Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Wes Tender]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

How do you know that, in it's entirity, the EU deal on offer isn't 'better' for the UK ? Just because you don't like it ? Because of our proximity, economically and geographically, there are bound to be things that the EU want to include; they are protecting their own interests, as are we.

 Anything yet in the news about German car manufacturers 'beating down the doors' of Angela Merkel's official residence ?

Of course it isn't going to be better in its entirety if the EU believe that as a result of a FTA they can continue to plunder our fishery waters, dictate to us what actions our government can or can't take to protect our industries, what rules and regulations can be applied to them and that our laws should be subjugated to those of the EU courts

The EU's stance has far less to do with our geographical and economical proximity and much more to do with the decades of increasing vassalage we have endured on the road to a federal Europe. From the start, once we voted to leave, our departure could not be seen to be easy and beneficial, encouraging others to follow us out, and the EU is scared witless that we will make a success of it and become a serious competitor right on their doorstep. Those are the interests they are trying to protect.

There is no reason for the Germans to beat down Merkel's door just yet. As you may be aware, it is common negotiation tactics for the EU, (led by Germany) to hold out until the 11th hour, expecting the other side to blink first. So when we have not blinked then, that will be the time for the door hammering. 

[badgerx16]

The EU don't 'plunder' our waters. EU companies own more than half of England's quotas, ( the Government sold it off ), and most of the fish caught in UK waters is exported because it is species that are not commercial on UK markets.

[Wes Tender]

30 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The EU don't 'plunder' our waters. EU companies own more than half of England's quotas, ( the Government sold it off ), and most of the fish caught in UK waters is exported because it is species that are not commercial on UK markets.

I'll describe it in my own terms, thank you. Regardless of the historical politics of it, the decline in our fishing industry ever since Grocer Heath sold our fishermen out as the price he paid for us joining the so-called "Common Market," our coastal waters and the fish stocks within them are now a resource to be brought back to our ownership and control. If some of those fish species are not commercially attractive to the UK market, then we can export it ourselves to the markets where it is wanted, rejuvenate our fisheries industry and pocket the profits ourselves. It is a great shame that the EU Channel coast fishery communities will suffer, but they benefited at our expense for the past few decades, so que sera, sera, eh?

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Wes Tender said:

I'll describe it in my own terms, thank you. Regardless of the historical politics of it, the decline in our fishing industry ever since Grocer Heath sold our fishermen out as the price he paid for us joining the so-called "Common Market," our coastal waters and the fish stocks within them are now a resource to be brought back to our ownership and control. If some of those fish species are not commercially attractive to the UK market, then we can export it ourselves to the markets where it is wanted, rejuvenate our fisheries industry and pocket the profits ourselves. It is a great shame that the EU Channel coast fishery communities will suffer, but they benefited at our expense for the past few decades, so que sera, sera, eh?

 

I think you may have a long wait for the Government to consider buying back the English quotas from foreign ownership. And it is quite likely that UK vessels currently fishing for particular species in EU waters are not equipped to start catching other species in UK waters, once the EU and UK pull up their respective drawbridges.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

8 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

The EU don't 'plunder' our waters. EU companies own more than half of England's quotas, ( the Government sold it off ), and most of the fish caught in UK waters is exported because it is species that are not commercial on UK markets.

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/meet-the-margiris-the-super-trawler-plying-the-channel-ahead-of-brexit-for-fish-to-send-around-the-world-351940

I hope for a green Brexit. Under their stewardship the EU has drained our waters now we have a chance to develop the most sustainable fishing waters in the world. 

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/meet-the-margiris-the-super-trawler-plying-the-channel-ahead-of-brexit-for-fish-to-send-around-the-world-351940

I hope for a green Brexit. Under their stewardship the EU has drained our waters now we have a chance to develop the most sustainable fishing waters in the world. 

There is nothing there to suggest that the vessel is doing anything other than what it is legally permitted to, under UK law and within UK quotas. I agree that fisheries should be sustainable, and perhaps Brexit may help towards this, but anybody who thinks there will be a post Brexit boom in UK fisheries is going to be greatly disappointed.

[Wes Tender]

12 hours ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/meet-the-margiris-the-super-trawler-plying-the-channel-ahead-of-brexit-for-fish-to-send-around-the-world-351940

I hope for a green Brexit. Under their stewardship the EU has drained our waters now we have a chance to develop the most sustainable fishing waters in the world. 

Agreed.We should place a ban on super trawlers fishing in our waters.

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Wes Tender said:

Agreed.We should place a ban on super trawlers fishing in our waters.

Write to BoJo and suggest he follows Australia's example. They outlawed super-trawlers after the Margiris was spotted fishing in their waters.

[Wes Tender]

23 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

I think you may have a long wait for the Government to consider buying back the English quotas from foreign ownership. And it is quite likely that UK vessels currently fishing for particular species in EU waters are not equipped to start catching other species in UK waters, once the EU and UK pull up their respective drawbridges.

I've been mulling this over and searching for an explanation over the Quota system, but could not find one. Surely the quotas were allocated under the CFP, which will terminate on 31st December, when we take control of our own coastal waters and make the rules ourselves covering who can fish in them and what and how much they can catch. We passed a Fisheries Bill at the end of January covering the future position on fisheries post CFP.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sustainable-fisheries-enshrined-in-law-as-uk-leaves-the-eu

I see no mention of the government having to buy back quotas bought by foreign fishing companies, although of course I haven't read the Bill in any greater detail. Isn't it the case that those CFP quotas become null and void at the end of the year and new ones allocated at our whim? Maybe there is some onus on the EU to compensate their fishermen for lost revenue. They benefited greatly under the CFP at the expense of our fishing industry and now the boot is on the other foot and they must accordingly suffer a decline, as we did.

As for whether our fishermen have the appropriate equipment to fish different species in UK waters, surely they can buy that equipment from foreign fishermen who will no longer have a need for it. 😉

[Wes Tender]

Furthermore, under the CFP,  coastal waters around  member states are a common resource to be fished by those states with quotas allocated to each. When we are free of the CFP and in control of our own coastal waters, the EU fishermen can concentrate their efforts more in the waters of the next nearest EU member, Ireland. I'm sure that they will love that.

[badgerx16]

The CFP determines how much of the total fishery in the EEZ is allocated to each EU member state, and each state then makes it's own decision as to how to apportion it's share. The UK Government has passed responsibility for the quotas for Scotland and NI to the devolved assemblies, whilst merging the Welsh share, which is minscule, wth England's. Within the Anglo-Welsh arrangement the overall quota is split between Producer Organisations, generally collectives of fishermen in specific home ports, and then this is distributed based on Fixed Quota Allocations, calculated on boat size and historic landing data. However, the Government enabled a market in FQAs which meant that individual allocations coud be traded, and consequently most of them have been accumulated and consolidated by a small number of companies, several of which are foreign, who then lease the allocations to their own boats.

 For instance, the FQA for the Fleetwood PO was sold off to a Spanish company, which moved the quota to it's own ships, and now means that whilst Fleetwood remains as a registration port for fishing vessels, none actually sail from there any more.

 When we leave the CFP, we will control 100% of our defined fishery, but the FQA system will remain, as it is nothing to do with the EU. Therefore, to regain 'control' the UK Government will need to address the market in and ownership of transferable quotas.

 

( I think this is how it works. )

Edited 20 August, 2020 by badgerx16

[Wes Tender]

4 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

The CFP determines how much of the total fishery in the EEZ is allocated to each EU member state, and each state then makes it's own decision as to how to apportion it's share. The UK Government has passed responsibility for the quotas for Scotland and NI to the devolved assemblies, whilst merging the Welsh share, which is minscule, wth England's. Within the Anglo-Welsh arrangement the overall quota is split between Producer Organisations, generally collectives of fishermen in specific home ports, and then this is distributed based on Fixed Quota Allocations, calculated on boat size and historic landing data. However, the Government enabled a market in FQAs which meant that individual allocations coud be traded, and consequently most of them have been accumulated and consolidated by a small number of companies, several of which are foreign, who then lease the allocations to their own boats.

 For instance, the FQA for the Fleetwood PO was sold off to a Spanish company, which moved the quota to it's own ships, and now means that whilst Fleetwood remains as a registration port for fishing vessels, none actually sail from there any more.

 When we leave the CFP, we will control 100% of our defined fishery, but the FQA system will remain, as it is nothing to do with the EU. Therefore, to regain 'control' the UK Government will need to address the market in and ownership of transferable quotas.

 

( I think this is how it works. )

I bow to your superior knowledge of how things operated under the CFP, but I still am doubtful about whether quotas allocated or purchased under the CFP regime will have any validity after 31st December. I'll see whether the new Fisheries Bill throws any light on the situation. Patently though, the situation cannot be allowed to continue whereby Foreign countries own the rights to take large amounts of fish from our territorial waters just because they were able to do so before we left the EU. It has become less an economic matter and very much politically loaded.

This is an interesting article highlighting much of what is wrong with the current situation which is nothing short of scandalous.

http://www.marinet.org.uk/who-owns-the-uk-fishing-industry-and-its-fishing-quotas.html

Whether the Fisheries Bill addressed any of these problems or whether the government stands firm on the extent to which we will regain total control of our waters in the current talks remains to be seen.

[badgerx16]

Wes, I don't disagree about the state of UK fisheries with regard to how the EU affects and impacts on it, especially as I have direct local knowledge of how the Fleetwood fleet has disappeared completely. I just feel that Brexit will not deliver an effective change unless much more direct intervention is seen from the Government, and given that we are talking about an industry that represents less than 1% of the economy, other priorities will divert the Government's attention in the coming few years.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Wes, I don't disagree about the state of UK fisheries with regard to how the EU affects and impacts on it, especially as I have direct local knowledge of how the Fleetwood fleet has disappeared completely. I just feel that Brexit will not deliver an effective change unless much more direct intervention is seen from the Government, and given that we are talking about an industry that represents less than 1% of the economy, other priorities will divert the Government's attention in the coming few years.

Would love to see us adopt a really progressive and radical approach to rebuilding our fish stocks. I doubt it will happen but it certainly would not happen under the EU.

[badgerx16]

28 minutes ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Would love to see us adopt a really progressive and radical approach to rebuilding our fish stocks. I doubt it will happen but it certainly would not happen under the EU.

The issue with fish stocks is that the buggers move, whether migrating to and from breeding grounds, following their food species, or due to localised climatic events such as shifting currents. They don't recognise the demarcation lines that we humans draw on maps. It would need a lot of international co-operation to truly have a positive effect.

[Wes Tender]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Wes, I don't disagree about the state of UK fisheries with regard to how the EU affects and impacts on it, especially as I have direct local knowledge of how the Fleetwood fleet has disappeared completely. I just feel that Brexit will not deliver an effective change unless much more direct intervention is seen from the Government, and given that we are talking about an industry that represents less than 1% of the economy, other priorities will divert the Government's attention in the coming few years.

There was an interesting article within the past couple of weeks in Conservative Home that gives me some hope that the government's policy ought to be concentrated on sorting this out satisfactorily. It too pointed out that economically the industry didn't contribute much at 1%. But it stated that the political implications made it much more important, especially as it was featured as a major plank of the Brexit campaign, and helped gain many votes for that and the General Election campaign in those coastal constituencies which had fisheries interests. Economically, it would be so easy to betray the fishing industry in order to get a FTA, just as Grocer Heath did in return for the original trade agreement, the EEC. Politically though, it would be a disaster for the Conservatives, who are therefore prepared to gamble that by holding firm on not allowing the quotas to continue as before, they risk there being no FTA.

[Fan The Flames]

If fishery policy equals an interesting article in the Conservative Home then it's a rag to avoid. 

[Wes Tender]

9 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

If fishery policy equals an interesting article in the Conservative Home then it's a rag to avoid. 

Yes, I can understand why you would find reading about a subject that directly impinges on the outcome of our trade talks with the EU boring. 🙄

[Wes Tender]

Another round of talks between us and the EU over a FTA, the seventh, comes to a close, with hardly anything having been achieved. Frost sticks to his guns stating that we will not budge on the EU's position that the trade talks cannot continue unless we agree to their insistence on a level playing field adjudicated by the ECJ, and their continued access to our fishing grounds based on quotas they had before we left.

Once again, I really see no point in continuing to waste time going over the same ground again and again. Why can't we just tell them that those red lines are set in stone, we won't budge from them at all, and if the EU want a FTA deal, the talks can continue when they are prepared to accept that?

[a1ex2001]

50 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

Another round of talks between us and the EU over a FTA, the seventh, comes to a close, with hardly anything having been achieved. Frost sticks to his guns stating that we will not budge on the EU's position that the trade talks cannot continue unless we agree to their insistence on a level playing field adjudicated by the ECJ, and their continued access to our fishing grounds based on quotas they had before we left.

Once again, I really see no point in continuing to waste time going over the same ground again and again. Why can't we just tell them that those red lines are set in stone, we won't budge from them at all, and if the EU want a FTA deal, the talks can continue when they are prepared to accept that?

Because we need a FTA and will almost certainly at the last minute agree to the original EU proposal much like we did with the withdrawal agreement which despite all the posturing was essentially the original deal we were offered.  Boris and his cronies will put some lipstick on the pig and trumpet it as the greatest FTA in history then a few months later quietly leak out the agreement over fishing and level playing field much like the boarder down the Irish sea that we were never going to have...

We are playing a game of poker with the EU unfortunately the only cards we hold are the joker and the one with the bridge scores on while hey hold the rest and both sides cards are face up on the table our posturing is embarrassing and our eventual capitulation will be predictably humiliating welcome to the green and shiny uplands of Brexit!

[Wes Tender]

12 minutes ago, a1ex2001 said:

Because we need a FTA and will almost certainly at the last minute agree to the original EU proposal much like we did with the withdrawal agreement which despite all the posturing was essentially the original deal we were offered.  Boris and his cronies will put some lipstick on the pig and trumpet it as the greatest FTA in history then a few months later quietly leak out the agreement over fishing and level playing field much like the boarder down the Irish sea that we were never going to have...

We are playing a game of poker with the EU unfortunately the only cards we hold are the joker and the one with the bridge scores on while hey hold the rest and both sides cards are face up on the table our posturing is embarrassing and our eventual capitulation will be predictably humiliating welcome to the green and shiny uplands of Brexit!

We don't need a FTA. Although it would be preferable to have one, if it included allowing the EU to interfere in our government's ability to support key industries and how UK companies run their businesses,  and if foreign fishermen were allowed to continue plundering our fish stocks at levels they enjoyed before we left the EU, then the price is too high. Under those circumstances, we would be better off on WTO terms and the EU needs to understand that that is the way we will go unless they accept our red lines.

My opinion is that you are deluded if you believe that we will cave in at the last minute and accept the EU's level playing field and undiminished fishing quotas. You appear to have gained your jaundiced opinion of our negotiating position from last year, when they were handled by the incompetent Vicar's daughter and the useless Robbins, egged on by a majority of remoaners in the cabinet, hampered by legislation like the Benn Surrender Bill and aided and abetted by a rogue Speaker. Those people are all gone now and the December election gave Boris a thumping mandate to "get Brexit done". You don't really understand politics if you think that the outcome can be fudged and attempts made to pull the wool over people's eyes. Come the next election, the party would be annihilated. 

You're entitled to believe that the EU hold all the cards in these negotiations if you wish. I think that we have the upper hand and that if the EU are too stubborn to blink and give in to our red lines, they will soon be begging us to come back to the negotiating table a few months into trade with us under WTO terms when that really starts to bite against the massive trade surplus they have with us and it begins to falter under the burden of tariffs. In the meantime, the EU has much else on their plate to occupy them. As well as the effect that the Chinese virus has on their economies and the budgetary bail-outs required to support their weaker southern state economies, movements to leave the EU are springing up in two or three other member states and gaining much support 

My forecast is that the EU will not survive a further decade and that our departure will have played a major part in its downfall. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

[benjii]

Looks like the EU was ahead of us in the Yank queue after all.

[Wes Tender]

26 minutes ago, benjii said:

Looks like the EU was ahead of us in the Yank queue after all.

Looks like we could possibly complete a deal with Japan in a matter of weeks, against however many years  it took the EU. And it is rumoured that we will have a better deal than them.

As for deals with the USA, that remains to be seen. Again though, the EU had been seeking a USA deal for years.

[Wes Tender]

The  EU are beginning to lose their composure and geting jittery, potentially taking Barnier off the case as their negotiator, he having made no progress at all in the negotiations because of his pig-headed insistence that the EU continues plundering our fish stocks and that we remain subservient to their rules and legal system, the so-called level playing field. It seems to be the EU's idea that the negotiations will instead be between their individual nation states and our government direct, instead of between individual negotiators like Barnier and Frost. Perhaps they have some weird idea that Boris will succumb to a charm offensive, and that maybe he has a different idea of what he wants to achieve from that of his appointed negotiator.

We should tell them that sorry, we are perfectly happy with the job that Frost is doing, and that he has the mandate of our government to carry on speaking on our behalf. As soon as they are prepared to accept those two red lines of ours and talk sensibly about a Canada style FTA, the sooner that we can move on. As they are fond of reminding us, the clock is ticking.

[Wes Tender]

The  EU are beginning to lose their composure and getting jittery, potentially taking Barnier off the case as their negotiator, he having made no progress at all in the negotiations because of his pig-headed insistence that the EU continues plundering our fish stocks and that we remain subservient to their rules and legal system, the so-called level playing field. It seems to be the EU's idea that the negotiations will instead be between their individual nation states and our government direct, instead of between individual negotiators like Barnier and Frost. Perhaps they have some weird idea that Boris will succumb to a charm offensive, and that maybe he has a different idea of what he wants to achieve from that of his appointed negotiator.

We should tell them that sorry, we are perfectly happy with the job that Frost is doing, and that he has the mandate of our government to carry on speaking on our behalf. As soon as they are prepared to accept those two red lines of ours and talk sensibly about a Canada style FTA, the sooner that we can move on. As they are fond of reminding us, the clock is ticking.

[Lord Duckhunter]

34 minutes ago, Wes Tender said:

The  EU are beginning to lose their composure and getting jittery, potentially taking Barnier off the case as their negotiator, he having made no progress at all in the negotiations because of his pig-headed insistence that the EU continues plundering our fish stocks and that we remain subservient to their rules and legal system, the so-called level playing field. It seems to be the EU's idea that the negotiations will instead be between their individual nation states and our government direct, instead of between individual negotiators like Barnier and Frost. Perhaps they have some weird idea that Boris will succumb to a charm offensive, and that maybe he has a different idea of what he wants to achieve from that of his appointed negotiator.

We should tell them that sorry, we are perfectly happy with the job that Frost is doing, and that he has the mandate of our government to carry on speaking on our behalf. As soon as they are prepared to accept those two red lines of ours and talk sensibly about a Canada style FTA, the sooner that we can move on. As they are fond of reminding us, the clock is ticking.

Fake news.
 

 We’ve been told over and over again that we will not be negotiating with individual countries. Barnier speaks for the bloc & they’re all totally united. 

[hypochondriac]

Interesting developments today. Sounds like the EU were trying to lock us into state aid rules through the backdoor via NI. Think that the noises are designed to show that that tactic won't work. I still think there will be a deal though.

[spyinthesky]

Cabinet Minister agrees in a Parliamentary discussion that the Govt proposed alteration to the Agreement freely signed will break International Law and one of the senior Govt Lawyers has resigned as a consequence.
It's all going to plan!!

[Hockey_saint]

On 07/09/2020 at 11:42, hypochondriac said:

Interesting developments today. Sounds like the EU were trying to lock us into state aid rules through the backdoor via NI. Think that the noises are designed to show that that tactic won't work. I still think there will be a deal though.

The Northern Ireland situation was clearly not thought about with you brexiteers. Meanwhile, the Northern Ireland minister has just said our government have broken the law. That will not bode well for any agreement with anyone. They'll know they're dealing with lying crooks.

[hypochondriac]

19 minutes ago, Hockey_saint said:

The Northern Ireland situation was clearly not thought about with you brexiteers. Meanwhile, the Northern Ireland minister has just said our government have broken the law. That will not bode well for any agreement with anyone. They'll know they're dealing with lying crooks.

Thanks but I'm an individual and I'd rather you didn't lump me into some category as "you brexiteers". 

[Hockey_saint]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Thanks but I'm an individual and I'd rather you didn't lump me into some category as "you brexiteers". 

You lump remainers into the same boat.....But come on, Northern Ireland seems to have been an after thought.

 

The first was obviously short-selling the pound so that Boris and his crooked friends could make an awful lot of money.

[hypochondriac]

40 minutes ago, Hockey_saint said:

You lump remainers into the same boat.....But come on, Northern Ireland seems to have been an after thought.

 

The first was obviously short-selling the pound so that Boris and his crooked friends could make an awful lot of money.

I think the government should not have signed up to the withdrawal agreement if they weren't happy with it so I agree it's poor. However, you could argue that when Boris came in he was left with little choice at that point. I certainly don't want the EU trapping us and forcing us to accept their rules on state aid by the back door so if it's that or this rule breech then I'd go for the breech. It's not really an ideal situation though and hopefully there will still be a deal so it all becomes irrelevant. 

[Hockey_saint]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I think the government should not have signed up to the withdrawal agreement if they weren't happy with it so I agree it's poor. However, you could argue that when Boris came in he was left with little choice at that point. I certainly don't want the EU trapping us and forcing us to accept their rules on state aid by the back door so if it's that or this rule breech then I'd go for the breech. It's not really an ideal situation though and hopefully there will still be a deal so it all becomes irrelevant. 

If he wasn't happy, he shouldn't have signed it should he? He campaigned on the fact he had an "oven-ready" deal....he lied as he didn't. This "breech" is a break in the law. Something potential partners WILL have noticed and our standing as a fair and just country that abides by the rule of law will be absolutely shot. Is your desperation for "independence" REALLY worth this? Getting into bed with some serious crooks? They're not even very conservative.

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Hockey_saint said:

If he wasn't happy, he shouldn't have signed it should he? He campaigned on the fact he had an "oven-ready" deal....he lied as he didn't. This "breech" is a break in the law. Something potential partners WILL have noticed and our standing as a fair and just country that abides by the rule of law will be absolutely shot. Is your desperation for "independence" REALLY worth this? Getting into bed with some serious crooks? They're not even very conservative.

OK I tried to reply to you in a sensible manner but I see you have no intention of having a serious conversation. 

[hypochondriac]

John redwood makes some interesting points here. I'm not informed enough to know how true it is. 

[hypochondriac]

Blimey. I know its the sun but if this is true no wonder the UK went down this route. 

[Hockey_saint]

Your reasoning is odd. John Redwood is a known liar and an absolute ERG nutjob. The Sun is ALWAYS full of nonsense. As a football fan you should know this.

 

There was nothing silly about the points I've raised. Boris is a proven liar. He first backed remain and then he didn't when he saw it as in his interest...there are quotes to back it up. We as a country world wide are known for sticking to the rule of law and if we break agreements we have signed, we're nothing more than crooks what ever nonsense excuses you make. The republic of course will carry out the restrictions expected of it as an EU member....how is this a surprise to you? They are not the bad guys here, the liars, the racists and the accused rapists of the brexit squad are. It's pretty simple really.

[Weston Super Saint]

11 hours ago, Hockey_saint said:

The Northern Ireland situation was clearly not thought about with you brexiteers. Meanwhile, the Northern Ireland minister has just said our government have broken the law. That will not bode well for any agreement with anyone. They'll know they're dealing with lying crooks.

Did he? Or are you just making that up?

[Tamesaint]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Did he? Or are you just making that up?

He said yesterday in the House of Commons that the proposed bill would break international law.

Presumably you are impressed?

 

BBC News - Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836

[edprice1984]

The Government seem to have not realised that if you start 'unilaterally' breaking existing treaties - other countries are a little more hesitant in signing new ones. 

 

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, edprice1984 said:

The Government seem to have not realised that if you start 'unilaterally' breaking existing treaties - other countries are a little more hesitant in signing new ones. 

 

If we followed it and allowed the EU to block rest of UK to NI food imports then imo that would be worse than breaking this treaty. Neither is particularly palatable tbh they were fools to sign the thing in the first place. 

[Wes Tender]

3 hours ago, edprice1984 said:

The Government seem to have not realised that if you start 'unilaterally' breaking existing treaties - other countries are a little more hesitant in signing new ones. 

I don't think for one minute that will be the case, but in any event it is a bit premature to make these sorts of assertions without knowing what these changes are in the Bill, which is only beginning its passage today. This "breaking existing treaties" apparently comprises changes to it in a “very specific and limited way”. This sounds more like tinkering with it, as far as I am aware, providing clarification of our legal position where the existing wording of the treaty is open to interpretation and might allow the jurisdiction of the ECJ to hold sway over us.

In any event, if a FTA is agreed between us and the EU, many of these parts of the Treaty will not be applicable, so as I say, a bit premature to go jumping the gun at this stage.

Do you believe that it is an acceptable position for a foreign body to dictate how we govern ourselves as an independent nation?

Most future trading partners that we are contemplating arranging deals with will view our current situation with the EU sympathetically. I won't hold my breath waiting for the remoaner condemnation of the EU acting in bad faith towards us contrary to the terms of Article 50, the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration which stated that they would use their best endeavours to deliver a FTA between us and them. Naturally that was always in doubt when they sought to punish us for having the audacity to go our own way by leaving their cosy federal  cartel and they didn't want it to be a success which might encourage others to follow us out. Attempting to insist that they still had the same access to our territorial fishing waters that they enjoyed before we left, and that we should not be able to set our own economic policies to stimulate growth of certain industries or regions like any other independent country are not the actions of a negotiating entity acting in good faith. Neither is their position that a FTA akin to those offered by the EU to several other countries is somehow not available to us.

Edited 9 September, 2020 by Wes Tender
spelling

[Weston Super Saint]

6 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

He said yesterday in the House of Commons that the proposed bill would break international law.

Presumably you are impressed?

 

BBC News - Northern Ireland Secretary admits new bill will 'break international law' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836

I know he did.

That is very different from the claim that we HAVE broken the law.

Even you must know the difference between would and have

[hypochondriac]

Sounds like Sir Bill Cash inserted some clever wording unnoticed into the withdrawal agreement in case the EU tried any funny tricks. Seems it may have been kind of genius with hindsight. 

[Wes Tender]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Sounds like Sir Bill Cash inserted some clever wording unnoticed into the withdrawal agreement in case the EU tried any funny tricks. Seems it may have been kind of genius with hindsight. 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/1/section/38

Yes, I believe that he was responsible for this part of the legislation. As you say, very clever indeed 

Here is the new Bill that all the fuss is about, the Internal Market Bill, introduced today

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2019-21/unitedkingdominternalmarket.html

No doubt we will be hearing all the opinions about what is contentious in it once the legal eagles have had a chance to inspect it.

[Tamesaint]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I know he did.

That is very different from the claim that we HAVE broken the law.

Even you must know the difference between would and have

... and that it is why I wrote would. I doubt whether you, renowned as the village idiot, can even read words as long as "would".

 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 minutes ago, Tamesaint said:

... and that it is why I wrote would. I doubt whether you, renowned as the village idiot, can even read words as long as "would".

 

Jesus wept!

My original comment was quoting Hockey who stated that we HAVE (i.e. ALREADY) broken the law.

You then waded in with some smarmy comment trying to make yourself look all clever and funny but all you managed to do was pull your own pants down. Again 

[Tamesaint]

28 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Jesus wept!

My original comment was quoting Hockey who stated that we HAVE (i.e. ALREADY) broken the law.

You then waded in with some smarmy comment trying to make yourself look all clever and funny but all you managed to do was pull your own pants down. Again 

PMSL.

If you think so ....

 

 

Edited 9 September, 2020 by Tamesaint

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Wes Tender said:

No doubt we will be hearing all the opinions about what is contentious in it once the legal eagles have had a chance to inspect it.

Well, there is certainly scope;

Ministers would be granted unilateral powers to override the WA and their decisions are “not to be regarded as unlawful on the grounds of any incompatibility or inconsistency with relevant international or domestic law”. ( Section 45 (2) (a) )

Go figure.

[hypochondriac]

As I understand it, the so called breaking of the agreement only applies in the event that there is no deal (I could be wrong.) Therefore if it happens why would the EU care about any perceived loss of global standing from the UK because they won't have a deal with us anyway?