Jump to content

Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tony said:

Where are they doing that?

The European Court of Justice. 

 

'Oh, but we don't acknowledge that as a court'. 

 

No, you don't. But at the same time you expect the EU to be 'lenient' and 'flexible' towards the UK leaving.

 

Let me paint the obvious: The EU launching that court case wasn't to try and alter the UK's stance, it was to say: We have systems in place that you are flouting and we will start withdrawing the benefits you thought you were negotiating.

 

The UK is, and will always be, the smaller partner in the UK/EU trade and a grievous process to force a 'no deal' which is what the Government is trying, is going to be met by increased hostility. 

 

Now going back to that border - the EU doesn't want that border, it simply states that the interests of the EU have to be protected at any international border - the Republic and NI weren't going to have an international border. Johnson promised a 'fix' and the EU agreed to see what that fix would be, now there will be an international border as he has just withdrawn from that fix. What do you expect the EU to do, just sue the government at the ECJ or actually enforce the border agreement that Johnson is withdrawing from? A border agreement that the US and EU agreed to ensure peace in Ireland by the way. 

 

What is your response to the UK unilaterally blowing that agreement out of the water? Even if you don't acknowledge the ECJ, surely you acknowledge that the EU and the US are international entities of import to this nation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Tony said:

Yes. And? Why is this supposed to be a surprise?

 

 

Talking of surprises,

@melthebell Mel, it's not a surprise. You don't have a point.  

 

 

 

All, can we raise this discussion up a notch or two please? It's well down in the weeds at the moment and I am really bored of people trying to prove whether or not I know something (that they just found on Google) instead of discussing matters of substance with an understanding that others might have a point that's valid even if we don't agree. That might, just might, even include acknowledging that there are plus and minus points and everything is subject to nuance and change. This low-grade 6th form debating room gotcha crud is why I usually stay away from SF these days. It's dull, irritating, unfulfilling and ultimately pointless. Cheers.

I didn’t finish 6th form so google is all I have ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Tony said:

@andyofborgRegulatory divergence is paperwork between trusting nations, not a border. Please don't fall for the nonsense of invoking the GFA. 

no, there is a border, if the nations trust each other enough then you can manage it mostly with paperwork. 

 

people breaking the agreements they freely entered into less than 12 months before doesn't really seem like a way to build or maintain trust.

 

i'm intrigued why you think the GFA is nonsense?

 

4 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I didn’t finish 6th form so google is all I have ;)

you should have, it was fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Tony said:

Yes. And? Why is this supposed to be a surprise?

 

not really, am just curious as to why, the little bit of soverignty we have pooled with the eu for mutual benefit is so important to you when we have pooled so much elsewhere for all sorts of reasons. some better than others.

 

the old romantic notion of a soverign nation is long gone, the world is far too interconnected for that to survive. it may be a good thing, it may be a bad thing but either way it's gone. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are unable to post without insulting or abusing other members then I strongly suggest you refrain from posting. That will save me the bother of issuing a suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tzijlstra said:

The European Court of Justice. 

 

'Oh, but we don't acknowledge that as a court'. 

 

No, you don't. But at the same time you expect the EU to be 'lenient' and 'flexible' towards the UK leaving.

 

Let me paint the obvious: The EU launching that court case wasn't to try and alter the UK's stance, it was to say: We have systems in place that you are flouting and we will start withdrawing the benefits you thought you were negotiating.

 

The UK is, and will always be, the smaller partner in the UK/EU trade and a grievous process to force a 'no deal' which is what the Government is trying, is going to be met by increased hostility. 

 

Now going back to that border - the EU doesn't want that border, it simply states that the interests of the EU have to be protected at any international border - the Republic and NI weren't going to have an international border. Johnson promised a 'fix' and the EU agreed to see what that fix would be, now there will be an international border as he has just withdrawn from that fix. What do you expect the EU to do, just sue the government at the ECJ or actually enforce the border agreement that Johnson is withdrawing from? A border agreement that the US and EU agreed to ensure peace in Ireland by the way. 

 

What is your response to the UK unilaterally blowing that agreement out of the water? Even if you don't acknowledge the ECJ, surely you acknowledge that the EU and the US are international entities of import to this nation?

The EU launching a court case against the UK?

 

When did this happen?

 

I thought the EU Commission had sent a formal letter of notice. I haven't heard anything about it launching a court case, which would be extremely legally premature.

 

The UK has until the end of this month to submit its observations to the letter of formal notice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tzijlstra said:

No, the EU don't want a hard border in Ireland, they have made very clear that they don't hence it was included in Johnson's 'deal' that he is now rescinding on. Hence they are suing the UK government to ensure that the agreement that was in place is kept in place. The fact that Johnson is prepared to pull the plug on that 'deal' shows that he doesn't care if there is a hard border in Ireland or not. 

 

Quite frankly, why should it bother him and his mates? That isn't where the bankers that they are trying to protect through Brexit are based. 

If the EU don't want a hard border in Ireland, why are they the only ones to have threatened it?

 

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier warned there will be a hard border in Northern Ireland if Brexit talks fail to end in a deal. Barnier said a hard border would be "inevitable" unless both sides struck an agreement before the December 31 deadline.

 

Nobody else has threatened the return of a hard border.

 

Not the British. Not the Irish. Just the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

If the EU don't want a hard border in Ireland, why are they the only ones to have threatened it?

 

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier warned there will be a hard border in Northern Ireland if Brexit talks fail to end in a deal. Barnier said a hard border would be "inevitable" unless both sides struck an agreement before the December 31 deadline.

 

Nobody else has threatened the return of a hard border.

 

Not the British. Not the Irish. Just the EU.

What could we possibly do instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Car Boot said:

The EU launching a court case against the UK?

 

When did this happen?

 

I thought the EU Commission had sent a formal letter of notice. I haven't heard anything about it launching a court case, which would be extremely legally premature.

 

The UK has until the end of this month to submit its observations to the letter of formal notice. 

The letter of notification is the start of the legal process. What do you think your friends in the Government would reply? You expect them to repeal the Internal Market Bill? If they don't, there will be a precedent set whereby the UK screws over the Good Friday Agreement, don't you agree? I recall you saying you didn't care about Northern Ireland, or indeed the Scots - maybe you ought to apply some logic to what is going on. 

45 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

If the EU don't want a hard border in Ireland, why are they the only ones to have threatened it?

 

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier warned there will be a hard border in Northern Ireland if Brexit talks fail to end in a deal. Barnier said a hard border would be "inevitable" unless both sides struck an agreement before the December 31 deadline.

 

Nobody else has threatened the return of a hard border.

 

Not the British. Not the Irish. Just the EU.

No need to threaten it when the UK is withdrawing from the agreement that requires no hard border. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

What could we possibly do instead?

wave the magic fairy wand...obviously tut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, tzijlstra said:

The letter of notification is the start of the legal process. What do you think your friends in the Government would reply? You expect them to repeal the Internal Market Bill? If they don't, there will be a precedent set whereby the UK screws over the Good Friday Agreement, don't you agree? I recall you saying you didn't care about Northern Ireland, or indeed the Scots - maybe you ought to apply some logic to what is going on. 

No need to threaten it when the UK is withdrawing from the agreement that requires no hard border. 

I have NEVER stated that I don't care about Northern Ireland or the  Scots. Indeed, I have argued against the return of a hard border in Ireland. I think if the Scots and the Northern Irish wish to leave the UK then they should be helped to do so. We will still be a family of nations, we don't need economic and political union for that. 

 

While they wish to remain in the UK they should be treated as full members - not part EU/part UK.

Edited by Car Boot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

I have NEVER stated that I don't care about Northern Ireland or the  Scots. Indeed, I have argued against the return of a hard border in Ireland. I think if the Scots and the Northern Irish wish to leave the UK then they should be helped to do so. We will still be a family of nations, we don't need economic and political union for that. 

 

While they wish to remain in the UK they should be treated as full members - not part EU/part UK.

Why - especially if, for example, an independent Scotland joined the EU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.