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

[Tofer]

12 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

You take the blinkers off. Compare what Vote Leave was telling us and where we are now.

Brexit would never have been voted for if people had known then what they know now.

Vote leave lied. Where is our easiest trade deal in history which keeps us in the single market?

It's being frustrated by the EU who, by the way, did a U turn on the Canada+++ style deal proposed / available in the early days, and seem to think they can demand that we will still be subject to EU rules and laws, contrary to the terms laid down in that hallowed document, the WA, that the EU seem no more inclined to abide by than the UK. They don't seem to have grasped the fact we've left the club, and now are completely outside the governance of the EU.

[Tofer]

12 hours ago, david555 said:

That is now the only thing i agree with you . More.... i would like it 5 minutes over already ...

I concur with that sentiment entirely.

 

We should have ditched negotiations in July, as originally threatened, and terminated the transition period, torn up the WA, and simply walked away. 

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I concur with that sentiment entirely.

 

We should have ditched negotiations in July, as originally threatened, and terminated the transition period, torn up the WA, and simply walked away. 

Or even better, left this time last year with no WA as I suggested at the time.

 

The WA just delayed No Deal and cost billions of pounds. It's not too late to tear it up though.

[Tofer]

10 hours ago, Hi from France said:

It will not go on paying EU membership fees four more years and it cannot gather the expertise needed.

Did Canada pay EU membership fees for 9 years then?

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Just highlights what a difficult organization the EU is, and why it takes them years and sometimes decades to get anything done.

 

After 4.5 years and tens of billions of pounds the UK is still no closer to a deal with them. So lets just move on and go WTO. Leave them to squabble amongst themselves. We'll remain open to a fair, mutually beneficial FTA and as soon as the EU gets their house in order (my guess would be 2025) we can sign it. Until then, WFO with WTO.

Just what I was thinking. Such a bureaucratic sloth is the EU. 

[transam]

35 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It was because the majority of the electorate rejected the anti-democratic approach of Labour and the Liberal Democrats who either wanted us to vote again until they got the 'correct' answer or simply ignore the vote altogether.

 

Democracy won big, the Tories won big. The vocal minority, the anti-democratic losers are still crying into their Glenfiddich but frankly, who cares.

Don't you think it strange that the remain camp come up with some really daft posts then easily get shot down in flames, no not with naughty flames.......????

[transam]

1 hour ago, polpott said:

It wasn't a landslide Tory victory, it was a landslide Corbyn loss.

That must be the twist of the day, , but then why didn't the Lib Dems take the votes, they were on the remain side and PROMISED to leave you remain guys in the EU...?

 

Now take your time to tell me why..........????

[polpott]

Just now, transam said:

That must be the twist of the day, , but then why didn't the Lib Dems take the votes, they were on the remain side and PROMISED to leave you remain guys in the EU...?

 

Now take your time to tell me why..........????

Same reasons, their leader was a disaster who subsequently resigned.

[transam]

Just now, polpott said:

Same reasons, their leader was a disaster who subsequently resigned.

You really should have taken more time with your answer....

 

Joe promised YOU, remainers,  NO BREXIT, so why didn't you remain lot secure NO BREXIT and then move on.

 

WHY.....?

[polpott]

Just now, transam said:

You really should have taken more time with your answer....

 

Joe promised YOU, remainers,  NO BREXIT, so why didn't you remain lot secure NO BREXIT and then move on.

 

WHY.....?

You're painting the last election as "all about Brexit". It , like all elections in the UK, was about a lot more than a single issue.

[david555]

35 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I concur with that sentiment entirely.

 

We should have ditched negotiations in July, as originally threatened, and terminated the transition period, torn up the WA, and simply walked away. 

Partly right … but in essence wrong out of my point of view opinion  ….

 

As 3 month's after referendum 4 years ago , i already settled with the thought that we could never agree  after reading brexiteers reactions ….. the only reason I am here is to react on postings and defending E.U. cause , no hoping for a sweet divorce (exist almost not in real life too....lol) ….. but now I hope together with you brexiteers it is quick Brexit exit day completed …. so you and we go know who was right or wrong …. maybe both ...lol..... and after the damage done on our both sides , maybe than it has a chance on mini mini deals …. let's find out 

 

 

PS: I personally find it's even almost time to " KICK you out" ???? …..enough is enough!! , "rien ne vas plus..." =

"no more bets" no offence.., same result for out means  out (dixit T.May. ) good luck wished !! ,as you go need it in high demand .

????

[Mavideol]

23 hours ago, vogie said:

I think if my children ever asked me if they could decimate the UKs fishing waters I'm afraid I would have to say no also.

come on Vogie, you can do better then that

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, david555 said:

Partly right … but in essence wrong out of my point of view opinion  ….

 

As 3 month's after referendum 4 years ago , i already settled with the thought that we could never agree  after reading brexiteers reactions ….. the only reason I am here is to react on postings and defending E.U. cause , no hoping for a sweet divorce (exist almost not in real life too....lol) ….. but now I hope together with you brexiteers it is quick Brexit exit day completed …. so you and we go know who was right or wrong …. maybe both ...lol..... and after the damage done on our both sides , maybe than it has a chance on mini mini deals …. let's find out 

 

 

PS: I personally find it's even almost time to " KICK you out" ???? …..enough is enough!! , "rien ne vas plus..." =

"no more bets" no offence.., same result for out means  out (dixit T.May. ) good luck wished !! ,as you go need it in high demand .

????

Well David, whatever your personal desire, it is quite obvious from the last 4 years' antics that the EU have had opposite hopes. The EU has tried all and any means to actually keep the UK in. If the EU had genuinely wanted to kick us out they could have done so easily and legally, 18 months ago. I am starting to agree with you, though.

[vogie]

1 hour ago, polpott said:

Same reasons, their leader was a disaster who subsequently resigned.

Always somebody elses fault, facts are wasted on denialists.

[polpott]

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

Always somebody elses fault, facts are wasted on denialists.

You think that I should blame myself for Labour's failure in the election? I fail to see why.

Edited October 21, 2020 by polpott

[vogie]

1 minute ago, polpott said:

You think that I should blame myself for Labour's failure in the election? I fail to see why.

And you don't ask yourself why Labour were a failure, could it have anything to do with Starmers 'Peoples Vote' Jeremy was the only Brexiteer among them, you shudda listened to Corbyn and perhaps Starmer shudda too.

Labours defeat was nothing to do with pot holes on the public highway. ????????????

[polpott]

Just now, vogie said:

And you don't ask yourself why Labour were a failure, could it have anything to do with Starmers 'Peoples Vote' Jeremy was the only Brexiteer among them, you shudda listened to Corbyn and perhaps Starmer shudda too.

Labours defeat was nothing to do with pot holes on the public highway. ????????????

It was more to do with their long winded manifesto which had more holes in it than Sukhumvit.

 

Corbyn was pro Brexit, then sat on the fence then finally toppled into the leave camp.

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If the EU had genuinely wanted to kick us out they could have done so easily and legally, 18 months ago.

I would love to know how. Would you mind to elaborate, especially the “legally” part of it by providing reference to the relevant laws? 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, polpott said:

It was more to do with their long winded manifesto which had more holes in it than Sukhumvit.

 

Corbyn was pro Brexit, then sat on the fence then finally toppled into the leave camp.

If Labour had been more pro Brexit they would have faired so much better, the public don't like their precious votes ignored, as shown. Democracy has won the day.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, polpott said:

It was more to do with their long winded manifesto which had more holes in it than Sukhumvit.

 

Corbyn was pro Brexit, then sat on the fence then finally toppled into the leave camp.

You still haven't given me a good reason why remain folk didn't bite the bullet and vote for a party that guaranteed remain, the Lib Dems, socialists voted Conservative on mass to LEAVE the EU..........????........Give it another shot...

[polpott]

Just now, transam said:

You still haven't given me a good reason why remain folk didn't bite the bullet and vote for a party that guaranteed remain, the Lib Dems, socialists voted Conservative on mass to LEAVE the EU..........????........Give it another shot...

I have given a reason. You either don't understand it or refuse to understand it.

[Hi from France]

about UE REACH and if you have no time to watching the hearings, can can access the transcript

 

just an extract:

Quote

We would like to see more opportunities. We are struggling to see them, as the vast majority of our members will want to keep manufacturing to EU REACH standards.

 

Chair: Thank you. Do you see any opportunities?

 

Tom Bowtell: The UK authorities have a more pragmatic and risk‑based approach to chemicals management than the EU. This may bring opportunities in the future, but, where it gives rise to trade or environmental concerns, we would not be in favour of that kind of divergence.

 

Silvia Segna: To Tom’s point, the risk of weakening the competitiveness of the UK chemical industry is the biggest threat as the transition comes to an end. As to the implications for chemical policy, any substance that is manufactured in the UK or imported would be subject to dual regulation to place it on both the UK and the EU market, considering our strong trading relationship with the EU. This could directly affect the future viability of products.

 

There may be opportunities for chemical policy, in improving chemical legislation and its processes, and making efficiencies, with more risk‑based evaluation of chemicals. We could see further support in the UK for the use of alternative methods to animal testing, while ensuring a high level of human health and environmental protection. However, overall, the opportunities tend to be outweighed by the challenges that businesses will face in responding to separate and parallel regimes going forward.

 

Dr Michael Warhurst: From CHEM Trust’s point of view, we know that EU REACH is the most advanced system in the world. It is not perfect and we are working at EU level to improve it. Ultimately, no real opportunities arise from the UK moving away from that system because, as has been mentioned, anything going to the EU will have to follow EU rules anyway. You will end up with the massive risk that the UK system has much less information and expertise in it.

 

The EU system has a huge database, built up over more than a decade, of information on chemicals. Even then, there is often not enough information there. The UK will start with an empty database and will try to fill it. Originally, it was going to try to fill it in two years. It is now delaying that following the Government’s partial deregulation of the system, so the information will not be of the same quality at all. The scale of the resources in the UK will not be the same, and we are worried that the UK system will end up being a bit hollow. Theoretically, there is a lot there, but in reality not so much is happening because there is not the capacity to do it.

 

We know there are chemicals in everyday use in our homes that are accumulating in our bodies and contaminating wildlife, from polar bears to killer whales. In one recent piece of research, they have been found in the poo of chimpanzees. The problem is there with chemicals and we are not going to address it better by separating from that system.

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1020/html/

 

in a few week and whether there is a deal or not, the UK chemical industry one of the most competitive of the world (e.g. the french are far behind), will loose REACH

 

Believe me this is a huge huge self harm, and most europeans Barnier and myself included could not believe the UK would do that en 2017.

 

 

 

As pensioners, maybe you don't care, maybe you think it doesn't concern you but will only affect the young educated brits who voted remain 70%. Still in a few years, the loss of all these UE common regulation bodies will have a much bigger impact than tariffs.

 

 

And while we are talking at length about a Canada/Australia/Mongolia deal, anyway the UK has explicitly refused to take advantage of all these common systems : Police, Fisheries (of course), Satellites, medicines, chemicals, vocational training, energy, innovation, food safety ...

 

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Hi from France

[JonnyF]

17 minutes ago, polpott said:

It was more to do with their long winded manifesto which had more holes in it than Sukhumvit.

 

Corbyn was pro Brexit, then sat on the fence then finally toppled into the leave camp.

Corbyn was a coward. He knew the EU was flawed and that Brexit was a good idea but decided to sit on the fence because he thought it was easier politically to do so.

 

It cost him the leadership of the party and any credibility he might have once had. Fortunately for Jezza, given that he was a fringe lunatic Marxist champagne socialist, the loss of credibility was comparable to a bat losing it's eyesight ????.

[polpott]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Corbyn was a coward. He knew the EU was flawed and that Brexit was a good idea but decided to sit on the fence because he thought it was easier politically to do so.

 

It cost him the leadership of the party and any credibility he might have once had. Fortunately for Jezza, given that he was a fringe lunatic Marxist champagne socialist, the loss of credibility was comparable to a bat losing it's eyesight ????.

Agree except that Corbyn had been anti EU throughout his career. Was part of the leave campaign in 75.

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

Nonsense, unless you've been walking around with your eyes closed for the last almost 5 years, you will be well aware the WA was voted down in the HOC, and predominantly because Mrs. May was colluding with the EU on a watered down version of Brexit.

And which party is Teresa May in?

As I said. The reason for the delay was because the Conservative party could not agree on which version of Brexit it wanted.

Then there was a right wing zealot coup and it became the Brexit fundamentalist extreme English nationalist party cult.

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, Hi from France said:

about UE REACH and if you have no time to watching the hearings, can can access the transcript

 

just an extract:

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1020/html/

 

in a few week and whether there is a deal or not, the UK chemical industry one of the most competitive of the world (e.g. the french are far behind), will loose REACH

 

Believe me this is a huge huge self harm, and most europeans Barnier and myself included could not believe the UK would do that en 2017.

 

 

 

As pensioners, maybe you don't care, maybe you think it doesn't concern you but will only affect the young educated brits who voted remain 70%. Still in a few years, the loss of all these UE common regulation bodies will have a much bigger impact than tariffs.

 

 

And while we are talking at length about a Canada/Australia/Mongolia deal, anyway the UK has explicitly refused to take advantage of all these common systems : Police, Fisheries (of course), Satellites, medicines, chemicals, vocational training, energy, innovation, food safety ...

 

 

Where did you find this ridiculous map?

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

It was because the majority of the electorate rejected the anti-democratic approach of Labour and the Liberal Democrats who either wanted us to vote again until they got the 'correct' answer or simply ignore the vote altogether.

 

Democracy won big, the Tories won big. The vocal minority, the anti-democratic losers are still crying into their Glenfiddich but frankly, who cares.

The Conservatives got 43.6% of the vote so no, the majority of the electorate did nothing of the kind.

[Rookiescot]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

It's being frustrated by the EU who, by the way, did a U turn on the Canada+++ style deal proposed / available in the early days, and seem to think they can demand that we will still be subject to EU rules and laws, contrary to the terms laid down in that hallowed document, the WA, that the EU seem no more inclined to abide by than the UK. They don't seem to have grasped the fact we've left the club, and now are completely outside the governance of the EU.

Yeah thank goodness that Johnson came up with his cunning North Korea + deal.

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

I would love to know how. Would you mind to elaborate, especially the “legally” part of it by providing reference to the relevant laws? 

The only relevant law is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. In March 2017 A50 was triggered. In March 2019 the nominal 2 year nominal time limit for exit 'arrangements' to be made was up and the EU was free to say "on yer bike". But they didn't, did they? 

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, transam said:

You really should have taken more time with your answer....

 

Joe promised YOU, remainers,  NO BREXIT, so why didn't you remain lot secure NO BREXIT and then move on.

 

WHY.....?

Because most of the time a vote for the Lib dems is a wasted vote.