Brexit negotiations restart in person as clock ticks down

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Hi from France said:

You're fine really, you are contributing seriously and you're welcome correcting my mistakes ????

 

From remote Thailand, did your position on Brexit change since 2016? Do you think the UK is getting now what was promised then?

Thank you for your kind words. I sometimes either start a post or reply to someone elses and then realise that what I am writing is not what I mean to say, Then it is go into Google and search around for the subject and realise that I was wrong from start to finish and rewrite my post or reply.

 

Back in 2016 I decided to vote leave though back in 1975 I voted to stay in the EEC. I. along with millions of other people were lied to by the then UK PM, Edward Heath and the Tories. I was quite happy remaining in the EEC but over the years it changed politically and morphed into the monster that it is now which of course is the EU.

 

Back then there was no internet, mobile phones etc so it was much easier to hide things  from the voters. The EU changed from the EEC with little political control to where it is now with 27 countries plus the UK, each having the opion of vetoing and in many cases trying to get 27/28 countries to agree on something is almost impossible.

 

Back to the 2016 referendum.

 

My [position hasn't changed and I voted to leave and not remain. The PM at the time, David Cameron stated that leave means leave completely. No hard or soft Brexit, just in or out. There was a referendum with Leave or remain as the only 2 options and the Leavers won the vote democratically and expected the rest of the country to follow. It was a badly worded and thought out referendum given by a PM who thought he would win hands down.

 

It has split the UK and in the 4 1/2 years since the referendum there are a lot of hard core Remainers who have constantly fought against that result, quite a few are on TVF and from me they will remain nameless. Their opinion is worth the same as mine. 

 

At the end of this month the UK will leave the EU with or without a deal but perhaps a fuded up compromise which will satisfy both sides but in name only. Next year it will rumble on I expect.

 

Would I change my vote. Not at all but I would love to change a lot of the politicians on both sides if only I could.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

Thank you for your kind words. I sometimes either start a post or reply to someone elses and then realise that what I am writing is not what I mean to say, Then it is go into Google and search around for the subject and realise that I was wrong from start to finish and rewrite my post or reply.

 

Back in 2016 I decided to vote leave though back in 1975 I voted to stay in the EEC. I. along with millions of other people were lied to by the then UK PM, Edward Heath and the Tories. I was quite happy remaining in the EEC but over the years it changed politically and morphed into the monster that it is now which of course is the EU.

 

Back then there was no internet, mobile phones etc so it was much easier to hide things  from the voters. The EU changed from the EEC with little political control to where it is now with 27 countries plus the UK, each having the opion of vetoing and in many cases trying to get 27/28 countries to agree on something is almost impossible.

 

Back to the 2016 referendum.

 

My [position hasn't changed and I voted to leave and not remain. The PM at the time, David Cameron stated that leave means leave completely. No hard or soft Brexit, just in or out. There was a referendum with Leave or remain as the only 2 options and the Leavers won the vote democratically and expected the rest of the country to follow. It was a badly worded and thought out referendum given by a PM who thought he would win hands down.

 

It has split the UK and in the 4 1/2 years since the referendum there are a lot of hard core Remainers who have constantly fought against that result, quite a few are on TVF and from me they will remain nameless. Their opinion is worth the same as mine. 

 

At the end of this month the UK will leave the EU with or without a deal but perhaps a fuded up compromise which will satisfy both sides but in name only. Next year it will rumble on I expect.

 

Would I change my vote. Not at all but I would love to change a lot of the politicians on both sides if only I could.

The leavers hardly said in or out. Gove for example said there would be free trade throughout the EU for the UK.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

I called you pedantic because I believed you were being so; for the reasons I gave.

 

 

Apols, I wasn't clear; there is, of course, an EU defence force; the European Defence Agency. 

 The UK was in the EDA prior to Brexit, and the October 2019 Political Declaration accompanying the Withdrawal Agreement expresses the intention of the UK and the EU to “support ambitious, close and lasting cooperation on external threats”. (Source) 

 

However, I made an assumption; which was wrong of me. I assumed that you meant an actual EU army independent of member state's governments and answerable to the Commission alone. That, of course, is an absurd notion; but one which certain Brexiteers here, including @nauseus on whom you rely to see my posts, still adhere to despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

When I post opinions I try as often as I can to post links which support my opinion. But an opinion is not a fact.

 

When I post facts, I always provide links as proof of those facts; as I have above and in my previous to which you are responding.

 

I have never understood, and never will understand, the need some posters have to use the ignore list. Personally, if another poster challenges my opinions then I'd rather stay and fight my corner than run away and hide.

 

Could someone not on his ignore list please quote this so billd766 can see it?

I see posts like yours when other people respond, or at least the condensed part which I can expand if I am interested, but sad to say I am not really interested in what you say most of the time, hence you are on my ignore list.

Edited December 2, 2020 by billd766
Bad spelling

[billd766]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The leavers hardly said in or out. Gove for example said there would be free trade throughout the EU for the UK.

The referendum on which we voted was fairly simple, leave or remain. It was not on who said what before and after the referendum. I could quote chapter and verse on which politician said what but it is meaningless.

 

There are quite a few Brexit threads on TVF with literally thousands of posts going back over the years if you want to bored by them.

 

What we should be doing is looking forwards and not at things that have passed.

[placeholder]

23 minutes ago, billd766 said:

The referendum on which we voted was fairly simple, leave or remain. It was not on who said what before and after the referendum. I could quote chapter and verse on which politician said what but it is meaningless.

 

There are quite a few Brexit threads on TVF with literally thousands of posts going back over the years if you want to bored by them.

 

What we should be doing is looking forwards and not at things that have passed.

No one actually ever defined what Brexit meant. It's not like it existed in the dictionary or in legal terminology. I do agree that debating what it's meaning was pre-election is pointless. As for looking forward, well, isn't that what predictions are about? And I don't see how it's possible for anyone to have much insight into what the future will be unless we know whether or not an agreement has been reached, and if so, what exactly it is. Most economists agree that it will inhibit the growth of the UK economy to some extent in the long run, but not catastrophically. But if no agreement were reached at all, the short run would look pretty grim.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

It seems that you include my ID "nauseus" intentionally so that I will not only read this absurd rubbish, but also repost it, which I certainly won't be doing.

 

Choose another bait but make it tasty.

 

Wrong.

 

I included your ID because you are the one who posts about the absurd notion that there is an EU army more frequently than any one else; as the context makes clear.

 

That he said he saw my first post because you quoted it is a side issue.

[Bruntoid]

5 hours ago, billd766 said:

I see posts like yours when other people respond, or at least the condensed part which I can expand if I am interested, but sad to say I am not really interested in what you say most of the time, hence you are on my ignore list.

Seriously how fragile do you have to be as a, presumably, adult, to have an ‘ignore’ list ? 

[7by7]

Those who still insist that we were lied to in 1975 may be interested in this article from the Brexit supporting Telegraph.

 

No, Britain wasn't lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were getting into.

 

As that is behind a pay wall some may prefer Voters weren’t conned in 1975 referendum

Quote

Voters in 1975 were asked if they wanted to “stay in the European Community (the common market)”. But the debate was not simply about economics. The Yes campaign refer to the benefits for safety and security. The “political case” was “paramount”, said Margaret Thatcher. A few years before, Prime Minister Edward Heath had spoken of a “united Europe” and a “European destiny” – and in 1973 he stated in the Illustrated London News that “the Community we are joining is far more than a common market. It is a community in the full sense of that term”, citing the bloc’s ambitions in the field of environmental, social and vocational training policy. The Times editorial on referendum day referred in glowing terms to campaign speeches that had given a “sense of European development as an ideal”, and agreed we were part of a “European family”.

Eurosceptics imply the phrase “Common Market” was used by pro-Europeans to pull the wool over voters’ eyes. But, while the phrase appears extensively in the No campaign leaflet, their europhile counterparts use it hardly at all. Neither the Heath speeches nor the Times editorial cited above mention the phrase.

 

Notice the name Margaret Thatcher in that quote. Whilst regarded by many as a Eurosceptic, she was in fact an enthusiastic supporter of the Single European Act, which led to the Maastricht Treaty which turned the EEC into the EU.

 

Back to what was really said in 1975:

(Source)

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Wrong.

 

I included your ID because you are the one who posts about the absurd notion that there is an EU army more frequently than any one else; as the context makes clear.

 

That he said he saw my first post because you quoted it is a side issue.

 

Wrong.

 

It looks like you included my ID because you want to draw me into yet another argument.

 

I have posted that the EU intend to have an army but not that they have one already. Supporting evidence was provided then. 

 

 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Those who still insist that we were lied to in 1975 may be interested in this article from the Brexit supporting Telegraph.

 

No, Britain wasn't lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were getting into.

 

As that is behind a pay wall some may prefer Voters weren’t conned in 1975 referendum

 

Notice the name Margaret Thatcher in that quote. Whilst regarded by many as a Eurosceptic, she was in fact an enthusiastic supporter of the Single European Act, which led to the Maastricht Treaty which turned the EEC into the EU.

 

Back to what was really said in 1975:

(Source)

 

More selective gash. Where did you get your poster from? Oh, I see, never mind.

 

The term Common Market was used by everyone in the UK. Even in Wilson's referendum leaflet, 27 times:

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm#14

 

 

 

[Hi from France]

9 hours ago, billd766 said:

Thank you for your kind words. I sometimes either start a post or reply to someone elses and then realise that what I am writing is not what I mean to say, Then it is go into Google and search around for the subject and realise that I was wrong from start to finish and rewrite my post or reply.

 

Back in 2016 I decided to vote leave though back in 1975 I voted to stay in the EEC. I. along with millions of other people were lied to by the then UK PM, Edward Heath and the Tories. I was quite happy remaining in the EEC but over the years it changed politically and morphed into the monster that it is now which of course is the EU.

 

Back then there was no internet, mobile phones etc so it was much easier to hide things  from the voters. The EU changed from the EEC with little political control to where it is now with 27 countries plus the UK, each having the opion of vetoing and in many cases trying to get 27/28 countries to agree on something is almost impossible.

 

Back to the 2016 referendum.

 

My [position hasn't changed and I voted to leave and not remain. The PM at the time, David Cameron stated that leave means leave completely. No hard or soft Brexit, just in or out. There was a referendum with Leave or remain as the only 2 options and the Leavers won the vote democratically and expected the rest of the country to follow. It was a badly worded and thought out referendum given by a PM who thought he would win hands down.

 

It has split the UK and in the 4 1/2 years since the referendum there are a lot of hard core Remainers who have constantly fought against that result, quite a few are on TVF and from me they will remain nameless. Their opinion is worth the same as mine. 

 

At the end of this month the UK will leave the EU with or without a deal but perhaps a fuded up compromise which will satisfy both sides but in name only. Next year it will rumble on I expect.

 

Would I change my vote. Not at all but I would love to change a lot of the politicians on both sides if only I could.

Thank you

 

Above all one very important thing, as a Erasmus student in the UK I was, quite disappointed hearing the english talk about the EEC "we cannot avoid it", the least you can say is even the most learned had very little enthusiasm and had this feeling like looking down on us while profiting without contributing and most of the time vetoing  the construction of Europe.

 

Anyway I'm very proud on my European citizenship and enjoy the free movement for my holidays

 

 

so I really see no problem in the brits leaving, for me it's a "take back control" and "get our savings back from London" moment. It's an opportunity and I'm still amazed by how stupid this move was. My feeling is the brits has it all and lost it stupidly reading idiotic tabloids. They had the financial leadership, with the European Banking Authority of the EU, they had the medical leadership with the European Medicines Agency, or the security center for  Galileo, now we have them back. They had japanese transplants manufacturing our cars, now we'll get them back...

 

 

Anyway, until now we are both happy. I get back what belongs to me and you're free to sail away who knows where.. (I really wonder where are the sunlit uplands promised to you, its no fun being on your own in the new de-globalized world we see today)

 

 

 

The real problem come when I read your posts and things like that

Quote

into the monster that it is now which of course is the EU.

there I see reed (likewise with the other poster here, less kind/serious than you but with the same rethoric => the EU as some third-Reich monster with tentacles). 

 

please understand I really resent reading this, even more than the brits putting our fishermen out of business because their EEZ was extended in 1982. 

 

Now we go from a position of near indifference "dear neighbor do you business separately it's fine, really" and "I'm not sure why we let you in in the first place" to a situation in which I really feel the need to make you swallow back your words. 

 

As well as Boris Jonhson's words that we in France are "Little turds"...

 

 

 

 

There are 36 hours left for the negotiations (which were sometimes fun to watch but mostly quite awful)

 

.. and to my surprise now I'm really ready to loose some money knowing each time we pay one €, the UK will pay six times that.

 

This is clearly a loose-loose for the benefit of Russia, China, the USA .... but I'd enjoy it a bit nonetheless ????

 

.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Hi from France

[mike787]

Restart again????  Really????

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, Hi from France said:

Thank you

 

Above all one very important thing, as a Erasmus student in the UK I was, quite disappointed hearing the english talk about the EEC "we cannot avoid it", the least you can say is even the most learned had very little enthusiasm and had this feeling like looking down on us while profiting without contributing and most of the time vetoing  the construction of Europe.

 

Anyway I'm very proud on my European citizenship and enjoy the free movement for my holidays

 

 

so I really see no problem in the brits leaving, for me it's a "take back control" and "get our savings back from London" moment. It's an opportunity and I'm still amazed by how stupid this move was. My feeling is the brits has it all and lost it stupidly reading idiotic tabloids. They had the financial leadership, with the European Banking Authority of the EU, they had the medical leadership with the European Medicines Agency, or the security center for  Galileo, now we have them back. They had japanese transplants manufacturing our cars, now we'll get them back...

 

 

Anyway, until now we are both happy. I get back what belongs to me and you're free to sail away who knows where.. (I really wonder where are the sunlit uplands promised to you, its no fun being on your own in the new de-globalized world we see today)

 

 

 

The real problem come when I read your posts and things like that

there I see reed (likewise with the other poster here, less kind/serious than you but with the same rethoric => the EU as some third-Reich monster with tentacles). 

 

please understand I really resent reading this, even more than the brits putting our fishermen out of business because their EEZ was extended in 1982. 

 

Now we go from a position of near indifference "dear neighbor do you business separately it's fine, really" and "I'm not sure why we let you in in the first place" to a situation in which I really feel the need to make you swallow back your words. 

 

As well as Boris Jonhson's words that we in France are "Little turds"...

 

 

 

 

There are 36 hours left for the negotiations (which were sometimes fun to watch but mostly quite awful)

 

.. and to my surprise now I'm really ready to loose some money knowing each time we pay one €, the UK will pay six times that.

 

This is clearly a loose-loose for the benefit of Russia, China, the USA .... but I'd enjoy it a bit nonetheless ????

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

Hola, Lose Lose, or was it Jose Jose? Big words. Joose Joose even bigger.

In all likelihood this will work out, some broken toes here and there, otherwise OK.

 

[melvinmelvin]

re vaccination in UK next week before EU approval of the drug,

are those adhering to EU legislation free to do so when feeling pressed or

is BJ fiddling int. agr. again

 

last time WA/Irish border, very recently,

BJ received massive flak from within and outside UK, political level, msm and plebs

the criticism here on TVF was rather massive, he got way more than deserved me thinks

 

ayway, will he pass with flying colours completely flak free this time

 

just wondering

 

[billd766]

16 hours ago, placeholder said:

No one actually ever defined what Brexit meant. It's not like it existed in the dictionary or in legal terminology. I do agree that debating what it's meaning was pre-election is pointless. As for looking forward, well, isn't that what predictions are about? And I don't see how it's possible for anyone to have much insight into what the future will be unless we know whether or not an agreement has been reached, and if so, what exactly it is. Most economists agree that it will inhibit the growth of the UK economy to some extent in the long run, but not catastrophically. But if no agreement were reached at all, the short run would look pretty grim.

What did Brexit mean to people?

 

Well to me and millions of other people, Leavers and Remainers alike it was fairly simple.

 

As David Cameron said at the time, Leave means leave the EU, and Remain means stay in the EU. A fairly simple yes/no or Leave/Remain.

 

To put it simply it was like a light switch, either on or off.

 

It got so complicated when each side put their own version out. It got much more complicated when the radicals on both sides tried to take over and make it much more complicated.

 

Why was simple to start with?

 

IMHO David Cameron didn't think he could lose and that the UK would vote massively to Remain and he would be the hero of the day.

 

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

 

IF and it is a big IF he had thought it through he could have made a far better job of it, but he did send a pamphlet out laying out the options as he saw them.

Edited December 3, 2020 by billd766
Bad spelling

[david555]

   ( mean time ....from good old fun Express ... ????)

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1367603/Brexit-news-house-of-lords-boris-johnson-eu-state-aid-rules-blocked-latest

 

Lords inflict defeat on Boris’ Brexit plans as plot to ditch EU state aid rules HALTED
BORIS JOHNSON has suffered a humiliating Brexit defeat as the House of Lords backed a Labour motion urging a delay to the dumping of EU state aid rules.

By LAURA O'CALLAGHAN
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Thu, Dec 3, 2020 | UPDATED: 00:10, Thu, Dec 3, 2020

 

Peers backed the regret motion by 278 votes to 258 in a ballot in the upper chamber on Wednesday evening. The vote marks an embarrassing defeat for the Government over a move to ditch EU state aid rules in the absence of an agreed new post-Brexit subsidy regime for the UK.

The vote comes just four weeks from the end of the Brexit transition period. Ministers had argued with the ending of the period, Brussels would no longer have any jurisdiction in the UK and so "makes no sense to leave these rules on our statute book".

 

Fierce criticism in the Lords came about in response to a Government regulation, which would see the UK from January 1 follow World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules on subsidies and other international commitments agreed in free trade agreements, with the option to legislate for a home-grown system.

 

more...

 

 

Edited December 3, 2020 by david555

[dunroaming]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

What did Brexit mean to people?

 

Well to me and millions of other people, Leavers and Remainers alike it was fairly simple.

 

As David Cameron said at the time, Leave means leave the EU, and Remain means stay in the EU. A fairly simple yes/no or Leave/Remain.

 

To put it simply it was like a light switch, either on or off.

 

It got so complicated when each side put their own version out. It got much more complicated when the radicals on both sides tried to take over and make it much more complicated.

 

Why was simple to start with?

 

IMHO David Cameron didn't think he could lose and that the UK would vote massively to Remain and he would be the hero of the day.

 

Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

 

IF and it is a big IF he had thought it through he could have made a far better job of it, but he did send a pamphlet out laying out the options as he saw them.

I think you are right.  Cameron massively underestimated how easily the people in the UK could be manipulated by lies and bull.  If it had remained as a simple in or out without any explanation of the possible consequences then it would probably have been a very different result.  However it became a political football and as usual with political footballs, the truth was very quickly kicked into touch. 

 

What we have now is damage limitation but with a suicide jockey in the chair.  Like the USA under Trump, the UK has lost a lot of it's credibility and we are stuck with mess mess of a government for some time to come.

[dunroaming]

2 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I think you are right.  Cameron massively underestimated how easily the people in the UK could be manipulated by lies and bull.  If it had remained as a simple in or out without any explanation of the possible consequences then it would probably have been a very different result.  However it became a political football and as usual with political footballs, the truth was very quickly kicked into touch. 

 

What we have now is damage limitation but with a suicide jockey in the chair.  Like the USA under Trump, the UK has lost a lot of it's credibility and we are stuck with mess  of a government for some time to come.

 

[Hi from France]

2 hours ago, dunroaming said:

I think you are right.  Cameron massively underestimated how easily the people in the UK could be manipulated by lies and bull.  If it had remained as a simple in or out without any explanation of the possible consequences then it would probably have been a very different result.  However it became a political football and as usual with political footballs, the truth was very quickly kicked into touch. 

 

What we have now is damage limitation but with a suicide jockey in the chair.  Like the USA under Trump, the UK has lost a lot of it's credibility and we are stuck with mess mess of a government for some time to come.

well I think there are still a few posters here who believe the UK used to "in chains" and enslaved by a "monster" and would increase its sovereignty

 

Ask Loiner to re-read the promises and tell what he thinks, he probably still believes in most of them, he will just tell us we just need more time, or blame the EU

Quote

 

 

now the real problem is not the lies of the politician, nor the credulity of voters: it happens all over the world

 

 

 

The real problem is british exceptionalism, everything has to be taylor-made for them. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Hi from France

[Lormak1]

I don't need to listen to any politicians, I'm old enough to have good memories of the UK prior to joining the EEC/EU.

Back then we shared a common British culture. The streets were filled with British cars (German cars were strange-looking, with an air cooled engine). We used pounds shillings and pence. There were no kilograms or litres.

Once we joined the EU they began to r@pe our country. Our seas were plundered of their fish and our industry bribed to relocate to the EU. Ridiculous health and safety and socialist laws tied our companies up in knots until they were no longer viable and could be bought for cheap by foreign competitors.

We have lived for 48 years with the EU's knee on our neck. Now we a breaking free!! We can finally breathe!

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, Lormak1 said:

I don't need to listen to any politicians, I'm old enough to have good memories of the UK prior to joining the EEC/EU.

Back then we shared a common British culture. The streets were filled with British cars (German cars were strange-looking, with an air cooled engine). We used pounds shillings and pence. There were no kilograms or litres.

Once we joined the EU they began to r@pe our country. Our seas were plundered of their fish and our industry bribed to relocate to the EU. Ridiculous health and safety and socialist laws tied our companies up in knots until they were no longer viable and could be bought for cheap by foreign competitors.

We have lived for 48 years with the EU's knee on our neck. Now we a breaking free!! We can finally breathe!

United Kingdom GDP | 1960-2019 Data | 2020-2022 Forecast | Historical | Chart | News (tradingeconomics.com)

[7by7]

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Wrong.

 

It looks like you included my ID because you want to draw me into yet another argument. 

 

Don't flatter yourself.

 

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

I have posted that the EU intend to have an army but not that they have one already. Supporting evidence was provided then. 

 

Whatever form of words you've used in your numerous posts on the subject; none of the 'evidence' you provided supported any intention by the EU to create an Army independent of member states and answerable only to the Commission.

 

If you want to post your 'evidence' again, up to you; but doing so wont change the facts.

 

 

[7by7]

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

More selective gash. Where did you get your poster from? Oh, I see, never mind.

 

The first of my sources is the Telegraph. Hardly PC lefty Europhiles!

 

The second, infacts.org, is pro EU but quotes many sources which are, or were, not. Unless you consider, for example, Margaret Thatcher to be a PC lefty Europhile! 

 

The third, ex MEP Richard Corbett, is anti Brexit. But, again, many of his sources are not. Unless you consider, for example, the Daily Mail to be PC lefty Europhiles!

 

16 hours ago, nauseus said:

The term Common Market was used by everyone in the UK. Even in Wilson's referendum leaflet, 27 times:

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm#14

 Where did I, or any of the three links or sources contained therein, say that it wasn't?

 

 

Edited December 3, 2020 by 7by7
typos

[nauseus]

28 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Don't flatter yourself.

 

 

Whatever form of words you've used in your numerous posts on the subject; none of the 'evidence' you provided supported any intention by the EU to create an Army independent of member states and answerable only to the Commission.

 

If you want to post your 'evidence' again, up to you; but doing so wont change the facts.

 

 

 

OK but for anyone that might be interested in real facts, check section 5, particularly "Defence Union" and especially Macron's comment. 

 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20171023RES86651/20171023RES86651.pdf

[onthedarkside]

A post commenting on another forum member and a reply have been removed. Let's cease with the personal stuff here....

 

Also off-topic posts discussing forum members' ignore lists.

 

 

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

OK but for anyone that might be interested in real facts, check section 5, particularly "Defence Union" and especially Macron's comment. 

 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20171023RES86651/20171023RES86651.pdf

 

You can post that as much as you like; but the EDA, which is made up of the armed forces of each member state apart from Denmark, is not, and never will be, the same as an EU army!

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

You can post that as much as you like; but the EDA, which is made up of the armed forces of each member state apart from Denmark, is not, and never will be, the same as an EU army!

 

Ah! So a European "fully deployable European armed force by the beginning of the next decade" is not an EU Army then. Righty Ho. 

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, david555 said:

   ( mean time ....from good old fun Express ... ????)

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1367603/Brexit-news-house-of-lords-boris-johnson-eu-state-aid-rules-blocked-latest

 

Lords inflict defeat on Boris’ Brexit plans as plot to ditch EU state aid rules HALTED
BORIS JOHNSON has suffered a humiliating Brexit defeat as the House of Lords backed a Labour motion urging a delay to the dumping of EU state aid rules.

By LAURA O'CALLAGHAN
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Thu, Dec 3, 2020 | UPDATED: 00:10, Thu, Dec 3, 2020

 

Peers backed the regret motion by 278 votes to 258 in a ballot in the upper chamber on Wednesday evening. The vote marks an embarrassing defeat for the Government over a move to ditch EU state aid rules in the absence of an agreed new post-Brexit subsidy regime for the UK.

The vote comes just four weeks from the end of the Brexit transition period. Ministers had argued with the ending of the period, Brussels would no longer have any jurisdiction in the UK and so "makes no sense to leave these rules on our statute book".

 

Fierce criticism in the Lords came about in response to a Government regulation, which would see the UK from January 1 follow World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules on subsidies and other international commitments agreed in free trade agreements, with the option to legislate for a home-grown system.

 

more...

 

 

 

Losing to the HoL is more routine than humiliating these days.

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Losing to the HoL is more routine than humiliating these days.

As apparently is breaking international law and treaties. 

Britain to press ahead with Brexit treaty-breaking laws next week

Britain's upper house of parliament voted last month to remove clauses in the Internal Market Bill which broke international law, but the government intends to reinstate them in the lower chamber on Monday.

It is also introducing a new piece of legislation next week, the Taxation (Post Transition Period) Bill, which is widely expected to contain more provisions that overrule parts of the EU exit deal relating to Northern Ireland.

Britain to press ahead with Brexit treaty-breaking laws next week - World News - Thailand Visa Forum by Thai Visa | The Nation

[7by7]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Ah! So a European "fully deployable European armed force by the beginning of the next decade" is not an EU Army then. Righty Ho. 

 

Correct; it's a multi national alliance.

 

Took a while, but you've got there at last.