By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
OUT WITH A DEAL EATING OUR CAKE AND LOVING IT suck it up remoaners
And like a typical anti democracy remoaner he decided the will of the people should be ignored the minute the democratic result was in total fecking hypocrite 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Despite it being voted in to law by the commons the spineless two faced remoaner MPs have totally abandoned any morals and decided to ignore the will of the British people.
It will be remembered and no election or referendum will ever be the same again in this country.
The one thing that will come is a massive surge in the popularity of UKIP or a similar party in the future who stand for the 52%.
Happy Days.
[Post edited 1 Jan 2021 14:13]
OUT AFLI SUCK IT UP REMOANER LOSERS
🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Remoaner,losers . on 09:03 - Sep 12 by Kilkennyjack
I am so so sorry.... 😂
Oh course i want Brexit to succeed. I want the uk to prosper. And a prosperous Wales to become independent.
That wont happen though. Brexit is a stupid idea. Its barely an idea.
Reality is just starting to bite. Johnson cant even support his own ‘oven ready’ deal. And he has pisssed of the Americans.
Johnson is a corrupt second rate hack. Unfit for office.
Sorry but that just doesn't add up. If Brexit is a success it is less likely to break up the union. Sturgeon bases a lot of her rhetoric on Scotland being worse off because of brexit.
If brexit makes the UK better off then people are more likely to vote for the status quo, or at least not to push for indy.
Scotland will be a large yardstick for us. If the Scottish go indy and struggle but the rest of us turn out better off Welsh indy will be pushed to the backburner by most.
As was said of brexit, we didn't vote to be poorer. If we are demonstrably better off we won't vote for indy.
Sorry but that just doesn't add up. If Brexit is a success it is less likely to break up the union. Sturgeon bases a lot of her rhetoric on Scotland being worse off because of brexit.
If brexit makes the UK better off then people are more likely to vote for the status quo, or at least not to push for indy.
Scotland will be a large yardstick for us. If the Scottish go indy and struggle but the rest of us turn out better off Welsh indy will be pushed to the backburner by most.
As was said of brexit, we didn't vote to be poorer. If we are demonstrably better off we won't vote for indy.
Yes it does add up.
I voted to Remain as Brexit was a dumb posh boys wet dream. UK is clearly better off in EU. The EU helped Wales when Westmonster would not. You would have to be a fool to want this Brexit chaos.
Wales does not need to wait for Scotland tbh, the model for us already exists. Its called Ireland. Scotland will be very successful as well though. Most smaller western European countries are, even without the oil.
Economic success for Wales is welcome under any and all models. I think Indy offers the best chance, followed by a devo max model but you cant trust Tory governments can you, and the worst is the pre Welsh Parliament model.
I would never vote Brexit to push welsh indy. Although it clearly has.
Beware of the Risen People
-1
Remoaner,losers . on 11:40 - Sep 12 with 1517 views
Remoaner,losers . on 11:07 - Sep 12 by Kilkennyjack
Yes it does add up.
I voted to Remain as Brexit was a dumb posh boys wet dream. UK is clearly better off in EU. The EU helped Wales when Westmonster would not. You would have to be a fool to want this Brexit chaos.
Wales does not need to wait for Scotland tbh, the model for us already exists. Its called Ireland. Scotland will be very successful as well though. Most smaller western European countries are, even without the oil.
Economic success for Wales is welcome under any and all models. I think Indy offers the best chance, followed by a devo max model but you cant trust Tory governments can you, and the worst is the pre Welsh Parliament model.
I would never vote Brexit to push welsh indy. Although it clearly has.
You would have to be a fool to keep giving billions to the undemocratic EU every year. The EU does not give Wales money . It is Money the UK taxpayers give to the EU some of which is returned to the UK.
The annual sum Westminster gives to Wales indeed the Barnet formula is more than the EU ever gives Wales.
You would have to be a fool to keep giving billions to the undemocratic EU every year. The EU does not give Wales money . It is Money the UK taxpayers give to the EU some of which is returned to the UK.
The annual sum Westminster gives to Wales indeed the Barnet formula is more than the EU ever gives Wales.
Correct. Only an idiot would argue that the EU "gives" us money. The UK gives it to the EU and the EU give a portion of that back. Meanwhile, as you say, Westminster subsidises Wales to the tune of £14bn every year.
Kilkenny will believe what he wants to believe and will repeat his nonsense day in day out though, I'm sure.
'Boris Johnson has accused the European Union of threatening to impose a food "blockade" in the Irish Sea that would destroy the "economic and territorial integrity of the UK".
Writing in The Telegraph (you can read the article in full below), the Prime Minister made a passionate defence of his decision to alter the Brexit divorce deal, saying he has to protect Britain from the "disaster" of handing Brussels the "power to carve up our country".
He also issued a direct plea to Tory MPs threatening to rebel over his plans, telling them that, if they stand in his way, they will reduce the chance of getting a trade deal with the EU.
Mr Johnson insisted a Canada-style trade deal with the bloc is still possible and remains his goal, but that Brussels must "take their threats off the table" and rebel MPs must get into line. He also believes the UK will still "prosper mightily" under a narrower, Australia-style trade deal.
The Prime Minister claimed the EU could effectively impose a food blockade across the Irish Sea by refusing to grant the UK approved "third party" status for food exports, which officials say Michel Barnier, the EU's chief negotiator, has "explicitly" threatened.
The Withdrawal Agreement gives the EU oversight over goods of animal origin being transported from the mainland to Northern Ireland for four years, meaning Brussels could use an "extreme interpretation" to impose tariffs or declare such trade illegal.
On Friday, Mr Johnson addressed Tory MPs in a video conference, telling them he wanted to "clear up a serious anomaly" in the agreement.
The Government is trying to rush through legislation that would amend the Withdrawal Agreement and in particular its Northern Ireland protocol.
Mr Johnson argues that he has been forced to act because of a "serious misunderstanding" in Brussels about the terms of the agreement, and must unilaterally make changes to it because it has become a "danger to the very fabric of the United Kingdom".
The EU has told Mr Johnson that, unless he backtracks by the end of the month, the trade talks are over.
Some senior Conservatives have expressed outrage after ministers admitted the move would break international law (see video below), and MEPs said on Friday they would refuse to ratify any trade deal if Mr Johnson's Internal Market Bill passed.
But the Prime Minister has come out fighting, using his article to warn off the EU and the rebels within his party.
He wrote: "Unless we agree to the EU's terms, the EU will use an extreme interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol to impose a full-scale trade border down the Irish Sea. We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
"I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK."
The Prime Minister said any such barrier would be "completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement" because undermining the Union "would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland".
He added: "This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) — and it is therefore vital that we close that option down."
Mr Johnson said he hoped the UK-EU Joint Committee — led on the UK side by Michael Gove (watch Mr Gove updating MPs on Brexit in the video below) and set up to thrash out technical details of the Withdrawal Agreement, which is separate from any trade deal — will be able to agree on a solution.
But he said "we cannot leave the theoretical power to carve up our country — to divide it — in the hands of an international organisation. We have to protect the UK from that disaster, and that is why we have devised a legal safety net — in the UK Internal Market Bill — to clarify the position and to sort out the inconsistencies."
Downing Street argues that the EU's interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement would give it the power to interfere in the UK state aid regime and to decide which goods crossing the Irish Sea should be subject to checks.
Mr Johnson told MPs his Bill would ensure that goods crossing the Irish Sea are not subject to unnecessary checks or tariffs.
On Friday a group of more than a dozen MPs, among them former ministers, signalled that they would press ahead with attempts to bar the Government from overriding the Withdrawal Agreement without the support of Parliament.
They intend to defy the whip and back an amendment tabled by Sir Bob Neill, the chairman of the Commons justice committee, who has already secured the backing of Damian Green, Theresa May's former deputy, and ex-solicitor general Sir Oliver Heald.
Mel Stride, a former Treasury minister, said he would be surprised if the legislation survived without "very significant amendment", adding: "When we have a minister standing up at the despatch box saying we will be prepared to break an international treaty, that is a moment when you hold your breath a bit."
The scale of the backbench criticism is believed to have alarmed Number 10 and forced the Government's Whips' Office to begin reaching out to MPs deemed "at risk" of rebelling.
One MP contacted by their whip told The Telegraph Downing Street was "clearly worried" by the number of MPs speaking out. Another said: "I made it very clear [to my whip] that there hasn't been a sensible explanation of why we're pulling this stunt, given the damage it will do."
Mr Johnson will hope his article, and the explanation he gave to MPs in a Zoom meeting on Friday, will have answered their questions.
He wrote: "We must get this Bill through. So I say to my fellow parliamentarians that we cannot go back to the dark days of last year — the squabbling that so undermined our negotiators. If we fail to pass this Bill, or if we weaken its protections, then we will in fact reduce the chances of getting that Canada-style deal."
Senior Government sources on Friday accused Mr Barnier, Brussels' chief negotiator, of issuing an "explicit threat" to deny the UK approved third-party status for food exports in the event of no trade deal.
Failure to issue the status, which is granted to non-EU countries and acknowledges that their agricultural systems meet basic standards, could also cause major complications for sending live animals or meat products to Northern Ireland after the transition period ends.
Meanwhile, European Parliament leaders representing the majority of MEPs on Friday threatened to veto any future UK-EU trade deal unless Mr Johnson withdrew legislation seeking to alter parts of the Withdrawal Agreement (see Q&A below).
In a statement, the pro-EU groups said that if the UK pressed ahead with the Internal Market Bill "in its current form" they would "under no circumstances ratify any agreement between the EU and the UK".
However, British officials on Friday dismissed threats by Brussels to walk away from trade talks, with a senior figure close to the negotiations saying there had been "more productive" discussions this week than in previous sessions.
They also suggested that the legislation — which ministers admitted breaks international law in a "specific and limited way" — may have salvaged a trade deal rather than increasing the chances of no deal.
UK officials are now confident that they have got EU leaders' attention at an earlier stage of the talks than they would otherwise have done.
With the two sides due to meet again in Brussels this week, they added that the basis for a deal by mid-October remained.'
Let's make the EU take their threats off the table and pass this Bill By Boris Johnson
It is now more than seven months since this country left the EU on January 31, and since then we have been working hard to build what I am sure will be a great new future relationship.
We want a thoroughgoing free trade deal. We want a deal like the one between the EU and Canada; and since we currently conform with every jot and tittle of EU regulation, and since we have been loyal and paid-up members for more than four decades, it strikes me that if the EU is willing to offer these terms to Canada then it makes sense to offer the same to us.
Our partners know that, whatever happens, the UK is their friend, their biggest single export market and committed forever to the peace and security of the European continent. They know that there are ways in which we want to continue and even deepen our relations, not just in trade.
As I have never tired of saying, we have left the EU, but we have not left Europe. But they also know — or at least they know now — that leaving the EU means the UK is serious about its new-found sovereignty.
In forging our new relationships, we can't have our lives or our economy regulated by the European Court; we must have the right to devise our own laws and regulations. And we must have sole control of our spectacular marine wealth — our fisheries.
Those are some of our conditions, and in the last few months I believe we have made considerable progress. If both sides want it, there is a great free trade deal there to be done.
So I have become anxious in the last few weeks to discover that there is an obstacle. Our negotiators believe that there may be a serious misunderstanding about the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement that we reached last October.
You may remember those days. They were torrid. We were negotiating with one hand tied behind our back, since Parliament had voted to deprive the UK side of the right to walk away. We had a deadline of October 31 — which Parliament decided to flout. MPs were in a state of constant turmoil and recrimination. And yet, provided it was applied in good faith, the Withdrawal Agreement we reached was extremely good.
We excised the baleful presence of the Northern Ireland "backstop", which effectively kept this country locked in the EU's legal orbit, forced to accept EU laws, unable to do free trade deals. We made sure that Northern Ireland was explicitly recognised as part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom, and able to take part fully in new free trade agreements (such as the one Liz Truss has just done with Japan). And we also took steps to protect free movement at the all-important border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
We agreed that, in some limited ways, Northern Ireland would continue to conform with EU law for four years. We agreed that this limited alignment would end, unless the Northern Irish assembly voted to continue it. We agreed to do some light-touch checks on goods arriving in Northern Ireland, in case they should go on to Ireland, in order to avoid checks at the North-South border.
And on the basis of that excellent deal we left the EU — and so it is deeply regrettable that what seemed so simple and clear to us is seen very differently by our EU friends.
We decided in the Withdrawal Agreement to create a Joint Committee, in which we would thrash out the details of these new arrangements. It is here that things risk coming unstuck. We are now hearing that, unless we agree to the EU's terms, the EU will use an extreme interpretation of the Northern Ireland protocol to impose a full-scale trade border down the Irish Sea.
We are being told that the EU will not only impose tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but that they might actually stop the transport of food products from GB to NI.
I have to say that we never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK. This was for the very good reason that any such barrier, any such tariffs or division, would be completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
By actively undermining the Union of our country, such an interpretation would seriously endanger peace and stability in Northern Ireland. This interpretation cannot have been the real intention of those who framed the protocol (it certainly wasn't ours) — and it is therefore vital that we close that option down.
We want an agreement in the Joint Committee on how we can implement the protocol. We have consistently shown that we are willing to help our friends — to the extent that is possible and reasonable — to protect the integrity of their Single Market and to keep a fluid North-South border.
But we cannot leave the theoretical power to carve up our country — to divide it — in the hands of an international organisation. We have to protect the UK from that disaster, and that is why we have devised a legal safety net — in the UK Internal Market Bill — to clarify the position and to sort out the inconsistencies.
This Bill protects jobs and growth across the UK by preventing barriers to trade between the nations and regions. It means that anything approved for sale in Scotland or Wales must be good for sale in England or Northern Ireland, and vice-versa.
The Bill gives freedoms and certainties for businesses and citizens that were previously set out in EU law. That is why, as we now come out of the EU, it is absolutely vital. It is now also clear that we need this Bill to protect the free flow of goods and services between NI and the rest of the UK, and to make sense of that commitment in the EU withdrawal agreement — that NI is part of the UK customs territory. It is therefore crucial for peace, and for the Union itself. We must get this Bill through.
So I say to my fellow parliamentarians that we cannot go back to the dark days of last year — the squabbling that so undermined our negotiators. If we fail to pass this Bill, or if we weaken its protections, then we will in fact reduce the chances of getting that Canada-style deal.
As it happens, I believe that this country will prosper mightily in either event. We could do very well indeed if we left on Australian terms. But there is no doubt that, in the short term at least, the Canada deal would be better and smoother — and that is what we are pitching for.
So let's end any potential for misunderstanding. Let's remove this danger to the very fabric of the United Kingdom. Let's make the EU take their threats off the table. And let's get this Bill through, back up our negotiators and protect our country.
Remoaner,losers . on 11:07 - Sep 12 by Kilkennyjack
Yes it does add up.
I voted to Remain as Brexit was a dumb posh boys wet dream. UK is clearly better off in EU. The EU helped Wales when Westmonster would not. You would have to be a fool to want this Brexit chaos.
Wales does not need to wait for Scotland tbh, the model for us already exists. Its called Ireland. Scotland will be very successful as well though. Most smaller western European countries are, even without the oil.
Economic success for Wales is welcome under any and all models. I think Indy offers the best chance, followed by a devo max model but you cant trust Tory governments can you, and the worst is the pre Welsh Parliament model.
I would never vote Brexit to push welsh indy. Although it clearly has.
Obviously a supporter of EUs overtly stated ambitions of Empire building then.
Interesting
0
Remoaner,losers . on 17:13 - Sep 12 with 1463 views
Correct. Only an idiot would argue that the EU "gives" us money. The UK gives it to the EU and the EU give a portion of that back. Meanwhile, as you say, Westminster subsidises Wales to the tune of £14bn every year.
Kilkenny will believe what he wants to believe and will repeat his nonsense day in day out though, I'm sure.
Wales is poor - and so qualified for EU structural funding. Fact.
Wales is poor because UK govt starved it of investment. Fact.
So left to the UK govt only, Wales does not get this money. Fact.
Even you should understand that, you thick tw@@t. ðŸ‘
[Post edited 13 Sep 2020 23:19]
Beware of the Risen People
0
Remoaner,losers . on 17:16 - Sep 12 with 1461 views
Remoaner,losers . on 17:13 - Sep 12 by Kilkennyjack
Wales is poor - and so qualified for EU structural funding. Fact.
Wales is poor because UK govt starved it of investment. Fact.
So left to the UK govt only, Wales does not get this money. Fact.
Even you should understand that, you thick tw@@t. ðŸ‘
[Post edited 13 Sep 2020 23:19]
The EU gave Wales around 660 million per year but the UK was a net contributor so that money was quite literally UK tax payers money, some of it Welsh, that was returned to us.
AS I understand it part of Bojo's bill (the part Drakers doesn't like) is giving Westminster the ability to spend on infrastructure in Wales, if that is right then Bojo is offering to spend in Wales but Drakers and co don't want that to happen. They call it an attack on devolution.
To those of us who regard devolution with disdain and see the Senedd spending disproportionate amounts on the South East corner, the promise of Bojo spending on the WHOLE of Wales could be a good thing. Again it's not something you would want because it could slow down the indy cause.
I can agree that historically Westminster has let Wales down but lets face it, for the last 20 years we've had devolution and most of Wales has been let down by the Senedd which has looked after the SE very well and now is looking to feather it's own nest by increasing it's size and no doubt providing more jobs for family members!
I seem to remember there being a clause that the Uk govt wouldn't agree to that the EU wanted in the WA, it was along the lines of the EU being able to keep the UK inside the transition period if a deal wasn't agreed, can anyone confirm that, or put me right? Anyway, we were told this clause wouldn't be used except in extreme circumstance, it wasn't put in the WA in the end. Now here we have Barnier threatening to use a similar clause ( the one Bojo wants rid of ) to prevent the UK trading with Northern Ireland, in effect partitioning it from the rest of the UK.
Tricky stuff this politics, especially when both sides are snake oil salesmen.
The EU gave Wales around 660 million per year but the UK was a net contributor so that money was quite literally UK tax payers money, some of it Welsh, that was returned to us.
AS I understand it part of Bojo's bill (the part Drakers doesn't like) is giving Westminster the ability to spend on infrastructure in Wales, if that is right then Bojo is offering to spend in Wales but Drakers and co don't want that to happen. They call it an attack on devolution.
To those of us who regard devolution with disdain and see the Senedd spending disproportionate amounts on the South East corner, the promise of Bojo spending on the WHOLE of Wales could be a good thing. Again it's not something you would want because it could slow down the indy cause.
I can agree that historically Westminster has let Wales down but lets face it, for the last 20 years we've had devolution and most of Wales has been let down by the Senedd which has looked after the SE very well and now is looking to feather it's own nest by increasing it's size and no doubt providing more jobs for family members!
I seem to remember there being a clause that the Uk govt wouldn't agree to that the EU wanted in the WA, it was along the lines of the EU being able to keep the UK inside the transition period if a deal wasn't agreed, can anyone confirm that, or put me right? Anyway, we were told this clause wouldn't be used except in extreme circumstance, it wasn't put in the WA in the end. Now here we have Barnier threatening to use a similar clause ( the one Bojo wants rid of ) to prevent the UK trading with Northern Ireland, in effect partitioning it from the rest of the UK.
Tricky stuff this politics, especially when both sides are snake oil salesmen.
“Now here we have Barnier threatening to use a similar clause ( the one Bojo wants rid of ) to prevent the UK trading with Northern Ireland, in effect partitioning it from the rest of the UK”.
“Threatening”? This is the clause that Boris renegotiated, signed off on to fanfare of nationalistic chest thumping and made the central pledge of their manifesto. All less than a year ago. He can’t be threatened by his own agreement (not in a sane world anyway).
As for the rest, yes the the EU money spent in Wales was less than our membership fee, but that misses the point entirely. The membership fee was for all the other benefits and was seen as a price worth paying in itself. The money coming this way was a bonus, sadly because we’re amongst the poorest areas in the EU. And also money we’d likely not have seen from Westminster for the kinds of things it funded.
Interesting that you say that the new Internal Markets Bill is an offer to fund infrastructure development in Wales. I haven’t seen that commitment anywhere, so would be interested in seeing the details. As far as I’ve seen it gives Westminster a right to over-rule decisions of the devolved nations but doesn’t commit them to any funding on infrastructure or other areas.
0
Remoaner,losers . on 12:23 - Sep 13 with 1369 views
“Now here we have Barnier threatening to use a similar clause ( the one Bojo wants rid of ) to prevent the UK trading with Northern Ireland, in effect partitioning it from the rest of the UK”.
“Threatening”? This is the clause that Boris renegotiated, signed off on to fanfare of nationalistic chest thumping and made the central pledge of their manifesto. All less than a year ago. He can’t be threatened by his own agreement (not in a sane world anyway).
As for the rest, yes the the EU money spent in Wales was less than our membership fee, but that misses the point entirely. The membership fee was for all the other benefits and was seen as a price worth paying in itself. The money coming this way was a bonus, sadly because we’re amongst the poorest areas in the EU. And also money we’d likely not have seen from Westminster for the kinds of things it funded.
Interesting that you say that the new Internal Markets Bill is an offer to fund infrastructure development in Wales. I haven’t seen that commitment anywhere, so would be interested in seeing the details. As far as I’ve seen it gives Westminster a right to over-rule decisions of the devolved nations but doesn’t commit them to any funding on infrastructure or other areas.
The membership fee was for all the other benefits and was seen as a price worth paying in itself.
Most of the rest of the EU do not pay for those benifits, we pay them to have them.
1
Remoaner,losers . on 13:00 - Sep 13 with 1360 views
Remoaner,losers . on 13:00 - Sep 13 by waynekerr55
I think we can all agree that this is a hell of a lot more complex than we all thought
Not really.
All the experts warned of the complexity and scale, and concluded it was a pretty dumb idea. It still is.
Johnson cant deliver it because its undeliverable. If it was not so serious for working people it would be funny as feck.
If nobody wants a hard border on the Island of Ireland ....then you either use the Irish Sea as the border ( the Johnson plan), or include the whole of the UK in a customs union and not just the north of Ireland (the Maybot plan).
And thats about it.
Ducked it for 4 years. There is no other option.
Beware of the Risen People
0
Remoaner,losers . on 17:17 - Sep 13 with 1323 views
“Now here we have Barnier threatening to use a similar clause ( the one Bojo wants rid of ) to prevent the UK trading with Northern Ireland, in effect partitioning it from the rest of the UK”.
“Threatening”? This is the clause that Boris renegotiated, signed off on to fanfare of nationalistic chest thumping and made the central pledge of their manifesto. All less than a year ago. He can’t be threatened by his own agreement (not in a sane world anyway).
As for the rest, yes the the EU money spent in Wales was less than our membership fee, but that misses the point entirely. The membership fee was for all the other benefits and was seen as a price worth paying in itself. The money coming this way was a bonus, sadly because we’re amongst the poorest areas in the EU. And also money we’d likely not have seen from Westminster for the kinds of things it funded.
Interesting that you say that the new Internal Markets Bill is an offer to fund infrastructure development in Wales. I haven’t seen that commitment anywhere, so would be interested in seeing the details. As far as I’ve seen it gives Westminster a right to over-rule decisions of the devolved nations but doesn’t commit them to any funding on infrastructure or other areas.
Well I'm not sure the leave voters thought it a price worth paying and there are several members who operate at a net gain so they don't pay for th priviliges.
Now this clause, Bojo has said it is an extreme interpretation of it. I don't know, I wasn't at the meeting and don't know exactly what it says but if it was intended to protect the GFA and Irish border trade in the case of a deal then quite possibly it wasn't intended to be used or applied in a no deal scenario. Realistically it's sabre rattling, more brinkmanship. We'll see I guess.
Michel Barnier - 1/2 "Protocol on IE/NI is not a threat to the integrity of the UK. We agreed this delicate compromise with @BorisJohnson & his gov in order to protect peace & stability on island of Ireland. We could not have been clearer about the consequences of #Brexit"
Michel Barnier - 2/2 [I}"Sticking to facts is also essential. A case in point: Flag of European Union is not refusing to list Flag of United Kingdom as a third country for food imports (SPS). To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries"
David Frost - 1/7 "I would like to make a few comments and state a few facts, in my capacity as the PM's negotiator in the current and last autumn's talks."
David Frost - 2/7 "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.
It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted."
David Frost - 3/7 "On 3rd country listings: the EU knows perfectly well all the details of our food standards rules because we are operating EU rules. The situation on 1.1.21 is accordingly perfectly clear. We have discussed this frequently with the EU including last week."
David Frost - 4/7 "Any changes in future would be notified to the WTO and EU in the usual way with plenty of lead time. The EU lists dozens of countries globally on precisely this basis, without any sort of commitment about the future."
David Frost - 5/7 "Yet it has been made clear to us in the current talks that there is no guarantee of listing us. I am afraid it has also been said to us explicitly in these talks that if we are not listed we will not be able to move food to Northern Ireland."
David Frost - 6/7 "The EU's position is that listing is needed for Great Britain only, not Northern Ireland. So if GB were not listed, it would be automatically illegal for NI to import food products from GB."
David Frost - 7/7 "I hope the EU will yet think better of this. It obviously makes it no easier to negotiate a good free trade agreement and the solid future relationship which we all want."
That's the Express though and I'm fairly confident it's been spun beyond the truth. I don't do twitter so I couldn't tell if the spat is anywhere near true.
Honestly, both sides are full of BS. They're not worried about people or jobs, just winning this battle. As I just posted elsewhere, a Belgian study predicts if we have a no deal brexit that 1.2 million jobs could be lost across Europe, includingthe UK. That's real people, real lives, not well paid politicians with good expense accounts living in a subsidised world. Get your collective heads out of your butts and sort a deal out you massive cockwombles.
Michel Barnier - 1/2 "Protocol on IE/NI is not a threat to the integrity of the UK. We agreed this delicate compromise with @BorisJohnson & his gov in order to protect peace & stability on island of Ireland. We could not have been clearer about the consequences of #Brexit"
Michel Barnier - 2/2 [I}"Sticking to facts is also essential. A case in point: Flag of European Union is not refusing to list Flag of United Kingdom as a third country for food imports (SPS). To be listed, we need to know in full what a country’s rules are, incl. for imports. The same objective process applies to all listed countries"
David Frost - 1/7 "I would like to make a few comments and state a few facts, in my capacity as the PM's negotiator in the current and last autumn's talks."
David Frost - 2/7 "On the Protocol, we indeed negotiated a careful balance in order to preserve peace and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.
It is precisely to ensure this balance can be preserved in all circumstances that the Govt needs powers in reserve to avoid it being disrupted."
David Frost - 3/7 "On 3rd country listings: the EU knows perfectly well all the details of our food standards rules because we are operating EU rules. The situation on 1.1.21 is accordingly perfectly clear. We have discussed this frequently with the EU including last week."
David Frost - 4/7 "Any changes in future would be notified to the WTO and EU in the usual way with plenty of lead time. The EU lists dozens of countries globally on precisely this basis, without any sort of commitment about the future."
David Frost - 5/7 "Yet it has been made clear to us in the current talks that there is no guarantee of listing us. I am afraid it has also been said to us explicitly in these talks that if we are not listed we will not be able to move food to Northern Ireland."
David Frost - 6/7 "The EU's position is that listing is needed for Great Britain only, not Northern Ireland. So if GB were not listed, it would be automatically illegal for NI to import food products from GB."
David Frost - 7/7 "I hope the EU will yet think better of this. It obviously makes it no easier to negotiate a good free trade agreement and the solid future relationship which we all want."
Both of these are using Twitter to promote their own agenda and to be honest, it’s really difficult to know what is the truth and what is BS. Its the same with the press, they all have an agenda invariably their masters agenda and are promoting it invariably with a fair amount of untruths.
In terms of the third country status, it’s my understanding Barnier has refused to confirm third country status as HMG aren’t signing up or committing to the existing minimum standards. If a trade deal with the US allows for chlorinated chicken and hormone treated beef to enter the UK food chain they could find themselves used as ingredients for products destined for the EU markets where they are banned. Given the fuss a number of years ago about horse meat being passed off as beef I can see why they would be concerned. There is no easy way around this, we want access to the EU, they want access to our markets, however we also want a deal with America who have red lines re agriculture and the EU have major concerns about product safety.
Losing £5bn worth of trade is a lot of jobs.
1
Remoaner,losers . on 23:03 - Sep 13 with 1264 views
Remoaner,losers . on 22:52 - Sep 13 by majorraglan
Both of these are using Twitter to promote their own agenda and to be honest, it’s really difficult to know what is the truth and what is BS. Its the same with the press, they all have an agenda invariably their masters agenda and are promoting it invariably with a fair amount of untruths.
In terms of the third country status, it’s my understanding Barnier has refused to confirm third country status as HMG aren’t signing up or committing to the existing minimum standards. If a trade deal with the US allows for chlorinated chicken and hormone treated beef to enter the UK food chain they could find themselves used as ingredients for products destined for the EU markets where they are banned. Given the fuss a number of years ago about horse meat being passed off as beef I can see why they would be concerned. There is no easy way around this, we want access to the EU, they want access to our markets, however we also want a deal with America who have red lines re agriculture and the EU have major concerns about product safety.
My understanding is that UK is sticking with EU food standards after 01.01.21. Any subsequent changes would have to be communicated thru WTO, for EU response, as per all other listed countries. So what‘s the problem? https://t.co/YlltLWdmaw
My understanding is that UK is sticking with EU food standards after 01.01.21. Any subsequent changes would have to be communicated thru WTO, for EU response, as per all other listed countries. So what‘s the problem? https://t.co/YlltLWdmaw
Remoaner,losers . on 23:21 - Sep 13 by Kilkennyjack
Easiest trade deal ever, you should go and sort it ... 😂
If the trade deal is so difficult why have the EU left it to the last possible moment? Clue - there is none of the usual detail of a trade deal to cover.
What's actually taking time is the EU having to get their head around reality. Difficult for them...and you
My understanding is that UK is sticking with EU food standards after 01.01.21. Any subsequent changes would have to be communicated thru WTO, for EU response, as per all other listed countries. So what‘s the problem? https://t.co/YlltLWdmaw
You may be right, but it’s far from certain. The articles are a few months old and while they don’t categorically set out Government policy (I don’t think anyone outside the Boris /Cummins circle of trust really knows as to all cloak and dagger) they provide some detail n the issues. It’s a mess.
Remoaner,losers . on 23:21 - Sep 13 by Kilkennyjack
Easiest trade deal ever, you should go and sort it ... 😂
Haven't we sen that it's pretty much all done but they are stuck on the fisheries and state aid sections.
The EU wants the same access to our waters as they have now and they want to restrict what aid the government can give to UK businesses. Isn't this the last lap? They were heading for the finishing line. Maybe we should offer a deal on quotas, not the same rights as they have now but a more limited deal. State aid though, why should the Uk government sign up to something that prevents them helping UK businesses? Think about it, they aren't likely to help many anyway, unless it's their rich banker friends but isn't it a sovereign countries right to help it's people in times of need? It's not like the EU never breaks it's own rules when it suits them,
And apparently the Lisbon treaty requires the EU ti find a workable deal, not put obstacles up. So agree a compromise on fishing and let the UK sort it's own state aid out. The EU has already broken it's own rules there to provide financial aid to the Southern EU members. That was why Germany took legal action, ironic really seeing as Germany is apparently the biggest breaker of EU rules.
Just goes to show how happy Brussels is to sh!t on Southern Ireland when it suits them in effectively stopping 90% of its exports to the U.K. or using us as an access route to the EU.
Listening earlier to some Southern Irish politician who said that they would push for an IREXIT if the EU brought about their threats to stop exports / imports of food between the UK and Southern Ireland and in effect making a border between the two countries.
But hey if the EU wants a border let’s have one.
OUT
AFLI
OUT AFLI SUCK IT UP REMOANER LOSERS
🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Remoaner,losers . on 17:13 - Sep 12 by Kilkennyjack
Wales is poor - and so qualified for EU structural funding. Fact.
Wales is poor because UK govt starved it of investment. Fact.
So left to the UK govt only, Wales does not get this money. Fact.
Even you should understand that, you thick tw@@t. ðŸ‘
[Post edited 13 Sep 2020 23:19]
Fact Wales gets more money per head of the population than England. Westminster is very generous to Scotland NI Wales. It is just the Welsh assembly wastes it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
