB goods and foods at that border, that's enough to blow it out of the water. No other conclusion is necessary.
If you want to continue about what Boris knew or didn't know, then I'm happy to be of the opinion that he did know and predicted the EU threat, and preempted that with the IMB. I don't care if he didn't intend to adhere to the WA, he can now ditch the whole thing for me.

[7by7]

There are only two explanations for Johnson's actions regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol in the WA.

 

Either he was too stupid to realise what he was signing, even though it was his idea; or he knew full well all the implications of what he was signing and had no intention of sticking to it.

 

So he's either a useless buffoon or a liar.

 

So come on, Brexiteers, which is it?

[3NUMBAS]

Ah yes, the good old change the eu from within argument. I remember when we tried that. Our PM asking for a pathetic amount of reform only to be sent away with a flea in his ear. Now big change is coming to the federal dictatorship. I doubt they have learned any lessons from this as they are now politicising trade talks in order to try to retain power over the UK. It is time countries politicians started truly acting in the interest of the people who grant them their positions rather than pushing for globalist positions that only suit wealthy elites.

[Loiner]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

One last thing, though

 

There you go, full of pony and your own importance again.

I knew you would not keep your word. A bit like Boris knowing the EU really.

 

 

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

There are only two explanations for Johnson's actions regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol in the WA.

 

Either he was too stupid to realise what he was signing, even though it was his idea; or he knew full well all the implications of what he was signing and had no intention of sticking to it.

 

So he's either a useless buffoon or a liar.

 

So come on, Brexiteers, which is it?

You are wrong again. There are more explanations;

Boris is better at negotiations than the EU. That's why he's winning.

Come on 49, you know that's it.

 

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

The British government did not give our fishing quota rights away. The British government allocated those quota rights to British fleet owners.

 

The majority of those British fleet owners then sold those quota rights to foreign, EU fleet owners.

 

Privatising the seas: how the UK turned fishing rights into a commodity

 

 

It is a bit more complex than that, but seldom explained clearly. 

 

Each country gets a quota for each species. However, it is not necessarily caught inside its national boundaries. So the British quota (managed by UK fishing rights) is less than the total stock caught in British waters.

A distinction is usually made between sedentary species and migrating species.  For sedentary species such as scallop, lobster or shrimp, UK controls most of the catch.

For migrating species, such as mackerel, the UK quota can be much lower than the total allowed catch. It makes sense as, unlike sedentary species, they are not British, Irish or French. Their lifecycle is spread over several national waters.

So when people say UK owners have sold fishing rights to foreign companies, it's true. However, it only about fishing rights for the current UK quota. It will likely not change after Brexit.

What is at stake,  because of Brexit, is the fish currently caught in British waters but which is not part of the British quota.

 

Let's consider a fictitious example.

- the EU allows a total catch of 100,000 tons of fish A

- the quota allocated to UK is 60,000 tons. The other 40,000 tons can be fished by other countries according to their own quota

- British owners have sold 50% of the fishing rights inside the British quota (=30,000 tons) to foreign companies. After Brexit they will likely keep the right to catch 30,000 tons.

- however, UK will have the right to prevent foreign fleets from catching the 40,000 tons of fish which were previously outside the scope of the UK quota.

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

and how many member states have granted their citizens a binding referendum  on if they would like to leave?

I don’t know, and it‘s up to each member state as a sovereign nation. Not the EU‘s job as someone here suggested. 
 

And, as far as I’m aware, all member states are representative democracies. So the constitutional way would be to vote for a party that promises to leave the EU. That didn’t happen. 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

The EU threatened to blockade GB goods and foods at that border, that's enough to blow it out of the water. No other conclusion is necessary.

Not the case https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/14/brexit-boris-johnson-eu-uk-internal-market-bill

 

And playing devil's advocate, even if it were the case, the possibility could have been foreseen in January.

 

Back to the same old questions: Either Johnson didn't know what he was signing and/or he had no intention of keeping to the WA.

 

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

If you want to continue about what Boris knew or didn't know, then I'm happy to be of the opinion that he did know and predicted the EU threat, and preempted that with the IMB. I don't care if he didn't intend to adhere to the WA, he can now ditch the whole thing for me.

At least it's a consistent argument. By the same token, no doubt, you are of the opinion that the breakdown in the trade talks is therefore due to the UK government not acting in 'good faith'? I thought that this was the charge that Brexiters were levelling at the EU?

[kingdong]

8 hours ago, david555 said:

Not all country's PM. have the need to slip a binding referendum out their sleeve to try to stop a split in their party ...as Cameron was hoping to save Conservatives unity and stop the party catfight ...

 

And we ALL can see the result now ????

cameron promised the electorate a vote on the eu before the election which put him in as pm.after the election he decided to have a binding referendum as he was worried about ukip,despite project fear and Cameron illeagally using over 9 million pounds of taxpayers to send a threatening letter to every household in the uk.however the british people had had enough of the eu and voted to leave,a resounding victory for nigel farage and his red bus and democracy.

[kingdong]

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 None; including the UK!

 

But doing so is up to the member states, not the EU!

so on your first point the uk is not leaving the eu on the 31st dec?   and on your second point  who said its up to the member states not the eu?

[candide]

10 hours ago, kingdong said:

and how many member states have granted their citizens a binding referendum  on if they would like to leave?

Why would they do that?

[david555]

45 minutes ago, kingdong said:

cameron promised the electorate a vote on the eu before the election which put him in as pm.after the election he decided to have a binding referendum as he was worried about ukip,despite project fear and Cameron illeagally using over 9 million pounds of taxpayers to send a threatening letter to every household in the uk.however the british people had had enough of the eu and voted to leave,a resounding victory for nigel farage and his red bus and democracy.

Hence the "catfight" in his party about "yes / no " for E.U. membership ....as was up to latest still  same problem ...leavers & remainers ....with referendum as a hope for a solution ....

It didn't .... status quo problem ..

 

So brexit was born .

 

 

[david555]

45 minutes ago, kingdong said:

so on your first point the uk is not leaving the eu on the 31st dec?   and on your second point  who said its up to the member states not the eu?

You still dont have a clue about the structure of the E.U. 

As your own U.K. "brexit  action " proves each member has his own independance still .....

 

Far more fair than your U.K. refusal for a new Scotish referendum ...isn't it ?

????

 

 

 

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, david555 said:

You still dont have a clue about the structure of the E.U. 

As your own U.K. "brexit  action " proves each member has his own independance still .....

 

Far more fair than your U.K. refusal for a new Scotish referendum ...isn't it ?

????

 

 

 

nonsensical deflection.

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, david555 said:

Hence the "catfight" in his party about "yes / no " for E.U. membership ....as was up to latest still  same problem ...leavers & remainers ....with referendum as a hope for a solution ....

It didn't .... status quo problem ..

 

So brexit was born .

 

 

 

1 hour ago, david555 said:

 

It didn't .... status quo problem ..

 

 

well get francis rossi in to sort it out.

[david555]

3 hours ago, kingdong said:

 

well get francis rossi in to sort it out.

Occupied ...

He has still a hell of a job to do in your U.K. ????

Edited September 21, 2020 by david555

[Laughing Gravy]

21 hours ago, Phulublub said:

Indeed they did - to British fishermen, who sold them. 

 

If you give something away, you no longer have legal ownership of that thing., so nothing to "claim" back.

 

PH

When it is part of your country you lease it never give it away permanently. We are claiming it back, so better get use to it.

[Laughing Gravy]

21 hours ago, Phulublub said:

Clearly, in your case and in the specific area of UK fishing quotas, you did NOT know what you were voting for as your posts here show you think the UK has some sort of claim on quotas the Government gave to British fishermen who then sold them

Clearly another non Brit telling us, we didn't know what we voted for. Pathetic. The fish is in British waters, so belongs to the British. It is that simple.

[Laughing Gravy]

23 hours ago, RayC said:

And before you ask (not that it should matter):  I'm white, borne to working class parents, and brought up on a council estate.

It does not matter to me but you brought it up. I am the same. But never consider myself European. I have lived in 3 European countries that are in the EU. I am British not European. It suggest you were about to throw the R card.

 

23 hours ago, RayC said:

You may not consider yourself European. You don't speak for me or a large number of UK citizens

The Russians are European, as many others. They are not in the EU but does that make them any less European. I think people should remember the EU is not all of Europe. It is an entity not a country.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Laughing Gravy

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

Quote

who said its up to the member states not the eu?

The member states say so. 
 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by welovesundaysatspace