2 minutes ago, Loiner said:

And this advice coming from the other side of the 2 sides is supposed to be from the right one? I'm supremely confident that I am right, so will be quite happy with the results of my wishes.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Too bad that that’s not how international law works, so you will eventually get a bloody nose (again) and no one will give a damn about how you justify breaching contracts. You’re just shooting yourself in the foot again, and we can all have a good laugh about it. 

 

 

If you think international law will have any say in this matter, you are kidding yourself. Keep up with the game and try a few new English colloquialisms laughing boy.

Boris plays a blinder...gives up £12 billion worth in car exports to the EU to secure £0.4 billion worth of fish exports.....pure genius.

UK business is crying out for a deal even though Boris once said fluck business

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/business-leaders-urge-uk-government-to-avoid-no-deal-brexit/ar-BB19tJh1

 

On 9/29/2020 at 5:19 PM, snoop1130 said:

Germany's Europe Minister Michael Roth has written an open letter to the British government saying that the European Union cannot and will not accept London questioning the Brexit agreement signed nine months ago.

Another EU mafia plank spewing his mouth off UK has left already what part of that doesn't he understand. ????

6 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Another EU mafia plank spewing his mouth off UK has left already what part of that doesn't he understand. ????

I dont believe he is arguing about whether the UK has left or not.

He is simply stating that the UK should abide by the agreement they made when it left. The one Johnson claimed was an oven ready deal. In fact he was claiming it was a great deal, a fantastic deal, just after he signed it. 

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Too bad that that’s not how international law works, so you will eventually get a bloody nose (again) and no one will give a damn about how you justify breaching contracts. You’re just shooting yourself in the foot again, and we can all have a good laugh about it. 

 

 

So which "international law enforcing body" will have the power to rule that the EU should be able to interfere with the internal trade affairs (transporting foodstuffs between the mainland of Britain and Northern Ireland)? 

 

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTOAB):

based in Geneva, not controlled by the EU, neither empowered nor interested in the internal arrangements of sovereign nations.

 

The European Court of Justice:

based in Strasbourg, run by the EU. The UK is however no longer a member of the EU.

 

The International Court of Justice:

based in The Hague,not controlled by the EU, neither empowered nor interested in the internal arrangements of sovereign nations.

 

The truth is that the EU overreached itself by interpreting the clauses relevant to Northern Ireland, in the Withdrawal agreement, as allowing them to take measures to control internal trade within the UK (movement of foodstuffs between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland). They then let it be known that they were considering using such powers a sanctions to give them leverage in negotiating more favourable ( to them) agreement in the post withdrawal trade agreement talks. The UK government found that was unacceptable, and introduced the Internal Markets Bill to foil that plan. The EU's proposed sanctions on internal trade would, if considered by any robust and independent supra national jurisdiction, would almost certainly be considered in breach of The Withdrawal Agreement anyway.

 

There won;t be any bloody noses. if there were then they would likely be on the face of the EU.

 

It is worth noting that the Internal Markets Bill has now passed it's third reading in the UK's sovereign elected parliament with a comfortable majority. Opposition will continue in the un-elected upper chamber (The House of Lords). Opposition which the cynical might conclude is largely led by a group composed of Mr Johnson's defeated Tory opponents, and a cabal of retired politicians bitter at having there expected comfortable EU post Westminster sinecures lost because of the British peoples' decision to leave the EU - a decision which they refused to allow them to make for so many years! 

9 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

So which "international law enforcing body" will have the power to rule that the EU should be able to interfere with the internal trade affairs (transporting foodstuffs between the mainland of Britain and Northern Ireland)? 

 

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organisation (WTOAB):

based in Geneva, not controlled by the EU, neither empowered nor interested in the internal arrangements of sovereign nations.

 

The European Court of Justice:

based in Strasbourg, run by the EU. The UK is however no longer a member of the EU.

 

The International Court of Justice:

based in The Hague,not controlled by the EU, neither empowered nor interested in the internal arrangements of sovereign nations.

 

The truth is that the EU overreached itself by interpreting the clauses relevant to Northern Ireland, in the Withdrawal agreement, as allowing them to take measures to control internal trade within the UK (movement of foodstuffs between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland). They then let it be known that they were considering using such powers a sanctions to give them leverage in negotiating more favourable ( to them) agreement in the post withdrawal trade agreement talks. The UK government found that was unacceptable, and introduced the Internal Markets Bill to foil that plan. The EU's proposed sanctions on internal trade would, if considered by any robust and independent supra national jurisdiction, would almost certainly be considered in breach of The Withdrawal Agreement anyway.

 

There won;t be any bloody noses. if there were then they would likely be on the face of the EU.

 

It is worth noting that the Internal Markets Bill has now passed it's third reading in the UK's sovereign elected parliament with a comfortable majority. Opposition will continue in the un-elected upper chamber (The House of Lords). Opposition which the cynical might conclude is largely led by a group composed of Mr Johnson's defeated Tory opponents, and a cabal of retired politicians bitter at having there expected comfortable EU post Westminster sinecures lost because of the British peoples' decision to leave the EU - a decision which they refused to allow them to make for so many years! 

You keep referring to it as an internal arrangement. It is not.  It is an international agreement which the UK is reneging on.

So people like the WTO will take that seriously. 

The EU courts will be able to impose sanctions and fines.

Given the Scottish government is poised to take Westminster to court means our own supreme court might decide the thing is illegal.

The United States (if Biden wins) will definitely take a dim view of it.

Other countries we will want to sign trade deals with will no longer trust the UK.

 

1 hour ago, Mavideol said:

correct, as the old saying goes..... what goes around comes around !!! just wonder or looking forward to see how the Tories/brexiters will react when that happen, it will be funny

Oddly enough I think most the people who voted for Brexit will accept it.

 

The remainers OTOH will be carping, complaining and saying "We told you this would happen"

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

And this advice coming from the other side of the 2 sides is supposed to be from the right one? I'm supremely confident that I am right, so will be quite happy with the results of my wishes.

Me too.

Good to see Brits have re-grown a pair, at last.

1 hour ago, Mavideol said:

don't you have anything better/more recent to post a fact, dated December 2 of  2019 you must be desperate 555

Unfortunately for you, facts dont have time limits any more than referendums do prior to enacting them.

 

I'm sorry if pointing out the EU's double standards annoys you, I really am ????.

 

An inflammatory post also some off topic posts removed

29 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I dont believe he is arguing about whether the UK has left or not.

He is simply stating that the UK should abide by the agreement they made when it left. The one Johnson claimed was an oven ready deal. In fact he was claiming it was a great deal, a fantastic deal, just after he signed it. 

Yeah frankly I don't care, the EU can move the goal posts, so the UK can too.

1 minute ago, Kwasaki said:

Yeah frankly I don't care, the EU can move the goal posts, so the UK can too.

But the EU did not move the goalposts. The EU operated within the agreement that Johnson signed.

41 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

I dont believe he is arguing about whether the UK has left or not.

He is simply stating that the UK should abide by the agreement they made when it left. The one Johnson claimed was an oven ready deal. In fact he was claiming it was a great deal, a fantastic deal, just after he signed it. 

But at the time it was a good deal because we had a remainer parliament, but now we have a leave parliament all Boris has done is tweaked it a little to become more realistic to the needs of the UK.

The oven ready deal turned out to be a turkey and now we have made it more appetising by taking the turkey out and replacing it with a joint of the finest New Zealand lamb set at gas mark 7.

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

You keep referring to it as an internal arrangement. It is not.  It is an international agreement which the UK is reneging on.

So people like the WTO will take that seriously. 

The EU courts will be able to impose sanctions and fines.

Given the Scottish government is poised to take Westminster to court means our own supreme court might decide the thing is illegal.

The United States (if Biden wins) will definitely take a dim view of it.

Other countries we will want to sign trade deals with will no longer trust the UK.

 

I think I have already explained why it is essentially an internal matter. To refresh the argument, I will quote the relevant paragraph:

 

"

The truth is that the EU overreached itself by interpreting the clauses relevant to Northern Ireland, in the Withdrawal agreement, as allowing them to take measures to control internal trade within the UK (movement of foodstuffs between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland). They then let it be known that they were considering using such powers a sanctions to give them leverage in negotiating more favourable ( to them) agreement in the post withdrawal trade agreement talks. The UK government found that was unacceptable, and introduced the Internal Markets Bill to foil that plan. The EU's proposed sanctions on internal trade would, if considered by any robust and independent supra national jurisdiction, would almost certainly be considered in breach of The Withdrawal Agreement anyway."

 

Not only does that establish that it is an internal matter. It also very likely will also be the view of the WTO on the matter, and will colour their response to any tariff barriers which the EU may erect as sanctions. The same is true for any other nations with which we may trade in the future.

 

The EU courts. acting as the patsy of the EU itself, may rule as they like. We are no longer subject to their jurisdiction. Any sanctions which they may apply will simply be viewed by the rest of the world as EU punitive trade sanctions.

 

Mr Biden may take a dim view of it, but Mr Biden, if elected ( I hope he is), will have an awful lot on his plate without moving to unilaterally break WTO rules by imposing trade sanctions on behalf of a third party!

 

As for the Scottish Government being poised to take Westminster to court, well the Withdrawal Agreement, and the dispute which has led to the Internal Market Bill are firmly outside the competencies devolved to The Scottish Government. Scotland is (whether you think it should be or not) an integral part of the UK. It is fully represented (if not over represented) at Westminster. If the bill passes it is on that point which the Scottish Governments court case (if it happens) will founder. Threats to take Westminster to court are merely posturing!

 

Edited September 30, 20205 yr by herfiehandbag

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

But the EU did not move the goalposts. The EU operated within the agreement that Johnson signed.

They said there wouldn't be a trade deal until the withdrawal agreement with the 39 billion was signed. After that they introduced more stipulations like the level playing field, ECJ, etc. as a prerequisite to a trade deal.

 

If we agree to that there will be something else. My guess is 10 billion a year.

 

We should have left prior to the withdrawal agreement with no deal. I said that ages ago. The EU are a bunch of spivs that cannot be trusted and it's time to cut off these bell ends. It seems the uk government has finally grown a pair since May and Robbins were ejected. Screw Barnier and his corrupt club. We're out.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1341209/Brexit-news-talks-final-round-David-frost-michel-barnier-brexit-deal

 

EU caves in: UK secures huge negotiating victory as Brussels FINALLY blinks - talks today

BRUSSELS has finally caved in on its Brexit demands ahead of the final round of talks between the two sides this week.

1 hour ago, vogie said:

But at the time it was a good deal because we had a remainer parliament, but now we have a leave parliament all Boris has done is tweaked it a little to become more realistic to the needs of the UK.

The oven ready deal turned out to be a turkey and now we have made it more appetising by taking the turkey out and replacing it with a joint of the finest New Zealand lamb set at gas mark 7.

No Vogie at the time we had the Brexit dream team with an eighty seat majority. It was Johnsons deal. He signed it.

It was HIS oven ready deal. The one he said was a fantastic deal.

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

But the EU did not move the goalposts. The EU operated within the agreement that Johnson signed.

But not in the spirit of that agreement. I don't know why they bother including the words good faith in their one-way WAs.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1341894/Brexit-news-UK-EU-fishing-deal-trade-talks-latest-Michel-Barnier-David-Frost-update

 

Time to end 40 years of hurt! Scottish fishermen celebrate as Brexit victory 'in sight'

BORIS Johnson must remain steadfast and right the wrongs of the misery piled on British coastal communities from more than 40 years of EU rule, Scotland's fishing industry has insiste.

By Joe Barnes, Brussels Correspondent

PUBLISHED: 14:11, Wed, Sep 30, 2020 | UPDATED: 14:20, Wed, Sep 30, 2020

38 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

They said there wouldn't be a trade deal until the withdrawal agreement with the 39 billion was signed. After that they introduced more stipulations like the level playing field, ECJ, etc. as a prerequisite to a trade deal.

 

If we agree to that there will be something else. My guess is 10 billion a year.

 

We should have left prior to the withdrawal agreement with no deal. I said that ages ago. The EU are a bunch of spivs that cannot be trusted and it's time to cut off these bell ends. It seems the uk government has finally grown a pair since May and Robbins were ejected. Screw Barnier and his corrupt club. We're out.

Agree. The EU have moved the goalposts around so often since the referendum that it's no wonder nobody can score! Almost everything has been done according to their demands (thanks a lot Theresa) and now the kowtowing has finished the Eurofeathers are being spat out at twice the normal rate - probably from that oven ready gobbler of a deal.

8 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

No Vogie at the time we had the Brexit dream team with an eighty seat majority. It was Johnsons deal. He signed it.

It was HIS oven ready deal. The one he said was a fantastic deal.

Everything can be improved on. You once said that indy2 would happen this year, we don't keep reminding you though, do we.

I can understand why you and your EU friends don't like what Boris has done, but he has done it for the best interest of the UK.

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

I think I have already explained why it is essentially an internal matter. To refresh the argument, I will quote the relevant paragraph:

 

"

The truth is that the EU overreached itself by interpreting the clauses relevant to Northern Ireland, in the Withdrawal agreement, as allowing them to take measures to control internal trade within the UK (movement of foodstuffs between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland). They then let it be known that they were considering using such powers a sanctions to give them leverage in negotiating more favourable ( to them) agreement in the post withdrawal trade agreement talks. The UK government found that was unacceptable, and introduced the Internal Markets Bill to foil that plan. The EU's proposed sanctions on internal trade would, if considered by any robust and independent supra national jurisdiction, would almost certainly be considered in breach of The Withdrawal Agreement anyway."

 

Not only does that establish that it is an internal matter. It also very likely will also be the view of the WTO on the matter, and will colour their response to any tariff barriers which the EU may erect as sanctions. The same is true for any other nations with which we may trade in the future.

 

The EU courts. acting as the patsy of the EU itself, may rule as they like. We are no longer subject to their jurisdiction. Any sanctions which they may apply will simply be viewed by the rest of the world as EU punitive trade sanctions.

 

Mr Biden may take a dim view of it, but Mr Biden, if elected ( I hope he is), will have an awful lot on his plate without moving to unilaterally break WTO rules by imposing trade sanctions on behalf of a third party!

 

As for the Scottish Government being poised to take Westminster to court, well the Withdrawal Agreement, and the dispute which has led to the Internal Market Bill are firmly outside the competencies devolved to The Scottish Government. Scotland is (whether you think it should be or not) an integral part of the UK. It is fully represented (if not over represented) at Westminster. If the bill passes it is on that point which the Scottish Governments court case (if it happens) will founder. Threats to take Westminster to court are merely posturing!

 

Unfortunately we may have to break international law twice to avoid a trip to Strasbourg, because, if I remember correctly, any disputes involving the terms and provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement have to be settled by the ECJ. I think that this is written into the WA itself. What an amazing piece of work! It's so easy to see that the WA was mainly written by the EU, with very little input from the UK - I think that this is a main reason that Davis quit, apart from his being kept out of most of the real negotiations, which were totally fouled up by May and Robbins.

 

The WA is terrible for the UK - better not to have signed it at all - as we can all see now!  

1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

I think I have already explained why it is essentially an internal matter. To refresh the argument, I will quote the relevant paragraph:

 

"

The truth is that the EU overreached itself by interpreting the clauses relevant to Northern Ireland, in the Withdrawal agreement, as allowing them to take measures to control internal trade within the UK (movement of foodstuffs between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland). They then let it be known that they were considering using such powers a sanctions to give them leverage in negotiating more favourable ( to them) agreement in the post withdrawal trade agreement talks. The UK government found that was unacceptable, and introduced the Internal Markets Bill to foil that plan. The EU's proposed sanctions on internal trade would, if considered by any robust and independent supra national jurisdiction, would almost certainly be considered in breach of The Withdrawal Agreement anyway."

 

Not only does that establish that it is an internal matter. It also very likely will also be the view of the WTO on the matter, and will colour their response to any tariff barriers which the EU may erect as sanctions. The same is true for any other nations with which we may trade in the future.

 

The EU courts. acting as the patsy of the EU itself, may rule as they like. We are no longer subject to their jurisdiction. Any sanctions which they may apply will simply be viewed by the rest of the world as EU punitive trade sanctions.

 

Mr Biden may take a dim view of it, but Mr Biden, if elected ( I hope he is), will have an awful lot on his plate without moving to unilaterally break WTO rules by imposing trade sanctions on behalf of a third party!

 

As for the Scottish Government being poised to take Westminster to court, well the Withdrawal Agreement, and the dispute which has led to the Internal Market Bill are firmly outside the competencies devolved to The Scottish Government. Scotland is (whether you think it should be or not) an integral part of the UK. It is fully represented (if not over represented) at Westminster. If the bill passes it is on that point which the Scottish Governments court case (if it happens) will founder. Threats to take Westminster to court are merely posturing!

 

You are confusing your opinion and wants with facts.

It is not an internal deal. It is the one Johnson signed as an international agreement. 

Any sanctions or fines applied will be legal. The UK will be liable for them.

 

Biden will be held to account by the sizeable "Irish" vote and the representatives (Democrat and Republican) who depend upon their support. The democrats have already stated their position on this threat to Irish peace.

 

The Scottish government is poised to take Westminster to court. Its not something I am making up. What the "internal market bill" essentially does is allow a committee in Westminster to overrule any decision by Hollyrood it deems fit to do so. We will have a committee packed with Conservative MP's we did not vote for dictating to Scotland. This is contrary to both the Sewell Convention and indeed the act of union. This is a constitutional deal breaker. It essentially would allow a Conservative (or Labour) government to send money to any constituency in Scotland (and those would be Conservative or Labour constituencies)  and then present the bill to the rest of Scotland. 

The powers which were held by the EU over stuff like food standards are not being given to the Scottish government but instead are being grabbed by Westminster. This goes against the Scotland Act. Where ONLY powers specifically listed as remaining in Westminster were kept there. 

This is a REALLY bad bill.

These things drive independence.  

2 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

But the EU did not move the goalposts. The EU operated within the agreement that Johnson signed.

Get over it why don't you UK is out of the club there's no rules in war or business.

Your a remainer Scot I take it.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

They said there wouldn't be a trade deal until the withdrawal agreement with the 39 billion was signed. After that they introduced more stipulations like the level playing field, ECJ, etc. as a prerequisite to a trade deal.

 

If we agree to that there will be something else. My guess is 10 billion a year.

 

We should have left prior to the withdrawal agreement with no deal. I said that ages ago. The EU are a bunch of spivs that cannot be trusted and it's time to cut off these bell ends. It seems the uk government has finally grown a pair since May and Robbins were ejected. Screw Barnier and his corrupt club. We're out.

Hey it was Johnsons deal. He signed it.

 

18 minutes ago, vogie said:

Everything can be improved on. You once said that indy2 would happen this year, we don't keep reminding you though, do we.

I can understand why you and your EU friends don't like what Boris has done, but he has done it for the best interest of the UK.

Without the corona crisis I believe it would have. But of course its my fault for not seeing that coming. 

You Brexiteers on the other hand saw it coming. Just like you all saw the financial crash of 2008.

Just like you all saw what the final terms of Brexit would be.

Because you all knew what you were voting for right?

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Unfortunately we may have to break international law twice to avoid a trip to Strasbourg, because, if I remember correctly, any disputes involving the terms and provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement have to be settled by the ECJ. I think that this is written into the WA itself. What an amazing piece of work! It's so easy to see that the WA was mainly written by the EU, with very little input from the UK - I think that this is a main reason that Davis quit, apart from his being kept out of most of the real negotiations, which were totally fouled up by May and Robbins.

 

The WA is terrible for the UK - better not to have signed it at all - as we can all see now!  

Who signed it?