Jump to content

Beyond Brexit - A new dawn? A leap of faith?


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

so the population figures are a yarn?

Geo was arguing that there are potentially bigger markets than the EU and backed it up with population figures...  is that <ovf censored> then?  Is a market place of 1 Billion potentially not more attractive than 1Million?

You sound like Trump... fake news.

Yes, but we only have a percentage of the pie when we are united with the EU. So by your calculations we are far better off  having a trade agreement with India than the EU because their population is more than double. By leaving the EU we now have the ability to set the trade deals with who we want and how we want. For example, the EU may not want to set up a trade deal with someone who will compete with the Balkan countries as they object to to the competition, we won’t have those restrictions anymore. We have a large enough demand for any country to want to set up trade deals with ourselves without the red tape and high demands of the EU, total crap to say we won’t attract anyone because our population is lower and by the way, the population of the U.K. is 66.7 million and the EU now has a population of 445 million. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hope Brexit is everything that has been promised.  I am long enough in the tooth to realise that the people making those promises have made a career from telling lies without shame. The result

nothing in losing it,its just hard luck, the humiliating thing is not accepting the result...

The uproar over the migrants arriving in their inflatable rafts makes me absolutely piss myself. I'm sure I'd be labelled a naive loony lefty for the fact that I feel desperately sorry for anybody who

Posted Images

9 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

On top of negotiated deals there is the simple equation of logistics.  Currently we can road haul or train haul goods to the coast, then they pop over a 20 odd mile gap, either by train, still on trucks by ferry etc...  and continue on there journey.  To do the same with the US, the goods needed loading and uploading at least twice as many times.  They need to travel by sea for thousands of miles more or be air freighted at a much greater cost, taking longer than hopping over the channel...

All of this costs money.  So imported goods will be more, exported goods will be less competitive.

We have a mass market sat on our doorstep and we are waving two fingers in the air at them.  How can that be anything but absolutely stupid?

China are the worlds largest exporter, we import billions of pounds worth of stuff every year from them because they can produce it and send it here cheaper than we can and they are the other side of the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jacko51 said:

Explain it.

Basically we can do what we want.Clause 38 says that nothing in the WA shall alter our right to sovereign status and prevents the Supreme Court and other courts from referring to EU law to change the rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EU UK trade is worth about £643 billion. Trade with China around £67 billion and a deficit with them.  I rest my case me lord.

I don't know who polices the world order. Probably Donald Trump!

One of the basic laws of economics and trade is that it is far far better to trade with countries on your doorstep and not thousands of miles away. It's not rocket science but simple geography, involving costs and time. Plus of course we've built up some fantastic and important supply chains with the EU over the past 45 years. In case people don't know it's 20 odd miles to Calais, nearly 5,000 miles to China, and 9,400 miles to Australia. 

Every single major world country trades mostly with countries near to it and is in a trading group in the same geographical area.

The latest to leave the sinking ship is Amal Clooney, resigning as one of our special envoys because she can't work with a government planning on breaking it's word on a recent international treaty. How many resignations is that in the past few days? 3-4?

Michael Heseltine has also said the Conservative Parry does not and should not break the law. The list is endless. Can't all be wrong.

I'm still waiting for a suggestion as to where we should put the Irish border. If Johnson doesn't want it in the Irish Sea, then where?

 

                                                                                                                                                                                       

Edited by TheSage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Basically we can do what we want.Clause 38 says that nothing in the WA shall alter our right to sovereign status and prevents the Supreme Court and other courts from referring to EU law to change the rules.

 

ARTICLE 38

More favourable provisions

1.This Part shall not affect any laws, regulations or administrative provisions applicable in a host State or a State of work which would be more favourable to the persons concerned. This paragraph shall not apply to Title III.

2.Article 12 and Article 23(1) shall be without prejudice to the Common Travel Area arrangements between the United Kingdom and Ireland as regards more favourable treatment which may result from these arrangements for the persons concerned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this works

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1580206007232&uri=CELEX%3A12019W/TXT(02)

It's a copy of the Withdrawal Agreement signed by the EU and Johnson.

Clause 38 is only in the Act that the Commons promulgated as a piece of domestic legislation confirming the WA made with the EU earlier.

In other words, the Agreement we signed is not the same document that we drew up in the Commons. 

In any case most lawyers will say that the article mentioned is really just a political affirmation of reality and not indicative of being able to overturn an international treaty that always trumps domestic law.

We always had our sovereignty. That's why we were able to join in 73 and leave this year. We used our sovereignty to agree to the treaty with the EU.

If it was fine and dandy and legal to trash the treaty why have so many legal experts and representatives resigned from the government? It's clearly because they know the government is wrong and acting illegally. Even Brandon Lewis said they were breaking the law.

But the Withdrawal Agreement and the Act are different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, For Us All said:

Basically we can do what we want.Clause 38 says that nothing in the WA shall alter our right to sovereign status and prevents the Supreme Court and other courts from referring to EU law to change the rules.

 

(1)It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.

(2)In particular, its sovereignty subsists notwithstanding—

(a)directly applicable or directly effective EU law continuing to be recognised and available in domestic law by virtue of section 1A or 1B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (savings of existing law for the implementation period),

(b)section 7A of that Act (other directly applicable or directly effective aspects of the withdrawal agreement),

(c)section 7B of that Act (deemed direct applicability or direct effect in relation to the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement), and

(d)section 7C of that Act (interpretation of law relating to the withdrawal agreement (other than the implementation period), the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens' rights agreement).

(3)Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

 

 

Pretty cut and dried if you ask me.

 

So if any of the remainers in this thread can stop frothing at the mouth for second and please explain how the threat by the EU to change their interpretation of the act because we don't agree to a more favourable deal for them, is not breaking international law, but the UK choosing UK law over a contradictory International Law is?

 

I think we all know what is happening here...

 

...A bunch of people who don't care about international law suddenly care about international law because they think it harms brexit. It is a similar pattern of mud slinging, next week it will be something else and this heinous "illegality" will be completely forgotten about.

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-

https://www.transparency.org/en/press/20-major-exporting-countries-violate-international-law-obligations#

 

Plenty of countries break international law when it is not conducive to their values/culture/laws. No one has threatened to stop trading with Germany, that I have seen. No remainer has said "wow look at germany breaking international law, is that someone we want to be in a political union with" - they haven't because they don't think that.

 

They don't even think it about the UK, they think it about this Conservative Government and they think it about Brexit. It's a lie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TheSage said:

EU UK trade is worth about £643 billion. Trade with China around £67 billion and a deficit with them.  I rest my case me lord.

I don't know who polices the world order. Probably Donald Trump!

One of the basic laws of economics and trade is that it is far far better to trade with countries on your doorstep and not thousands of miles away. It's not rocket science but simple geography, involving costs and time. Plus of course we've built up some fantastic and important supply chains with the EU over the past 45 years. In case people don't know it's 20 odd miles to Calais, nearly 5,000 miles to China, and 9,400 miles to Australia. 

Every single major world country trades mostly with countries near to it and is in a trading group in the same geographical area.

The latest to leave the sinking ship is Amal Clooney, resigning as one of our special envoys because she can't work with a government planning on breaking it's word on a recent international treaty. How many resignations is that in the past few days? 3-4?

Michael Heseltine has also said the Conservative Parry does not and should not break the law. The list is endless. Can't all be wrong.

I'm still waiting for a suggestion as to where we should put the Irish border. If Johnson doesn't want it in the Irish Sea, then where?

 

 

my son in law's mate works at Portmeirion and their best customer for a few years now as been S. Korea...

                                                                                                                                                                                       

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

my son in law's mate works at Portmeirion and their best customer for a few years now as been S. Korea...

Truly the backbone of Britain's economic output. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, TheSage said:

I think this works

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1580206007232&uri=CELEX%3A12019W/TXT(02)

It's a copy of the Withdrawal Agreement signed by the EU and Johnson.

Clause 38 is only in the Act that the Commons promulgated as a piece of domestic legislation confirming the WA made with the EU earlier.

In other words, the Agreement we signed is not the same document that we drew up in the Commons. 

In any case most lawyers will say that the article mentioned is really just a political affirmation of reality and not indicative of being able to overturn an international treaty that always trumps domestic law.

We always had our sovereignty. That's why we were able to join in 73 and leave this year. We used our sovereignty to agree to the treaty with the EU.

If it was fine and dandy and legal to trash the treaty why have so many legal experts and representatives resigned from the government? It's clearly because they know the government is wrong and acting illegally. Even Brandon Lewis said they were breaking the law.

But the Withdrawal Agreement and the Act are different things.

i believe our own Bill Cash was the leading light in getting clause 38 included in the agreement... now thats a good enough reason to be weary...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Express is a populist, fictional rag that makes things up. If we run out of toilet paper again.....

The EU has never said it will starve people in NI so stop pretending that it did because the Express says so. 

The Agreement isn't identical to the Act. That's why 99% of legal experts, including the last Lord Chief Justice, the Law Society, The  Bar Council, and the last 3 Attorney Generals have have all condemned the government for this appalling refusal to accept the rule of law. But hey let's ignore what they all say and side with the Express! 

We know that the UK is a sovereign state. That's a simple statement of the obvious. We signed the Agreement using our sovereignty to negotiate withdrawal from the EU. But with sovereignty comes obligations and responsibilities and you can't sign up to important international treaties and then go back on your word. The Agreement was signed, sealed and delivered before the Act went through Parliament and you can't legislate retrospectively to renege on your commitments.

Johnson also stood on a manifesto commitment to implement the oven ready deal, no more negotiation, ready to go.

After Versailles the Germans claimed the treaty had infringed their sovereignty but the International Court of Justice ruled that such treaties are binding and if you sign it you stick to it. End of. The UK also signed the Vienna Convention on International Treaties (I think it was around 1969) and that also states categorically that international treaties trump domestic law. Logically they have to or we'd have anarchy if everyone did as they pleased before the ink was dry.

Instead of creating unrest and ruining our reputation abroad Johnson should be negotiating sensibly with the EU, acknowledging there must be a border in the Irish Sea and keeping his word. It's in all our interests.

The problem from the word go with Brexit is that, as you were warned, you can't have your cake and eat it. We leave so we lose members' benefits. We leave so there has to be a border. You can't get away from those two truths. Trying to airbrush them away as fake news is ignoring reality. You were never going to get what Johnson promised because he was lying to you.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

.After Versailles the Germans claimed the treaty had infringed their sovereignty but the International Court of Justice ruled that such treaties are binding and if you sign it you stick to it. End of.

Did the germans stick to the treaty?

When the other parties to the treaty realised Germany had broken the treaty what did they do?..... apart from appeasement. 

But we digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Davebrad said:

i believe our own Bill Cash was the leading light in getting clause 38 included in the agreement... now thats a good enough reason to be weary...

There is surely confusion here as Sage has pointed out above.  Clause 38 is not part of the Withdrawal Agreement which the EU and Johnson signed in October.  Clause 38 is part of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act which Parliament passed in January this year with agreed to the WA and which did not involve any further agreement with the EU but simply added bits which we fancied.

PS, Bill Cash is even older than Biden, whom some on here think is too old for office and is also one of the rudest men I've met.

Edited by Jacko51
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Moderators don't read everything. Please don't assume we'll spot rule breaking (e.g. personal abuse) - use the orange report button above a post to alert them.

    If you can't get on with another forum user you can select the "ignore" option. Simply click on the link below, type in their username and save - Click here




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy