FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > So here we go again
So here we go again
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same " Nightmare eh!!!! Oh well mustn’t grumble!!! T | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same " You could ask Michel Barnier and the EU why they are using RI and NI again to back the uk into a corner... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same Nightmare eh!!!! Oh well mustn’t grumble!!! T" You might be grumbling if the good friday agreement gets torn up Do you remember the pre GFA days? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same You could ask Michel Barnier and the EU why they are using RI and NI again to back the uk into a corner..." Boris backed himself into a corner seeing as this is a deal that he negotiated and signed Fact is bojo doesnt have a fucking clue what he is doing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same You could ask Michel Barnier and the EU why they are using RI and NI again to back the uk into a corner..." Haha,,so it is the EUs fault that they want BoJo to honour his deal?Why did he agree to it in the first place? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same Nightmare eh!!!! Oh well mustn’t grumble!!! T" Hopefully you won’t be grumbling when a bomb or two goes off on your beloved “mainland” Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same You could ask Michel Barnier and the EU why they are using RI and NI again to back the uk into a corner..." The Republic of Ireland as an Eu member isn’t being used by anyone Maybe if you Brits kept your word for once and weren’t threatening to rip up international treaties,which Johnson cheerleaded for in the first place. you might be a lot better off | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem?" Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same You could ask Michel Barnier and the EU why they are using RI and NI again to back the uk into a corner..." Yes, the best way is to blame the European Union. Hilarious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem? Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? " Why was the WA signed? it was agreed on the basis of mutual understanding and compromise - "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted." The "all circumstances" part is where the EU have changed their position and are now intimating (threatening?) the UK may not in fact be on the list. Potentially not being on the list is the part that creates this whole situation. The EU can simply say - you meet the requirements, in the same way other countries that are on the list do. The bill/law being prepared to protect the UK and the GFA is no longer required. The EU haven't responded, why? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem? Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? Why was the WA signed? it was agreed on the basis of mutual understanding and compromise - "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted." The "all circumstances" part is where the EU have changed their position and are now intimating (threatening?) the UK may not in fact be on the list. Potentially not being on the list is the part that creates this whole situation. The EU can simply say - you meet the requirements, in the same way other countries that are on the list do. The bill/law being prepared to protect the UK and the GFA is no longer required. The EU haven't responded, why? " Boris and Cummings have got you very well trained, you seem to believe and defend everything they do? What is your option on Geoffrey Cox’s stance on the situation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem? Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? Why was the WA signed? it was agreed on the basis of mutual understanding and compromise - "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted." The "all circumstances" part is where the EU have changed their position and are now intimating (threatening?) the UK may not in fact be on the list. Potentially not being on the list is the part that creates this whole situation. The EU can simply say - you meet the requirements, in the same way other countries that are on the list do. The bill/law being prepared to protect the UK and the GFA is no longer required. The EU haven't responded, why? " Is Boris trying to break the terms of the WA? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem? Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? Why was the WA signed? it was agreed on the basis of mutual understanding and compromise - "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted." The "all circumstances" part is where the EU have changed their position and are now intimating (threatening?) the UK may not in fact be on the list. Potentially not being on the list is the part that creates this whole situation. The EU can simply say - you meet the requirements, in the same way other countries that are on the list do. The bill/law being prepared to protect the UK and the GFA is no longer required. The EU haven't responded, why? Boris and Cummings have got you very well trained, you seem to believe and defend everything they do? What is your option on Geoffrey Cox’s stance on the situation? " Opinion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .." The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bj was expected to face questions today from journalists but has had to cancel due to 'parliamentary business ' You could have knocked me down with a feather when I heard." Really? you have to remember he is a busy man, new child, had COVID etc etc  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem." Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just reading the comments column on the bbc website. Loads of replies bancking boris and saying 'suck it up remainers etc' Its genuinely hilarious that they actually think they are going to be exempt from the fallout when the shit hits the fan. I for one, connot wait." Not forgetting the usual ‘you lost , get over it’ and ‘dry your lefty tears’ . Only people who are as thick as mince resort to those type of comments  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem? Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? Why was the WA signed? it was agreed on the basis of mutual understanding and compromise - "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted." The "all circumstances" part is where the EU have changed their position and are now intimating (threatening?) the UK may not in fact be on the list. Potentially not being on the list is the part that creates this whole situation. The EU can simply say - you meet the requirements, in the same way other countries that are on the list do. The bill/law being prepared to protect the UK and the GFA is no longer required. The EU haven't responded, why? Boris and Cummings have got you very well trained, you seem to believe and defend everything they do? What is your option on Geoffrey Cox’s stance on the situation? Opinion " I think his stance/opinion on the internal market bill is perfectly valid. I am not particularly comfortable with it either. Trouble is the focus is now about the law breaking, the moral duty, breaking a treaty etc. Why are we only focussing on the effect and not looking also at the cause, especially when you consider the cause can be confirmed/fixed so easily thereby removing the effect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU?" why are the UK moving to break the WA? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem? Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? Why was the WA signed? it was agreed on the basis of mutual understanding and compromise - "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted." The "all circumstances" part is where the EU have changed their position and are now intimating (threatening?) the UK may not in fact be on the list. Potentially not being on the list is the part that creates this whole situation. The EU can simply say - you meet the requirements, in the same way other countries that are on the list do. The bill/law being prepared to protect the UK and the GFA is no longer required. The EU haven't responded, why? Boris and Cummings have got you very well trained, you seem to believe and defend everything they do? What is your option on Geoffrey Cox’s stance on the situation? Opinion I think his stance/opinion on the internal market bill is perfectly valid. I am not particularly comfortable with it either. Trouble is the focus is now about the law breaking, the moral duty, breaking a treaty etc. Why are we only focussing on the effect and not looking also at the cause, especially when you consider the cause can be confirmed/fixed so easily thereby removing the effect. " Boris should have thoroughly read and checked his WA? Don’t you think? Yet again , he has been made to look like an incompetent idiot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? why are the UK moving to break the WA? " Irrelevant, surely he knew was written in the WA? So, who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem? Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? Why was the WA signed? it was agreed on the basis of mutual understanding and compromise - "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted." The "all circumstances" part is where the EU have changed their position and are now intimating (threatening?) the UK may not in fact be on the list. Potentially not being on the list is the part that creates this whole situation. The EU can simply say - you meet the requirements, in the same way other countries that are on the list do. The bill/law being prepared to protect the UK and the GFA is no longer required. The EU haven't responded, why? Boris and Cummings have got you very well trained, you seem to believe and defend everything they do? What is your option on Geoffrey Cox’s stance on the situation? Opinion I think his stance/opinion on the internal market bill is perfectly valid. I am not particularly comfortable with it either. Trouble is the focus is now about the law breaking, the moral duty, breaking a treaty etc. Why are we only focussing on the effect and not looking also at the cause, especially when you consider the cause can be confirmed/fixed so easily thereby removing the effect. Boris should have thoroughly read and checked his WA? Don’t you think? Yet again , he has been made to look like an incompetent idiot "Tbf its quite a tough one on who to agree with. On the one side you have got the eu,the chief lawyee and advisor for the gmnt,the opposition,several backbench mps and former prime ministers brown,blair,major and Cameron (who ,whatever you think if them are all in agreement ) And on the other you have boris Johnson. I mean you can see why you would argue Johnsons case in here and it's nothing at all to do with just defending the indefensible | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem? Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? Why was the WA signed? it was agreed on the basis of mutual understanding and compromise - "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted." The "all circumstances" part is where the EU have changed their position and are now intimating (threatening?) the UK may not in fact be on the list. Potentially not being on the list is the part that creates this whole situation. The EU can simply say - you meet the requirements, in the same way other countries that are on the list do. The bill/law being prepared to protect the UK and the GFA is no longer required. The EU haven't responded, why? Boris and Cummings have got you very well trained, you seem to believe and defend everything they do? What is your option on Geoffrey Cox’s stance on the situation? Opinion I think his stance/opinion on the internal market bill is perfectly valid. I am not particularly comfortable with it either. Trouble is the focus is now about the law breaking, the moral duty, breaking a treaty etc. Why are we only focussing on the effect and not looking also at the cause, especially when you consider the cause can be confirmed/fixed so easily thereby removing the effect. Boris should have thoroughly read and checked his WA? Don’t you think? Yet again , he has been made to look like an incompetent idiot "If the cap fits etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem? Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? Why was the WA signed? it was agreed on the basis of mutual understanding and compromise - "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted." The "all circumstances" part is where the EU have changed their position and are now intimating (threatening?) the UK may not in fact be on the list. Potentially not being on the list is the part that creates this whole situation. The EU can simply say - you meet the requirements, in the same way other countries that are on the list do. The bill/law being prepared to protect the UK and the GFA is no longer required. The EU haven't responded, why? Boris and Cummings have got you very well trained, you seem to believe and defend everything they do? What is your option on Geoffrey Cox’s stance on the situation? Opinion I think his stance/opinion on the internal market bill is perfectly valid. I am not particularly comfortable with it either. Trouble is the focus is now about the law breaking, the moral duty, breaking a treaty etc. Why are we only focussing on the effect and not looking also at the cause, especially when you consider the cause can be confirmed/fixed so easily thereby removing the effect. Boris should have thoroughly read and checked his WA? Don’t you think? Yet again , he has been made to look like an incompetent idiot "Do you think the EU would have signed the WA if the UK had insisted on a clause being included that stated in the future, no matter what happens during the trade negotiations the UK would be added to the third country list? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will stick with EU standards and regulations on food product after 1st January 2021, and should there be any change to this, it is notified in good time via the WTO. This is already an accepted system by the EU for lots of other countries on the EU third country list. So why are the EU trying to impose this approved system differently to the UK ? If the EU have said "To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries" and the UK have confirmed the are using EU standards - whats the problem? Why did Boris agree to the deal then? Are you saying he either didn’t read it or didn’t understand it? Why was the WA signed? it was agreed on the basis of mutual understanding and compromise - "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted." The "all circumstances" part is where the EU have changed their position and are now intimating (threatening?) the UK may not in fact be on the list. Potentially not being on the list is the part that creates this whole situation. The EU can simply say - you meet the requirements, in the same way other countries that are on the list do. The bill/law being prepared to protect the UK and the GFA is no longer required. The EU haven't responded, why? Boris and Cummings have got you very well trained, you seem to believe and defend everything they do? What is your option on Geoffrey Cox’s stance on the situation? Opinion I think his stance/opinion on the internal market bill is perfectly valid. I am not particularly comfortable with it either. Trouble is the focus is now about the law breaking, the moral duty, breaking a treaty etc. Why are we only focussing on the effect and not looking also at the cause, especially when you consider the cause can be confirmed/fixed so easily thereby removing the effect. Boris should have thoroughly read and checked his WA? Don’t you think? Yet again , he has been made to look like an incompetent idiot
Do you think the EU would have signed the WA if the UK had insisted on a clause being included that stated in the future, no matter what happens during the trade negotiations the UK would be added to the third country list?"Was that clause in the WA? If not then then question is completely irrelevant. Here are the facts, Boris agreed to the WA he also got all his MPs to agree to the WA, he won a GE based on the WA, why can’t he honour the WA? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? why are the UK moving to break the WA? Irrelevant, surely he knew was written in the WA? So, who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? " not so irrelevant if you consider the WA was delivered with a high degree of mutual understanding - most of which i am sure would have taken place during the meetings and negotiations. Why is it so difficult to at least consider that the EU may at some level be dialling back a little on the mutual understanding in order to squeeze the uk. I ask again why haven't the EU answered the call for the UK to be included on the list, thereby negetaing the need for the UK to protect itself and ultimately the stability of the GFA | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? why are the UK moving to break the WA? Irrelevant, surely he knew was written in the WA? So, who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? not so irrelevant if you consider the WA was delivered with a high degree of mutual understanding - most of which i am sure would have taken place during the meetings and negotiations. Why is it so difficult to at least consider that the EU may at some level be dialling back a little on the mutual understanding in order to squeeze the uk. I ask again why haven't the EU answered the call for the UK to be included on the list, thereby negetaing the need for the UK to protect itself and ultimately the stability of the GFA" Are the EU trying to break the WA? You do realise that you are making yourself look like a bit of an idiot by trying to defend this . I guess you disagree with Cameron, Blair, May, Major , Cox, Brown etc but you agree with a proven liar and charlatan like Boris . The cult of Brexit has brainwashed you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? why are the UK moving to break the WA? Irrelevant, surely he knew was written in the WA? So, who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? not so irrelevant if you consider the WA was delivered with a high degree of mutual understanding - most of which i am sure would have taken place during the meetings and negotiations. Why is it so difficult to at least consider that the EU may at some level be dialling back a little on the mutual understanding in order to squeeze the uk. I ask again why haven't the EU answered the call for the UK to be included on the list, thereby negetaing the need for the UK to protect itself and ultimately the stability of the GFA Are the EU trying to break the WA? You do realise that you are making yourself look like a bit of an idiot by trying to defend this . I guess you disagree with Cameron, Blair, May, Major , Cox, Brown etc but you agree with a proven liar and charlatan like Boris . The cult of Brexit has brainwashed you " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? why are the UK moving to break the WA? Irrelevant, surely he knew was written in the WA? So, who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? not so irrelevant if you consider the WA was delivered with a high degree of mutual understanding - most of which i am sure would have taken place during the meetings and negotiations. Why is it so difficult to at least consider that the EU may at some level be dialling back a little on the mutual understanding in order to squeeze the uk. I ask again why haven't the EU answered the call for the UK to be included on the list, thereby negetaing the need for the UK to protect itself and ultimately the stability of the GFA Are the EU trying to break the WA? You do realise that you are making yourself look like a bit of an idiot by trying to defend this . I guess you disagree with Cameron, Blair, May, Major , Cox, Brown etc but you agree with a proven liar and charlatan like Boris . The cult of Brexit has brainwashed you "I have already suggested I am not happy with the law breaking - so the list of names and mild insult is irrelevant. Why wont the EU comment further on the UK being added to the third country list? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? why are the UK moving to break the WA? Irrelevant, surely he knew was written in the WA? So, who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? not so irrelevant if you consider the WA was delivered with a high degree of mutual understanding - most of which i am sure would have taken place during the meetings and negotiations. Why is it so difficult to at least consider that the EU may at some level be dialling back a little on the mutual understanding in order to squeeze the uk. I ask again why haven't the EU answered the call for the UK to be included on the list, thereby negetaing the need for the UK to protect itself and ultimately the stability of the GFA Are the EU trying to break the WA? You do realise that you are making yourself look like a bit of an idiot by trying to defend this . I guess you disagree with Cameron, Blair, May, Major , Cox, Brown etc but you agree with a proven liar and charlatan like Boris . The cult of Brexit has brainwashed you
I have already suggested I am not happy with the law breaking - so the list of names and mild insult is irrelevant.
Why wont the EU comment further on the UK being added to the third country list?
"No idea, do you? Are they breaking the terms of the WA by doing this? List of names? Care to elaborate? Here is a quote from Geoffrey Cox on the matter "We, the British government and Parliament, have given our word. Our honour, our credibility, our self-respect and our future influence in the world all rest upon us keeping that word." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? why are the UK moving to break the WA? Irrelevant, surely he knew was written in the WA? So, who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? not so irrelevant if you consider the WA was delivered with a high degree of mutual understanding - most of which i am sure would have taken place during the meetings and negotiations. Why is it so difficult to at least consider that the EU may at some level be dialling back a little on the mutual understanding in order to squeeze the uk. I ask again why haven't the EU answered the call for the UK to be included on the list, thereby negetaing the need for the UK to protect itself and ultimately the stability of the GFA Are the EU trying to break the WA? You do realise that you are making yourself look like a bit of an idiot by trying to defend this . I guess you disagree with Cameron, Blair, May, Major , Cox, Brown etc but you agree with a proven liar and charlatan like Boris . The cult of Brexit has brainwashed you
I have already suggested I am not happy with the law breaking - so the list of names and mild insult is irrelevant.
Why wont the EU comment further on the UK being added to the third country list?
No idea, do you? Are they breaking the terms of the WA by doing this? List of names? Care to elaborate? Here is a quote from Geoffrey Cox on the matter "We, the British government and Parliament, have given our word. Our honour, our credibility, our self-respect and our future influence in the world all rest upon us keeping that word.""Would the EU be breaking the terms of the WA by going on record and saying the UK have no need for an internal market bill as they will be added to the list? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? why are the UK moving to break the WA? Irrelevant, surely he knew was written in the WA? So, who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? not so irrelevant if you consider the WA was delivered with a high degree of mutual understanding - most of which i am sure would have taken place during the meetings and negotiations. Why is it so difficult to at least consider that the EU may at some level be dialling back a little on the mutual understanding in order to squeeze the uk. I ask again why haven't the EU answered the call for the UK to be included on the list, thereby negetaing the need for the UK to protect itself and ultimately the stability of the GFA Are the EU trying to break the WA? You do realise that you are making yourself look like a bit of an idiot by trying to defend this . I guess you disagree with Cameron, Blair, May, Major , Cox, Brown etc but you agree with a proven liar and charlatan like Boris . The cult of Brexit has brainwashed you
I have already suggested I am not happy with the law breaking - so the list of names and mild insult is irrelevant.
Why wont the EU comment further on the UK being added to the third country list?
No idea, do you? Are they breaking the terms of the WA by doing this? List of names? Care to elaborate? Here is a quote from Geoffrey Cox on the matter "We, the British government and Parliament, have given our word. Our honour, our credibility, our self-respect and our future influence in the world all rest upon us keeping that word."
Would the EU be breaking the terms of the WA by going on record and saying the UK have no need for an internal market bill as they will be added to the list?"I don’t know, do you? Have they attempted to break the WA? Do you agree with Geoffrey Cox ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? why are the UK moving to break the WA? Irrelevant, surely he knew was written in the WA? So, who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? not so irrelevant if you consider the WA was delivered with a high degree of mutual understanding - most of which i am sure would have taken place during the meetings and negotiations. Why is it so difficult to at least consider that the EU may at some level be dialling back a little on the mutual understanding in order to squeeze the uk. I ask again why haven't the EU answered the call for the UK to be included on the list, thereby negetaing the need for the UK to protect itself and ultimately the stability of the GFA Are the EU trying to break the WA? You do realise that you are making yourself look like a bit of an idiot by trying to defend this . I guess you disagree with Cameron, Blair, May, Major , Cox, Brown etc but you agree with a proven liar and charlatan like Boris . The cult of Brexit has brainwashed you
I have already suggested I am not happy with the law breaking - so the list of names and mild insult is irrelevant.
Why wont the EU comment further on the UK being added to the third country list?
No idea, do you? Are they breaking the terms of the WA by doing this? List of names? Care to elaborate? Here is a quote from Geoffrey Cox on the matter "We, the British government and Parliament, have given our word. Our honour, our credibility, our self-respect and our future influence in the world all rest upon us keeping that word."
Would the EU be breaking the terms of the WA by going on record and saying the UK have no need for an internal market bill as they will be added to the list?
I don’t know, do you? Have they attempted to break the WA? Do you agree with Geoffrey Cox ? "Have you actually read my previous replies ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris signed his oven ready deal upon which his party won the GE.. If the EU have highlighted a flaw in the deal which they can use to their advantage then that's down to it not being checked properly by those here that Boris should have made sure did so.. Or was it the case that the flaws or potential for the EU to use part of the deal to their advantage were raised and ignored.. Either way the buck stops with Boris and the answer is not to break the law .. The answer is for the EU to confirm the UK will be on the third country list - we meet the requirements - so what's the problem. Who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? why are the UK moving to break the WA? Irrelevant, surely he knew was written in the WA? So, who is trying to break the WA? Boris or the EU? not so irrelevant if you consider the WA was delivered with a high degree of mutual understanding - most of which i am sure would have taken place during the meetings and negotiations. Why is it so difficult to at least consider that the EU may at some level be dialling back a little on the mutual understanding in order to squeeze the uk. I ask again why haven't the EU answered the call for the UK to be included on the list, thereby negetaing the need for the UK to protect itself and ultimately the stability of the GFA Are the EU trying to break the WA? You do realise that you are making yourself look like a bit of an idiot by trying to defend this . I guess you disagree with Cameron, Blair, May, Major , Cox, Brown etc but you agree with a proven liar and charlatan like Boris . The cult of Brexit has brainwashed you
I have already suggested I am not happy with the law breaking - so the list of names and mild insult is irrelevant.
Why wont the EU comment further on the UK being added to the third country list?
No idea, do you? Are they breaking the terms of the WA by doing this? List of names? Care to elaborate? Here is a quote from Geoffrey Cox on the matter "We, the British government and Parliament, have given our word. Our honour, our credibility, our self-respect and our future influence in the world all rest upon us keeping that word."
Would the EU be breaking the terms of the WA by going on record and saying the UK have no need for an internal market bill as they will be added to the list?
I don’t know, do you? Have they attempted to break the WA? Do you agree with Geoffrey Cox ?
Have you actually read my previous replies ?"Yeah, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is v interesting watching the shifting narrative on the WA. Initially it was: May's WA is no good. Then May was forced out. Johnson tweaked the deal, removing the backstop and replacing it with a border down the Irish sea. Then: the deal was voted down 3 times. Later in 2019: the House narrowly agreed to give the deal a 2nd reading. But Johnson tried to ram the deal through so fast it couldn't be properly scrutinised. When parliament objected, Johnson pulled his own deal. Dec 2019:Johnson ran an election campaign, boasting of an oven-ready deal. After winning an election, Johnson had the numbers he needed and the deal was passed. And now Johnson's trying to overide the very same oven-ready deal he won an elecion based on. The deal he recently signed. He wants to also break international law. And the UK government are spinning this as being the fault of the EU somehow." I think your post only leaves out how much it was boris cummings own doing and coniving that this deal was forced through parliament on the quick and without any scrutiny That clown boris cummings inept hands over every part of this fiasco from the start | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. " Do you ever realise we're the ones who signed this "oven ready" deal. We're the ones threatening to now go back on it and break international law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. " So the EU are also breaking international law? Wow, this is a mess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. " Once again Knock me down with a feather. You have got to wonder at what point some people will actually say that clueless buffoon has done something wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. Once again Knock me down with a feather. You have got to wonder at what point some people will actually say that clueless buffoon has done something wrong. " It looks like Boris’s ‘mistake /oversight ‘ was actually the EUs fault, they must have forced him to sign the WA . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. Once again Knock me down with a feather. You have got to wonder at what point some people will actually say that clueless buffoon has done something wrong. It looks like Boris’s ‘mistake /oversight ‘ was actually the EUs fault, they must have forced him to sign the WA . "Its actually comical. You have even got former members of his own party saying he is in the wrong but the usual suspects come up with even more bizarre arguments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. Do you ever realise we're the ones who signed this "oven ready" deal. We're the ones threatening to now go back on it and break international law." The thing about 'oven ready' is that it still needs cooking. The eu signed the same deal but can still negotiate further and imposes its own conditions/terms/restrictions and refusals.. so can we. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same You could ask Michel Barnier and the EU why they are using RI and NI again to back the uk into a corner..." Or you could ask the brexit cronies why they promised things that they couldn’t deliver. As usual you and your Tory friends can never take responsibility for anything. Everything is somebody else’s fault. If everything goes belly up after brexit, no doubt you will also blame the EU, the remainders or the people who live on planet Mars. Own your crap and the mess your rockstar is making. Grow a pair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. Do you ever realise we're the ones who signed this "oven ready" deal. We're the ones threatening to now go back on it and break international law. The thing about 'oven ready' is that it still needs cooking. The eu signed the same deal but can still negotiate further and imposes its own conditions/terms/restrictions and refusals.. so can we. " So the excuse is "it still needs cooking." Well now I've heard everything haha. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. Do you ever realise we're the ones who signed this "oven ready" deal. We're the ones threatening to now go back on it and break international law. The thing about 'oven ready' is that it still needs cooking. The eu signed the same deal but can still negotiate further and imposes its own conditions/terms/restrictions and refusals.. so can we. " I am confused, who is trying to break the WA and international law? The EU or Boris | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. Do you ever realise we're the ones who signed this "oven ready" deal. We're the ones threatening to now go back on it and break international law. The thing about 'oven ready' is that it still needs cooking. The eu signed the same deal but can still negotiate further and imposes its own conditions/terms/restrictions and refusals.. so can we. So the excuse is "it still needs cooking." Well now I've heard everything haha." Tbh I think he is on a wind up, i wouldn’t take it seriously | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. " The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. " Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. " Cunning EU. Tricking us into signing the withdrawal agreement. Then tricking us into breaking it. They're always one step ahead, eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. " Are you sure about that?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Are you sure about that?? "No he's not sure, he's totally bullshitting again, but then again what is the point of arguing with people who are so far gone that they will defend anything the UK government does. I support Scottish independence, but if the SNP were to suddenly attempt to unilaterally impose independence from the UK, I would not support that move because it would be wrong. Unfortunately the few people here who defend Johnson's government to the hilt, would undoubtedly back them even if they were to propose genocide for the Scots or invading France. That's how ridiculous they make themselves appear.
The EU is not attempting to blockade food to NI from the UK, that's simply more weasel words and obfuscation of the facts. All the EU are doing, is trying to prevent their standards being compromised by the UK government potentially lowering food standards and importing sub standard goods into the EU (ROI) via Northern Ireland. If the UK were to commit to upholding the present standards then they would be added to the third country list and the problem would disappear. The fact that the UK government will not guarantee adhering to current standards should be of concern to us all, not just the EU.
Once again: the UK government are attempting to renege on a legally binding WA agreement that the EU signed in good faith, but the UK government obviously didn't, because they had no intention of ever abiding by its terms. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Are you sure about that??
No he's not sure, he's totally bullshitting again, but then again what is the point of arguing with people who are so far gone that they will defend anything the UK government does.
I support Scottish independence, but if the SNP were to suddenly attempt to unilaterally impose independence from the UK, I would not support that move because it would be wrong. Unfortunately the few people here who defend Johnson's government to the hilt, would undoubtedly back them even if they were to propose genocide for the Scots or invading France. That's how ridiculous they make themselves appear.
The EU is not attempting to blockade food to NI from the UK, that's simply more weasel words and obfuscation of the facts. All the EU are doing, is trying to prevent their standards being compromised by the UK government potentially lowering food standards and importing sub standard goods into the EU (ROI) via Northern Ireland. If the UK were to commit to upholding the present standards then they would be added to the third country list and the problem would disappear. The fact that the UK government will not guarantee adhering to current standards should be of concern to us all, not just the EU.
Once again: the UK government are attempting to renege on a legally binding WA agreement that the EU signed in good faith, but the UK government obviously didn't, because they had no intention of ever abiding by its terms."I agree, unfortunately it looks like it will get voted through in parliament. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The EU is not attempting to blockade food to NI from the UK, that's simply more weasel words and obfuscation of the facts. All the EU are doing, is trying to prevent their standards being compromised by the UK government potentially lowering food standards and importing sub standard goods into the EU (ROI) via Northern Ireland. If the UK were to commit to upholding the present standards then they would be added to the third country list and the problem would disappear. The fact that the UK government will not guarantee adhering to current standards should be of concern to us all, not just the EU." The UK has committed to continuing with EU food standards after 1 Jan 2021 ... Whats the problem with UK being added to the third country list and resolving the situation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. Do you ever realise we're the ones who signed this "oven ready" deal. We're the ones threatening to now go back on it and break international law. The thing about 'oven ready' is that it still needs cooking. The eu signed the same deal but can still negotiate further and imposes its own conditions/terms/restrictions and refusals.. so can we. So the excuse is "it still needs cooking." Well now I've heard everything haha. Tbh I think he is on a wind up, i wouldn’t take it seriously "Yep, I'm half in mind to explain it is an internationally ratified agreement and then I think, is there any point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same " Just the way those types operate. They fuck it up for the Irish, the disabled, the homeless, the unemployed, anyone who gets in the way of their gravy train juggernaut | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Are you sure about that??
No he's not sure, he's totally bullshitting again, but then again what is the point of arguing with people who are so far gone that they will defend anything the UK government does.
I support Scottish independence, but if the SNP were to suddenly attempt to unilaterally impose independence from the UK, I would not support that move because it would be wrong. Unfortunately the few people here who defend Johnson's government to the hilt, would undoubtedly back them even if they were to propose genocide for the Scots or invading France. That's how ridiculous they make themselves appear.
The EU is not attempting to blockade food to NI from the UK, that's simply more weasel words and obfuscation of the facts. All the EU are doing, is trying to prevent their standards being compromised by the UK government potentially lowering food standards and importing sub standard goods into the EU (ROI) via Northern Ireland. If the UK were to commit to upholding the present standards then they would be added to the third country list and the problem would disappear. The fact that the UK government will not guarantee adhering to current standards should be of concern to us all, not just the EU.
Once again: the UK government are attempting to renege on a legally binding WA agreement that the EU signed in good faith, but the UK government obviously didn't, because they had no intention of ever abiding by its terms."Wrong, again. The internal market bill being put in place does not break any law or renege on the treaty. Enacting it could however it is in place to be used in the event of either a no deal situation, or the eu not fulfilling their obligations. Both of which nullify the wa meaning that enacting the internal market bill at that point does not break any law or renage on the wa. As birminghamweekender has stated, the uk is committed to the eu food standards laws so there is no defense of the eu withholding our listing. It is simply a tactic to try and force the uk into submission which threatens our sovereignty and union is in contravention of section 38 and article 184. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Cunning EU. Tricking us into signing the withdrawal agreement. Then tricking us into breaking it. They're always one step ahead, eh?" 
Devious bastards | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Are you sure about that??
No he's not sure, he's totally bullshitting again, but then again what is the point of arguing with people who are so far gone that they will defend anything the UK government does.
I support Scottish independence, but if the SNP were to suddenly attempt to unilaterally impose independence from the UK, I would not support that move because it would be wrong. Unfortunately the few people here who defend Johnson's government to the hilt, would undoubtedly back them even if they were to propose genocide for the Scots or invading France. That's how ridiculous they make themselves appear.
The EU is not attempting to blockade food to NI from the UK, that's simply more weasel words and obfuscation of the facts. All the EU are doing, is trying to prevent their standards being compromised by the UK government potentially lowering food standards and importing sub standard goods into the EU (ROI) via Northern Ireland. If the UK were to commit to upholding the present standards then they would be added to the third country list and the problem would disappear. The fact that the UK government will not guarantee adhering to current standards should be of concern to us all, not just the EU.
Once again: the UK government are attempting to renege on a legally binding WA agreement that the EU signed in good faith, but the UK government obviously didn't, because they had no intention of ever abiding by its terms.
Wrong, again.
The internal market bill being put in place does not break any law or renege on the treaty. Enacting it could however it is in place to be used in the event of either a no deal situation, or the eu not fulfilling their obligations. Both of which nullify the wa meaning that enacting the internal market bill at that point does not break any law or renage on the wa.
As birminghamweekender has stated, the uk is committed to the eu food standards laws so there is no defense of the eu withholding our listing. It is simply a tactic to try and force the uk into submission which threatens our sovereignty and union is in contravention of section 38 and article 184.
"Why did the lawyer resign? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. " Its quite simple..a legal expert with years of experience,several back bench tory mps,Teresa may,Tony Blair,david Cameron,Gordon brown, a QC,The labour and liberal parties..are all wron. And bj and 2 contributors to this thread are right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. " It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here." Have they broken the law, about to break the law or have the potential to break the law ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. Have they broken the law, about to break the law or have the potential to break the law ? " I love it when you ask a question that doesnt for answered. Why did the legal expert resign? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. Have they broken the law, about to break the law or have the potential to break the law ? I love it when you ask a question that doesnt for answered. Why did the legal expert resign? " Legal expert resigned because he didn’t like the fact the government are putting in place something that may mean they break the law. Your last statement said “ The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here.” So for clarity do you think at the moment (a) they have broken the law or (b) are about to break the law by voting to move the bill to committee stage or (c) have the potential to break the law in the future if the bill is passed into law? It’s multiple choice so pick one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. Have they broken the law, about to break the law or have the potential to break the law ? I love it when you ask a question that doesnt for answered. Why did the legal expert resign? Legal expert resigned because he didn’t like the fact the government are putting in place something that may mean they break the law. Your last statement said “ The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here.” So for clarity do you think at the moment (a) they have broken the law or (b) are about to break the law by voting to move the bill to committee stage or (c) have the potential to break the law in the future if the bill is passed into law? It’s multiple choice so pick one " Well as they havent broke the law yet its between b and c. My guess would be c | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground...." Very different ... and you know it
The Chinese changed the law in order to be able to use it immediately.
U.K. haven’t even passed a law let alone actually have to use it .. and have no intention of using it .
Very much in the same way the EU are saying they have no intention of affecting the import of goods from mainland to RI
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground...." You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? " How? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. Have they broken the law, about to break the law or have the potential to break the law ? I love it when you ask a question that doesnt for answered. Why did the legal expert resign? Legal expert resigned because he didn’t like the fact the government are putting in place something that may mean they break the law. Your last statement said “ The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here.” So for clarity do you think at the moment (a) they have broken the law or (b) are about to break the law by voting to move the bill to committee stage or (c) have the potential to break the law in the future if the bill is passed into law? It’s multiple choice so pick one Well as they havent broke the law yet its between b and c. My guess would be c " You just said that we HAVE broken the law then ridiculed me for thinking i know better, and now you are agreeing that we haven't in fact broken the law... turns out i do know better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? " The Daily Mail says so, so they obviously do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? " https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. Have they broken the law, about to break the law or have the potential to break the law ? I love it when you ask a question that doesnt for answered. Why did the legal expert resign? Legal expert resigned because he didn’t like the fact the government are putting in place something that may mean they break the law. Your last statement said “ The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here.” So for clarity do you think at the moment (a) they have broken the law or (b) are about to break the law by voting to move the bill to committee stage or (c) have the potential to break the law in the future if the bill is passed into law? It’s multiple choice so pick one Well as they havent broke the law yet its between b and c. My guess would be c You just said that we HAVE broken the law then ridiculed me for thinking i know better, and now you are agreeing that we haven't in fact broken the law... turns out i do know better. " Pitiful I should have said the gmnt have said they are about to break the law ,which of course makes all the difference. I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711" Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. Have they broken the law, about to break the law or have the potential to break the law ? I love it when you ask a question that doesnt for answered. Why did the legal expert resign? Legal expert resigned because he didn’t like the fact the government are putting in place something that may mean they break the law. Your last statement said “ The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here.” So for clarity do you think at the moment (a) they have broken the law or (b) are about to break the law by voting to move the bill to committee stage or (c) have the potential to break the law in the future if the bill is passed into law? It’s multiple choice so pick one Well as they havent broke the law yet its between b and c. My guess would be c You just said that we HAVE broken the law then ridiculed me for thinking i know better, and now you are agreeing that we haven't in fact broken the law... turns out i do know better. Pitiful I should have said the gmnt have said they are about to break the law ,which of course makes all the difference. I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years " No, you said the HAVE broken the law and mps and a lawyer have said we HAVE broken the law so you have repeatedly made false claims and also tried to ridicule me for making a statement that you now concede to be true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is there a more sophisticated argument than 'well they did it..so can we?" We havent broken the law nor will we as the internal market bill is to be enacted if the wa is nullified by either a no deal brexit or the eu breaking the wa. The point i was making though is that _abio claims breaking international law means you lose the moral high ground. The eu has broken international law and so loses the moral high ground. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here." My exact words were the party admitted the broke the law. You have simply made up the rest and I cant be arsed getting into another tedious argument with you about semantics,as I lost the will to live last time. Especially as you cannot answer a simple question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711" And the fact is that Poland is adjusting to the applicable law. Very poor examples. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 And the fact is that Poland is adjusting to the applicable law. Very poor examples. " Imagine scouring the internet just so you can say..well they did it..so can we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government" Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. My exact words were the party admitted the broke the law. You have simply made up the rest and I cant be arsed getting into another tedious argument with you about semantics,as I lost the will to live last time. Especially as you cannot answer a simple question." Dont forget this "I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years" (your words). If you don't want to argue semantics you shouldnt deny what you have said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 And the fact is that Poland is adjusting to the applicable law. Very poor examples. Imagine scouring the internet just so you can say..well they did it..so can we?" Where have i said we can break the law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 And the fact is that Poland is adjusting to the applicable law. Very poor examples. " Did they only break the law in a "specific and limited way"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. My exact words were the party admitted the broke the law. You have simply made up the rest and I cant be arsed getting into another tedious argument with you about semantics,as I lost the will to live last time. Especially as you cannot answer a simple question. Dont forget this "I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years" (your words). If you don't want to argue semantics you shouldnt deny what you have said. " Tell me exactly where I denied what I have said. Give me an exact quote | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 And the fact is that Poland is adjusting to the applicable law. Very poor examples. Imagine scouring the internet just so you can say..well they did it..so can we? Where have i said we can break the law?" Jesus christ you could bore the arse of a stuffed donkey. You have brought up examples of the eu breaking the law. Your argument is therefore..of they can do it so can we. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 And the fact is that Poland is adjusting to the applicable law. Very poor examples. Imagine scouring the internet just so you can say..well they did it..so can we? Where have i said we can break the law? Jesus christ you could bore the arse of a stuffed donkey. You have brought up examples of the eu breaking the law. Your argument is therefore..of they can do it so can we." No, my argument is that the eu broke the law, therefore they lose the moral high ground. Stop making things up lionel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. " Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. My exact words were the party admitted the broke the law. You have simply made up the rest and I cant be arsed getting into another tedious argument with you about semantics,as I lost the will to live last time. Especially as you cannot answer a simple question. Dont forget this "I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years" (your words). If you don't want to argue semantics you shouldnt deny what you have said. Tell me exactly where I denied what I have said. Give me an exact quote" "You have simply made up the rest" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations." We are correct to take measures etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. " David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same You could ask Michel Barnier and the EU why they are using RI and NI again to back the uk into a corner..."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc" Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. My exact words were the party admitted the broke the law. You have simply made up the rest and I cant be arsed getting into another tedious argument with you about semantics,as I lost the will to live last time. Especially as you cannot answer a simple question. Dont forget this "I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years" (your words). If you don't want to argue semantics you shouldnt deny what you have said. Tell me exactly where I denied what I have said. Give me an exact quote "You have simply made up the rest"" Yes I said that..at no point have I denied saying anything. Please for the obe of god try and stick to the topic and not do another you said this etc. Its extremely tedious and it will put everyone into a coma. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. " Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. My exact words were the party admitted the broke the law. You have simply made up the rest and I cant be arsed getting into another tedious argument with you about semantics,as I lost the will to live last time. Especially as you cannot answer a simple question. Dont forget this "I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years" (your words). If you don't want to argue semantics you shouldnt deny what you have said. Tell me exactly where I denied what I have said. Give me an exact quote "You have simply made up the rest" Yes I said that..at no point have I denied saying anything. Please for the obe of god try and stick to the topic and not do another you said this etc. Its extremely tedious and it will put everyone into a coma." "At no point have i denied saying anything", apart from when you said i "made up the rest" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. My exact words were the party admitted the broke the law. You have simply made up the rest and I cant be arsed getting into another tedious argument with you about semantics,as I lost the will to live last time. Especially as you cannot answer a simple question. Dont forget this "I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years" (your words). If you don't want to argue semantics you shouldnt deny what you have said. Tell me exactly where I denied what I have said. Give me an exact quote "You have simply made up the rest" Yes I said that..at no point have I denied saying anything. Please for the obe of god try and stick to the topic and not do another you said this etc. Its extremely tedious and it will put everyone into a coma. "At no point have i denied saying anything", apart from when you said i "made up the rest" "I'm off to watch paint dry. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now)" Ask him. Perhaps he thought it was his chance to sabotage brexit, maybe he just spat his dummy out. Has he personally confirmed why he resigned? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. My exact words were the party admitted the broke the law. You have simply made up the rest and I cant be arsed getting into another tedious argument with you about semantics,as I lost the will to live last time. Especially as you cannot answer a simple question. Dont forget this "I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years" (your words). If you don't want to argue semantics you shouldnt deny what you have said. Tell me exactly where I denied what I have said. Give me an exact quote "You have simply made up the rest" Yes I said that..at no point have I denied saying anything. Please for the obe of god try and stick to the topic and not do another you said this etc. Its extremely tedious and it will put everyone into a coma. "At no point have i denied saying anything", apart from when you said i "made up the rest"
I'm off to watch paint dry."Imagine my surprise at you not hanging around to stand by your words | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 And the fact is that Poland is adjusting to the applicable law. Very poor examples. Did they only break the law in a "specific and limited way"?
Are you okay with your mental health?"Personal insults, how typical. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now) Ask him. Perhaps he thought it was his chance to sabotage brexit, maybe he just spat his dummy out. Has he personally confirmed why he resigned? " Sabotage Brexit..is that an educated guess? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. My exact words were the party admitted the broke the law. You have simply made up the rest and I cant be arsed getting into another tedious argument with you about semantics,as I lost the will to live last time. Especially as you cannot answer a simple question. Dont forget this "I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years" (your words). If you don't want to argue semantics you shouldnt deny what you have said. Tell me exactly where I denied what I have said. Give me an exact quote "You have simply made up the rest" Yes I said that..at no point have I denied saying anything. Please for the obe of god try and stick to the topic and not do another you said this etc. Its extremely tedious and it will put everyone into a coma. "At no point have i denied saying anything", apart from when you said i "made up the rest"
I'm off to watch paint dry.
Imagine my surprise at you not hanging around to stand by your words "I've told you once I've not denied anything I've said. You then type out something I've said which I haven't denied. Honestly please stop..it really goes beyond tedium. Just try to keep to the topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now) Ask him. Perhaps he thought it was his chance to sabotage brexit, maybe he just spat his dummy out. Has he personally confirmed why he resigned? Sabotage Brexit..is that an educated guess?" You might not have noticed but there seems to be a trend amongst remainers that like to mislead and misrepresent, taking any tiny opportunity to disrail or discredit Brexit but yes, in light of him not personally confirming why he quit it is a guess. Just like yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And why does everyone say that this is a breach of international law if it isn’t? As mentioned before, if Boris Johnson decides to have Barnier assassinated, the Johnson cronies would still manage to justify it. Let’s imagine for a second that the EU try to change the AW... No doubt that the Kwitters would be up in arms and accuse the EU of bullying the U.K. No morals, no dignity, no ethics, no principles. Welcome to the fantasyland of our dear brexiters and the liar who leads them. It is actually hilarious. The party themselves have admitted they have broken the law..but we know better on here. My exact words were the party admitted the broke the law. You have simply made up the rest and I cant be arsed getting into another tedious argument with you about semantics,as I lost the will to live last time. Especially as you cannot answer a simple question. Dont forget this "I actually questioned why you seem to know better than a qualified lawyer who has presumably worked on Brexit for the last few years" (your words). If you don't want to argue semantics you shouldnt deny what you have said. Tell me exactly where I denied what I have said. Give me an exact quote "You have simply made up the rest" Yes I said that..at no point have I denied saying anything. Please for the obe of god try and stick to the topic and not do another you said this etc. Its extremely tedious and it will put everyone into a coma. "At no point have i denied saying anything", apart from when you said i "made up the rest"
I'm off to watch paint dry.
Imagine my surprise at you not hanging around to stand by your words
I've told you once I've not denied anything I've said.
You then type out something I've said which I haven't denied.
Honestly please stop..it really goes beyond tedium.
Just try to keep to the topic.
"says im making stuff up and is off to watch paint dry, then asks me to stay on topic. Hilarious. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now) Ask him. Perhaps he thought it was his chance to sabotage brexit, maybe he just spat his dummy out. Has he personally confirmed why he resigned? Sabotage Brexit..is that an educated guess? You might not have noticed but there seems to be a trend amongst remainers that like to mislead and misrepresent, taking any tiny opportunity to disrail or discredit Brexit but yes, in light of him not personally confirming why he quit it is a guess. Just like yours." My fears are confirmed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now) Ask him. Perhaps he thought it was his chance to sabotage brexit, maybe he just spat his dummy out. Has he personally confirmed why he resigned? Sabotage Brexit..is that an educated guess? You might not have noticed but there seems to be a trend amongst remainers that like to mislead and misrepresent, taking any tiny opportunity to disrail or discredit Brexit but yes, in light of him not personally confirming why he quit it is a guess. Just like yours." You know for a fact he is a remainer I presume? Our Laura at the bbc reckons he is unhappy with the gmnts decision. I actually posed it as a question..3 times..so I didnt actually make a guess. Unlike you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. " We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. " We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now) Ask him. Perhaps he thought it was his chance to sabotage brexit, maybe he just spat his dummy out. Has he personally confirmed why he resigned? Sabotage Brexit..is that an educated guess? You might not have noticed but there seems to be a trend amongst remainers that like to mislead and misrepresent, taking any tiny opportunity to disrail or discredit Brexit but yes, in light of him not personally confirming why he quit it is a guess. Just like yours. You know for a fact he is a remainer I presume? Our Laura at the bbc reckons he is unhappy with the gmnts decision. I actually posed it as a question..3 times..so I didnt actually make a guess. Unlike you." You used his assumed position (that you guessed) as proof that we are breaking the law. But we arent breaking the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now) Ask him. Perhaps he thought it was his chance to sabotage brexit, maybe he just spat his dummy out. Has he personally confirmed why he resigned? Sabotage Brexit..is that an educated guess? You might not have noticed but there seems to be a trend amongst remainers that like to mislead and misrepresent, taking any tiny opportunity to disrail or discredit Brexit but yes, in light of him not personally confirming why he quit it is a guess. Just like yours. You know for a fact he is a remainer I presume? Our Laura at the bbc reckons he is unhappy with the gmnts decision. I actually posed it as a question..3 times..so I didnt actually make a guess. Unlike you. You used his assumed position (that you guessed) as proof that we are breaking the law. But we arent breaking the law. " I'll just repeat. You know for a fact he Is a remainer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. " Well, well...according to the last poll, 55% of the Scots would like you to mind your own business and wish to leave your stinky business. As for Northern Ireland, when the catholics whose birth rate is much higher than the Protestants’ will decide to,clear off to, you will only have the Welsh left to patronise. And even there, a lot of them don’t feel they need you looking after them. Vicky Pollard appeals less and less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now) Ask him. Perhaps he thought it was his chance to sabotage brexit, maybe he just spat his dummy out. Has he personally confirmed why he resigned? Sabotage Brexit..is that an educated guess? You might not have noticed but there seems to be a trend amongst remainers that like to mislead and misrepresent, taking any tiny opportunity to disrail or discredit Brexit but yes, in light of him not personally confirming why he quit it is a guess. Just like yours." Miss represent are you kidding? Boris shuts Parliament to avoid scrutiny. He sacks any deuce ting MPs . (MP are supposed to represent their constituents first and foremost,) Easiest deal in history, we hold all the cards, they need us more than we need them, £350 million a week. Bullshit. No chlorinated chicken hang on we only agree to EU standards until jan 21 then all food regulation bets are off. Which magazine is shouting now! Farmers will be protected , actually we will review it, Seamless borders - erm no lots of lorry parks and sorry yes we will have customs costs Billions in extra charges for business. Not enough permits for U.K. trucks to work abroad so still reliant on Europe for trucks. Taking back control. Ha ha Civil rights changes Employment law is next to be reviewed If we were going to adhere to EU standards why do we need to review anything surely making them better won’t be a problem to the EU. Oh but if we make them worse hmmm yes that needs a review. Borders controlled - dependant immigration increasing with non economic migrants year on year who bring no benefit to U.K. . Not been addressed at all. Illegal immigrant controls increased . Call the Navy we can’t cope! This government and its right wing Brexit division has lied and mislead this country. I used to vote Tory. I did not vote for Boris and never would as knew him from his mayoral days. This lot are not fit for government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now) Ask him. Perhaps he thought it was his chance to sabotage brexit, maybe he just spat his dummy out. Has he personally confirmed why he resigned? Sabotage Brexit..is that an educated guess? You might not have noticed but there seems to be a trend amongst remainers that like to mislead and misrepresent, taking any tiny opportunity to disrail or discredit Brexit but yes, in light of him not personally confirming why he quit it is a guess. Just like yours. You know for a fact he is a remainer I presume? Our Laura at the bbc reckons he is unhappy with the gmnts decision. I actually posed it as a question..3 times..so I didnt actually make a guess. Unlike you. You used his assumed position (that you guessed) as proof that we are breaking the law. But we arent breaking the law. I'll just repeat. You know for a fact he Is a remainer?" I will play you at your own game. I didnt say he was a remainer... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. " The EU were all over this border issue from day one as they knew it was a problem for us. They wanted it sorted out not to use it to start a war. It’s our incompetent Prime Minister that has brought us to this mess. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"all i will say is this.... the british were in uproar when the chinese said they were going to change the terms of the hong kong treaty... this is no different... you break international law... you lose any moral high ground.... You do realise that the eu and its member countries regularly break international law? How? https://www.wwf.eu/?114020/Poland-must-apply-the-rule-for-Baltic-cod https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/europe/poland-bialowieza-forest-ecj.html A wall street journal article detailing the eu's treatmenr of international law. - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122757164701554711 Unfortunately, in the Polish government there are the same idiots as in the UK government Unfortunateky the eu itself has broken international law and germany, france etc. So, any claims that the eu are trustworthy and operate within international law is simply a fallacy and proves that we are correct to take measures to protect ourselves from their underhanded negotiations. We are correct to take measures etc Measures that will only be taken if the wa is broken by the EU or we leave with no deal. In both these instances enacting the international market bill would not be breaking the law or the nullified treaty. Keep up lionel, its not hard to understand. Why did the lawyer resign? (3rd time now) Ask him. Perhaps he thought it was his chance to sabotage brexit, maybe he just spat his dummy out. Has he personally confirmed why he resigned? Sabotage Brexit..is that an educated guess? You might not have noticed but there seems to be a trend amongst remainers that like to mislead and misrepresent, taking any tiny opportunity to disrail or discredit Brexit but yes, in light of him not personally confirming why he quit it is a guess. Just like yours. You know for a fact he is a remainer I presume? Our Laura at the bbc reckons he is unhappy with the gmnts decision. I actually posed it as a question..3 times..so I didnt actually make a guess. Unlike you. You used his assumed position (that you guessed) as proof that we are breaking the law. But we arent breaking the law. I'll just repeat. You know for a fact he Is a remainer? I will play you at your own game. I didnt say he was a remainer..." Do you often find people nodding off when you are talking to them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. " Your assertions are pathetic. A bumbling attempt to defend a government who themselves admit they are breaking the law. Could you sink any lower? Well guess what. Breaking the law in a "specific and limited way" is still breaking the law. ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. Your assertions are pathetic. A bumbling attempt to defend a government who themselves admit they are breaking the law. Could you sink any lower? Well guess what. Breaking the law in a "specific and limited way" is still breaking the law. ?? " Keep up at the back. We arent breaking the law. We would only be breaking the law if we enacted the bill either before a no deal Brexit or after the eu breaking and nullifying the treaty. Which it could be argued that they already have. It could also be argued that personal insults are as low as it gets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. " A Union with Ireland?? No you don’t,Son I’d try that again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-54156419" Just saw that. Not surprised. Tories have the numbers right now. Nothing else seems to matter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-54156419 Just saw that. Not surprised. Tories have the numbers right now. Nothing else seems to matter." Did my link work? It looks a bit odd? This one might be better. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54156419 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same Nightmare eh!!!! Oh well mustn’t grumble!!! T You might be grumbling if the good friday agreement gets torn up Do you remember the pre GFA days?" To some paramilitary groups, the agreement was torn up years ago. It will put the ISIS lot to shame, if they start blowing thibgs up again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. A Union with Ireland?? No you don’t,Son I’d try that again. " Fair enough, northern ireland. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. Your assertions are pathetic. A bumbling attempt to defend a government who themselves admit they are breaking the law. Could you sink any lower? Well guess what. Breaking the law in a "specific and limited way" is still breaking the law. ?? Keep up at the back. We arent breaking the law. We would only be breaking the law if we enacted the bill either before a no deal Brexit or after the eu breaking and nullifying the treaty. Which it could be argued that they already have. It could also be argued that personal insults are as low as it gets." *before the eu breaking and nullifying the treaty | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. The EU were all over this border issue from day one as they knew it was a problem for us. They wanted it sorted out not to use it to start a war. It’s our incompetent Prime Minister that has brought us to this mess. " How did they try to sort it out that wasnt for their own gain? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. Your assertions are pathetic. A bumbling attempt to defend a government who themselves admit they are breaking the law. Could you sink any lower? Well guess what. Breaking the law in a "specific and limited way" is still breaking the law. ?? Keep up at the back. We arent breaking the law. We would only be breaking the law if we enacted the bill either before a no deal Brexit or after the eu breaking and nullifying the treaty. Which it could be argued that they already have. It could also be argued that personal insults are as low as it gets." The former wasn't an insult, it was a succinct summary of your determination to defend "your side" come what may, whatever the cost to your integrity. The latter was a genuine question. How low will you go in order to defend a government who publicly admits to breaking the law? The UK government are attempting to unilaterally amend a legally binding treaty that they willingly signed less than a year ago. That is breaking international law. It doesn't matter whether they implement the amendment or not, it is the fact that they have amended it that counts. Your argument is akin to saying that if a burglar breaks into your property with the intention of stealing something and then leaves without doing so, he hasn't broken the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Boris Johnson desides he will break international law and treatey for the interest of GB And who has to pay the price again The Irish Just when we had thought we had soulved the troubles and hundreds of years of war exploitation, famine and war, along comes boris and his cronies from Eton, and when the going is bad for them, who are they going to fuck over to get out of the pickle they are in, only the Irish again, everything changes, and everything stays the same You could ask Michel Barnier and the EU why they are using RI and NI again to back the uk into a corner... Boris backed himself into a corner seeing as this is a deal that he negotiated and signed Fact is bojo doesnt have a fucking clue what he is doing " He knows what he's doing, you just don't like it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. Your assertions are pathetic. A bumbling attempt to defend a government who themselves admit they are breaking the law. Could you sink any lower? Well guess what. Breaking the law in a "specific and limited way" is still breaking the law. ?? Keep up at the back. We arent breaking the law. We would only be breaking the law if we enacted the bill either before a no deal Brexit or after the eu breaking and nullifying the treaty. Which it could be argued that they already have. It could also be argued that personal insults are as low as it gets. The former wasn't an insult, it was a succinct summary of your determination to defend "your side" come what may, whatever the cost to your integrity. The latter was a genuine question. How low will you go in order to defend a government who publicly admits to breaking the law? The UK government are attempting to unilaterally amend a legally binding treaty that they willingly signed less than a year ago. That is breaking international law. It doesn't matter whether they implement the amendment or not, it is the fact that they have amended it that counts. Your argument is akin to saying that if a burglar breaks into your property with the intention of stealing something and then leaves without doing so, he hasn't broken the law. " Your burglar analogy perfectly describes the EU. They are loitering outside an open window ready to steal something and the uk gov are preparing to give them a bloody nose as soon as they stick their head through it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You completely ignored the key point above. "The UK government are attempting to unilaterally amend a legally binding treaty that they willingly signed less than a year ago. That is breaking international law." Instead, you launched into a bizarre Dad's Army style bit of propaganda." You completely ignore that if and when this bill gets enacted the wa will not be legally binding. If the eu does as it agreed when signing the wa the bill will not be enacted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You completely ignored the key point above. "The UK government are attempting to unilaterally amend a legally binding treaty that they willingly signed less than a year ago. That is breaking international law." Instead, you launched into a bizarre Dad's Army style bit of propaganda. You completely ignore that if and when this bill gets enacted the wa will not be legally binding. If the eu does as it agreed when signing the wa the bill will not be enacted. " We signed a treaty with the EU. 2 parties. Such an agreement can't be unilaterally changed. Otherwise, what's the point of them? Oh forget it. Evil Europe is doubtless poised, as you say. Ready to pounce if we foolishly don't break our word. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. Your assertions are pathetic. A bumbling attempt to defend a government who themselves admit they are breaking the law. Could you sink any lower? Well guess what. Breaking the law in a "specific and limited way" is still breaking the law. ?? Keep up at the back. We arent breaking the law. We would only be breaking the law if we enacted the bill either before a no deal Brexit or after the eu breaking and nullifying the treaty. Which it could be argued that they already have. It could also be argued that personal insults are as low as it gets. The former wasn't an insult, it was a succinct summary of your determination to defend "your side" come what may, whatever the cost to your integrity. The latter was a genuine question. How low will you go in order to defend a government who publicly admits to breaking the law? The UK government are attempting to unilaterally amend a legally binding treaty that they willingly signed less than a year ago. That is breaking international law. It doesn't matter whether they implement the amendment or not, it is the fact that they have amended it that counts. Your argument is akin to saying that if a burglar breaks into your property with the intention of stealing something and then leaves without doing so, he hasn't broken the law. Your burglar analogy perfectly describes the EU. They are loitering outside an open window ready to steal something and the uk gov are preparing to give them a bloody nose as soon as they stick their head through it." And then you wake up and the dream is over. Just to say, 48% of our exports go to the EU and 8% of theirs come here. Keep on the wishful thinking. A lot of brexiters are like a bunch of guys who tell everyone they’ve got a ten inch dick and when they take their pants off, there’s not much to be seen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You completely ignored the key point above. "The UK government are attempting to unilaterally amend a legally binding treaty that they willingly signed less than a year ago. That is breaking international law." Instead, you launched into a bizarre Dad's Army style bit of propaganda. You completely ignore that if and when this bill gets enacted the wa will not be legally binding. If the eu does as it agreed when signing the wa the bill will not be enacted. We signed a treaty with the EU. 2 parties. Such an agreement can't be unilaterally changed. Otherwise, what's the point of them? Oh forget it. Evil Europe is doubtless poised, as you say. Ready to pounce if we foolishly don't break our word." Correct, it cant be changed which is why it will be nullified it if they dont stick to the agreement or no deal brexit happens. If the wa is nullified then it is no longer legally binding and we are free to enact the internal market bill. The eu are already breaching the wa by acting against our sovereignty (section 38) and not negotiating in good faith for a mutually beneficial outcome (article 184). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. Your assertions are pathetic. A bumbling attempt to defend a government who themselves admit they are breaking the law. Could you sink any lower? Well guess what. Breaking the law in a "specific and limited way" is still breaking the law. ?? Keep up at the back. We arent breaking the law. We would only be breaking the law if we enacted the bill either before a no deal Brexit or after the eu breaking and nullifying the treaty. Which it could be argued that they already have. It could also be argued that personal insults are as low as it gets. The former wasn't an insult, it was a succinct summary of your determination to defend "your side" come what may, whatever the cost to your integrity. The latter was a genuine question. How low will you go in order to defend a government who publicly admits to breaking the law? The UK government are attempting to unilaterally amend a legally binding treaty that they willingly signed less than a year ago. That is breaking international law. It doesn't matter whether they implement the amendment or not, it is the fact that they have amended it that counts. Your argument is akin to saying that if a burglar breaks into your property with the intention of stealing something and then leaves without doing so, he hasn't broken the law. Your burglar analogy perfectly describes the EU. They are loitering outside an open window ready to steal something and the uk gov are preparing to give them a bloody nose as soon as they stick their head through it. And then you wake up and the dream is over. Just to say, 48% of our exports go to the EU and 8% of theirs come here. Keep on the wishful thinking. A lot of brexiters are like a bunch of guys who tell everyone they’ve got a ten inch dick and when they take their pants off, there’s not much to be seen. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You completely ignored the key point above. "The UK government are attempting to unilaterally amend a legally binding treaty that they willingly signed less than a year ago. That is breaking international law." Instead, you launched into a bizarre Dad's Army style bit of propaganda. You completely ignore that if and when this bill gets enacted the wa will not be legally binding. If the eu does as it agreed when signing the wa the bill will not be enacted. We signed a treaty with the EU. 2 parties. Such an agreement can't be unilaterally changed. Otherwise, what's the point of them? Oh forget it. Evil Europe is doubtless poised, as you say. Ready to pounce if we foolishly don't break our word. Correct, it cant be changed which is why it will be nullified it if they dont stick to the agreement or no deal brexit happens. If the wa is nullified then it is no longer legally binding and we are free to enact the internal market bill. The eu are already breaching the wa by acting against our sovereignty (section 38) and not negotiating in good faith for a mutually beneficial outcome (article 184)." So ... I was curious about your facts. I looked up the bit you wheeled out about the EU breaching section 38. The only reference I could find to that was on a website that purports to reearch Brexit and the EU. And in the "about us" bit, they talk about how they're there to research the EU and Brexit, to provide facts etc. Then they go on to bitch about "remoaners obsessed with conspiracy theories". I became a little suspicious they were all about the facts at this point... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the reference I found to breaking 184 was a piece in that bastion of right wing lunacy, the Express, penned by Iain Duncan Smith. That totally factual, honest and all-round wonderful chap." I suggest you brush up on your search skills as there are numerous results for both. ARTICLE 184 Negotiations on the future relationship The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period. ------- The changes that the Government are considering are outlined in the Internal Market Bill. This Bill relies on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38 which declares that the UK Parliament is sovereign and in particular not bound by several Articles of the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU will have been aware of this Act and should have complained of “Treaty Violations” at the time of the Act. The departures from the Withdrawal Agreement in the new Internal Market Bill are that transfers of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK should not be subject to any hindrance or inspections and that State Aid to Northern Ireland should not come under the control of the Withdrawal Agreement. Both of these have the potential to violate the Withdrawal Agreement but if the Withdrawal Agreement is given primacy it will violate the principle of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. International courts will find it difficult to give primacy to an International Treaty that violates sovereignty and where the EU has failed to object to the declaration of sovereignty in the 2020 Act. http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/northern-ireland-and-the-withdrawal-agreement/ ------- 38 Parliamentary sovereignty (1)It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign. (2)In particular, its sovereignty subsists notwithstanding— (a)directly applicable or directly effective EU law continuing to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 1A or 1B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (savings of existing law for the implementation period), (b)section 7A of that Act (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement), (c)section 7B of that Act (deemed direct applicability or direct effect in relation to the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement), and (d)section 7C of that Act (interpretation of law relating to the withdrawal agreement (other than the implementation period), the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement). (3)Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You completely ignored the key point above. "The UK government are attempting to unilaterally amend a legally binding treaty that they willingly signed less than a year ago. That is breaking international law." Instead, you launched into a bizarre Dad's Army style bit of propaganda. You completely ignore that if and when this bill gets enacted the wa will not be legally binding. If the eu does as it agreed when signing the wa the bill will not be enacted. We signed a treaty with the EU. 2 parties. Such an agreement can't be unilaterally changed. Otherwise, what's the point of them? Oh forget it. Evil Europe is doubtless poised, as you say. Ready to pounce if we foolishly don't break our word. Correct, it cant be changed which is why it will be nullified it if they dont stick to the agreement or no deal brexit happens. If the wa is nullified then it is no longer legally binding and we are free to enact the internal market bill. The eu are already breaching the wa by acting against our sovereignty (section 38) and not negotiating in good faith for a mutually beneficial outcome (article 184)." Are the EU attempting to break international law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. The EU were all over this border issue from day one as they knew it was a problem for us. They wanted it sorted out not to use it to start a war. It’s our incompetent Prime Minister that has brought us to this mess. How did they try to sort it out that wasnt for their own gain?" They tried to sort it out with us, not in spite of us unlike Boris, The backstop agreement negotiated by Teresa May in 2017 was agreed and agreed by the EU in 2018. This was a simpler version of the Protocal. Boris has realised he’s fucked up with the border plan and is now trying to back track yet again. It’s ok we will have border checks miles back from the border. It’s still a border. You know something I truly hope I’m wrong when the 1st of January comes and it all goes off really well. I honestly don’t want to be a told you so as that doesn’t help me my business or anyone in this country. It’s would also sadden me to see my country crash. I just have first hand interface with the government agencies planning this and they are scrambling like fuck to catch up. Three months to go and we still have no specific physical customs plan. We have in fact been told opposite information on procedures within the last month by HMRC. We can’t renew contracts because the costs aren’t known. So a lot of our carriers are introducing clauses with escape options on new business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. The EU were all over this border issue from day one as they knew it was a problem for us. They wanted it sorted out not to use it to start a war. It’s our incompetent Prime Minister that has brought us to this mess. How did they try to sort it out that wasnt for their own gain? They tried to sort it out with us, not in spite of us unlike Boris, The backstop agreement negotiated by Teresa May in 2017 was agreed and agreed by the EU in 2018. This was a simpler version of the Protocal. Boris has realised he’s fucked up with the border plan and is now trying to back track yet again. It’s ok we will have border checks miles back from the border. It’s still a border. You know something I truly hope I’m wrong when the 1st of January comes and it all goes off really well. I honestly don’t want to be a told you so as that doesn’t help me my business or anyone in this country. It’s would also sadden me to see my country crash. I just have first hand interface with the government agencies planning this and they are scrambling like fuck to catch up. Three months to go and we still have no specific physical customs plan. We have in fact been told opposite information on procedures within the last month by HMRC. We can’t renew contracts because the costs aren’t known. So a lot of our carriers are introducing clauses with escape options on new business. " It really is pointless trying to argue with people who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they will stand by and applaud whatever the government does, legal or otherwise and whatever the consequences. They've had a good long drink of the kool aid and their perspective is utterly skewed. Even when everything turns to crap next year and we're queuing up for our food rations, they'll still believe that leaving the EU was the right thing to do. Lorry parks being built all over Kent, and the government's own projections of up to 7000 lorry's queuing to cross the channel doesn't bode well for our food supply chain and medicines come January. This government meddling in the WA is simply another means to an end for them. They do not want a trade deal with the EU and are determined to get a no-deal Brexit come what may, in line with the wishes of the so called ERG, and their disaster capitalist mates. Look up the 1997 book 'The Sovereign Individual' by Rees-Moggs father William, to learn what the Brexit end game is really all about. It's not union jack waving and sunlit uplands that's for certain, and lots of people are due for a very nasty surprise indeed come 31st December. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Queing up for food what food bread milk meat pot noodles lol" Pardon? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. The EU were all over this border issue from day one as they knew it was a problem for us. They wanted it sorted out not to use it to start a war. It’s our incompetent Prime Minister that has brought us to this mess. How did they try to sort it out that wasnt for their own gain? They tried to sort it out with us, not in spite of us unlike Boris, The backstop agreement negotiated by Teresa May in 2017 was agreed and agreed by the EU in 2018. This was a simpler version of the Protocal. Boris has realised he’s fucked up with the border plan and is now trying to back track yet again. It’s ok we will have border checks miles back from the border. It’s still a border. You know something I truly hope I’m wrong when the 1st of January comes and it all goes off really well. I honestly don’t want to be a told you so as that doesn’t help me my business or anyone in this country. It’s would also sadden me to see my country crash. I just have first hand interface with the government agencies planning this and they are scrambling like fuck to catch up. Three months to go and we still have no specific physical customs plan. We have in fact been told opposite information on procedures within the last month by HMRC. We can’t renew contracts because the costs aren’t known. So a lot of our carriers are introducing clauses with escape options on new business. It really is pointless trying to argue with people who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they will stand by and applaud whatever the government does, legal or otherwise and whatever the consequences. They've had a good long drink of the kool aid and their perspective is utterly skewed. Even when everything turns to crap next year and we're queuing up for our food rations, they'll still believe that leaving the EU was the right thing to do. Lorry parks being built all over Kent, and the government's own projections of up to 7000 lorry's queuing to cross the channel doesn't bode well for our food supply chain and medicines come January. This government meddling in the WA is simply another means to an end for them. They do not want a trade deal with the EU and are determined to get a no-deal Brexit come what may, in line with the wishes of the so called ERG, and their disaster capitalist mates. Look up the 1997 book 'The Sovereign Individual' by Rees-Moggs father William, to learn what the Brexit end game is really all about. It's not union jack waving and sunlit uplands that's for certain, and lots of people are due for a very nasty surprise indeed come 31st December. " You cant reason with fanaticism. Even the ones who are having doubts now, wont admit they were wrong. We could be living in some mad max type dystopian future and they will be saying.. well he got Brexit done | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu are breaking the wa by undermining section 38 and article 184 by threatening our sovereignty and union and also not acting in good faith. Their position on ni is both an attempt to threaten the delicate peace in an attempt to undermine britains negotiations and sovereignty and also to retain influence in our affairs and potentially annex ni. This contravenes section 38. As Birminghamweekender says, the eu should not be putting the uk in a position where they have to take action to protect the peace in ni. It was a mistake/ oversight by boris expecting the eu not to try and reignite the troubles however by doing so the eu are acting nefariously and in defiance of article 184. The eu has also reneged on its own word in the past as well. One of note is its free travel agreement with turkey where the eu refuses to uphold its side of the agreement yet takes full advantage of the Turkish offerings. Yet another example of the underhanded actions of the eu. The EU are doing nothing to undermine the peace process in NI, it is Johnson and Cummings who are doing that because they've realised too late, as usual, that if they attempt to lower standards on food and animal welfare, the WA could actually prevent exports from mainland Britain into NI. The EU is concerned that the UK government hasn't provided them with details of the standards that they intend to adopt once the transition period has ended. This is why the UK is not yet on the third country list. It is the EUs intention to prevent goods that do not meet their required standards from entering the EU (ROI) via NI. If Johnson's government were to satisfy the EU that they will be adhering to the current standards then they would be added to the third country list. The fact that Johnson and his cohorts are not prepared to do this is making the EU suspicious of their motives, and frankly, who could blame them? The EU have not meddled with or attempted to renege on the WA, it is solely the UK government who are attempting to do this because they incompetently failed to study the WA in enough detail before they signed it. Drink as much kool aid as you wish, but it doesn't alter the fact that it is the UK government who is at fault here, not the EU, and every other country in the world knows it. Wrong. The eu are trying to effect a food blockade on ni from the uk. The uk operate under eu food standards rules and so there is no reason to withold our listing. David frost has detailed this and how the eu explicitly treatened that we will not be able to move food to ni if we are not listed. Btw, this goes against the gfa which is also an international treaty which it is illegal for the eu to overide. The uk internal market bill is a safeguard against this which the eu has made necessary. Utter tosh. Only Boris has mentioned blockade no one else. It’s just another sound bite of bullshit to rouse the blind followers. The government have openly stated they wish to have a trade deal with the USA. Given “everything is on the table” with that deal that will include the NHS and certain other things like chlorinated chicken and steroid infused beef. These are definitely not up there with EU standard so until Boris and the wrecking crew sign up for standards that won’t be compromised the EU are quite within their rights to withhold,d the listing. Given our shocking governments record I don’t see the EU rushing to sign anything. Boris forced this bill through without scrutiny and look where we are. Self inflicted mess. It’s ok though as we hold all the cards and the EU need us!, How pathetic this is all becoming. David frost has said that the eu have specifically told us we will not be allowed to send food to ireland without the listing that the EU are witholding. We won’t be sending any food to Europe without the listing so slightly more of a worry. David Frost has also stated we will not give ground on fishing but now says there may be room for compromise. Barrier has confirmed this. It’s all negotiating and we have signed up for this via Boris. May had a deal which Boris rejected in his blind grab for power. What we have now is a catastrophic mess of epic proportions. All due to the incompetence of our government. If the deal wasn’t sound why did Boris recommend it and force it through. We now have to accept we are going to break the law to cover off his mess. Come back Teresa all is forgiven. I’m no fan of Miliband but after watching him tonight, I have to hand it to him it was wrapped and presented to perfection. Boris has been found to have no clothes on yet again. We have a responsibility and a union with ireland that needs protecting because the eu are interfering with the peace and for their own gain. The EU were all over this border issue from day one as they knew it was a problem for us. They wanted it sorted out not to use it to start a war. It’s our incompetent Prime Minister that has brought us to this mess. How did they try to sort it out that wasnt for their own gain? They tried to sort it out with us, not in spite of us unlike Boris, The backstop agreement negotiated by Teresa May in 2017 was agreed and agreed by the EU in 2018. This was a simpler version of the Protocal. Boris has realised he’s fucked up with the border plan and is now trying to back track yet again. It’s ok we will have border checks miles back from the border. It’s still a border. You know something I truly hope I’m wrong when the 1st of January comes and it all goes off really well. I honestly don’t want to be a told you so as that doesn’t help me my business or anyone in this country. It’s would also sadden me to see my country crash. I just have first hand interface with the government agencies planning this and they are scrambling like fuck to catch up. Three months to go and we still have no specific physical customs plan. We have in fact been told opposite information on procedures within the last month by HMRC. We can’t renew contracts because the costs aren’t known. So a lot of our carriers are introducing clauses with escape options on new business. It really is pointless trying to argue with people who are so entrenched in their beliefs that they will stand by and applaud whatever the government does, legal or otherwise and whatever the consequences. They've had a good long drink of the kool aid and their perspective is utterly skewed. Even when everything turns to crap next year and we're queuing up for our food rations, they'll still believe that leaving the EU was the right thing to do. Lorry parks being built all over Kent, and the government's own projections of up to 7000 lorry's queuing to cross the channel doesn't bode well for our food supply chain and medicines come January. This government meddling in the WA is simply another means to an end for them. They do not want a trade deal with the EU and are determined to get a no-deal Brexit come what may, in line with the wishes of the so called ERG, and their disaster capitalist mates. Look up the 1997 book 'The Sovereign Individual' by Rees-Moggs father William, to learn what the Brexit end game is really all about. It's not union jack waving and sunlit uplands that's for certain, and lots of people are due for a very nasty surprise indeed come 31st December. You cant reason with fanaticism. Even the ones who are having doubts now, wont admit they were wrong. We could be living in some mad max type dystopian future and they will be saying.. well he got Brexit done " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Queing up for food what food bread milk meat pot noodles lol Pardon? "Maybe it's a cunning riddle? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the reference I found to breaking 184 was a piece in that bastion of right wing lunacy, the Express, penned by Iain Duncan Smith. That totally factual, honest and all-round wonderful chap. I suggest you brush up on your search skills as there are numerous results for both. ARTICLE 184 Negotiations on the future relationship The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period. ------- The changes that the Government are considering are outlined in the Internal Market Bill. This Bill relies on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38 which declares that the UK Parliament is sovereign and in particular not bound by several Articles of the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU will have been aware of this Act and should have complained of “Treaty Violations” at the time of the Act. The departures from the Withdrawal Agreement in the new Internal Market Bill are that transfers of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK should not be subject to any hindrance or inspections and that State Aid to Northern Ireland should not come under the control of the Withdrawal Agreement. Both of these have the potential to violate the Withdrawal Agreement but if the Withdrawal Agreement is given primacy it will violate the principle of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. International courts will find it difficult to give primacy to an International Treaty that violates sovereignty and where the EU has failed to object to the declaration of sovereignty in the 2020 Act. http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/northern-ireland-and-the-withdrawal-agreement/ ------- 38 Parliamentary sovereignty (1)It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign. (2)In particular, its sovereignty subsists notwithstanding— (a)directly applicable or directly effective EU law continuing to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 1A or 1B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (savings of existing law for the implementation period), (b)section 7A of that Act (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement), (c)section 7B of that Act (deemed direct applicability or direct effect in relation to the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement), and (d)section 7C of that Act (interpretation of law relating to the withdrawal agreement (other than the implementation period), the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement). (3)Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. " So... I also looked at the link you just cited. It ends in a lovely little rant: "Remainers are not suitable for High Office, either in Government or the Civil Service or the BBC. They have clearly signalled that their allegiance is to a foreign power and so are unsuitable for service at a high level in the UK. (See Reshuffling Snakes ). In some ways these people deserve our pity because they have believed in the inevitability of “Western” civilisation at a global level, something that is not now going to happen, if it ever was. Our pity should not go too far because their enthusiasm for abandoning the close interests of their constituents for some tenuous idealism is to be abhorred." You do pick "interesting" sources, don't you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the reference I found to breaking 184 was a piece in that bastion of right wing lunacy, the Express, penned by Iain Duncan Smith. That totally factual, honest and all-round wonderful chap. I suggest you brush up on your search skills as there are numerous results for both. ARTICLE 184 Negotiations on the future relationship The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period. ------- The changes that the Government are considering are outlined in the Internal Market Bill. This Bill relies on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38 which declares that the UK Parliament is sovereign and in particular not bound by several Articles of the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU will have been aware of this Act and should have complained of “Treaty Violations” at the time of the Act. The departures from the Withdrawal Agreement in the new Internal Market Bill are that transfers of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK should not be subject to any hindrance or inspections and that State Aid to Northern Ireland should not come under the control of the Withdrawal Agreement. Both of these have the potential to violate the Withdrawal Agreement but if the Withdrawal Agreement is given primacy it will violate the principle of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. International courts will find it difficult to give primacy to an International Treaty that violates sovereignty and where the EU has failed to object to the declaration of sovereignty in the 2020 Act. http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/northern-ireland-and-the-withdrawal-agreement/ ------- 38 Parliamentary sovereignty (1)It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign. (2)In particular, its sovereignty subsists notwithstanding— (a)directly applicable or directly effective EU law continuing to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 1A or 1B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (savings of existing law for the implementation period), (b)section 7A of that Act (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement), (c)section 7B of that Act (deemed direct applicability or direct effect in relation to the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement), and (d)section 7C of that Act (interpretation of law relating to the withdrawal agreement (other than the implementation period), the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement). (3)Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. So... I also looked at the link you just cited. It ends in a lovely little rant: "Remainers are not suitable for High Office, either in Government or the Civil Service or the BBC. They have clearly signalled that their allegiance is to a foreign power and so are unsuitable for service at a high level in the UK. (See Reshuffling Snakes ). In some ways these people deserve our pity because they have believed in the inevitability of “Western” civilisation at a global level, something that is not now going to happen, if it ever was. Our pity should not go too far because their enthusiasm for abandoning the close interests of their constituents for some tenuous idealism is to be abhorred." You do pick "interesting" sources, don't you?" Any comment to make on section 38? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the reference I found to breaking 184 was a piece in that bastion of right wing lunacy, the Express, penned by Iain Duncan Smith. That totally factual, honest and all-round wonderful chap. I suggest you brush up on your search skills as there are numerous results for both. ARTICLE 184 Negotiations on the future relationship The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period. ------- The changes that the Government are considering are outlined in the Internal Market Bill. This Bill relies on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38 which declares that the UK Parliament is sovereign and in particular not bound by several Articles of the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU will have been aware of this Act and should have complained of “Treaty Violations” at the time of the Act. The departures from the Withdrawal Agreement in the new Internal Market Bill are that transfers of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK should not be subject to any hindrance or inspections and that State Aid to Northern Ireland should not come under the control of the Withdrawal Agreement. Both of these have the potential to violate the Withdrawal Agreement but if the Withdrawal Agreement is given primacy it will violate the principle of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. International courts will find it difficult to give primacy to an International Treaty that violates sovereignty and where the EU has failed to object to the declaration of sovereignty in the 2020 Act. http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/northern-ireland-and-the-withdrawal-agreement/ ------- 38 Parliamentary sovereignty (1)It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign. (2)In particular, its sovereignty subsists notwithstanding— (a)directly applicable or directly effective EU law continuing to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 1A or 1B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (savings of existing law for the implementation period), (b)section 7A of that Act (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement), (c)section 7B of that Act (deemed direct applicability or direct effect in relation to the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement), and (d)section 7C of that Act (interpretation of law relating to the withdrawal agreement (other than the implementation period), the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement). (3)Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. So... I also looked at the link you just cited. It ends in a lovely little rant: "Remainers are not suitable for High Office, either in Government or the Civil Service or the BBC. They have clearly signalled that their allegiance is to a foreign power and so are unsuitable for service at a high level in the UK. (See Reshuffling Snakes ). In some ways these people deserve our pity because they have believed in the inevitability of “Western” civilisation at a global level, something that is not now going to happen, if it ever was. Our pity should not go too far because their enthusiasm for abandoning the close interests of their constituents for some tenuous idealism is to be abhorred." You do pick "interesting" sources, don't you? Any comment to make on section 38?" I'm sure the evil EU are doing evil things. And I'm sure Johnson and his bunch are brave, noble warriors, fighting the good fight. Cry freedom. Something about fish etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the reference I found to breaking 184 was a piece in that bastion of right wing lunacy, the Express, penned by Iain Duncan Smith. That totally factual, honest and all-round wonderful chap. I suggest you brush up on your search skills as there are numerous results for both. ARTICLE 184 Negotiations on the future relationship The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period. ------- The changes that the Government are considering are outlined in the Internal Market Bill. This Bill relies on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38 which declares that the UK Parliament is sovereign and in particular not bound by several Articles of the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU will have been aware of this Act and should have complained of “Treaty Violations” at the time of the Act. The departures from the Withdrawal Agreement in the new Internal Market Bill are that transfers of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK should not be subject to any hindrance or inspections and that State Aid to Northern Ireland should not come under the control of the Withdrawal Agreement. Both of these have the potential to violate the Withdrawal Agreement but if the Withdrawal Agreement is given primacy it will violate the principle of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. International courts will find it difficult to give primacy to an International Treaty that violates sovereignty and where the EU has failed to object to the declaration of sovereignty in the 2020 Act. http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/northern-ireland-and-the-withdrawal-agreement/ ------- 38 Parliamentary sovereignty (1)It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign. (2)In particular, its sovereignty subsists notwithstanding— (a)directly applicable or directly effective EU law continuing to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 1A or 1B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (savings of existing law for the implementation period), (b)section 7A of that Act (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement), (c)section 7B of that Act (deemed direct applicability or direct effect in relation to the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement), and (d)section 7C of that Act (interpretation of law relating to the withdrawal agreement (other than the implementation period), the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement). (3)Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. So... I also looked at the link you just cited. It ends in a lovely little rant: "Remainers are not suitable for High Office, either in Government or the Civil Service or the BBC. They have clearly signalled that their allegiance is to a foreign power and so are unsuitable for service at a high level in the UK. (See Reshuffling Snakes ). In some ways these people deserve our pity because they have believed in the inevitability of “Western” civilisation at a global level, something that is not now going to happen, if it ever was. Our pity should not go too far because their enthusiasm for abandoning the close interests of their constituents for some tenuous idealism is to be abhorred." You do pick "interesting" sources, don't you? Any comment to make on section 38?" Yeah, does it break international law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Queing up for food what food bread milk meat pot noodles lol Pardon?
Maybe it's a cunning riddle?"I just want to know what foods we are going to be queing up for ? Was it really that hard for you lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Queing up for food what food bread milk meat pot noodles lol Pardon?
Maybe it's a cunning riddle? I just want to know what foods we are going to be queing up for ? Was it really that hard for you lol"Word stew what understanding lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Queing up for food what food bread milk meat pot noodles lol Pardon?
Maybe it's a cunning riddle? I just want to know what foods we are going to be queing up for ? Was it really that hard for you lol"Ah, why will we be queuing up for pot noodles, they have a long shelf life? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Queing up for food what food bread milk meat pot noodles lol" Exactly the type of well reasoned and intelligently robust comment I like to see in a debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And the reference I found to breaking 184 was a piece in that bastion of right wing lunacy, the Express, penned by Iain Duncan Smith. That totally factual, honest and all-round wonderful chap. I suggest you brush up on your search skills as there are numerous results for both. ARTICLE 184 Negotiations on the future relationship The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship referred to in the Political Declaration of 17 October 2019 and to conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition period. ------- The changes that the Government are considering are outlined in the Internal Market Bill. This Bill relies on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38 which declares that the UK Parliament is sovereign and in particular not bound by several Articles of the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU will have been aware of this Act and should have complained of “Treaty Violations” at the time of the Act. The departures from the Withdrawal Agreement in the new Internal Market Bill are that transfers of goods between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK should not be subject to any hindrance or inspections and that State Aid to Northern Ireland should not come under the control of the Withdrawal Agreement. Both of these have the potential to violate the Withdrawal Agreement but if the Withdrawal Agreement is given primacy it will violate the principle of UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. International courts will find it difficult to give primacy to an International Treaty that violates sovereignty and where the EU has failed to object to the declaration of sovereignty in the 2020 Act. http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/northern-ireland-and-the-withdrawal-agreement/ ------- 38 Parliamentary sovereignty (1)It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign. (2)In particular, its sovereignty subsists notwithstanding— (a)directly applicable or directly effective EU law continuing to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 1A or 1B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (savings of existing law for the implementation period), (b)section 7A of that Act (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement), (c)section 7B of that Act (deemed direct applicability or direct effect in relation to the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement), and (d)section 7C of that Act (interpretation of law relating to the withdrawal agreement (other than the implementation period), the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement). (3)Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. So... I also looked at the link you just cited. It ends in a lovely little rant: "Remainers are not suitable for High Office, either in Government or the Civil Service or the BBC. They have clearly signalled that their allegiance is to a foreign power and so are unsuitable for service at a high level in the UK. (See Reshuffling Snakes ). In some ways these people deserve our pity because they have believed in the inevitability of “Western” civilisation at a global level, something that is not now going to happen, if it ever was. Our pity should not go too far because their enthusiasm for abandoning the close interests of their constituents for some tenuous idealism is to be abhorred." You do pick "interesting" sources, don't you?" Who was it it who wanted to boot everyone out of the civil service who voted remain? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
