Brexit - whats the difference.....

goatwack

Get dunked, big buns!
CAG
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Location
Londonia
Yes, just saw it plastered everywhere. Just what we need in fact.

"Goody"
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
I always thought that deal he struck last year was ****, the other leaders were jubilant and all smiles. They said it was a transitional deal to be in place while we negotiated the real final deal, so I don't know if tearing part of it up is illegal or wrong. Probably a warning shot to the EU, we're not mucking around - but who knows?

1599433324730.png

At the end of the day the EU's rules should not come before trading between european countries, the trade is more important to the countries than these rules dreamt up in brussels.
 
Last edited:

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
I always thought that deal he struck last year was ****,
The problem with this argument is it's the same as Iain Duncan Smith's revisionism. If the deal was so shit, why was it presented as an 'oven ready deal', why were we told it would GET BREXIT DONE? Why did anyone vote for it if they could see it was a load of shit?

Or was it an elaborate double bluff? 'I shall vote for this oven ready deal and GET BREXIT DONE, even though I think the deal is shit and I don't agree with it at all, because I am absolutely confident that the UK will then go on to rip up an internationally binding legal agreement and shit all over its commitments to its neighbours to do something I approve of more'.

I'll just remind you again how IDS reacted in the Commons when this 'shit' deal was passed..... This is the man who promoted the same shit deal endlessly, lest we forget. (Perhaps he didn't read it? And/or understand it?)

1599462319786.png
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
The problem with this argument is it's the same as Iain Duncan Smith's revisionism. If the deal was so shit, why was it presented as an 'oven ready deal', why were we told it would GET BREXIT DONE? Why did anyone vote for it if they could see it was a load of shit?

Or was it an elaborate double bluff? 'I shall vote for this oven ready deal and GET BREXIT DONE, even though I think the deal is shit and I don't agree with it at all, because I am absolutely confident that the UK will then go on to rip up an internationally binding legal agreement and shit all over its commitments to its neighbours to do something I approve of more'.

I'll just remind you again how IDS reacted in the Commons when this 'shit' deal was passed..... This is the man who promoted the same shit deal endlessly, lest we forget. (Perhaps he didn't read it? And/or understand it?)

View attachment 141088
wasn't IDS reaction a part of westminster's sort of tribal atmosphere, two fingers as it were to the lab/lib/snp members sat opposite that had been trying to block any form of brexit from happening, rather than celebrating it as a great deal. I think even rees mogg was persuaded to vote for it, there was a danger to the conservative party itself [from nigel's new party] due to the 3 year inability to get the brexit departure bills passed. I expect the deal brought a lot of relief politically.

I read an opinion on twitter last night that the agreement with the EU was based on the fact that the negotiations happening now would be carried out in good faith, and there is an argument to be had that the EU has not been doing that.
 

goatwack

Get dunked, big buns!
CAG
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Location
Londonia
Say what you want about Referendum-duping, it all becomes secondary on either side of the divide if politicians decide to do last-minute U-turns.

It's all becoming rather unsavoury, but then it's always been a game to these people, from their plush abodes
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
'Unforseen' as in Theresa May knew full well that the WA Johnson agreed to would put a border down the Irish Sea and leave NI in a perilous position.

So 'unforseen' as in completely well understood by Johnson's predecessor, which is why she wouldn't agree to it.

For clarity, when Johnson 're-negotiated' the WA and passed it off as a success, he basically threw NI under the bus (in a fashion Theresa May point blank refused to), sold it as his 'fantastic oven ready deal', got elected on that basis, and now wants to go back on what he explicitly agreed to, and lied to the British public about.

1599547943947.png
1599548028426.png
 
Last edited:

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
A few reminders of just how awfully the UK government is behaving.

Do note please that this isn't just a domestic issue, many other countries around the world are paying full attention to what an untrustworthy and unreliable negotiator the UK has turned out to be, and will modify their behaviour to us accordingly.

It's like the mate who's always cadging drinks off you on a promise he'll get the rounds in next time, but he never does. Eventually, you'll just stop buying him drinks.

1599551983810.png
1599552018528.png

This one hasn't aged well.

1599552192777.png

1599552239642.png
1599552265301.png
 

goatwack

Get dunked, big buns!
CAG
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Location
Londonia
The posturing is real. The bravado is real. Even Johnson's hair has taken on a poker-face all of its own.

"Yoohoo guys, we're over here! We're that troublesome island that do more U-turns than Pacman. You will respect our authori-tieh!"

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
Pop Quiz - who said this?

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

Britain does not break Treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade we may need to make.

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






Margaret Thatcher.


You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
From the same speech:


The choice is clear. We can play a role in developing Europe, or we can turn our backs on the Community.

By turning our backs we would forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community. But what happens in the Community will inevitably affect us. The European Community is a powerful group of nations. With Britain as a member, it is more powerful; without Britain it will still be powerful. We can play a leading role in Europe, but if that leadership is not forthcoming Europe will develop without Britain.

Britain, if she denounced a treaty, cannot then complain if Europe develops in conflict with Britain's interests.
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
Just so we understand where we're at, the Northern Ireland Secretary just stood up in the House of Commons and said:

'Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.'

We're all OK with this? Really? Price worth paying for Brexit?

1599570666331.png

At least we can get a giggle out of it, I suppose.

1599570761311.png
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
1599573449567.png

Barnier's 'The waters are yours but the fish are ours' logic must fit the criteria of negotiating in bad faith ?

Apparently another bone of contention on top of fish, are the level playing field provisions on state aid, where typically the uk already spends less than half the average EU member:

As things stand, the UK spends considerably less on state aid than most other EU countries. In 2016 the UK spent 0.36% of GDP on state aid excluding railways compared to 0.65% in France and 1.31% in Germany. Only five countries spent less. [LSE brexit blog]

Dominic cummings wants to up govt investment into the technology sector, seems eminently sensible, and therefore we can't run the risk of the EU and its courts interfering & deciding what we can and can't do in this regard.
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
Yes I remember that being a really hot topic during the referendum, the freedom for the UK to allocate more state aid to an as yet doesn't exist hi tech sector. (PRO TIP - I predict that these new hi tech companies will all be run by pals of Cummings and other senior Tories.)

Also, EU members already have substantial freedoms on state aid and how to allocate it, as demonstrated by your numbers above :)

When governments start admitting they're deliberately setting off down a path of breaking international law, there's a problem.

1599576142766.png
 

goatwack

Get dunked, big buns!
CAG
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Location
Londonia
So we've ruled out Johnson playing hardball and forcing their hand then, as a general rule? Though at least on initial glance it does look like E.U negotiators are in a bit of a tizzy
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
Yes I remember that being a really hot topic during the referendum, the freedom for the UK to allocate more state aid to an as yet doesn't exist hi tech sector. (PRO TIP - I predict that these new hi tech companies will all be run by pals of Cummings and other senior Tories.)
:laugh: Well that should keep the journalists [and private eye] busy finding out about it and telling the public.

I don't think that lewis bloke had much of a choice, some things can't be dressed up, but the logic and any explanation are just as important. Weasel words would just have given the remainer pundits [esp legal professionals] more ammunition and reason to pursue it until the govt admitted it. [and then look worse for the initial denial]
 

ChopleyIOM

Hearthstone Addict
webby
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Location
IOM
I don't think that lewis bloke had much of a choice, some things can't be dressed up, but the logic and any explanation are just as important.
I'm not really sure that's how breaking the law works mack, try that with the police should you ever get arrested for something. 'Well you see officer, I only broke the law in a specific and limited way, and I told everyone I was going to do it'.

'Ahhh right you are mack, on your way then!'

On a wider note, it's worth remembering what the NI Protocol was for, it wasn't a terrible Brussels ploy to break up the UK or impose rules on us or punish us, it was a plan to prevent customs posts getting blown up which is what happened in the days before peace in Ireland.

Customs posts aren’t just a target or provocation, they’re also a visceral reminder of centuries of imperialism, a land divided and a community denied the right to assert its identity. Fuck the government forever for subordinating that to ERG nationalism and Boris Johnson’s ego.
 

mack341

Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2018
Location
south east england
Customs posts aren’t just a target or provocation, they’re also a visceral reminder of centuries of imperialism, a land divided and a community denied the right to assert its identity.
That is an interesting juxtaposition to hold alongside strongly supporting the EU, where laws are being made centrally by unelected bureaucrats, even a choice of president isn't given to the people.

Also what about the way the EU responded to the catalan situation and spain, how does that fit with upholding this no doubt noble principle?

1599601797690.png

I believe the issue the uk govt face is having internal trade between the UK and NI attract tariffs, which is obviously madness, so they want to make sure that cannot happen. That's my understanding, but I could be wrong, hopefully all will be revealed tomorrow.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top