Negotiating new trade deals and closing the rift.

BigA1

Active Member
Ok, still not entirely sure who you’re calling a Remoaner, considering the points you raised were those I countered Leavers over with facts?

I agree with what you’ve posted about tangible benefits/poor performance of elected officials. I don’t think there’s any real benefit in slinging stereotypical names around though, especially when your concerns have been countered numerous times on here in the past with the “remoaner” label ;)
Ok, you're trying to either bait me or dig your heels in... I'm not borhered which it is to be honest.
A. I didnt call anyone a Remoaner... feel free to re-read my initial post.
B). If you are desperate to put someone in a box as the solitary remoaner I nominate myself, as stated I voted remain.
C. Must have missed your "facts", apologies...
D. This thread (only according to the title) is not about Brexit so I'd prefer to swerve it and concentrate on the Negotiation of new trade deals... if that's OK?
E. Your turn.....
 

Nick74

Well-known Member
1. See Section 38 below. Pay particular attention to 3.
2. You don't know if the EU issued an ultimatum or not. Nobody here knows.
3. It resolved the issues with the Backstop - Johnson got it removed and Varadkar dropped his demand for it like a hot potato when he saw the possibility of No Deal looming. Wise.
4. Johnson won a mandate to Get Brexit Done. That's what he's doing.
5. See 1 above. And passing the WA was the first part of a two part process.
6. The UK hasn't broken any laws or treaties.
7. I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain?
8. I'm off to bed.

Section 38 preserves UK parliamentary sovereignty, which I'm guessing you're suggesting would be undermined in the event of no deal, because the EU would by necessity become involved with trading flows through Northern Ireland.

I'm afraid there isn't an answer to this conundrum without breaching the Good Friday Agreement, unless the UK (or just Northern Ireland) aligns with EU standards. Johnson hopefully knew this when he signed the agreement.

If Johnson knew then he acted in a fundamentally irresponsible way. This means he signed the agreement not for the good of the country, but to service his personal ambition. Self before party. Party before country. He fudged a deal then lied about it to win an election.

If Johnson didn't know then he's lazy and inept - a prime minister so under his brief that he took an enormous gamble with all of our futures because he couldn't be bothered to do the work.

One of the above must be true.

I'd ask anyone defending Johnson and the government's actions to answer the question I asked on the previous page, namely: why did Johnson sign (in haste) a legally binding agreement that creates so many problems for the UK?
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
It must be option one, because our prime minister signed a legally binding document agreeing to those terms.

You make it sound like the EU issued an ultimatum. This is so distorted an account that it's impossible to fathom.

Johnson signed this agreement, publicly and proudly. He whipped MPs to force this agreement through the commons, insisting that it resolved the issues with "May's deal."

Johnson won a mandate to proceed on the terms of this agreement in a general election. Those who voted Tory rubber stamped his actions.

Why the **** did Johnson sign up to all this if it was so terrible? It's his fault. He's the reason we're in this situation. He did this to all of us.

The EU has stuck to the terms of a legally binding agreement. Johnson and our government haven't, yet we're asked to believe that the UK is the injured party.

You have to bend all logic to argue that anyone other than the UK government has been underhand, though as I've noted, we're very far through the looking glass now.
Deflection is now the art of war, which is oddly enough the same tactic we see from the government on everything they touch. War being the apt word here as that's how the government now see this negotiation. Like issuing a threat to MP's about us being blockaded. Ridiculous stuff.

Answering difficult questions and/or acknowledging truths now means confliction with established Brexit beliefs. There are those who don't seem willing to face the reality of where we are. Nor the fact that leaving the EU will not be all that was promised. It never could be.

Take the mechanism for settling disputes. The government want to act suddenly as if it doesn't exist. So their proposal? To break international law instead via the way of a bill that attempts to sell the notion that domestic law overrides international obligation. As I'm writing this though I've just seen the news that they look to be backtracking and are looking to offer a veto. @IronGiant and @mcbainne does this count as another U-turn? :laugh:

But regardless the mechanism is right here. They signed up to it.

IMG_20200915_231552.jpg


(The explanation was full of legal jargon so I've dissected it to the relevant bits).

The WA sets out a mechanism for dealing with any dispute, and both parties agree to use that mechanism (and no other), as well as agreeing to do their best to comply generally and should they be found to be in breach.

The process is progressive, giving ample time and opportunity to settle issues early on (if we'd read the WA properly in the first place, the mechanism could have been activated with plenty of time to address this particular dispute).

Under Art.168, both sides committed to using this - and only this - as means of dealing with 'any dispute arising from this Agreement', so the use of the IM Bill to disapply WA provisions is itself not legally an option.


The EU could take us to the cleaner's and tie us up in litigation if they choose to for breaching these terms. And who would blame them? Well I already know the answer to that, but I'd like to see their justification then at least.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
Am I allowed to be amused that A1 is having a go at weavie as to what remoaner means?
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
Ok, you're trying to either bait me or dig your heels in... I'm not borhered which it is to be honest.
A. I didnt call anyone a Remoaner... feel free to re-read my initial post.
B). If you are desperate to put someone in a box as the solitary remoaner I nominate myself, as stated I voted remain.
C. Must have missed your "facts", apologies...
D. This thread (only according to the title) is not about Brexit so I'd prefer to swerve it and concentrate on the Negotiation of new trade deals... if that's OK?
E. Your turn.....
I’m not trying to bait you. You started with;

There's a great deal of brexiteering and remoaning going on here... and quite frankly its a bit boring.
I just asked who you thought was “remoaning”, as you specifically highlighted a few points I’d commented on (to add facts, rather than Johnson bollox).

I’m not trying to put anyone in a “remoaner” box, as it’s a stupid term. I also voted to remain, but have also always tried to counter inaccurate pro-leave spin where it’s shared.
 

BigA1

Active Member
I seem to be getting hammered for “remoaning”, by someone who also voted to remain in the EU? Makes a change from Brexiteers doing it I suppose😂
Not trying ro hammer anyone bro, I genuinely don't give a monkeys how you or anyone else voted... i take issue with the elected goverment being double sh*t at their jobs and the lies they spun in order to get their jobs and was trying to cut through all the brexit nonsense that has infested this thread and railroaded it way off topic.

The discussion about being held to account for those lies and their performance is a totally separate thread... one ill probably stay out of.

No quarrel here. 🙏
 

Nick74

Well-known Member
Deflection is now the art of war, which is oddly enough the same tactic we see from the government on everything they touch. War being the apt word here as that's how the government now see this negotiation. Like issuing a threat to MP's about us being blockaded. Ridiculous stuff.

Answering difficult questions and/or acknowledging truths now means confliction with established Brexit beliefs. There are those who don't seem willing to face the reality of where we are. Nor the fact that leaving the EU will not be all that was promised. It never could be.

Take the mechanism for settling disputes. The government want to act suddenly as if it doesn't exist. So their proposal? To break international law instead via the way of a bill that attempts to sell the notion that domestic law overrides international obligation. As I'm writing this though I've just seen the news that they look to be backtracking and are looking to offer a veto. @IronGiant and @mcbainne does this count as another U-turn? :laugh:

But regardless the mechanism is right here. They signed up to it.

View attachment 1367066

(The explanation was full of legal jargon so I've dissected it to the relevant bits).

The WA sets out a mechanism for dealing with any dispute, and both parties agree to use that mechanism (and no other), as well as agreeing to do their best to comply generally and should they be found to be in breach.

The process is progressive, giving ample time and opportunity to settle issues early on (if we'd read the WA properly in the first place, the mechanism could have been activated with plenty of time to address this particular dispute).

Under Art.168, both sides committed to using this - and only this - as means of dealing with 'any dispute arising from this Agreement', so the use of the IM Bill to disapply WA provisions is itself not legally an option.


The EU could take us to the cleaner's and tie us up in litigation if they choose to for breaching these terms. And who would blame them? Well I already know the answer to that, but I'd like to see their justification then at least.
Useful and detailed post, thanks.

Johnson would love the EU to engage in litigation. This would help him blame the EU for collapsing negotiations, and for all the ill effects that follow.

I'd suggest a wish to force the EU to end negotiations lies behind the threat to break international law.

In Johnson's mind this would be the ultimate escape job. He could insist that Brexit would have been a success, if only those foreigners hadn't been unreasonable. He could sell that to much of the electorate, particularly when supported in this effort by most of our print and online media.

Much like Covid-19 there are no happy outcomes here.

The key question is: who takes the blame? Since Johnson is arguably Brexit's chief architect, he's no doubt desperate to ensure he won't be held accountable. The same is true of Cummings.
 
Last edited:

mcbainne

Distinguished Member
Useful and detailed post, thanks.

Johnson would love the EU to engage in litigation. This would help him blame the EU for collapsing negotiations, and for all the ill effects that follow.

I'd suggest a wish to force the EU to end negotiations lies behind the threat to break international law.

In Johnson's mind this would be the ultimate escape job. He could insist that Brexit would have been a success, if only those foreigners hadn't been unreasonable. He could sell that to much of the electorate, particularly when supported in this effort by most of our print and online media.

Much like Covid-19 there are no happy outcomes here.

The key question is: who takes the blame? Since Johnson is arguably Brexit's chief architect, he's no doubt desperate to ensure he won't be held accountable. The same is true of Cummings.
Expect to see a considerable amount of anti EU rhetoric in the pro tory / brexit media over the next couple of months as they attempt to gaslight enough of us into accepting the worst possible outcome for the country
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
Useful and detailed post, thanks.

Johnson would love the EU to engage in litigation. This would help him blame the EU for collapsing negotiations, and for all the ill effects that follow.

I'd suggest a wish to force the EU to end negotiations lies behind the threat to break international law.

In Johnson's mind this would be the ultimate escape job. He could insist that Brexit would have been a success, if only those foreigners hadn't been unreasonable. He could sell that to much of the electorate, particularly when supported in this effort by most of our print and online media.

Much like Covid-19 there are no happy outcomes here.

The key question is: who takes the blame? Since Johnson is arguably Brexit's chief architect, he's no doubt desperate to ensure he won't be held accountable. The same is true of Cummings.
I've got plenty more where it came from.

Might have found your patsy though already.

There isn't yet a facepalm in existence big enough for this.


Bottom line = none of them have a clue. So quite how they're going to make a success of all this without a clue is now anyone's guess.
 
Last edited:

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
I've got plenty more where it came from.

Might have found your patsy though already.

There isn't yet a facepalm in existence big enough for this.


Bottom line = none of them have a clue. So quite how they're going to make a success of all this without a clue is now anyone's guess.
It’s amazing that anyone who’s had even a glancing interest in the Brexit process, or even the last GE, can listen to this and feel that the U.K. is the victim with regards to this. I know negotiations involve a certain amount of spin/brinkmanship but this is pure lies being told to the U.K. electorate.
 

usako

Member
My personal preference would be a move of all financial services to the continent, an embargo on fish and Scottish whisky. A ban on using European services like Interpol and satellite access. Court cases for breaking international law and a push for Johnson/Cummings to step down for a small chance to have new trade deal option. United Kingdom would so deserve a new trusted relationship with the EU.
 

richp007

Distinguished Member
It’s amazing that anyone who’s had even a glancing interest in the Brexit process, or even the last GE, can listen to this and feel that the U.K. is the victim with regards to this. I know negotiations involve a certain amount of spin/brinkmanship but this is pure lies being told to the U.K. electorate.
It is. Sooner or later the penny will have to drop for those who it hasn't already.

Right now though everyone is ganging up on the government. Even Congressman from the US are getting involved and writing to Johnson. Barnier has left the threat of legal action on the table. The Lords are sharpening their knives (or is that loading their muskets?), Tory MP's are worrying what they're getting themselves into (the ones with some integrity anyway). Scotland and Wales ready to pile on as they disagree with the bill as well. And of course don't want to be a party to any law breaking.

All whilst preparations for Jan 1st are way behind schedule.

It does feel like Raab has been fed to the wolves - particularly given Biden's very clear statement. No loss, obvs.
No Brexiter or Remainer will shed any tears over Raab's political demise. Always been out of his depth in any role. A political laughing stock along with the likes of Grayling.
 

LX200GPS

Member
No ambiguity there

Anyone who seriously thinks the US will not grant the UK a trade deal because of the "Irish Lobby" needs to remember what the EU did to Ireland back in 2012 with the full support of Ireland's American friends. Not sure? Let me remind you by quoting, again, from our Irish friend Mr Bassett. While discussing the EU Irish bailout he says,

"I later had the opportunity of discussing the terms of the Bailout with the Canadian PM, Stephen Harper, when he was about to visit Ireland, and the Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Both expressed private horror at what the EU had infliced on Ireland. Flaherty simply said "You were screwed", while Harper asked, "Are these people supposed to be your friends?"

He goes on to say that the two Canadians were very helpful to Ireland when dealing with the IMF, where Canada has a lot of influence.

He continues "This was in marked contrast to our so-called EU friends. It was also in marked contrast to the attitude of the United States, where Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner lined up with the faceless officials of the ECB to pressure Ireland into the Bailout."

Moral of the story is both the EU and the US will sh*t on Ireland from a great height if it's in their interest to do so.
 
Last edited:

gavinhanly

Distinguished Member
As will the UK, of course.

But we're not talking about the bailout here, it's the GFA which the Americans - particularly the Democrats - had a decisive hand in and they consider it to be one of their great achievements.

So, if Biden gets in and/or the Democrats retain the house and there is lasting damage to the GFA as a result of the changes to the WA, a deal with the US will not be forthcoming.
 
Last edited:

LX200GPS

Member
As will the UK, of course.

But we're not talking about the bailout here, it's the GFA which the Americans - particularly the Democrats - had a decisive hand in and they consider it to be one of their great achievements.

So, if Biden gets in and/or the Democrats retain the house and there is lasting damage to the GFA as a result of the changes to the WA, a deal with the US will not be forthcoming.
No we're not talking about the bailout but neither are we discussing US/UK trade and I responded to that post. Did you remind that member that we weren't discussing that? Next time we have a post linked Tweet about Biden or Pelosi I trust you will be equally robust in reminding the poster of the off- topic nature of his post?

Also, I posted as a reminder to all those around here who slavishly believe the EU is some fantastic organisation who looks after their friends. Why? Because in the event of No Deal the EU will insist on some regulations being put in place by ROI, whether they like it or not. Not saying a hard border or anything like that but the EU will insist on protecting the SM/CU. And that responsibility falls squarely on Ireland's shoulders. You may not like it but that's the way it is.

No deal with the US means no sell-off of the NHS and no chlorinated chicken. So good news. Yes?
 

gavinhanly

Distinguished Member
No we're not talking about the bailout but neither are we discussing US/UK trade and I responded to that post. Did you remind that member that we weren't discussing that? Next time we have a post linked Tweet about Biden or Pelosi I trust you will be equally robust in reminding the poster of the off- topic nature of his post?
Ok - I'll admit I've totally lost track of your point now...
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

The Best Movies and TV Shows Coming To Netflix in October 2020. Tom's Thumbs.

Latest News

Philips TVs available in more Currys PC World stores
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sonus faber announces Il Cremonese ex3me special edition speakers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
KEF unveils LS50 Meta speaker and S2 Floor Stand
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
KEF announces LS50 Wireless II speakers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
The AVForums podcast is moving to Wednesdays
  • By Stuart Wright
  • Published
Top Bottom