EU Trade Talks Thread

[keano77]

UK government publishes legal position defending decision to ignore international law

...Essentially, it argues that domestic law, and decisions by parliament, trump international law. It claims that the supreme court ruling in the article 50 case supports this argument...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/sep/10/coronavirus-uk-boris-johnson-moonshot-testing-latest-news

[TheCat]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem with Jones' article, and with anyone

> with some vague notion of a softer brexit - is

> that their softer brexit can't exist in reality

> either

>

> Because it's not remainers like me at fault - if

> some softer version of Brexit was defined by

> May(or Corbyn) and presented - the very hardcore

> nutters who have driven this whole thing for

> decades - the very people anyone supporting brexit

> has to take responsibility for wouldn't stand for

> it.

>

> If you solve a problem like Ireland by staying a

> member of Single Market, you really think Jenkins

> and co wouldn't rip everything up?

I disagree....its all moot now in anycase, but if the Remainers within Labour and Lib Dems in particular, had accepted the referendum result in the first place (sure...under protest), and made an attempt to come up with a palatable solution, rather than play petty party politics, and fantasise about 'stopping brexit'....then the 'brexit nutters' in the pre-2019 parliament would have been a tiny minority. Had that happened, then Im pretty confident we wouldnt have an tory govt with an 80 seat majority, Boris wouldnt PM, the UK Govt wouldn't be toying with its international reputation by playing chicken around breaking treaties....

To be clear im not just 'blaming all remainers'...its on all sides unfort as to why we are here. You can claim it's 'not remainers like me'...but pages of comments on this forum would suggest you've spent years trying to argue about how how brexit needs to be stopped, I respect your view and right to do exactly that...but the flip side is that this attitude is part of the reason why Boris in the head honcho today.

I accept that my Brexit vote played its part in putting Boris in the chair (not my intention), time for you to accept that Remainer's roadblocking post-referendum played its part in that too.

[Sephiroth]

"made an attempt to come up with a palatable solution"

but this is the problem that can never be squared

the referenedum only happened because of the nutters and the problem it was causing within the tory party. If they were easily contained we wouldn't have even needed a referendum - few people gave a toss before then

You put any version of brexit in front of people - you won't get enough to pass it. Define the softest most palatable brexit - THEN put it to a referendum and see if it passes

But what passed was a blank cheque - any version of which leaves us worse off and displeases a large portion of people that voted to leave

That is not remainers problem - remainers pointed out this WAS the problem

[Sephiroth]

Someone tell keano it's not the 19th century anymore, the world has moved on, England is a minor world player compared to several hundred years ago and that the EU is not some invading force that extracted taxes from the natives

[keano77]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Someone tell keano it's not the 19th century

> anymore, the world has moved on, England is a

> minor world player compared to several hundred

> years ago and that the EU is not some invading

> force that extracted taxes from the natives

As an Irishman you will know how the Troika compelled Ireland to introduce all sorts of charges and taxes on the natives as a condition for the bailout. Property taxes and water rates spring to mind although mass demonstrations by the natives forced toe government to back down on water rates.

[Sephiroth]

As an Irishman I?m aware of how we built our economy and suffered in the global economic crash

I?m also aware we didn?t get to blame labour like England did

I?m also aware that Ireland bounced back well and retains massive support for eu membership as it takes a more balanced and less self-centred and arrogant view of the world than this country and people like you do.

I?m aware many Leave voting English people have applied for Irish passports to retain the benefits of membership

In short, your argument is hot air

[j.a.]

@TheCat

While generally I agree that both sides have behaved badly in various ways at various times, from the start of the campaign right through to today, I feel there?s a counterpoint to your assertion that had Remainers accepted it from the start we wouldn?t be were we are now.

Leavers were some of the worst winners in history. If you win, you should show a certain magnanimity towards the losers; it?s ironic that for something which was partly about British values (yes it was), many winners behaved in an astoundingly unBritish style.

Remainers were told, basically, to shut up and accept whatever came their way. Somehow 52% became 100%, and 48% became 0%, as it was made clear that no one cares what that 48% thought, so in a way it?s hardly surprising they tried to change it. Astonishingly the only politician I remember trying to point out that everyone - not just Leave voters - had to be considered was Gove!

I guess the point I?m making is that - after an understandable period of savouring victory - had Leavers adopted a tone of conciliation and ?don?t worry, we?re not going to screw you all over?, things might have been different. But they didn?t. That wasn?t cool.

Sephiroth also makes an excellent and often repeated point. There is no single version of Brexit that commands a majority in the UK. That?s why the Leave campaign was deliberately vague. I?m not sure you can blame Remainers when the ballot paper only said Leave or Remain. Frankly, everything else is down to the government in power.

[JohnL]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sephiroth Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Someone tell keano it's not the 19th century

> > anymore, the world has moved on, England is a

> > minor world player compared to several hundred

> > years ago and that the EU is not some invading

> > force that extracted taxes from the natives

>

> As an Irishman you will know how the Troika

> compelled Ireland to introduce all sorts of

> charges and taxes on the natives as a condition

> for the bailout. Property taxes and water rates

> spring to mind although mass demonstrations by the

> natives forced toe government to back down on

> water rates.

If our credit rating is trashed as we are not a stable rule abiding country any longer. How do we pay the huge debt repayments when the interest rate goes up ?

It won't be the Troika forcing us to increase taxes as we'll be out but it will be the IMF/World Bank.

[pk]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Now, the WA has given the EU power to override UK

> unity and seamless trade all because the EU wants

> to collect taxes if goods enter the Republic.

>

> An oversimplification on my part perhaps but since

> when did the UK bow down to foreign tax

> collectors?

>

> Discuss

So the question is since when did the UK agree to the WA?

That was at the point that Boris said he?d got Brexit done with a great deal Including the things he now doesn?t like

If he didn?t intend to honour the WA cause he didn?t like it surely he shouldn?t have campaigned for it and signed it rather than sign it and renege? What good would come from that?

[JohnL]

Boris said the withdrawal agreement he wrote, put to parliament and campaigned on in a general election didn't make sense.

or maybe he never got around to reading it.

[diable rouge]

Theresa May with her red lines made no attempt to propose a Brexit that would reflect the closeness of the referendum, and thereby embrace those that voted Remain. It was a hard Brexit, leaving the Single Market, ending Freedom of Movement etc, and bore little resemblance to what the official Leave campaign said would happen. Unlike Seph I think a soft Brexit would've been accepted both by parliament and the country as a whole. Yes it would've peed off the ERG headbanger types, but there would've been enough on the Labour side to see them off. For remainers to have come up with palatable options they first needed to be invited to the table, that never happened. What May did was to put her party before country...

[keano77]

Good question pk.

As far as I understand it the Govt?s argument is that the WA is ambiguous and many of the details were to be ironed out in the course of negotiations through ?the Joint committee?.

One consequence of the ambiguity is that businesses based in GB could be subject to EU (single market) rules if they supply goods to Northern Ireland.

The Bill aims to remove such ambiguity as it is a back door for the EU to exercise control over domestic matters through strict legal interpretation.

A sort of the devil is in the detail.

The BBC touches on this here

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54092940

[pk]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Good question pk.

>

> As far as I understand it the Govt?s argument is

> that the WA is ambiguous and many of the details

> were to be ironed out in the course of

> negotiations through ?the Joint committee?.

>

So to say it was ?oven ready? was a lie

[j.a.]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Good question pk.

>

> As far as I understand it the Govt?s argument is

> that the WA is ambiguous and many of the details

> were to be ironed out in the course of

> negotiations through ?the Joint committee?.

>

> One consequence of the ambiguity is that

> businesses based in GB could be subject to EU

> (single market) rules if they supply goods to

> Northern Ireland.

>

> The Bill aims to remove such ambiguity as it is a

> back door for the EU to exercise control over

> domestic matters through strict legal

> interpretation.

>

> A sort of the devil is in the detail.

>

> The BBC touches on this here

>

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-540

> 92940

While all of that may be true, and it probably is, none of it addresses the fact that Johnson told everyone he?d ?got Brexit done? (?oven ready blah blah etc etc), signed the deal, then turned around and said it wasn?t resolved.

None of us get to sign a contract and then claim it?s ambiguous. It doesn?t work that way. The British govt signed the WA and are now trying to backtrack. You and me don?t get to do that. The whole point of this stuff is that once you?ve ?signed on the dotted line?, as the phrase goes, THAT?S IT (again, caps mine and intentional).

I can?t believe anyone is trying to defend this course of action. If the WA wasn?t good for us, we should not have signed it. We now look like we can?t be trusted.

Gove was going around telling the ERG to vote for it because we could change it later. Turns out he meant that literally.

[Sephiroth]

Many people - including many MPS - said at the time that the detail needed to be examined. precisely to avoid this kind of situation

Almost as if this was a complex situation that needed scrutiny

But what happened? Parliament was prorogued, people were told no more negitation was needed and "MPS were just trying to stop Brexit"

And now - we are supposed to just take these liars at their word? I mean - why would anyone believe them

[keano77]

Well Barnier seems to have been swinging the lead so perhaps Boris?s optimism met EU highlighter pen-pushing bureaucracy.

[j.a.]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well Barnier seems to have been swinging the lead

> so perhaps Boris?s optimism met EU highlighter

> pen-pushing bureaucracy.

This is a contender for the least constructive post ever.

[Sephiroth]

when you have Norman Lamont and Michael Howard giving out about this bill, you know it's DOA

[j.a.]

You think Dom gives a flying fornication what *anyone* thinks? Boris doesn?t choose a tie without Dom?s approval, so we know how this is going to go.

[keano77]

Did you misread that last post? - DOA not DOM.

[j.a.]

No. No I didn?t. Do you really need it explained to you?

[keano77]

Where did your rant about Dom come from then? Did someone mention him earlier?

[j.a.]

(You have a weird definition of a rant)

Responding to the previous post, the point I was making is that Cummings (who is obviously the power behind this, please let's not pretend otherwise) won't care what anyone says, and likely sees Howard, Lamont et al as ancient history anyway. He's going to push it through, and Boris will do what he'd told.

Kinda surprised you needed that explained but hey ho...

[keano77]

Interesting theory

[wordsworth]

yawning