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

[Mister M 1,625]

14 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Are we at the point where we hold hands and sing Kum Ba Yah, or do we have further to fall yet ? 

[The Joker 10]

2 minutes ago, Magilla said:

This ‘Brexit success story’ is at best a story about Brexit not having reversed the upwards trend in fish sales, not that Brexit is in anyway causing or helping that trend.

And that’s the only benefit that Brexit will ever give us . . .
 

“Vote Brexit: It might not make things worse”
 

Wow, that would’ve certainly convinced me to risk voting against my interests 😁

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, Dromedary said:

When was that article published as I cant read it as its paywalled? 

The expression you are looking for is “in a limited and specific way” 😉

 

See the important distinction? Not quite breaking a binding treaty 😁

Edited January 24, 2022 by L00b

[Dromedary 166]

11 minutes ago, L00b said:

The expression you are looking for is “in a limited and specific way” 😉

 

See the important distinction? Not quite breaking a binding treaty 😁

Not really. What I am looking for and trying to understand is if any of that in bold despite being said actually got included in the Internal Market Act 2020 or whether it was later kicked out by the Lords. So I ask again, when was the article published as I can't read it but you can? It may well have been said but was it followed up?

Edited January 24, 2022 by Dromedary

[L00b 441]

19 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

Not really. What I am looking for and trying to understand is if any of that in bold despite being said actually got included in the Internal Market Act 2020 or whether it was later kicked out by the Lords. So I ask again, when was the article published as I can't read it but you can? It may well have been said but was it followed up?

The article publication date does not matter one iota.

 

Neither does the article itself, for that matter: there are dozens more such articles on the admission by Conservative Minister of State Brandon Lewis , by other newspapers without paywalls, each of editorial probity equivalent to that of the FT.

 

The expression, as you clearly well know, relates to the proposed wilful breaking of the NIP by the Conservative government, which you clearly hold to be such a paragon of law-abiding virtue. Not to the phrasing of the IMB.

 

10/10 for the hand waving effort.

 

0/10 for the counter-argument to the point of substance raised by altus.

 

Carry on excusing. Lower, that cap, lower still.

Edited January 24, 2022 by L00b

[altus 540]

42 minutes ago, Dromedary said:

Not really. What I am looking for and trying to understand is if any of that in bold despite being said actually got included in the Internal Market Act 2020 or whether it was later kicked out by the Lords. So I ask again, when was the article published as I can't read it but you can? It may well have been said but was it followed up?

The government intending to break international law and being stopped from doing so by the Lords is only a plus for the Lords. It's still a negative for the government.

[Dromedary 166]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

The article publication date does not matter one iota.

Yes it does as the timeline also puts it into perspective.

 

Quote

 

Neither does the article itself, for that matter: there are dozens more such articles on the admission by Conservative Minister of State Brandon Lewis , by other newspapers without paywalls, each of editorial probity equivalent to that of the FT.

If the article does not matter then why post it in the first place and why the reluctance to put a date on it?

 

 

Quote

The expression, as you clearly well know, relates to the proposed wilful breaking of the NIP by the Conservative government, which you clearly hold to be such a paragon of law-abiding virtue. Not to the phrasing of the IMB.

So it was a proposed wilful breaking of the NIP and not an actual one and it has not carried through into law. Now we are getting somewhere!

 

 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Dromedary

[L00b 441]

12 hours ago, Dromedary said:

If the article does not matter then why post it in the first place and why the reluctance to put a date on it?

To illustrate the point.

12 hours ago, Dromedary said:

If the article does not matter then why post it in the first place and why the reluctance to put a date on it?

Because there was no need.
 

And accessorily because your upcoming line of argument (“ah but so they did not break the NIP”) was clear as day just from your asking.
 

A line of argument which, to put things in perspective, i.e. for excusing the unconscionable behaviour of the government of a G7 democracy (no less!), plumbs new depths of ridicule.

12 hours ago, Dromedary said:

So it was a proposed wilful breaking of the NIP and not an actual one and it has not carried through into law. Now we are getting somewhere!

Hardly: the Conservative government hasn’t gotten anywhere with Brexit yet.
 

6 years on, it is still too busy fighting with itself, to bother trying to make anything out of Vote Leave’s “success”.

Meanwhile, at least one promise from Johnson has been upheld: businesses the length and breadth of the UK have been, and continue to be, f****d.

Edited January 25, 2022 by L00b

[Dromedary 166]

5 hours ago, L00b said:

To illustrate the point.

Because there was no need.

But there was especially as you know full well the article was behind a paywall and not everybody will have access to it.

 

5 hours ago, L00b said:

And accessorily because your upcoming line of argument (“ah but so they did not break the NIP”) was clear as day just from your asking.

?

5 hours ago, L00b said:

A line of argument which, to put things in perspective, i.e. for excusing the unconscionable behaviour of the government of a G7 democracy (no less!), plumbs new depths of ridicule.

But when France and Germany both broke international law re the EU protocols and got away with it no one bats an eye but because this was to do with Brexit so all hell breaks loose with the remainers.

 

 

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, Dromedary said:

But there was especially as you know full well the article was behind a paywall and not everybody will have access to it.

I’m sure you like to think so.

1 hour ago, Dromedary said:

But when France and Germany both broke international law re the EU protocols and got away with it no one bats an eye but because this was to do with Brexit so all hell breaks loose with the remainers.

You’ll have to be a little more precise than that, to warrant a considered reply.

 

Because I’m old enough to remember the copious amount of fines which the UK received for breaking EU protocols whilst still a member.

 

Nothing to do with Brexit / ‘leavers vs remainers’.

 

All to do with the Conservative government’s egregious conduct of the past few years, where the implementation of Brexit is concerned.

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

It's a fact Germany were the EU's biggest rule breaker before the UK left. If memory serves me right the UK were positioned about 14th in the EU rule breaker table and France made the top 5.

Any links to

(i) support that fact about Germany ?

(ii) and show us what that ‘EU rule breaker table’ looks like?

 

Otherwise they’d just be baseless claims, I’m afraid.

Edited January 25, 2022 by L00b

[Baron99 798]

2 hours ago, L00b said:

Any links to

(i) support that fact about Germany ?

(ii) and show us what that ‘EU rule breaker table’ looks like?

 

Otherwise they’d just be baseless claims, I’m afraid.

Try this.  It goes back to 2018 so there's probably more?   74 infringements. 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-merkel-germany-breaks-more-eu-rules-worst-bottom-class-a8198271.html?amp

 

Additionally I've lost count of the number of times that Germany & France broke EU budgetary rules over the years but received nothing but a finger-wagging, whereas we all know how hard the EU came down on the likes of Greece. 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Baron99