Brexit negotiations restart in person as clock ticks down

[nauseus]

27 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

You can find them online...

 

The numbers are in your link, which fails to prove anything. 

[Loiner]

9 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

You can’t leave and then expect to be allowed to cherry pick the conditions you’d love to have either! 

 

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

But surely that applies to both sides of a dispute.

 

Just like the EU cherry picking which conditions they would 'allow' the UK to Brexit with. OK, you can leave but there are some conditions: 
We still want the same rights to your fish,

We still want to make all the rules about your state aid

We still want to make you subject to our courts

We still want your money and lots of other things which were hidden in the WA and not being publicized in the trade negotiations

We still want to cherry pick from the UK treasure island

[7by7]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I was referring only to the issue of chlorine washing, not doing a compare and contrast. Chlorine washing itself is safe according to the article. If you feel the need to down a KFC banquet three times a day then there might be a problem, I suppose! 

 

I refer you again to the conclusion of the Grocer article.

Quote

Following concerns raised by the poultry industry over the dual-tariff proposals, Environment secretary George Eustice and international trade secretary Liz Truss have written a joint letter to MPs insisting they won’t relax standards.

The government remained “firmly committed to upholding our high environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards outside the EU”, the letter said. These standards included a ban on artificial growth hormones and set out that “no products, other than potable water, are approved to decontaminate poultry carcases”.

(7by7 emphasis)

 It seems that the government, as well as most poultry farmers in the UK, do not share the Grocer's view!

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Hi from France said:

The ECJ is largely founded on British common law, and had its share of British judges/members. 

 

In the EU, it's "our market our rules", the UK might want things to look special because of British exceptionalism, but it will still be "our market our rules", just with more red tape because the Brits want their own special thing. 

 

For forty years, the Brits have been a pain in the EU and even now when going out, they are a real pain. This British exceptionalism is a real pain. 

 

Hilarious. EU (ECJ) Law is founded on Roman Law. Get with the system lol.

 

https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25619

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, Loiner said:

 

 

Just like the EU cherry picking which conditions they would 'allow' the UK to Brexit with. OK, you can leave but there are some conditions: 
We still want the same rights to your fish,

We still want to make all the rules about your state aid

We still want to make you subject to our courts

We still want your money and lots of other things which were hidden in the WA and not being publicized in the trade negotiations

We still want to cherry pick from the UK treasure island

 

We can leave anytime we want to; in fact, although you don't seem to have noticed, we have already left!

 

The conditions you list are their stance on a negotiated FTA between us and them.

 

Well, the first three on your list are.

 

The same rights to our fish? The rights that UK fleet owners sold to them. We also want the same rights to fish in their waters as we currently have.

 

Rules on state aid? The same rules that they will be subject to. But maybe you'd prefer EU manufacturers to receive large state subsidies on their exports to the UK so they can undercut UK manufacturers here?

 

Subject to the ECJ? Exactly the same as all other countries which have an FTA with the EU. But only to resolve any disputes arising from the FTA; nothing else. Why go to the expense of setting up an arbitration chamber when one already exists which is acceptable to every other country the EU has a FTA with and would probably be little used anyway?

 

The last two on your list are pure conjecture on your part; unless you can provide evidence with which to back them up?

[nauseus]

31 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Then why are Brexiteers moaning because the EU wont let the UK enjoy all the benefits of membership without any of the responsibilities?

 

We are actually not moaning. That is the remainers job.

 

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The Express for one; How much has Brexit cost? The staggering amount for UK taxpayers

 

 

Different number again and again not validated. Another story that could have been written by Enid Blyton.

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Hilarious. EU (ECJ) Law is founded on Roman Law. Get with the system lol.

 

https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25619

 

No mention of the ECJ in that book review; just European law in general.

 

Maybe you should buy the book, read it and then come back and tell us what it actually says about the ECJ? If anything!

[nauseus]

27 minutes ago, david555 said:

Yeah....and of course ii is "only Bloomberg "....such a amateuristic financial  news institute totaly unreliable for mister Nauseus ...

????????????????????

 

Oh dear o dear ....brexiteers you never see the end of their ignorance ????

 

If you have not noticed the decline in reporting standards and accuracy from Bloomberg and many others in recent years then it is you who has valid claim to the dunce's cap.

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

We are actually not moaning. That is the remainers job.

 

 

Brexiteers not moaning? Really?

 

Then how do you explain the multitudinous posts in this and all other Brexit topics from Brexiteers complaining because the EU wont give us everything Vote.Leave promised in 2016; i.e. all the benefits of membership without any of the responsibilities?

 

How do you explain the multitudinous posts from Brexiteers accusing the EU of shady tricks and double dealing based on zero evidence?

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

No mention of the ECJ in that book review; just European law in general.

 

Maybe you should buy the book, read it and then come back and tell us what it actually says about the ECJ? If anything!

 

Why a need to mention it. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the judicial institution of the European Union and uses European Union law. . 

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Different number again and again not validated. Another story that could have been written by Enid Blyton.

 Except it was in the Express; the Brexiteer's bible!

 

But no matter which source is used, you will refuse to accept the enormous cost to the UK of Brexit so far; let alone the future costs.

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

Brexiteers not moaning? Really?

 

Then how do you explain the multitudinous posts in this and all other Brexit topics from Brexiteers complaining because the EU wont give us everything Vote.Leave promised in 2016; i.e. all the benefits of membership without any of the responsibilities?

 

How do you explain the multitudinous posts from Brexiteers accusing the EU of shady tricks and double dealing based on zero evidence?

 

I don't need to explain the multitudinous posts complaining because the EU wont give us everything....because these posts don't exist in multitudinous numbers.

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Except it was in the Express; the Brexiteer's bible!

 

But no matter which source is used, you will refuse to accept the enormous cost to the UK of Brexit so far; let alone the future costs.

 

Of course there will be a cost but I don't accept these stories with zero proof (Express included).

[7by7]

Just now, nauseus said:

 

Why a need to mention it. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the judicial institution of the European Union and uses European Union law. . 

 

Yes, EU law; not the general term 'European law' which covers the individual laws of each European country, EU member or not.

 

EU law is based upon treaties: Types of EU law

Quote

The European Union is based on the rule of law. This means that every action taken by the EU is founded on treaties that have been approved democratically by its members. EU laws help to achieve the objectives of the EU treaties and put EU policies into practice. There are two main types of EU law – primary and secondary. 

 

Tell us on which page your book contradicts that.

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Of course there will be a cost but I don't accept these stories with zero proof (Express included).

 

The proof is in the research and other statistics quoted.

 

From The Economist 24/10/20:

Quote

When the post-Brexit transition period ends and Britain leaves the single market on December 31st, financial links with the eu will become, in the words of its new financial-services chief, Mairead McGuinness, “less fluid”. That is putting it mildly. British-registered financial firms will lose the “passporting” rights that have long allowed them to sell funds, debt, advice or insurance to clients across the eu unimpeded, as if they were domestic. Thousands of jobs and well over £1trn ($1.3trn) of assets have already been shifted to continental Europe as City firms confront this new friction.

(7by7 emphasis)

Not 'may be' but 'already been!'

 

[7by7]

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I don't need to explain the multitudinous posts complaining because the EU wont give us everything....because these posts don't exist in multitudinous numbers.

 

A not unexpected reply; because for you and other Brexiteers these moans and unsubstantiated allegations are not moans and unsubstantiated allegations. They are the 'proof' you desperately need in order to continue in your belief that you put your cross in the right box in 2016!

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Yes, EU law; not the general term 'European law' which covers the individual laws of each European country, EU member or not.

 

EU law is based upon treaties: Types of EU law

 

Tell us on which page your book contradicts that.

 

You now mention this general term 'European law', why? 

 

Roman law is the foundation of EU Law. 

 

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

A not unexpected reply; because for you and other Brexiteers these moans and unsubstantiated allegations are not moans and unsubstantiated allegations. They are the 'proof' you desperately need in order to continue in your belief that you put your cross in the right box in 2016!

 

Congratulations. You have completely lost me yet again. Must get a new GPS thingy. 

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 Then why are Brexiteers moaning because the EU wont let the UK enjoy all the benefits of membership without any of the responsibilities?

That's not the case the EU didn't want UK to leave in the first place.

Four years on and still not free of EU doesn't that say at lest something to you to be fair.

 

[Loiner]

44 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

We are actually not moaning. That is the remainers job.

 

What's the betting that they continue their moaning after we are out of the transition period and trade negotiations? 

"There must be another referendum on the negotiation results."

"We want a peoples negotiation."

"Frost didn't know what he was negotiating for." 

"All negotiators are idiots."
 

[david555]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

If you have not noticed the decline in reporting standards and accuracy from Bloomberg and many others in recent years then it is you who has valid claim to the dunce's cap.

Thanks ...lucky we have  you to point us in the right direction ....????...Instead of Bloomberg ....????

[Hi from France]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Hilarious. EU (ECJ) Law is founded on Roman Law. Get with the system lol.

 

https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25619

I do not see your point, AFAIK Roman and Common Law intertwined for centuries and they do in European Law as well. 

 

Now, I cannot read the 274 pages (and saw no mention of ECJ), so please sum it up for us since you evidently read this book before posting ...

 

.

Edited November 30, 2020 by Hi from France

[welovesundaysatspace]

24 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

That's not the case the EU didn't want UK to leave in the first place.

Even if that was true, it is up to each member state itself to leave or not. 

 

24 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Four years on and still not free of EU doesn't that say at lest something to you to be fair.

You are not an EU member anymore. You could have had it earlier. You could even have had it without the transition period. If anything, it says something about the UK. But certainly not that you’re “still not free”. 

[7by7]

34 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You now mention this general term 'European law', why? 

 

Because I am quoting your source!

 

36 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Roman law is the foundation of EU Law. 

Not according to the EU; the treaties are!

 

But I suppose you know more about it than they!

[7by7]

33 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Congratulations. You have completely lost me yet again. Must get a new GPS thingy. 

 

Almost, but not quite, totally unlike wit!

[billd766]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

This story has little evidence for such a big number.

Well I Googled it and the first entry was dated 01 October 2020.

 

https://fortune.com/2020/10/01/banks-trillions-jobs-brexit-move/

 

JPMorgan Chase & Co. has moved both assets and staff in recent weeks, while Goldman Sachs Group Inc. has planned for an extra 100 people to move to Europe.

 

https://www.finance-monthly.com/2020/10/banks-move-1-6-trillion-out-of-the-uk-ahead-of-brexit/

 

Financial services firms operating in the UK have shifted more than $1.6 trillion worth of assets and around 7,500 employees to the European Union ahead of Brexit, with more likely to follow in the weeks ahead, according to a report from Big Four accountancy firm Earnest and Yong (EY).

Tracking 222 of the largest financial firms maintaining significant operations in the UK, the EY report notes that around 400 relocations were announced in September alone amid uncertainty about the City of London’s continued access to the bloc in 2021.

 

I cannot find a date for this item.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-banks-pull-more-assets-from-london-ahead-of-crucial-brexit-deadline-11601551277

 

By 

Jem Bartholomew

Updated Oct. 1, 2020 7:57 am ET

 

London’s standing as the one-stop shop for American banks doing business in Europe is slipping, as lenders speed up movement of people and assets from the U.K. to the continent before a Brexit transition period ends Dec. 31. 

 

It seems to be mostly about US Banks and dated almost 2 months ago.

 

As Frank Carson used to say. "there's more where that came from".

Edited November 30, 2020 by billd766
added extra text

[7by7]

29 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

That's not the case the EU didn't want UK to leave in the first place

True, but they didn't stop us. Couldn't in fact.

 

30 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Four years on and still not free of EU doesn't that say at lest something to you to be fair.

It says a lot; mainly about Johnson's machinations to stage his coup with the support of the ERG.

 

Were it not for that we'd have been out with a trade deal signed at least a year ago.

 

Before you, or anyone else, repeat the nonsense about May's WA being BRINO, first explain how Johnson's deal is different.

 

 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Hi from France said:

The ECJ is largely founded on British common law, and had its share of British judges/members. 

 

In the EU, it's "our market our rules", the UK might want things to look special because of British exceptionalism, but it will still be "our market our rules", just with more red tape because the Brits want their own special thing. 

 

For forty years, the Brits have been a pain in the EU and even now when going out, they are a real pain. This British exceptionalism is a real pain. 

quote "In the EU, it's "our market our rules", the UK might want things to look special because of British exceptionalism, but it will still be "our market our rules", just with more red tape because the Brits want their own special thing."

 

But that works both ways, though in the UK it is more like "Our country, Our rules".

 

Ifthe UK want to export to the UK when the UK finally leaves, your exporters will have to follow UK rules, just as the EU is demanding that the UK does. Then people wonder why there s no level playing field.

 

BTW if the UK manufacyures a product that the EU want to buy at a lower cost, why does the EU not want to allow this to happen?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Because I am quoting your source!

 

Not according to the EU; the treaties are!

 

But I suppose you know more about it than they!

 

The original claim from Hi from France was that "the ECJ is largely founded on British common law, and had its share of British judges/members".

 

Now that is a load of tosh, which even you might acknowledge.