|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 17, 2022 10:08:41 GMT
As usual every statement is wrong. You're the one who's delusional. Once the referendum decided we were leaving it was undemocratic for the Remoaners to try to obstruct the process. It spoiled our negotiating position and meant we got a bad deal. That's a betrayal IMO. However if the EU refuses to budge on the NI protocol - when all of the parties in NI object to it - it fails the requirement to act in good faith and we should trigger Article 16. And if the EU use the guillotine we'll just trade under WTO rules - which is what we should have done in the first place. As I've already pointed out it'll still be cheaper than trading as a member of the EU. The referendum didn't decide how the UK was to leave. The Remoaners objected to leaving with no deal. It's noted that you lot tend to object to transgender women being called women. That's an abuse of language, you say - they're really men. But that didn't stop you abusing the word advisory, claiming that it actually meant mandatory.And since when have all the parties in NI objected to the Protocol? I thought it was just the shit-stirring, drum-banging, evolution-denying 'DUP, 'the political wing of the Old Testament'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2022 12:04:20 GMT
As usual every statement is wrong. You're the one who's delusional. Once the referendum decided we were leaving it was undemocratic for the Remoaners to try to obstruct the process. It spoiled our negotiating position and meant we got a bad deal. That's a betrayal IMO. However if the EU refuses to budge on the NI protocol - when all of the parties in NI object to it - it fails the requirement to act in good faith and we should trigger Article 16. And if the EU use the guillotine we'll just trade under WTO rules - which is what we should have done in the first place. As I've already pointed out it'll still be cheaper than trading as a member of the EU. Obstruct the process, how? Spoiled our negotiating position, how? The deal we got is bad because.....? Opposing BJ's Brexit is not betrayal. How is it possible for the EU to fail to act in good faith when all it does is respond to our demands?  It is us instigating things; creating problems; and acting in bad faith. I mean, think about it. Who has been trying to scrap the WA almost immediately after ratifying it? The UK. Who has proposed legislation to empower the Cabinet -- not even the Parliament! -- to slice and dice the entire agreement unilaterally? The UK. Who forced the EU to return to the negotiating table? The UK. You can't trigger Article 16. The DUP don't want it. This government's legislation effectively scraps it. You can't trigger something that you have effectively scrapped.  Fine. WTO-rules trading it is. So. Rather than being sneaky, nasty and untrustworthy, why don't we openly, officially and legally denounce the Withdrawal Agreement? Based on your and your fellow Delusionals' arguments, the UK is well within its right to make a denunciation so why doesn't Prime Minister Rishi Sunak make that move? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 17, 2022 17:34:36 GMT
As usual every statement is wrong. You're the one who's delusional. Once the referendum decided we were leaving it was undemocratic for the Remoaners to try to obstruct the process. It spoiled our negotiating position and meant we got a bad deal. That's a betrayal IMO. However if the EU refuses to budge on the NI protocol - when all of the parties in NI object to it - it fails the requirement to act in good faith and we should trigger Article 16. And if the EU use the guillotine we'll just trade under WTO rules - which is what we should have done in the first place. As I've already pointed out it'll still be cheaper than trading as a member of the EU. Obstruct the process, how? Spoiled our negotiating position, how? The deal we got is bad because.....? Opposing BJ's Brexit is not betrayal. How is it possible for the EU to fail to act in good faith when all it does is respond to our demands? It is us instigating things; creating problems; and acting in bad faith. I mean, think about it. Who has been trying to scrap the WA almost immediately after ratifying it? The UK. Who has proposed legislation to empower the Cabinet -- not even the Parliament! -- to slice and dice the entire agreement unilaterally? The UK. Who forced the EU to return to the negotiating table? The UK. You can't trigger Article 16. The DUP don't want it. This government's legislation effectively scraps it. You can't trigger something that you have effectively scrapped. Fine. WTO-rules trading it is. So. Rather than being sneaky, nasty and untrustworthy, why don't we openly, officially and legally denounce the Withdrawal Agreement? Based on your and your fellow Delusionals' arguments, the UK is well within its right to make a denunciation so why doesn't Prime Minister Rishi Sunak make that move? We dont have to - at the moment the WA is working and we are ignoring much of the Protocol and have reintroduced almost direct rule from Westminster. There is no reason why this situation cannot continue indefinitely. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 17, 2022 17:36:43 GMT
There is no reason why this situation cannot continue indefinitely. I thought the EU had initiated legal proceedings. Have they withdrawn those? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 18, 2022 7:55:36 GMT
There is no reason why this situation cannot continue indefinitely. I thought the EU had initiated legal proceedings. Have they withdrawn those? no - but it takes time to work through the courts and then you have to have the will to implement any decisions by those courts. what makes you think we are going to be any more motivated to implement decisions by an EU court than we are about implementing the Protocol? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 18, 2022 8:39:23 GMT
As usual every statement is wrong. You're the one who's delusional. Once the referendum decided we were leaving it was undemocratic for the Remoaners to try to obstruct the process. It spoiled our negotiating position and meant we got a bad deal. That's a betrayal IMO. However if the EU refuses to budge on the NI protocol - when all of the parties in NI object to it - it fails the requirement to act in good faith and we should trigger Article 16. And if the EU use the guillotine we'll just trade under WTO rules - which is what we should have done in the first place. As I've already pointed out it'll still be cheaper than trading as a member of the EU. The Remoaners objected to leaving with no deal. It's noted that you lot tend to object to transgender women being called women. That's an abuse of language, you say - they're really men. But that didn't stop you abusing the word advisory, claiming that it actually meant mandatory.And since when have all the parties in NI objected to the Protocol? I thought it was just the shit-stirring, drum-banging, evolution-denying 'DUP, 'the political wing of the Old Testament'. The referendum wording was basically leave or remain. You obviously can't pose a referendum question with all the details of what "leave" or "remain" might mean. That information is what the campaigns provided. And both campaigns clearly stated that leaving the EU would mean leaving both the Single Market and the Customs Union. The referendum became mandatory when Cameron said that he would abide by the result. And NI's trade with Britain has been damaged by the protocol - which is exactly what the EU intended of course. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 18, 2022 8:58:57 GMT
As usual every statement is wrong. You're the one who's delusional. Once the referendum decided we were leaving it was undemocratic for the Remoaners to try to obstruct the process. It spoiled our negotiating position and meant we got a bad deal. That's a betrayal IMO. However if the EU refuses to budge on the NI protocol - when all of the parties in NI object to it - it fails the requirement to act in good faith and we should trigger Article 16. And if the EU use the guillotine we'll just trade under WTO rules - which is what we should have done in the first place. As I've already pointed out it'll still be cheaper than trading as a member of the EU. Obstruct the process, how? Spoiled our negotiating position, how? The deal we got is bad because.....? Opposing BJ's Brexit is not betrayal. How is it possible for the EU to fail to act in good faith when all it does is respond to our demands? It is us instigating things; creating problems; and acting in bad faith. I mean, think about it. Who has been trying to scrap the WA almost immediately after ratifying it? The UK. Who has proposed legislation to empower the Cabinet -- not even the Parliament! -- to slice and dice the entire agreement unilaterally? The UK. Who forced the EU to return to the negotiating table? The UK. You can't trigger Article 16. The DUP don't want it. This government's legislation effectively scraps it. You can't trigger something that you have effectively scrapped. Fine. WTO-rules trading it is. So. Rather than being sneaky, nasty and untrustworthy, why don't we openly, officially and legally denounce the Withdrawal Agreement? Based on your and your fellow Delusionals' arguments, the UK is well within its right to make a denunciation so why doesn't Prime Minister Rishi Sunak make that move? The remoaners intention was to prevent Brexit. They did that explicitly when Gina Millar attempted to make Brexit illegal - and also when Parliament (helped by the Speaker, who drove around in a car with "bollocks to Brexit on the bumper) passed the Surrender act. That's a betrayal of the will of the people. And the NI protocol is NOT set in stone. It has explicit provision in it for it to be amended - but the EU refuse to negotiate. The EU are almost certainly taking a hard line because they follow UK politics and they think that a Labour govt would be very easy to lure back into the EU. And that would be another betrayal. As I said, if the EU throws a wobbly when we override some of the agreement (that they refuse to negotiate) and trigger the guillotine - which the EU puts in all of their deals - we could trade via WTO. And that would be cheaper than the budgetary contribution for the Single Market. We would be daft to pay to trade with a bloc with which we have a trading deficit. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Nov 18, 2022 9:19:39 GMT
Switzerland has bilateral agreements it isn't in the EEA agreement, isn't a member of the Single Market or the Customs Union. It's like us, except that it is also in Schengen. duplicate Switzerland is not an EU or EEA member but is part of the single market. This means Swiss nationals have the same rights to live and work in the UK as other EEA nationals. www.gov.uk › eu-eea Countries in the EU and EEA - GOV.UK |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Nov 18, 2022 9:27:29 GMT
Obstruct the process, how? Spoiled our negotiating position, how? The deal we got is bad because.....? Opposing BJ's Brexit is not betrayal. How is it possible for the EU to fail to act in good faith when all it does is respond to our demands? It is us instigating things; creating problems; and acting in bad faith. I mean, think about it. Who has been trying to scrap the WA almost immediately after ratifying it? The UK. Who has proposed legislation to empower the Cabinet -- not even the Parliament! -- to slice and dice the entire agreement unilaterally? The UK. Who forced the EU to return to the negotiating table? The UK. You can't trigger Article 16. The DUP don't want it. This government's legislation effectively scraps it. You can't trigger something that you have effectively scrapped. Fine. WTO-rules trading it is. So. Rather than being sneaky, nasty and untrustworthy, why don't we openly, officially and legally denounce the Withdrawal Agreement? Based on your and your fellow Delusionals' arguments, the UK is well within its right to make a denunciation so why doesn't Prime Minister Rishi Sunak make that move? The remoaners intention was to prevent Brexit. They did that explicitly when Gina Millar attempted to make Brexit illegal - and also when Parliament (helped by the Speaker, who drove around in a car with "bollocks to Brexit on the bumper) passed the Surrender act. That's a betrayal of the will of the people. And the NI protocol is NOT set in stone. It has explicit provision in it for it to be amended - but the EU refuse to negotiate. The EU are almost certainly taking a hard line because they follow UK politics and they think that a Labour govt would be very easy to lure back into the EU. And that would be another betrayal. As I said, if the EU throws a wobbly when we override some of the agreement (that they refuse to negotiate) and trigger the guillotine - which the EU puts in all of their deals - we could trade via WTO. And that would be cheaper than the budgetary contribution for the Single Market. We would be daft to pay to trade with a bloc with which we have a trading deficit. Gina Miller went to court to stop Boris from protoguing Parliament which was decided to be illegal. NOT TO STOP BREXIT. And the UK already trades with the WTO. Which neither has anything to do with Brexit, nor is it an alternative. You seem confused. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Nov 18, 2022 9:37:03 GMT
Gina Miller first went to court over Brexit in 2016, Boris became PM in 2019.
She did everything she could to try to frustrate and prevent Brexit.
As I was saying, bilateral treaties. Not EEA. Not EU membership.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 18, 2022 9:43:37 GMT
Oracl75 said: "Gina Miller went to court to stop Boris from protoguing Parliament which was decided to be illegal.
NOT TO STOP BREXIT.
And the UK already trades with the WTO.
Which neither has anything to do with Brexit, nor is it an alternative.
You seem confused."
And you are a complete dimwit.
Gina Millar went to court twice dummy. She tried to prevent the PM triggering Article 50.
And I know we trade with countries via the WTO. Obviously. (BTW you trade VIA the WTO. You don't trade WITH the WTO. Look it up.) The point is that if the EU guillotines our deal (which I hope they do) we can trade with the EU via WTO and it will still be cheaper than the trade deal we had when we were in the Single Market.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 10:17:38 GMT
I thought the EU had initiated legal proceedings. Have they withdrawn those? no - but it takes time to work through the courts and then you have to have the will to implement any decisions by those courts. what makes you think we are going to be any more motivated to implement decisions by an EU court than we are about implementing the Protocol? Because there's deniability at the moment - the Government can claim their interpretation of the treaty is legitimate. That deniability vanishes when there is a court judgment. You don't seem to understand that the Government is currently not refusing to implement the Protocol - it is saying it is implementing the Protocol. When the Court rules that the Government is not fact doing so, that changes everything. If the Government does not implement the Protocol at that point, it is plainly refusing to implement the Protocol. That is a whole different ballgame. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Nov 18, 2022 10:20:19 GMT
The referendum didn't decide how the UK was to leave. The Remoaners objected to leaving with no deal. It's noted that you lot tend to object to transgender women being called women. That's an abuse of language, you say - they're really men. But that didn't stop you abusing the word advisory, claiming that it actually meant mandatory.And since when have all the parties in NI objected to the Protocol? I thought it was just the shit-stirring, drum-banging, evolution-denying 'DUP, 'the political wing of the Old Testament'. The referendum became mandatory when Cameron said that he would abide by the result. And NI's trade with Britain has been damaged by the protocol - which is exactly what the EU intended of course. Really? It became mandatory when Cameron said he would abide by the result? You frequently complain that we Remoaners don't know anything about the EU, yet you appear to know nothing about the UK's constitution. An entire parliament cannot bind a future parliament, let alone one member of it, like Cameron. Cameron had zero right to speak on behalf of Parliament, nor had he the right to tell Parliament what to do. The Prime Minister is not sovereign in the UK constitution, Parliament is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 10:41:29 GMT
Obstruct the process, how? Spoiled our negotiating position, how? The deal we got is bad because.....? Opposing BJ's Brexit is not betrayal. How is it possible for the EU to fail to act in good faith when all it does is respond to our demands? It is us instigating things; creating problems; and acting in bad faith. I mean, think about it. Who has been trying to scrap the WA almost immediately after ratifying it? The UK. Who has proposed legislation to empower the Cabinet -- not even the Parliament! -- to slice and dice the entire agreement unilaterally? The UK. Who forced the EU to return to the negotiating table? The UK. You can't trigger Article 16. The DUP don't want it. This government's legislation effectively scraps it. You can't trigger something that you have effectively scrapped. Fine. WTO-rules trading it is. So. Rather than being sneaky, nasty and untrustworthy, why don't we openly, officially and legally denounce the Withdrawal Agreement? Based on your and your fellow Delusionals' arguments, the UK is well within its right to make a denunciation so why doesn't Prime Minister Rishi Sunak make that move? We dont have to - at the moment the WA is working and we are ignoring much of the Protocol and have reintroduced almost direct rule from Westminster. There is no reason why this situation cannot continue indefinitely. Of course, we have to make a formal denunciation of a bad deal. It's just the normal thing to do, isn't it? But, as you indirectly say, the deal we got is actually so good we must try to keep it for as long as we can. And any which way we can. After all, we need their trade more than they need ours. Maybe you should tell that to the guy who insists that the deal we got is really, really bad. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 11:20:19 GMT
Obstruct the process, how? Spoiled our negotiating position, how? The deal we got is bad because.....? Opposing BJ's Brexit is not betrayal. How is it possible for the EU to fail to act in good faith when all it does is respond to our demands? It is us instigating things; creating problems; and acting in bad faith. I mean, think about it. Who has been trying to scrap the WA almost immediately after ratifying it? The UK. Who has proposed legislation to empower the Cabinet -- not even the Parliament! -- to slice and dice the entire agreement unilaterally? The UK. Who forced the EU to return to the negotiating table? The UK. You can't trigger Article 16. The DUP don't want it. This government's legislation effectively scraps it. You can't trigger something that you have effectively scrapped. Fine. WTO-rules trading it is. So. Rather than being sneaky, nasty and untrustworthy, why don't we openly, officially and legally denounce the Withdrawal Agreement? Based on your and your fellow Delusionals' arguments, the UK is well within its right to make a denunciation so why doesn't Prime Minister Rishi Sunak make that move? The remoaners intention was to prevent Brexit. They did that explicitly when Gina Millar attempted to make Brexit illegal - and also when Parliament (helped by the Speaker, who drove around in a car with "bollocks to Brexit on the bumper) passed the Surrender act. That's a betrayal of the will of the people. And the NI protocol is NOT set in stone. It has explicit provision in it for it to be amended - but the EU refuse to negotiate. The EU are almost certainly taking a hard line because they follow UK politics and they think that a Labour govt would be very easy to lure back into the EU. And that would be another betrayal. As I said, if the EU throws a wobbly when we override some of the agreement (that they refuse to negotiate) and trigger the guillotine - which the EU puts in all of their deals - we could trade via WTO. And that would be cheaper than the budgetary contribution for the Single Market. We would be daft to pay to trade with a bloc with which we have a trading deficit. You have to be precise when making accusations: Gina Miller did not attempt to make Brexit illegal. Gina Miller is not stupid. Gina Miller attempted -- successfully! -- to stop the withdrawal process without parliamentary vote on the issue. There is a very big difference. Betrayal of the 2016 will of the people? What about today's will of the people? Aren't you going to address it, at least? Give me that provision that explicitly says that the Northern Ireland Protocol itself can be amended. And the EU refused to negotiate, what exactly? We unilaterally override the agreement and you expect the EU to just sit there and watch? So, if trading via WTO would be so much better; then what is stopping us denouncing the WA/TCA with the EU? Our agreement is preventing us from going WTO-rules, so let's just denounce it. You should be proposing or arguing for this, but you'er not. Why? |
|
It is us instigating things; creating problems; and acting in bad faith. I mean, think about it. Who has been trying to scrap the WA almost immediately after ratifying it? The UK. Who has proposed legislation to empower the Cabinet -- not even the Parliament! -- to slice and dice the entire agreement unilaterally? The UK. Who forced the EU to return to the negotiating table? The UK. 
