Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Strokes

Getting brexit done!

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

OK, in a sense you might actually be right.  They didn't suspend the agreement, they just suspended the provisions of the agreement.  To me that's an insignificant difference, but if it really makes all the difference to you, that's fine.  Be happy.

 

I suppose we could look at our respective season tickets in the same way.  We could be upset that our season tickets have been suspended and we haven't been able to go on matches; but we need not be upset.  Our season tickets have not been suspended, they have merely invoked the rule that means we aren't allowed to go on matches.  It may be an entirely different thing; but the effect isn't so very different, is it?

 

(It might, incidentally, be worth also considering, while van Leyden is bleating about how they thought that other countries would be nice and would deal in good faith and give the EU the vaccines it wants, why the EU appears to be playing this treaty straight down the small print and invoking every tiny letter of the treaty to gain an advantage and to frustrate trade.  It's almost as if good faith only works one way.  It hink we'll find this treaty is torn up before another 18 months is up because it isn't workable without good faith.  True, the agreement does say that trees can be sent to Northern Ireland but doesn't specify that the mud on their roots can be sent as well.  And so the EU, like Protia, can insist that trees with roots cannot be sent to Northern Ireland as indeed they have done.  But it's not good faith, by any imagination.  Similarly, when the EU bans the export of shellfish from the UK to the EU because British waters aren't clean enough, but allows EU ships who caught shellfish in UK waters to sell it in the EU, that is not good faith.)

Its a mute point anyway as the EU very quickly realised what that were planning to do while within the bounds of the law,  was not good politics.  

 

More guff,  the two items you raise have nothing to do with the good faith provisions within the Northern Ireland protocol,  but simply a result of the UK becoming a third country just like any other  something which you support don't you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robo61 said:

Its a mute point anyway as the EU very quickly realised what that were planning to do while within the bounds of the law,  was not good politics.  

 

More guff,  the two items you raise have nothing to do with the good faith provisions within the Northern Ireland protocol,  but simply a result of the UK becoming a third country just like any other  something which you support don't you.  

The point is that the EU in principle thinks that the protocol can be suspended at the drop of a hat.

 

The two items I mentioned are examples of bad faith in general.  (The trees and soil are specifically about Ireland.)  I do support the UK becoming a third country, but that doesn't mean that all deals should be done on the basis of trying to gain a short term tiny advantage.  An agreement between countries to work for mutual benefit and as friends is better for both sides than a deal where one side (or both sides) is working to do down the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Robo61 said:

Its a mute point anyway as the EU very quickly realised what that were planning to do while within the bounds of the law,  was not good politics.  

 

More guff,  the two items you raise have nothing to do with the good faith provisions within the Northern Ireland protocol,  but simply a result of the UK becoming a third country just like any other  something which you support don't you.  

What’s a mute point? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

The point is that the EU in principle thinks that the protocol can be suspended at the drop of a hat.

 

The two items I mentioned are examples of bad faith in general.  (The trees and soil are specifically about Ireland.)  I do support the UK becoming a third country, but that doesn't mean that all deals should be done on the basis of trying to gain a short term tiny advantage.  An agreement between countries to work for mutual benefit and as friends is better for both sides than a deal where one side (or both sides) is working to do down the other.

Sorry that's just rubbish   both sides have up to an agreement which they feel suits them and there are  laws that underpin those agreements,  which both sides must stick too.  The good faith aspects only come I  where there still had to be some agreement.  That's not the case with either of the two Issues you raise,  the EU have laws for the import of these products which all third countries are expected to adhere to.  Indeed it would be against WHO treaties for Europe to give preferential treatment to one country. 

The UK givernmenti s the only ones breaking the law,  though why they are doing that when it seems to me to only damage our exporters I don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

Sorry that's just rubbish   both sides have up to an agreement which they feel suits them and there are  laws that underpin those agreements,  which both sides must stick too.  The good faith aspects only come I  where there still had to be some agreement.  That's not the case with either of the two Issues you raise,  the EU have laws for the import of these products which all third countries are expected to adhere to.  Indeed it would be against WHO treaties for Europe to give preferential treatment to one country. 

The UK givernmenti s the only ones breaking the law,  though why they are doing that when it seems to me to only damage our exporters I don't understand.

The "good faith" aspects run through the deal.  Article 3 is entitled "Good faith" and is all about how the parties will have full mutual respect and good faith to ensure the agreement goes well and will refrain from measures that could jeopardise the attainment of its objectives.  See page 11 of the pdf.  Good faith is the foundation on which this deal, like most deals, is to succeed.  Without good faith this deal, like most deals, will not be mutually beneficial.

 

The UK government is concerned about the UK, which is why they are concerned with this particular treaty which - if applied in good faith by both parties with the Good Friday agreement in mind - could perhaps be acceptable to all of Ireland, both the Kingdom and the Republic.  But if the deal is not applied in good faith by all parties, then it threatens the United Kingdom and the people who live there.  If good faith is not present, then the deal fails.

 

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14335-2020-ADD-1-REV-2/en/pdf

 

(PS - "moot point" is what other people are getting at, somewhat irrelevantly.)

Edited by dsr-burnley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sampson said:

To be fair it wasn't silly for many leavers just to expect us to become Norway or Switzerland and remain in the EEC given thats what many on the leave side promised.

Yes it was. It never said we would on the ballot did it? To assume otherwise was dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Yes it was. It never said we would on the ballot did it? To assume otherwise was dumb.

Huh? The alternative wasn't on the ballot either so that's a strange argument. And even Farage was saying we'd go to become a Norway-style country after the vote.

 

Just don't see how mocking someone who obviously got misled or fed bad information and paid big time for it is very helpful. I've always been a staunch remainer but it's this kind of mocking people for voting leave without trying to understand why that person voted leave in the first place which causes so many to get disillusioned with the remain side of the argument. It's not helpful.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fox in the North said:

Think the problem was and still is with Brexit, is that despite all the posturing and the slogans, it was never clearly defined. People ultimately believed in what it would be for them, when in fact the various politicians supporting brexit never proposed anything of substance beyond the interviews and the slogans. Hence the mess that followed afterwards.

Perfectly put. :appl:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Huh? The alternative wasn't on the ballot either so that's a strange argument. And even Farage was saying we'd go to become a Norway-style country after the vote.

 

Just don't see how mocking someone who obviously got misled or fed bad information and paid big time for it is very helpful. I've always been a staunch remainer but it's this kind of mocking people for voting leave without trying to understand why that person voted leave in the first place which causes so many to get disillusioned with the remain side of the argument. It's not helpful.

As much as I agree with the sentiment here, I'm not seeing much evidence that "going high" makes the people involved in things like this change their mind about the matter anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Sampson said:

To be fair it wasn't silly for many leavers just to expect us to become Norway or Switzerland and remain in the EEC given thats what many on the leave side promised.

You're right.

 

But the same people who said that also said we would control our borders, strike free trade deals with the world, and stop sending money to Brussels. Which wouldn't have happened with a Norway style deal. Since late 2016 it's also been clear we've been heading for a hard Brexit. The Conservatives won two elections promising exactly that.

 

So if people have only now woken up to the fact that we have a hard Brexit then I have limited sympathy, though I definitely don't think those people deserve ridicule. I haven't listened to this particular guy's complaints either and I understood that citizens rights were protected in the WA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

Who doesn't love a bit of irony lol

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

"I didn't think my actions would have consequences" lol

 

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

f1e.png

 

2 hours ago, purpleronnie said:

They voted for britain to leave the EU but are in tears at the prospect of having to live there.:D  Sums up the ex pats I know.

 

 

Maybe not true after all...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...