Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2023 9:43:59 GMT
What do you call the UK's actions of reneging on the agreement, then? Nobody has reneged on any agreement. If you're referring to Article 16 that was agreed by both parties and allows either party to terminate the Protocol under various conditions. Those conditions have been met and we are entitled to take action. The point is that both parties knew that the NI Protocol wasn't perfect by any means and knew that it would have to be changed. But when the UK pointed out the problems the EU just said they wouldn't negotiate. That's called "bad faith". I refer to our past actions and statements and our continued attempts to renege on the signed treaty. We unilaterally extended grace periods. We also have not withdrawn the bill to disregard, partly or wholly, the treaty. As for the Protocol itself, that bill will render that protocol useless so at this stage, there is no point talking about Article 16. The EU has always been very, very clear: They will not change or renegotiate to change the entire treaty itself. They will renegotiate the parts of the treaty that will progress its implementation. Hence, the current renegotiations with Sunak. You have to distinguish between these two things to argue your point successfully: the treaty itself and parts of the treaty. It has always been the UK who's unreasonable about its demands. Don't get me wrong -- some of the changes we demand are reasonable. What makes us unreasonable is the fact that we signed an agreement which we now want changed, effectively, to a brand new one. We negotiated, agreed, signed the dang thing knowing full well that we would disregard it later. That is bad faith. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Feb 26, 2023 9:49:22 GMT
Nobody has reneged on any agreement. If you're referring to Article 16 that was agreed by both parties and allows either party to terminate the Protocol under various conditions. Those conditions have been met and we are entitled to take action. The point is that both parties knew that the NI Protocol wasn't perfect by any means and knew that it would have to be changed. But when the UK pointed out the problems the EU just said they wouldn't negotiate. That's called "bad faith". I refer to our past actions and statements and our continued attempts to renege on the signed treaty. We unilaterally extended grace periods. We also have not withdrawn the bill to disregard, partly or wholly, the treaty. As for the Protocol itself, that bill will render that protocol useless so at this stage, there is no point talking about Article 16. The EU has always been very, very clear: They will not change or negotiate to change the entire treaty itself. The will negotiate the parts of the treaty that will progress its implementation. Hence, the current negotiations with Sunak. You have to distinguish between these two things to argue your point successfully: the treaty itself and parts of the treaty. It has always been the UK being unreasonable about its demands. Don't get me wrong -- some of the changes we demand are reasonable. What makes us unreasonable is the fact that we signed an agreement which we now want changed, effectively, to a brand new one. We negotiated, agreed, signed the dang thing knowing full well that we would disregard it later. That is bad faith. The British are not so good at rolling over and taking anything the EU throws at them though, on the amusing side, the Yanks once put out a pamphlet in WW2 stating how Americans should act around the British people, how soon they forgot. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2023 10:30:11 GMT
I refer to our past actions and statements and our continued attempts to renege on the signed treaty. We unilaterally extended grace periods. We also have not withdrawn the bill to disregard, partly or wholly, the treaty. As for the Protocol itself, that bill will render that protocol useless so at this stage, there is no point talking about Article 16. The EU has always been very, very clear: They will not change or renegotiate to change the entire treaty itself. They will renegotiate the parts of the treaty that will progress its implementation. Hence, the current renegotiations with Sunak. You have to distinguish between these two things to argue your point successfully: the treaty itself and parts of the treaty. It has always been the UK who's unreasonable about its demands. Don't get me wrong -- some of the changes we demand are reasonable. What makes us unreasonable is the fact that we signed an agreement which we now want changed, effectively, to a brand new one. We negotiated, agreed, signed the dang thing knowing full well that we would disregard it later. That is bad faith. The British are not so good at rolling over and taking anything the EU throws at them though, on the amusing side, the Yanks once put out a pamphlet in WW2 stating how Americans should act around the British people, how soon they forgot. Yes, there's that "I'm Brit: you follow me, i don't follow you" mentality. And IMO, this is the root of all problems relating to our departure from the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Feb 26, 2023 10:31:54 GMT
The British are not so good at rolling over and taking anything the EU throws at them though, on the amusing side, the Yanks once put out a pamphlet in WW2 stating how Americans should act around the British people, how soon they forgot. Yes, there's that "I'm Brit: you follow me, i don't follow you" mentality. And IMO, this is the root of all problems relating to our departure from the EU. No I believe the root of the problems are you can fit a round peg in a square hole. Which in actual fact is biting back rather severely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2023 10:45:19 GMT
Yes, there's that "I'm Brit: you follow me, i don't follow you" mentality. And IMO, this is the root of all problems relating to our departure from the EU. No I believe the root of the problems are you can fit a round peg in a square hole. Which in actual fact is biting back rather severely. Facts will bear out that the UK or the Tories have been trying to introduce a round dowel when it promised to fit a square peg. And since the EU wouldn't budge, the Tories now want to change the hole itself. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Feb 26, 2023 10:55:27 GMT
No I believe the root of the problems are you can fit a round peg in a square hole. Which in actual fact is biting back rather severely. Facts will bear out that the UK or the Tories have been trying to introduce a round dowel when it promised to fit a square peg. And since the EU wouldn't budge, the Tories now want to change the hole itself. If you say so, but I wouldn't be counting your chickens thinking the Westminster party will be doing your bidding any longer, they couldn't fill a village hall between them. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 27, 2023 7:57:33 GMT
Nobody has reneged on any agreement. If you're referring to Article 16 that was agreed by both parties and allows either party to terminate the Protocol under various conditions. Those conditions have been met and we are entitled to take action. The point is that both parties knew that the NI Protocol wasn't perfect by any means and knew that it would have to be changed. But when the UK pointed out the problems the EU just said they wouldn't negotiate. That's called "bad faith". I refer to our past actions and statements and our continued attempts to renege on the signed treaty. We unilaterally extended grace periods. We also have not withdrawn the bill to disregard, partly or wholly, the treaty. As for the Protocol itself, that bill will render that protocol useless so at this stage, there is no point talking about Article 16. The EU has always been very, very clear: They will not change or renegotiate to change the entire treaty itself. They will renegotiate the parts of the treaty that will progress its implementation. Hence, the current renegotiations with Sunak. You have to distinguish between these two things to argue your point successfully: the treaty itself and parts of the treaty. It has always been the UK who's unreasonable about its demands. Don't get me wrong -- some of the changes we demand are reasonable. What makes us unreasonable is the fact that we signed an agreement which we now want changed, effectively, to a brand new one. We negotiated, agreed, signed the dang thing knowing full well that we would disregard it later. That is bad faith. Because of the Benn Act (commonly called the Surrender Act) the government was prevented from leaving the EU without a deal. So any basis for negotiation was removed from our government by the 75% remain Parliament. Basically Parliament had told the EU that we would never leave without a deal - so obviously the EU (after they'd stopped laughing) just refused to give us any kind of sensible deal. So Boris did the best he could and then signed it and took us out of the EU. And now you're complaining - when what happened is entirely the fault of people like you who tried to prevent Brexit. I actually think that the Benn Act was an act of treason. Even so, the triggering of Article 16 is entirely legal and the conditions of the deal that we signed does include stipulations that both parties act in good faith. It's hardly good faith to behave in the way that the EU has - deliberately making our exports to NI so difficult that many companies have stopped doing it. You remainers have betrayed this country. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2023 17:22:05 GMT
I refer to our past actions and statements and our continued attempts to renege on the signed treaty. We unilaterally extended grace periods. We also have not withdrawn the bill to disregard, partly or wholly, the treaty. As for the Protocol itself, that bill will render that protocol useless so at this stage, there is no point talking about Article 16. The EU has always been very, very clear: They will not change or renegotiate to change the entire treaty itself. They will renegotiate the parts of the treaty that will progress its implementation. Hence, the current renegotiations with Sunak. You have to distinguish between these two things to argue your point successfully: the treaty itself and parts of the treaty. It has always been the UK who's unreasonable about its demands. Don't get me wrong -- some of the changes we demand are reasonable. What makes us unreasonable is the fact that we signed an agreement which we now want changed, effectively, to a brand new one. We negotiated, agreed, signed the dang thing knowing full well that we would disregard it later. That is bad faith. Because of the Benn Act (commonly called the Surrender Act) the government was prevented from leaving the EU without a deal. So any basis for negotiation was removed from our government by the 75% remain Parliament. Basically Parliament had told the EU that we would never leave without a deal - so obviously the EU (after they'd stopped laughing) just refused to give us any kind of sensible deal. So Boris did the best he could and then signed it and took us out of the EU. And now you're complaining - when what happened is entirely the fault of people like you who tried to prevent Brexit. I actually think that the Benn Act was an act of treason. Even so, the triggering of Article 16 is entirely legal and the conditions of the deal that we signed does include stipulations that both parties act in good faith. It's hardly good faith to behave in the way that the EU has - deliberately making our exports to NI so difficult that many companies have stopped doing it. You remainers have betrayed this country. The Benn Act was no act of treason. Please. The default position was always a No-Deal Brexit. Or, there were legal loopholes through which Boris Johnson could have forced a Brexit without a deal. It was available to him. In fact, there was a point in December 2020 where he instructed his government to prepare for No-Deal. He never said anything about being hamstrung by the Benn Act. He negotiated his deal of choice freely with neither constraint nor restriction. He sold it to the Parliament and the public as a great, excellent deal. A huge, Canada-style feast. A deal that supposedly settled the acrimonious issue about the UK's relationship with the EU. He even said it was his Christmas gift to the UK, for goodness' sake! It was only when he realised that his cunning-but-not-so-cunning plan to "sign now, rip later" was going nowhere that he started scrambling for excuses to back-track on the agreement. Even the hapless David Frost tried to convince people that ripping an EU-UK treaty was justifiable on this idea that the UK was negotiating under Parliamentary duress! The exact, same excuse you're making right now.  In retrospect; Benn Act or no Benn Act, the man could have worked on letting the UK default to No-Deal Brexit. He could have gone for a soft, manageable Brexit. But No, he wanted a hard version that he could ditch once it was all done and dusted. Maybe you can tell us all why he did it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 27, 2023 18:23:16 GMT
Maybe you can tell us all why he did it. Easy - it was the only deal that Parliament were prepared to vote for.. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 27, 2023 21:15:12 GMT
On the face of it, it seems the EU eventually grew up and compromised.
A sad day for remainers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 27, 2023 22:03:33 GMT
On the face of it, it seems the EU eventually grew up and compromised. A sad day for remainers. Every day is a sad day for Remnants....7 years of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Feb 28, 2023 1:45:49 GMT
Any land based border between the UK and the EU would destroy the Good Friday peace agreement. And no one wants to do that. To be frank with you, I really do not give a toss about the Irish. They have the best deal they are ever going to get and we must proceed to put this deal into law so everything is sweet with the EU. The majority interests come first,and if we end up breaking either one or the other agreements in an unavoidable situation then it will have to be the Irish one that gets broken. We can not piss the EU about any more and considering the EU are the reasonable party here, they must come first. Sammy Wilson has a right nerve. It feels like dealing with him is no better than the IRA. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 28, 2023 6:58:00 GMT
Because of the Benn Act (commonly called the Surrender Act) the government was prevented from leaving the EU without a deal. So any basis for negotiation was removed from our government by the 75% remain Parliament. Basically Parliament had told the EU that we would never leave without a deal - so obviously the EU (after they'd stopped laughing) just refused to give us any kind of sensible deal. So Boris did the best he could and then signed it and took us out of the EU. And now you're complaining - when what happened is entirely the fault of people like you who tried to prevent Brexit. I actually think that the Benn Act was an act of treason. Even so, the triggering of Article 16 is entirely legal and the conditions of the deal that we signed does include stipulations that both parties act in good faith. It's hardly good faith to behave in the way that the EU has - deliberately making our exports to NI so difficult that many companies have stopped doing it. You remainers have betrayed this country. Or, there were legal loopholes through which Boris Johnson could have forced a Brexit without a deal. It was available to him. In fact, there was a point in December 2020 where he instructed his government to prepare for No-Deal. He never said anything about being hamstrung by the Benn Act. He negotiated his deal of choice freely with neither constraint nor restriction. He sold it to the Parliament and the public as a great, excellent deal. A huge, Canada-style feast. A deal that supposedly settled the acrimonious issue about the UK's relationship with the EU. He even said it was his Christmas gift to the UK, for goodness' sake! It was only when he realised that his cunning-but-not-so-cunning plan to "sign now, rip later" was going nowhere that he started scrambling for excuses to back-track on the agreement. Even the hapless David Frost tried to convince people that ripping an EU-UK treaty was justifiable on this idea that the UK was negotiating under Parliamentary duress! The exact, same excuse you're making right now. In retrospect; Benn Act or no Benn Act, the man could have worked on letting the UK default to No-Deal Brexit. He could have gone for a soft, manageable Brexit. But No, he wanted a hard version that he could ditch once it was all done and dusted. Maybe you can tell us all why he did it. And your default position is always to deny the facts. BTW the definition of treason is: "The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government". That's exactly what Parliament was trying to do - to give away the sovereignty of our country against the express wishes of the people. It was also trying to handicap our country in a trade negotiation. The EU was attempting to sabotage trade between the UK and the EU's member nations - which is little different from what Germany did during the war when its U boats sank merchant ships delivering supplies to Britain. Nowadays "wars" are conducted by sanctions or denying trade. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2023 9:10:16 GMT
The Benn Act was no act of treason. Please. The default position was always a No-Deal Brexit. Or, there were legal loopholes through which Boris Johnson could have forced a Brexit without a deal. It was available to him. In fact, there was a point in December 2020 where he instructed his government to prepare for No-Deal. He never said anything about being hamstrung by the Benn Act. He negotiated his deal of choice freely with neither constraint nor restriction. He sold it to the Parliament and the public as a great, excellent deal. A huge, Canada-style feast. A deal that supposedly settled the acrimonious issue about the UK's relationship with the EU. He even said it was his Christmas gift to the UK, for goodness' sake! It was only when he realised that his cunning-but-not-so-cunning plan to "sign now, rip later" was going nowhere that he started scrambling for excuses to back-track on the agreement. Even the hapless David Frost tried to convince people that ripping an EU-UK treaty was justifiable on this idea that the UK was negotiating under Parliamentary duress! The exact, same excuse you're making right now. In retrospect; Benn Act or no Benn Act, the man could have worked on letting the UK default to No-Deal Brexit. He could have gone for a soft, manageable Brexit. But No, he wanted a hard version that he could ditch once it was all done and dusted. Maybe you can tell us all why he did it. And your default position is always to deny the facts. BTW the definition of treason is: "The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government". That's exactly what Parliament was trying to do - to give away the sovereignty of our country against the express wishes of the people. It was also trying to handicap our country in a trade negotiation. The EU was attempting to sabotage trade between the UK and the EU's member nations - which is little different from what Germany did during the war when its U boats sank merchant ships delivering supplies to Britain. Nowadays "wars" are conducted by sanctions or denying trade. It has nothing to do with MY position -- default or otherwise -- so please stop the pivot manoeuvre. It is a fact that No-Deal departure was the UK's default position. If Boris couldn't reach or couldn't have reached an agreement with the EU, the UK would have defaulted to No Deal, Australia-style, WTO terms trading with with the EU. The Benn Act was an act of treason because it tried to "give away the sovereignty of our country"? But according to Brexit purists and apologists themselves, we gave our sovereignty away when we joined the EEC and then the EU. (Hence, the 2016 referendum to reclaim our sovereignty.) But Nobody has ever been charged with treason for signing us up and giving away our sovereignty. Why? Because joining the EU and the Benn Act weren't acts of treason. I urge you to reassess your own personal definition of the word treason. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Feb 28, 2023 9:41:31 GMT
On the face of it, it seems the EU eventually grew up and compromised. A sad day for remainers. Yep. I can't stop smiling. |
|
