A Levels, Covid, Brexit. Worst Government Ever?

[Greenmile]

It was the easiest trade deal in history - Johnson was correct there. Where you're going wrong is that you assumed that Johnson was speaking for the EU as well as for the UK. If both sides had wanted free trade, it would have been easy; but the EU doesn't want a free trade deal with an independent UK, so they won't sign.

I don't think there is much doubt that the EU was being duplicitous in signing the withdrawal agreement. Yes, Johnson was wrong to trust the EU an inch when (as their supporters have clearly pointed out pretty much since day 1) the EU is in it for themselves and have no intention of fair dealing.

Did you ever think the EU was “in it” for the UK? Did you ever have the tiniest sneaking suspicion that they might try to get the best possible deal for the countries and citizens of the EU, even if that harms the UK?

When remainers were pointing out “since day one” that this might be the case, what did you think? Project fear?

Or are you just being your usual dishonest, disingenuous self, in trying to blame the EU for our own govt’s rank incompetence and duplicity?

Are there any Brexiters out there who are willing to take some responsibility for their votes and actions, or will everything always be the fault of the EU (for not causing potential harm to their members by immediately giving us everything we want) or remainers (for pointing out the various and multitudinous problems with the entire project from day one)?

[martin_p]

Obviously with hindsight it might have been better to leave the EU two years to the day after the referendum and ignore the farce of negotiations. Except of course then we would never have known what would have happened.

Yes, in signing the Withdrawal Agreement the EU was being duplicitous. Duplicity is using sneaky or underhand ways to get your own way while claiming (possibly correctly) to have follwed the letter of the agreement. Duplicity is what insurance companies do by insisting that the small print in clause 34 b part 2 means that your house insurance doesn't cover fire on a day with a Y in it. Duplicity is claiming that the Good Friday agreement is paramount while threatening to force different rules for Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

The Withdrawal Agreement should never have included any mechanism for treating NI significantly different from the UK. That was an error and because of that clause, the Withdrawal Agreement should never have been signed. We should have gone on and withdrawn without it. Both sides made a mistake in signing - except that I don't believe the EU did make a mistake. I think they knew the implications and were being duplicitous.

What implications are you talking about and how does the internal markets bill address them?

By the way, the government have just published a report in which it says they believe the EU are acting in good faith in the negotiations. Whoever sanctioned that report going out obviously didn’t get this weeks ‘rubbishing the EU’ email.

[Greenmile]

Obviously with hindsight it might have been better to leave the EU two years to the day after the referendum and ignore the farce of negotiations. Except of course then we would never have known what would have happened.

Yes, in signing the Withdrawal Agreement the EU was being duplicitous. Duplicity is using sneaky or underhand ways to get your own way while claiming (possibly correctly) to have follwed the letter of the agreement. Duplicity is what insurance companies do by insisting that the small print in clause 34 b part 2 means that your house insurance doesn't cover fire on a day with a Y in it. Duplicity is claiming that the Good Friday agreement is paramount while threatening to force different rules for Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

The Withdrawal Agreement should never have included any mechanism for treating NI significantly different from the UK. That was an error and because of that clause, the Withdrawal Agreement should never have been signed. We should have gone on and withdrawn without it. Both sides made a mistake in signing - except that I don't believe the EU did make a mistake. I think they knew the implications and were being duplicitous.

Dsr defending Boris Johnson by accusing someone else of “duplicity”.

I think my irony-meter has just exploded.

[aggi]

Obviously with hindsight it might have been better to leave the EU two years to the day after the referendum and ignore the farce of negotiations. Except of course then we would never have known what would have happened.

Yes, in signing the Withdrawal Agreement the EU was being duplicitous. Duplicity is using sneaky or underhand ways to get your own way while claiming (possibly correctly) to have follwed the letter of the agreement. Duplicity is what insurance companies do by insisting that the small print in clause 34 b part 2 means that your house insurance doesn't cover fire on a day with a Y in it. Duplicity is claiming that the Good Friday agreement is paramount while threatening to force different rules for Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

The Withdrawal Agreement should never have included any mechanism for treating NI significantly different from the UK. That was an error and because of that clause, the Withdrawal Agreement should never have been signed. We should have gone on and withdrawn without it. Both sides made a mistake in signing - except that I don't believe the EU did make a mistake. I think they knew the implications and were being duplicitous.

One man's duplicity is another man's not carried out their due diligence.

One of the areas I specialise in is contract compliance. I didn't read the agreement/forgot to ask a lawyer what it actually means is very rarely a defence when you want to breach the minutiae of the agreement. The agreement is there for precisely those times.

Although the negotiation would have been really easy if it wasn't for the other side is one of the best things I've read in a while.

[martin_p]

Although the negotiation would have been really easy if it wasn't for the other side is one of the best things I've read in a while.

It’s brilliant isn’t it! Anyway good to know that, on that basis, signing players in the transfer window will be the easiest thing in the world for Burnley.

[dsr]

What implications are you talking about and how does the internal markets bill address them?

The implications of the Withdrawal Bill are that the EU has the legal right, or believes it has the legal right, to block food sales within the UK. I don't know what exactly in the internal markets bill has got the Remain lobby so roused by its enormity, but clearly there is something there that they don't like.

[dsr]

One man's duplicity is another man's not carried out their due diligence.

One of the areas I specialise in is contract compliance. I didn't read the agreement/forgot to ask a lawyer what it actually means is very rarely a defence when you want to breach the minutiae of the agreement. The agreement is there for precisely those times.

Although the negotiation would have been really easy if it wasn't for the other side is one of the best things I've read in a while.

I know it's fun to deliberately misunderstand the other person's argument because you can make a "clever" snide remark out of it. But it doesn't progress the argument, does it.

Boris's point was that we currently have a free trade agreement as members of the EU and there is a perfect oven ready deal for continuing that free trade agreement as an independent nation. It has been a good deal for both sides in the past and would be a good deal going forward. The EU has decided that although it was a good deal in the past, they don't think it's a good deal now.

As for duplicity, it's a word definition thing again. There's no dispute, I don't think that there was a sneaky little clause put in that goves the EU rights which were never clearly envisaged except possibly in the minds of their lawyers. Which in your role as a contract specialist you may admire and support; but it's still duplicity. Telling someone that the agreement means this while knowing full well that it means that, is by definition, duplicity.

[JohnMcGreal]

Boris's point was that we currently have a free trade agreement as members of the EU and there is a perfect oven ready deal for continuing that free trade agreement as an independent nation. It has been a good deal for both sides in the past and would be a good deal going forward. The EU has decided that although it was a good deal in the past, they don't think it's a good deal now.

What on earth are you talking about?

[martin_p]

The implications of the Withdrawal Bill are that the EU has the legal right, or believes it has the legal right, to block food sales within the UK. I don't know what exactly in the internal markets bill has got the Remain lobby so roused by its enormity, but clearly there is something there that they don't like.

And how exactly is the EU going to block these food sales? War ships in the Irish Sea?

The internal markets bill won’t change this anyway as it’s because the solution to the Irish border issue suggested and agreed by the government (despite the May government realising it was a really bad idea) was the leave NI in the customs union and because we won’t give the EU the information they require from any country to make us a trusted third party (beyond what it will be on 1/1/21). The internal markets bill attempts to make everything tariff and checks free between GB and NI which isn’t what we agreed to in the WA.

[Damo]

How?

It was in breach or article 101 and 102

Heres some more instances of rule breaching that I don't you are outraged about...
https://amp2.handelsblatt.com/papa-dont ... ssion=true

Screenshot_20200914-141118_Twitter.jpg (685.7 KiB) Viewed 1683 times

[Damo]

Don't bother debating with this one. Thick as a workhouse sandwich.

Remember when you were worried about tesco not delivering your shopping on time Muchcho?
This is kind of like that on a bigger scale

[FactualFrank]

Remember when you were worried about tesco not delivering your shopping on time Muchcho?
This is kind of like that on a bigger scale

I think the fact that you remember me and my shopping says a whole lot more

[AndrewJB]

I know it's fun to deliberately misunderstand the other person's argument because you can make a "clever" snide remark out of it. But it doesn't progress the argument, does it.

Boris's point was that we currently have a free trade agreement as members of the EU and there is a perfect oven ready deal for continuing that free trade agreement as an independent nation. It has been a good deal for both sides in the past and would be a good deal going forward. The EU has decided that although it was a good deal in the past, they don't think it's a good deal now.

As for duplicity, it's a word definition thing again. There's no dispute, I don't think that there was a sneaky little clause put in that goves the EU rights which were never clearly envisaged except possibly in the minds of their lawyers. Which in your role as a contract specialist you may admire and support; but it's still duplicity. Telling someone that the agreement means this while knowing full well that it means that, is by definition, duplicity.

I don’t know anyone who took “Oven ready” to mean “we just need to negotiate it with the EU (and the negotiations are going to be tough).“ Johnson is an absolute snake.

[Tribesmen]

This is going to end in tears i would say .

[AndrewJB]

The implications of the Withdrawal Bill are that the EU has the legal right, or believes it has the legal right, to block food sales within the UK. I don't know what exactly in the internal markets bill has got the Remain lobby so roused by its enormity, but clearly there is something there that they don't like.

Normally there would be a hard border between an EU and non EU country, but because our land border with the EU cuts across Ireland - which we can’t put a hard border on due to our commitments under the Good Friday Agreement, Johnson instead agreed to have the border run down the Irish Sea. The EU has rules about importing food from outside the EU, which involve the exporting country keeping to certain guidelines. The EU has asked us for our commitment to this, and we have not yet responded. That’s all it is, not a threat by the EU to cut off food supplies (since traffic from the south would be unaffected anyway).

[dsr]

Normally there would be a hard border between an EU and non EU country, but because our land border with the EU cuts across Ireland - which we can’t put a hard border on due to our commitments under the Good Friday Agreement, Johnson instead agreed to have the border run down the Irish Sea. The EU has rules about importing food from outside the EU, which involve the exporting country keeping to certain guidelines. The EU has asked us for our commitment to this, and we have not yet responded. That’s all it is, not a threat by the EU to cut off food supplies (since traffic from the south would be unaffected anyway).

We can't have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the UK either, also because of the Good Friday agreement. The law needs to be changed to make it explicit that there can be no restriction of food sales from mainland UK to Northern Ireland. At present there appears to be a doubt.

[Damo]

I think the fact that you remember me and my shopping says a whole lot more

Its probably the most interesting or thought provoking thing I've ever seen you post on here, or the old board

[martin_p]

We can't have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the UK either, also because of the Good Friday agreement. The law needs to be changed to make it explicit that there can be no restriction of food sales from mainland UK to Northern Ireland. At present there appears to be a doubt.

So why did we agree to one?

And it’s a bit rich to be worrying about the restriction of food sales to Northern Ireland after years spent ridiculing anyone who claimed that Brexit could stop trade with the EU.

[martin_p]

It was in breach or article 101 and 102

Heres some more instances of rule breaching that I don't you are outraged about...
https://amp2.handelsblatt.com/papa-dont ... ssion=true

Screenshot_20200914-141118_Twitter.jpg

Article 101 and 102 of what?

I’m I’m finding hard to get outraged about something that was essentially sorted out 9 years ago and I didn’t know about until today and I dare say you’ve only just found on Google.

[dsr]

So why did we agree to one?

And it’s. Bit rich to be worrying about the restriction of food sales to Northern Ireland after years spent ridiculing anyone who claimed that Brexit could stop trade with the EU.

And why did the EU agree to one? That one works both ways.

It has always been my contention that there wouldn't be food shortages because the government would work round the rules or ignore them rather than leave people short. Which is what, I understand, people are getting cross about - the government working round the unworkable rule.

[martin_p]

And why did the EU agree to one? That one works both ways.

It has always been my contention that there wouldn't be food shortages because the government would work round the rules or ignore them rather than leave people short. Which is what, I understand, people are getting cross about - the government working round the unworkable rule.

So why the need to legislate for something they are just going to ignore, putting trade talks at risk?

Besides another argument forwarded by the government and parroted by supporters such as yourself is that Brexit would not mean lower food production and welfare standards. That being the case why won’t we commit to this thus gaining trusted third party status and ending the doubt?

[aggi]

I know it's fun to deliberately misunderstand the other person's argument because you can make a "clever" snide remark out of it. But it doesn't progress the argument, does it.

Boris's point was that we currently have a free trade agreement as members of the EU and there is a perfect oven ready deal for continuing that free trade agreement as an independent nation. It has been a good deal for both sides in the past and would be a good deal going forward. The EU has decided that although it was a good deal in the past, they don't think it's a good deal now.

As for duplicity, it's a word definition thing again. There's no dispute, I don't think that there was a sneaky little clause put in that goves the EU rights which were never clearly envisaged except possibly in the minds of their lawyers. Which in your role as a contract specialist you may admire and support; but it's still duplicity. Telling someone that the agreement means this while knowing full well that it means that, is by definition, duplicity.

If that really was his point then it's even more stupid.

That's like Burnley saying Dwight McNeil's new contract will be the easiest ever because he currently has a deal with Burnley so why would it change?

The EU thought that was a good deal so long as it contained a whole variety of other conditions, safety nets, oversight, etc. Stripping out all of those elements and then pretending it is the same deal is what I'd describe as duplicitous.

Have the EU ever stated that the UK would automatically be an approved supplier country and then gone back on that?

[FactualFrank]

Its probably the most interesting or thought provoking thing I've ever seen you post on here, or the old board

Yet, you keep replying? Although it took you half an hour to come out with a response which isn't a surprise given your intellect. The fact that you are always the one to instigate an argument with me says everything - I'm always on your mind. Fair play though, you only ever argue with other posters on here if you have a wingman to back you up so makes a nice change.

Over and out? I hope so.

[mkmel]

BBC News - Chief scientist 'told off' for lockdown plea
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54150538

[jrgbfc]

And why did the EU agree to one? That one works both ways.

It has always been my contention that there wouldn't be food shortages because the government would work round the rules or ignore them rather than leave people short. Which is what, I understand, people are getting cross about - the government working round the unworkable rule.

We had food shortages as recently as a few months ago and all it took was a few selfish idiots panic buying.

[Burnley Ace]

There seems to be some misunderstanding about these negotiations in that we aren’t “friends”, we are major competitors and the EU have to look after their own interests and will try to get any advantage that they can. They have already said we cannot have a similar deal as Canada or Japan as we are geographically too close.

Why should we trust the EU to do anything that is in our interest?

[FactualFrank]

Your first interaction with me on here was

Kind of makes the rest of your daft comment redundant doesn't it?
And what wingman backs me up?
Any time delay is due to me having other things to do pal
Hope that clears everything up and you can get back to your pint or whatever

Erm no... you commented last night on another thread. You know you did, or were you too drunk to remember? So no - it doesn't make it redundant at all.

And trust me.. I aint your pal. Ha, to even use that term is laughable.

I have a suggestion - we don't communicate with each other on here again. And the next time you wish to do so, you only do so in person. Agreed? It'll mean we don't annoy others on here.

[ClaretTony]

Thread locked due to the number of times moderator intervention has been required due to posters bickering.