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

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

I can easily believe that you found Colin Yeo's article difficult to comprehend. But what is it about "The tribunal found that even if the EU law argument had failed, he would have a right to stay under human rights law" that you don't understand?

And the French are doing what they can to stop them. Two recent examples: from 29/9/20 French police clear migrant camp at launch point for Britain; from10/7/20 Police dismantle a makeshift shelter camp in Calais.

 

Of course this is nothing new. From1/3/16: Demolition teams begin to dismantle Calais 'Jungle'

 

As already said, what the French navy, and UK border Force, do depends on where the boats are found and what the conditions are. That is international maritime law and nothing to do with the EU.

 

The French do, of course, stop migrants from crossing the Channel. France 'as committed as UK' to stop Channel crossings, MPs told

 

You shouldn't rely on people like Farage for information on this: France “escorts” migrants to the United Kingdom: the leader of the Brexit Party

 That article also gives a reminder of the law

I remind you again; international law, not EU law.

 

 

I admit that such evidence is almost impossible to find as the UK media are as disinterested in it as you are. But  international law means that migrant boats cannot be stopped unless they are in difficulties. British boats would do the same with migrants found in difficulties in French waters as French boats do with migrant boats found in British waters.

 

Although not directly about the Channel, this scholarly article may help you understand the law on this: The duty to rescue refugees and migrants at sea.

 

 

I have answered every question put to me.

 

You have answered very few; if any.

Excellent, informative reply. 

[7by7]

9 hours ago, kingdong said:

Looks like a bit of a circular route,fares are going to be a bit trumpy,lets see how long that lasts.

 

Lorries sitting idle in a queue in Kent do not make money. Also the time spent in that queue does not constitute a break except in certain circumstances. Being out of the cab whilst on a ferry does constitute a break.

 

So these fares would have to be very high to be less economical than sitting in a queue in Kent or the Pas de Calais!

[7by7]

8 hours ago, kingdong said:

The problem could be solved by sticking a security seal on the cargo when the lorry embarks at.dover and removed at the port when it leaves uk.

 Not really as the contents of the lorry would need to be checked and all the relevant forms filled in etc. when being loaded and unloaded. Similar to the TIR system.

 

Just moving the problem somewhere else, not solving it.

[7by7]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Excellent, informative reply. 

 Thank you.

[placeholder]

On 11/30/2020 at 11:36 AM, Tofer said:

 

Don't be insulting - your arrogance knows no bounds.

 

You can woffle around inconsequential potential scenarios as much as you like but the FACT remains it was EU LAW that dictated the decision in this case.

 

Don't ask for proof, if you can't accept the truth of the answer.

 

 

The VIDEO report from Nigel Farage, that you choose to deride, is uncontestable evidence to the contrary, unlike the cosy office produced newspaper article you linked.

 

 

What part of "in difficulties" did the French / EU navy vessels not understand in the Farage videos?

 

The British Border Force vessels stopped them and picked them up IMMEDIATELY they entered UK waters. And before you start spouting that they asked to be picked up, you do not know that for certain. You watch the video and then try to justify this well managed exercise of escorting and transferring illegal / unsafe migrants across the French border into the UK.

 

 

Rather disingenuous I have to say, as I presume (because I'm not about to read International Maritime Law on the subject), this refers to seaworthy vessels going about their legal business.

 

Illegal migrants without passports being trafficked from a safe country in unsuitable, unseaworthy and dangerously overloaded dinghies is not legal or safe activity. Aside from the fact it is unconscionable activity to be aiding their passage to their potential death. 

 

Using your logic, I presume you consider the interception of drug traffickers and terrorists is breaking International Maritime Law...

 

How do the threats to impound Nigel Farage's vessel, for filming these activities, not transgress Int. Maritime Law?

 

 

Rubbish. And before you ask, I'm not about to trawl through 130 pages to disprove you're disingenuous statement - it's simply not worth the effort. I am not so pedantic, and have better things to do with my time.

Just about any use of your time would be better than making assertions unbacked by an independent source. You should have followed your rule about not wasting time before you made this post.

Edited December 1, 2020 by placeholder

[david555]

From the Express......so just value it as coming from "the Express" ????????????

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1366730/brexit-news-eu-uk-trade-deal-justice-ECHR-michel-barnier-boris-johnson-latest

 

Boris caves: UK gives in on Brexit red line, Barnier tells MEPs - 'British have accepted'

BORIS Johnson has agreed to keep Britain tied to European human rights rules in order to strike a trade and security deal with Brussels.

By Joe Barnes, Brussels Correspondent

07:38, Tue, Dec 1, 2020 | UPDATED: 08:39, Tue, Dec 1, 2020

Michel Barnier claimed the Prime Minister has accepted that future police and judicial co-operation must be underpinned by the European Convention of Human Rights. The Brussels diplomat said this has paved the way to finalising terms on a deal that will make it easier for Britain to extradite terrorists and share criminal data with the bloc. An agreement has been on the verge of completion for longer than a month since Lord Frost first signalled the UK would soften its stance.

 

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, david555 said:

From the Express......so just value it as coming from "the Express" ????????????

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1366730/brexit-news-eu-uk-trade-deal-justice-ECHR-michel-barnier-boris-johnson-latest

 

Boris caves: UK gives in on Brexit red line, Barnier tells MEPs - 'British have accepted'

BORIS Johnson has agreed to keep Britain tied to European human rights rules in order to strike a trade and security deal with Brussels.

By Joe Barnes, Brussels Correspondent

07:38, Tue, Dec 1, 2020 | UPDATED: 08:39, Tue, Dec 1, 2020

Michel Barnier claimed the Prime Minister has accepted that future police and judicial co-operation must be underpinned by the European Convention of Human Rights. The Brussels diplomat said this has paved the way to finalising terms on a deal that will make it easier for Britain to extradite terrorists and share criminal data with the bloc. An agreement has been on the verge of completion for longer than a month since Lord Frost first signalled the UK would soften its stance.

 

 

Do they still want to extradite our fishies too?

[Tofer]

22 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Quote

On 11/27/2020 at 4:33 AM, 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?

Expand  

 

Still waiting for an answer.

 

Since you are still crowing about your unanswered questions, like a broken record.

 

Have you never heard of the EU CCT - Common Customs Tariff?

[david555]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Do they still want to extradite our fishies too?

I understand in full your doubts ....that is why i marked it came from  The Express quality ???? tabloid ....so even i dont take this serious ....

 

But i found anyway to show the " quality newspaper article "

 

Dont take it as i believe it ..????

Edited December 1, 2020 by david555

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, david555 said:

I understand in full your doubts ....that is why i marked it came from  The Express quality  tabloid ....so even i dont take this serious ....

 

But i found anyway to show the " quality newspaper article "

 

Dont take it as i believe it ..????

 

Well I didn't see any similar stories yet but if the Express has it - good enough for me.

[kingdong]

On 11/30/2020 at 4:36 AM, Tofer said:

 

Don't be insulting - your arrogance knows no bounds.

 

You can woffle around inconsequential potential scenarios as much as you like but the FACT remains it was EU LAW that dictated the decision in this case.

 

Don't ask for proof, if you can't accept the truth of the answer.

 

 

The VIDEO report from Nigel Farage, that you choose to deride, is uncontestable evidence to the contrary, unlike the cosy office produced newspaper article you linked.

 

 

What part of "in difficulties" did the French / EU navy vessels not understand in the Farage videos?

 

The British Border Force vessels stopped them and picked them up IMMEDIATELY they entered UK waters. And before you start spouting that they asked to be picked up, you do not know that for certain. You watch the video and then try to justify this well managed exercise of escorting and transferring illegal / unsafe migrants across the French border into the UK.

 

 

Rather disingenuous I have to say, as I presume (because I'm not about to read International Maritime Law on the subject), this refers to seaworthy vessels going about their legal business.

 

Illegal migrants without passports being trafficked from a safe country in unsuitable, unseaworthy and dangerously overloaded dinghies is not legal or safe activity. Aside from the fact it is unconscionable activity to be aiding their passage to their potential death. 

 

Using your logic, I presume you consider the interception of drug traffickers and terrorists is breaking International Maritime Law...

 

How do the threats to impound Nigel Farage's vessel, for filming these activities, not transgress Int. Maritime Law?

 

 

Rubbish. And before you ask, I'm not about to trawl through 130 pages to disprove you're disingenuous statement - it's simply not worth the effort. I am not so pedantic, and have better things to do with my time.

The points you raise illustrate the inadequencies of existing laws that were made how ever well intentioned totally useless regarding the criminal activity of human trafficking.

[kingdong]

On 11/29/2020 at 3:49 AM, david555 said:

True..but by this way saving ruining your roads and lower road congestion for goods with  anyway not U.K. destination .

 

 

The post covid depression and legislation that landlords are unable to evict tenants during covid will do that,though doubtless the remainers will claim its because of brexit.

[david555]

3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

The post covid depression and legislation that landlords are unable to evict tenants during covid will do that,though doubtless the remainers will claim its because of brexit.

What has that to do with my post you reply on ....?????

I was pointing out that bypas detour saves time and cogestion & and no paperwork for delivering goods who even are not for U.K. destination ....as from E.U to E.U. territory.????

Edited December 1, 2020 by david555

[7by7]

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

Aside from ignoring the evidential facts,

 

What evidential facts am I ignoring?

 

The  ruling from the UK's Asylum and Immigration Tribunal?

 

An article on the relevant law by a well respected UK barrister?

 

The numerous media reports about the French authorities clearing migrant camps in the Pas de Calais?

 

The report by the UK's Home Office's clandestine Channel threat commander, to the UK Parliament's Home Affairs select committee!!

 

International maritime law?

 

No, I have not ignored any of those; I cited them!

 

It is you who is ignoring all of them in favour of a self publicist and proven liar.

 

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

you also have a selective memory.

 

Really? Remind me, then; what have I forgotten?

 

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

But, as I said before I'm not wasting anytime trying to prove you wrong, as I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall.

 

The frequently used Brexiteer equivalent of a small boy throwing a tantrum, screwing up his little face to stop the tears of frustration and taking his bat and ball home because he's losing.

[evadgib]

24 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The frequently used Brexiteer equivalent of a small boy throwing a tantrum, screwing up his little face to stop the tears of frustration and taking his bat and ball home because he's losing.

Amply describing your own behavior...

[7by7]

33 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Amply describing your own behavior...

 You must be looking in a mirror.

 

I have answered every question put to me, provided evidence to back up my assertions and opinions at every opportunity.

 

You, on the other hand...........

[evadgib]

More Red Meat...

CMA publishes EU Exit guidance

Quote

The CMA has today published further guidance to explain how it will conduct its work following the end of the Transition Period for the UK’s exit from the EU.

 

[candide]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

The deals the UK do will be UK deals, and however much they reflect that of the original EU deals will obviously not, as you previously stated, ""be extant"" of the EU deals in it's entirety, regarding the rules that we wish to take back control of and levels, if any, of trade tariffs we wish to agree.

Exactly! ????

"Japan trade deal commits UK to stricter state aid curbs than in EU talks"

https://www.ft.com/content/edb7d155-56b4-4065-9f83-31b2247fa178

[7by7]

@Tofer, you have now made three posts in which you've tried, and failed, to prove me wrong since you said 

On 12/1/2020 at 6:45 AM, Tofer said:

as I said before I'm not wasting anytime trying to prove you wrong

Plus a couple more meaningless random ones addressed to me.

 

I have answered all your points, but will do so one last time.

 

1) I did not deny that EU law was used in Chindamo's AIT hearing. However, as the Tribunal themselves say, had he not qualified under EU residency rules then he would have done so under the ECHR. 

 

You have ignored Colin Yeo's article which proves that EU law does not prevent deportation of EU national criminals. But then, he's only a barrister specialising in immigration law; so maybe you think you know more about this subject than he!

 

The following also proves that the UK being unable to deport EU criminals is a lie: Brexit campaign accused of 'distorting real picture' over claim EU stops UK deporting dozens of criminals (dated 7/6/2016)

Quote

'The bigger picture is that our access to the European Arrest Warrant has allowed us to deport 6,500 European criminals since 2010. That's 130 times the number of criminals Vote Leave have identified'

That works out at an average of almost 20 per week!

 

2) You have consistently ignored the evidence from Dan O'Mahoney, the Home Office's clandestine Channel threat commander, to the Home Affairs Select Committee at the beginning of September 2020. 3000 people stopped by the French in the first 8 months of 2020. But maybe you think you and your hero Farage know more than the man in charge of the UK's channel operations!

 

3) The duty to rescue vessels in peril begins when the vessel in question becomes, as the quote from the article you, yourself posted, says  "in need of a rescue." Until the vessel in question indicates such, the French, or British, have no right, let alone duty, to rescue them. The only moral duty they have is to stand by in case the vessels do indicate their need to be rescued.

I have never denied that, if at all possible, the migrant boats wait until they are in UK waters before they ask for rescue. They have been told what they need to do by the people smugglers they have paid. They know that if they are picked up in French waters then they will be returned to France, if picked up in UK waters they'll be taken to the UK, if picked up in international waters, which is unlikely as in that part of the channel there are none such, then it depends on who picks them up. That is international maritime law and nothing to do with the French nor the EU.

 

4) Of course the EU's CCT applies to trade between EU members and non EU members! 

 

But, surprise, surprise (sarcasm) you have dodged the main issue

 

As you say, the UK is now negotiating our own trade deals. Most of those so far are simple copies of those the EU have, the ones we used to trade with those countries when we were a member. So any tariffs applied by the CCT will apply to those UK deals.

 

The big exception to this is the Japan deal, which, as @candide points out, has stricter terms than the EU/Japan deal. It also merely gives us the leftovers from the EU/Japan deal which the EU didn't want!

 

As for future deals, if any, what tariffs, if any, will be, as you say, a matter to be negotiated between the UK and country concerned. But to assume, as you did, that once we are free of the shackles of the CCT there will be none, that all future deals the UK makes will be tariff free shows enormous naivety on your part. 

 

Please note; for when you again break your word and respond with the same repetitive nonsense; I'll just refer you back to this post.

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by 7by7
Addendum

[candide]

17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

As you say, the UK is now negotiating our own trade deals. Most of those so far are simple copies of those the EU have, the ones we used to trade with those countries when we were a member

To be honest (beyond my usual sarcasms) the British actively participated in the negotiation of EU trade deals. In particular, provisions about services (the most difficult to get accepted by partners) have taken into account British interests, as it was the largest service industry in the EU.

So the EU deals were already UK deals. It is likely that the new deals won't be much different.

[Tofer]

 

On 12/2/2020 at 6:05 PM, 7by7 said:

@Tofer, you have now made three posts in which you've tried, and failed, to prove me wrong since you said 

 

That's a matter of your personal misguided opinion, since.....

 

On 12/2/2020 at 6:05 PM, 7by7 said:

I did not deny that EU law was used in Chindamo's AIT hearing. However,

 

Finally you concede my answer was correct., although it took you an inordinate length of time and convincing for you to comprehend it! You have, in fact, quoted the answer to your original question which, bye the way, shows you contradicting your opening statement... 

 

There is no "however" and hypothesis necessary, the subject ended with the actual court decision being evidence of the EU's control of UK laws, as per your original question. Further pontification is absolutely irrelevant.

 

On 12/2/2020 at 6:05 PM, 7by7 said:

The duty to rescue vessels in peril begins when the vessel in question becomes, as the quote from the article you, yourself posted, says  "in need of a rescue." Until the vessel in question indicates such, the French, or British, have no right, let alone duty, to rescue them. The only moral duty they have is to stand by in case the vessels do indicate their need to be rescued.

 

Make your mind up! Is my quote correct or your spurious interpretation of it, since "in need of rescue" and "indicate their need to be rescued" are 2 completely different situations.

 

In a dangerously overloaded and unseaworthy dinghy taking on water and at imminent risk of sinking, they are quite obviously "in need of rescue", not a detached escort for 12 nautical miles and however many hours on their journey in freezing cold rough seas and busy shipping lanes, during which they are undoubtedly in serious danger of drowning / hypothermia, not to mention the blatantly criminal activity of people trafficking.

 

But hey, don't let the death of a few insignificant foreign migrants, that the French are happy to see take the risk to be rid of, bother your pedantic attitude on the subject. I'm sure you sleep nights very well, knowing you are right, as per the letter of the law..... I'll concede that one on the grounds of your apparent questionable morals.

 

On 12/2/2020 at 6:05 PM, 7by7 said:

But to assume, as you did, that once we are free of the shackles of the CCT there will be none, that all future deals the UK makes will be tariff free shows enormous naivety on your part. 

 

There you go again with your creative imagination, and false quotes, since I never said or implied such a statement. Go on, prove me wrong, quote my ACTUAL words.... ????

 

I rest my case. ????

 

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Tofer