Brexit brinkmanship: Johnson says prepare for no-deal, cancels trade talks

[melvinmelvin]

 

in expectance of you telling us "why not" momentarily

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

BS - the EUC of human rights overturned many a UK court decision - do you really know nothing?

 

Stop asking for proof, I'm not your nanny, look it up yourself if you dispute my statements, because I'm certainly not going to just to satisfy your intransigence, and refusal to accept the truth.

The ECHR is not part of the EU, it is above the EU and is also recognised by countries which are not EU members. After Brexit, UK will still be subject to the ECHR decisions, unless it specifically decides to retrieve from the Geneva convention (ratified by UK in 1953).

 

7by7 was right, the ECJ has no jurisdiction on criminal law and courts.

[luckyluke]

4 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

There are none so blind as those that will not see......

Like that idiomatic expression.

So universal. 

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Like that idiomatic expression.

So universal. 

Many a true word is spoken in jest.

[Tofer]

On 11/26/2020 at 12:40 PM, david555 said:

I chose the last option ????...., U.K. option looks not to good as i read & hear Sumak  announcement ..waw ! record spending in peace time in 300 years...

 

It's called a covid recovery fund, and at least we've got one, unlike the EU who cannot agree their budget / recovery funding. 

 

But, of course, the EU has a solution to the problem of Hungary and Poland vetoing the budget, just refuse them the right to vote - very democratic...

[7by7]

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Allow me to explain. His choice was sign it or extend again since the Remainer Parliament had made it illegal to leave without it. Geoffrey Cox was right, that Parliament WAS a disgrace undermining the UK at every turn, weakening the hand of it's own country. No doubt you loved it. The Remainer defence at the time was "But Parliament is sovereign" as if that legitimized them screwing over their own electorate.

 

If he was totally honest he'd have said "This May deal is still terrible, but it's the only way we can get out so let's suck it up and just get out". However, May is still a Tory and Johnson is still a politician so he tried to dress it up. We all knew it was a terrible deal for the UK. Let's hope we don't make the same mistake in the next month and get out with No Deal at the end of December.

 

If anything of what you say is true, then he lied to the EU; but you probably don't care about that. Although anyone with a conscience lying to get an international treaty signed and then reneging on it a few months later is not honest; it's perfidious!

 

But he also lied to Parliament, he lied to the Queen and he lied to the electorate. Does that not concern you? It should, because it is that is of great concern to anyone who cares about democracy and in the past ministers have had to resign when caught lying to Parliament.

 

BTW; in the UK, Parliament is sovereign. We elect MPs as our representatives, not delegates. I thought it was sovereignty which you Brexiteers were most concerned about!

[7by7]

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

May did her best to keep us as closely aligned to the EU as possible. A fake Brexit. BRINO. She was kicked to the curb where she belongs. History will not be kind to her.

 Then how come Johnson's deal is, apart from the customs border down the Irish Sea which May said she would never agree to as it split NI from GB, the same in all effects and purposes as May's?

 

Oh yes, according to you the perfidious man was lying to everyone; including Parliament and the electorate!

 

As he now wants to renege on the Irish Protocol, it seems that you may actually be right on that point!

 

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The EU have already reneged on the treaty by failing to negotiate in good faith. As far as I'm concerned it's null and void and should be ripped up

 I've asked you and other Brexiteers to say in what way the EU have failed to negotiate in good faith. The best answer any of you have come up with is that they want us to agree to the same terms and conditions as every other country with whom they have an FTA!

 

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

At the very least we should withhold all future payments until a mutually beneficial FTA that respects UK sovereignty is agreed.

In what way do the EU's proposals not respect the UK's sovereignty?

 

By asking us to agree to the same terms and conditions as every other country with whom they have an FTA?

 

What would you prefer? The benefits of full access to the single market Vote.Leave promised in 2016? That was never going to happen. Cameron and other Remain campaigners said so at the time, but Vote.Leave labelled such warnings 'Project Fear.' Well, as expected, it wasn't long after the referendum that Project Fear was proven to be Project Reality!

 

[david555]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

It's called a covid recovery fund, and at least we've got one, unlike the EU who cannot agree their budget / recovery funding. 

 

But, of course, the EU has a solution to the problem of Hungary and Poland vetoing the budget, just refuse them the right to vote - very democratic...

You are wrong again they keep their veto ....only they make kind of private funding under 25 members ....this is allowed to do under some # rule.....i hope they have another # rule ( Or arrange one in future .)...to kick out under certain rules obstructors who install undemocratic rules in their country as those 2 do .... not about their veto right,i see once more you are not good informed ...nothing new ???? )

 

Here read this then you know little bit more about Mr Orban ..... the fact why he is vetoing and E,U. putting him under suspicion as E.U. money is wrong used ...... (seems to happen now in U.K. too with those Covid 19 needs ordered to friends from certain politician(s) ) ???? to deliver,

 

Responsibility to deal with corruption in Hungary lies with Viktor Orbán, says former Belgian PM | Euronews

 

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by david555

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

Stop asking for proof, I'm not your nanny, look it up yourself if you dispute my statements, because I'm certainly not going to just to satisfy your intransigence, and refusal to accept the truth.

 

The usual Brexiteer response when challenged on a false statement they have made. You are unable to name a single UK criminal who has been released by the ECJ because, as the link I provided to the role of the ECJ proves, there are none and never have been!

 

However, you began with

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

BS - the EUC of human rights overturned many a UK court decision - do you really know nothing?

 

It is not I who is displaying ignorance; it is you.

 

By 'EUC of human rights' I assume that you mean the European Court of Human Rights. This is not a court of the European Union and never has been. It is the court of the Council of Europe. Brexit will have zero effect on our membership of the CoE.

Winston Churchill first suggested such a council in Parliament in 1943, and again in his Zurich speech of 1946. It was brought into being by the 1949 Treaty of London, the signatories to and so original members being Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. 

 

The CoE now has 47 member states, including all 27 EU members. 

As already said, the ECHR and it's court are a function of the CoE, not the EU.

Quote

 

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe,[1] the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953.

 

The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (Source)

 

 

How many UK criminal convictions have been overturned by the ECtHR? 

 

Well, from Full Fact in September 2015.

Quote

WHAT WAS CLAIMED

One third of those who have won a case against the UK at the European human right court were terrorists, criminals or prisoners.

 

OUR VERDICT

Around half of successful cases involved someone convicted or suspected of a criminal offence at some point. The answer depends on how you define "criminal".

 But that only counts the cases which actually reached the court; most are dismissed before that stage is reached. UK loses 3 out of 4 European human rights cases? More like 1 in 50, actually

Quote

As demonstrated by the rather nice pie diagram in another of the court’s own reports, since 1966 97% of cases against the UK were declared inadmissible, that is they were struck out. This means that in reality, of all the claims brought before the court against the UK (in the region of 15,700, by my calculation), only 3% made it to full hearings, and a – let’s face it miniscule – 1.7% succeeded

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by 7by7
Addendum

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

Ah, but they are UK trade deals now, independent of the EU's protectionist levies and taxes.

 As they are merely transfers of EU trade deals then any levies and taxes contained therein are still extant.

 

But tell us, what are/were these EU protectionist levies and taxes?

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

Go on - be a sport. I'm waiting with baited breath to see what evidence you have to disprove my statements.

 

Oh, of course, there isn't any......

 

 I refer you to the answers previously given to you.

[7by7]

7 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

So predictable. ????

 

I know this post has gone on a long time, but have you forgotten I told you before, to get the process off the starting block, and get the UK out of the EU clutches which I think you must admit, he has done.

 With his 80 seat majority why was it necessary for him to lie to Parliament and the electorate?

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

It's called a covid recovery fund, and at least we've got one, unlike the EU who cannot agree their budget / recovery funding. 

 

But, of course, the EU has a solution to the problem of Hungary and Poland vetoing the budget, just refuse them the right to vote - very democratic...

You don't seem very concerned about the suppression of human rights including democracy in those 2 nations.

[david555]

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 With his 80 seat majority why was it necessary for him to lie to Parliament and the electorate?

Boris can not help that manic lying ....it is from the beginning of his career in Brussels newspaper sacked him for inventing "news" ???? 

Edited November 27, 2020 by david555

[JonnyF]

44 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Then how come Johnson's deal is, apart from the customs border down the Irish Sea which May said she would never agree to as it split NI from GB, the same in all effects and purposes as May's?

 

Oh yes, according to you the perfidious man was lying to everyone; including Parliament and the electorate!

 

As he now wants to renege on the Irish Protocol, it seems that you may actually be right on that point!

 

 I've asked you and other Brexiteers to say in what way the EU have failed to negotiate in good faith. The best answer any of you have come up with is that they want us to agree to the same terms and conditions as every other country with whom they have an FTA!

 

In what way do the EU's proposals not respect the UK's sovereignty?

 

By asking us to agree to the same terms and conditions as every other country with whom they have an FTA?

 

What would you prefer? The benefits of full access to the single market Vote.Leave promised in 2016? That was never going to happen. Cameron and other Remain campaigners said so at the time, but Vote.Leave labelled such warnings 'Project Fear.' Well, as expected, it wasn't long after the referendum that Project Fear was proven to be Project Reality!

 

Which other country did the EU demand unfettered access to their fishing waters as part of an FTA?

 

Simple question. Answer it.

 

Then I'll give you the next example.

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

If anything of what you say is true, then he lied to the EU; but you probably don't care about that. Although anyone with a conscience lying to get an international treaty signed and then reneging on it a few months later is not honest; it's perfidious!

 

But he also lied to Parliament, he lied to the Queen and he lied to the electorate. Does that not concern you? It should, because it is that is of great concern to anyone who cares about democracy and in the past ministers have had to resign when caught lying to Parliament.

 

BTW; in the UK, Parliament is sovereign. We elect MPs as our representatives, not delegates. I thought it was sovereignty which you Brexiteers were most concerned about!

Dont talk to me about democracy. Remainers tried for 3 years to overturn that referendum result. 

 

The job of MPs is not to reverse the biggest democratic vote in the history of their country. Remainer MPs getting voted in on a Tory Leave manifesto then changing parties or forming a new party to overturn the result mid term. Dont make me laugh. It was a disgrace and anyone who supported it should hang their heads and accept they are anti Democrats.

[david555]

 ( In case no one knows this fact  yet ..... the great leader has an admission to make apparently .....???? )

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-live-boris-johnson-eu-sturgeon-b1762626.html

Brexit news - live: Boris Johnson admits ‘substantial differences’ remain as EU warns time is running out
Follow the latest updates from the government

 

Conrad Duncan
@theconradduncan 12 minutes ago

Boris Johnson has admitted that “substantial differences” remain in trade talks over a post-Brexit deal with the EU as the two negotiating teams prepare to resume discussions in London this weekend.

 

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, reportedly told a closed-door meeting for national diplomats in the bloc on Friday that he was not able to say yet whether a trade deal with the UK would be ready in time for the end of the year.

 

The talks between the UK and the EU have been stalled for months over the issues of fishing rights, the governance of any deal and the “level playing field” conditions aimed at preventing unfair competition between the two sides.

[kingdong]

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Dont talk to me about democracy. Remainers tried for 3 years to overturn that referendum result. 

 

The job of MPs is not to reverse the biggest democratic vote in the history of their country. Remainer MPs getting voted in on a Tory Leave manifesto then changing parties or forming a new party to overturn the result mid term. Dont make me laugh. It was a disgrace and anyone who supported it should hang their heads and accept they are anti Democrats.

And boris soon sorted out all those traitor rebel remainer mps after the peoples vote.

[Tofer]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You don't seem very concerned about the suppression of human rights including democracy in those 2 nations.

Then why were they allowed to join in the first place?

[Tofer]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Which other country did the EU demand unfettered access to their fishing waters as part of an FTA?

 

Simple question. Answer it.

 

Then I'll give you the next example.

I wouldn't  hold your breath Jonny.

[david555]

15 minutes ago, Tofer said:

Then why were they allowed to join in the first place?

As lately they started with changing laws and shortcutted judges power ....mr Tofer ....google could explain you that ...

1 example ... more to find ...you really think E.U. (even you dont like..) just start something anyhow ?

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban investigated over €2m EU funding spent on 'absurd' vintage train line (telegraph.co.uk)

Edited November 27, 2020 by david555

[7by7]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Which other country did the EU demand unfettered access to their fishing waters as part of an FTA?

 

Simple question. Answer it.

 

Then I'll give you the next example.

 

The EU is not demanding unfettered fishing access to the UK EEZ. It wants a continuation of the historical access from before the EC existed and the access via the licences sold to EU fleets by UK fleet owners. But it is, of course, a quid pro quo as we will maintain access to our fishing rights in the EUs EEZ as well as the access to EU markets for our fleet.

 

To answer your question; the EU has agreements to fish in the EEZs of the following non EU countries in Europe: Greenland, Norway, Iceland and the Faeroe Islands. If they sound familiar it's because the UK's much vaunted recent agreements with those countries are nothing new, in fact simply yet another continuation of the agreement we already had when we were a EU member. 

 

In addition, the EU has agreements with the governments of: Morocco, Mauritania, Guinea Bissau, Cabo Verde, Senegal, The Gambia, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Sao Tomé e Principe, Cook Islands, Mauritius and the Seychelles which allow EU boats to fish in their EEZs.

 

(Source)

[RayC]

10 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Do you have any source for this? Or is it just a guess?

 

Because as far as I know, there are no figures available on the financial cost or financial gains of Brexit, since we haven't even left the withdrawal period yet. How can anyone know the cost of something that hasn't happened yet (yes I know we have officially left but the process of leaving, changing processes, signing all of the new trade deals etc. is not yet complete). A true assessment of the costs or gains could be made in around 10 years from now. Right now we are investing in ourselves, and the benefits will be seen later down the line.

 

It's like setting up a shop, spending all that money on stock, training, decorating, licencing etc. and then at the end of the first day's trading you declare the project a failure because you have spent a million Baht and only sold 50,000 Baht worth of goods. Patience Dragonfly, the benefits won't all be seen on January 1st 2021.

Forecast on the likely cost of Brexit. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/11/25/european-commission-president-tells-eu-leaders-compromise-get/

 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Dont talk to me about democracy. Remainers tried for 3 years to overturn that referendum result. 

 Wrong. What we asked for was a say in the final agreement.

 

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The job of MPs is not to reverse the biggest democratic vote in the history of their country

When did they try and do so?

 

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Remainer MPs getting voted in on a Tory Leave manifesto then changing parties or forming a new party to overturn the result mid term. Dont make me laugh.

The Tory 2017 manifesto you called May's BRINO? Make your mind up! Either May was a Remainer thwarted by a leave Parliament or she was a Brexiteer thwarted by a Remainer Parliament. Can't be both!

 

Unless you mean Johnson's 2019 'Get Brexit Done' manifesto; which you now say was a complete lie. In which case, which Tory MPs have changed parties or formed a new party to overturn the result? That news hasn't reached anyone in the UK yet; you would be paid a substantial sum by the Express for such a scoop!

 

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It was a disgrace and anyone who supported it should hang their heads and accept they are anti Democrats.

 

According to you, Johnson lied to Parliament, lied to the electorate and deliberately signed and proclaimed as a personal success an international agreement he had no intention of keeping.

 

It is perfidious Johnson who should be hanging his head in shame!

 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

I wouldn't  hold your breath Jonny.

 I have answered it. The facts obviously confounded him so much that all @JonnyF could do is respond with a childish laugh emoji!

 

Now, how about you answering one for a change' a reminder of the latest:

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

10 hours ago, Tofer said:

Ah, but they are UK trade deals now, independent of the EU's protectionist levies and taxes.

 As they are merely transfers of EU trade deals then any levies and taxes contained therein are still extant.

 

But tell us, what are/were these EU protectionist levies and taxes?

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by 7by7
Addendum

[RayC]

10 hours ago, Tofer said:

 

Ah, but they are UK trade deals now, independent of the EU's protectionist levies and taxes.

 

Very sad that you can only denigrate the UK's efforts and progress in making a success of their new start. I suppose you remainers would be happier to see the UK fall flat on it's face, just so you can say I told you so...... 

As things currently stand, around 10% of the UK's trade will be covered by an agreement on 1/1/21, so far from the FTA paradise that we were promised.

 

Not sure if you are a member of the 'WTO rules, no problem' group but the fact is, it is a problem. 'WTO rules' are effectively a safety net created to try to avoid 'tit for tat' tariff measures. The very fact that nations spend so much time and energy trying to forge trade agreements shows that WTO rules are very much the last resort.

[david555]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/27/barnier-to-travel-to-uk-for-brexit-talks-despite-lack-of-progress

 

Barnier urged not to be intimidated as Brexit talks enter 'final few days'

French government tells EU chief negotiator to remember that UK needs a deal more than the EU

 

Daniel Boffey in Brussels

Fri 27 Nov 2020 13.31 GMT

First published on Fri 27 Nov 2020 09.44 GMT

 

The French government has urged Michel Barnier not to be intimidated in the Brexit standoff with Downing Street, as his British counterpart hinted at pressure on him to end the talks.

 

During a briefing on Friday, the EU’s chief negotiator advised ambassadors that he would resume the negotiations in London, despite his threat to pull out earlier in the week.

 

“But he was clear that things are entirely stuck,” said an EU source. Barnier’s travel plans appeared to be “driven more by a wish at the highest levels of the European commission to negotiate until the bitter end than actual progress on the ground”, the source added.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by david555

[kingdong]

14 minutes ago, david555 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/27/barnier-to-travel-to-uk-for-brexit-talks-despite-lack-of-progress

 

Barnier urged not to be intimidated as Brexit talks enter 'final few days'

French government tells EU chief negotiator to remember that UK needs a deal more than the EU

 

Daniel Boffey in Brussels

Fri 27 Nov 2020 13.31 GMT

First published on Fri 27 Nov 2020 09.44 GMT

 

The French government has urged Michel Barnier not to be intimidated in the Brexit standoff with Downing Street, as his British counterpart hinted at pressure on him to end the talks.

 

During a briefing on Friday, the EU’s chief negotiator advised ambassadors that he would resume the negotiations in London, despite his threat to pull out earlier in the week.

 

“But he was clear that things are entirely stuck,” said an EU source. Barnier’s travel plans appeared to be “driven more by a wish at the highest levels of the European commission to negotiate until the bitter end than actual progress on the ground”, the source added.

 

 

The eu showing their true colours

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, candide said:

The ECHR is not part of the EU, it is above the EU and is also recognised by countries which are not EU members. After Brexit, UK will still be subject to the ECHR decisions, unless it specifically decides to retrieve from the Geneva convention (ratified by UK in 1953).

 

7by7 was right, the ECJ has no jurisdiction on criminal law and courts.

Quite. TM was looking to ditch the ECHR after brexit, another case of the UK going back on it's word.

 

Theresa May will consider axeing the Human Rights Act after Brexit, despite promising she is “committed” to its protections, a minister has revealed.

The government will decide on the future of the landmark legislation once “the process of leaving the EU concludes”, a letter to a parliamentary inquiry says.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-act-repeal-brexit-echr-commons-parliament-conservatives-a8734886.html

[kingdong]

3 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Quite. TM was looking to ditch the ECHR after brexit, another case of the UK going back on it's word.

 

Theresa May will consider axeing the Human Rights Act after Brexit, despite promising she is “committed” to its protections, a minister has revealed.

The government will decide on the future of the landmark legislation once “the process of leaving the EU concludes”, a letter to a parliamentary inquiry says.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-act-repeal-brexit-echr-commons-parliament-conservatives-a8734886.html

Due to the misuse of the human rights act hope it do,es go.