View Poll Results: 10 days left, what'll it be?

Voters
92. This poll is closed
  • Hard Brexit (crash out)

    45 48.91%
  • No Brexit (Remain by revoking A50)

    24 26.09%
  • Withdrawal Agreement (after a new session is called)

    0 0%
  • Extension + Withdrawal Agreement

    3 3.26%
  • Extension + Crashout

    9 9.78%
  • Extension + Remain

    11 11.96%
  1. #25621
    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    If Biden is elected in a few weeks how long will it be before he takes the US into the CPTPP? It will be the bigliest and bestest then hey? Even Trump might reconsider if he is re-elected.

    Conveniently side-steps the Pelosi problem and her wish to block a US/UK deal too! It's quite possible the CPTPP could become the new and improved version of the WTO, best not to miss out I say.
    Assuming UK joins CPTPP, and the US president also wants to join CPTPP (despite neither presidential candidates being that much in favor of free trade):

    Then congress, including Pelosi, still has to vote on the US joining CPTPP.
    The "Fast Track Authorization" only means that there will be a vote, and it will be without amendments, not that it will pass.

  2. #25622
    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    The EU shouldn't have offered a Canada deal under false pretences then should they? If they had been open honest and a good faith actor they might have mentioned prior to the WA signing the small matter of wanting to nab all our fish.
    It is almost as if you are implying that Canadian goverment were/are morons who did not understand what they were signing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  3. #25623
    Please wait Temp name's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Under construction
    Posts
    14,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    It is almost as if you are implying that Canadian goverment were/are morons who did not understand what they were signing.
    What do you mean almost?

  4. #25624
    Quote Originally Posted by Temp name View Post
    What do you mean almost?
    I am trying to be civil. After all, we are not allowed to use the T-word here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  5. #25625
    Ooh boy. EU's pissed!

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/pres...TEMENT_20_1607

    Following the publication by the UK government of the draft “United Kingdom Internal Market Bill” on 9 September 2020, Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič called for an extraordinary meeting of the EU-UK Joint Committee to request the UK government to elaborate on its intentions and to respond to the EU's serious concerns. A meeting took place today in London between Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič and Michael Gove, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

    The Vice-President stated, in no uncertain terms, that the timely and full implementation of the Withdrawal Agreement, including the Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland – which Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his government agreed to, and which the UK Houses of Parliament ratified, less than a year ago – is a legal obligation. The European Union expects the letter and spirit of this Agreement to be fully respected. Violating the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement would break international law, undermine trust and put at risk the ongoing future relationship negotiations.

    The Withdrawal Agreement entered into force on 1 February 2020 and has legal effects under international law. Since that point in time, neither the EU nor the UK can unilaterally change, clarify, amend, interpret, disregard or disapply the agreement. The Protocol on Ireland / Northern Ireland is an essential part of the Withdrawal Agreement. Its aim is to protect peace and stability on the island of Ireland and was the result of long, detailed and difficult negotiations between the EU and the UK.

    Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič stated that if the Bill were to be adopted, it would constitute an extremely serious violation of the Withdrawal Agreement and of international law.

    If adopted as proposed, the draft bill would be in clear breach of substantive provisions of the Protocol: Article 5 (3) & (4) and Article 10 on custom legislation and State aid, including amongst other things, the direct effect of the Withdrawal Agreement (Article 4). In addition, the UK government would be in violation of the good faith obligation under the Withdrawal Agreement (Article 5) as the draft Bill jeopardises the attainment of the objectives of the Agreement.

    The EU does not accept the argument that the aim of the draft Bill is to protect the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement. In fact, it is of the view that it does the opposite.

    Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič called on the UK government to withdraw these measures from the draft Bill in the shortest time possible and in any case by the end of the month. He stated that by putting forward this Bill, the UK has seriously damaged trust between the EU and the UK. It is now up to the UK government to re-establish that trust.

    He reminded the UK government that the Withdrawal Agreement contains a number of mechanisms and legal remedies to address violations of the legal obligations contained in the text – which the European Union will not be shy in using.
    That's about as blunt as they'll ever get, Kuenssberg is right. Lmao
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  6. #25626
    I'm not sure if it is blunt enough for the UK, as I'm not sure they have read Article 168-181 and Annex IX of the withdrawal agreement, or are ready to go to arbitration in the EU.

  7. #25627
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    I'm not sure if it is blunt enough for the UK, as I'm not sure they have read Article 168-181 and Annex IX of the withdrawal agreement, or are ready to go to arbitration in the EU.
    Drag it out, in so far as they can, then ignore it and force the EU to 'get their due' through sanctions, tarriffs and perhaps even seizing assets, all the while being forced to put a border between Ireland and NI.

    This looks to be Boris's plan. Force the EU to punish the UK and then complain to their supporters about how evil the EU is and how everything is their fault.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  8. #25628
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    Drag it out, in so far as they can, then ignore it and force the EU to 'get their due' through sanctions, tarriffs and perhaps even seizing assets, all the while being forced to put a border between Ireland and NI.
    I don't think the UK can drag it out more than two years before sanctions or EU can cancel not only most of the withdrawal agreement but also ANY agreement in which UK are EU parties of; and if it is as clear as this looks I think it's barely 15 months.

    I don't think anyone will fail to see who is responsible.

    It's as smart as playing chicken with a brick wall.

  9. #25629
    The Lightbringer dribbles's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    The Sunny Uplands
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    I'm not sure if it is blunt enough for the UK, as I'm not sure they have read Article 168-181 and Annex IX of the withdrawal agreement, or are ready to go to arbitration in the EU.
    The UK certainly won't be arbitrating anything with the EU if negotiating fails. And as for the WA the only part which needs to be read and understood is clause 38. Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...ion/38/enacted

    Thank you Sir Bill Cash for that for it was he who inserted it into the WA precisely for a moment such as now.

    As for todays EU threats, Michael Gove has responded already. Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove says he told the European Commission vice president Maros Sefcovic in emergency talks on Thursday that the Government "would not and could not" withdraw its Internal Market Bill.

    Should the UK fail to do so, the European Union said it will "not shy" away from taking legal action.

    https://www.itv.com/news/2020-09-10/...s-legal-action

    Where do you think the EU will take this legal action? The ECJ? We don't recognise that anymore either after todays bill. Oopsie, the EU haven't really thought this out have they.
    13/11/2022 Sir Keir Starmer. "Brexit is safe in my hands, Let me be really clear about Brexit. There is no case for going back into the EU and no case for going into the single market or customs union. Freedom of movement is over"

  10. #25630
    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    Where do you think the EU will take this legal action? The ECJ? We don't recognise that anymore either after todays bill. Oopsie, the EU haven't really thought this out have they.
    To the arbitration panel which would be called in. You really haven't read the WA have you? It is very clear on this matter.

  11. #25631
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,822
    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    The UK certainly won't be arbitrating anything with the EU if negotiating fails. And as for the WA the only part which needs to be read and understood is clause 38. Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
    And that paragraph is like you swinging your arms around wildly.
    You're free to swing them around as much as you want. Until you hit someone in the face with a fist or elbow.

    Nothing in the Act derogates that sovereignty. However this act is them flailing their arms claiming they can do that as much as they want, while hitting someone in the face saying they are free to do so.
    - Lars

  12. #25632
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    It is almost as if you are implying that Canadian goverment were/are morons who did not understand what they were signing.
    Umm... the 'Canada deal' being mentioned is a deal between the UK and EU that is based on the deal between the EU and Canada. The Canadian government has nothing to do with the new deal?

    And CETA doesn't have provisions in it to do with fishing between the UK and France because why the hell would a deal between EU and Canada include terms on what was (at the time) internal EU fishing rights?


    Edit: I do SO like how on one hand it's being claimed the the UK doesn't have to follow international laws because nobody can force them to, and they can ignore arbitration that they agreed to because 'sovereign rights!'. But also think that anyone is going to sign a FTA with them in full knowledge that the UK doesn't honor their agreements. Does the UK seriously believe that the US, of all places, is going to knowingly volunteer to be stabbed in the back and just take it and ask for another?
    Last edited by Lynarii; 2020-09-10 at 11:15 PM.

  13. #25633
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    Umm... the 'Canada deal' being mentioned is a deal between the UK and EU that is based on the deal between the EU and Canada. The Canadian government has nothing to do with the new deal?

    And CETA doesn't have provisions in it to do with fishing between the UK and France because why the hell would a deal between EU and Canada include terms on what was (at the time) internal EU fishing rights?
    Ehh, you did read the post I quoted...?
    Our dear Dribbles was implying that Canada is being had by the CETA deal, which to me seems pretty illogical therefore I said whether he thinks that Canada goverment were morons for signing it and if they did not understand what they signed.

    I am not talking about UK-EU deal based on the same framework as the CETA.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  14. #25634
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    Umm... the 'Canada deal' being mentioned is a deal between the UK and EU that is based on the deal between the EU and Canada. The Canadian government has nothing to do with the new deal?

    And CETA doesn't have provisions in it to do with fishing between the UK and France because why the hell would a deal between EU and Canada include terms on what was (at the time) internal EU fishing rights?


    Edit: I do SO like how on one hand it's being claimed the the UK doesn't have to follow international laws because nobody can force them to, and they can ignore arbitration that they agreed to because 'sovereign rights!'. But also think that anyone is going to sign a FTA with them in full knowledge that the UK doesn't honor their agreements. Does the UK seriously believe that the US, of all places, is going to knowingly volunteer to be stabbed in the back and just take it and ask for another?
    Pelosi has already said there will be no deal between the UK and US if the UK breaks the WA. And since Congress needs to sign off on any new trade deals for the US...

    On the bright side breaking the WA might save the UK from chlorinated chicken?
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  15. #25635
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    Ehh, you did read the post I quoted...?
    Our dear Dribbles was implying that Canada is being had by the CETA deal, which to me seems pretty illogical therefore I said whether he thinks that Canada goverment were morons for signing it and if they did not understand what they signed.

    I am not talking about UK-EU deal based on the same framework as the CETA.
    I did read the post you quoted. It's difficult to be certain, because it IS Dribblespek and therefore illogical is a kind and generous word to describe it, but it seems to me both initially and rereading it that he was saying that the EU offered to give the UK a deal matching CETA in exchange for the WA. He says 'offered a Canada deal' not 'offered Canada a deal'. So he wasn't commenting on the terms of CETA, he's saying that unless the UK gets everything in CETA and more from the EU, then the WA is being broken by the EU.

    I could be wrong, my brain hurts trying to follow it.

  16. #25636
    The Lightbringer dribbles's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    The Sunny Uplands
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    I did read the post you quoted. It's difficult to be certain, because it IS Dribblespek and therefore illogical is a kind and generous word to describe it, but it seems to me both initially and rereading it that he was saying that the EU offered to give the UK a deal matching CETA in exchange for the WA. He says 'offered a Canada deal' not 'offered Canada a deal'. So he wasn't commenting on the terms of CETA, he's saying that unless the UK gets everything in CETA and more from the EU, then the WA is being broken by the EU.

    I could be wrong, my brain hurts trying to follow it.
    Hallelujah and ty for that clarifcation.

    I have to apologise that I often forget this is an international forum full of non native English speakers who struggle to understand the intellectual position and complexities of the current brexit situation I present. Hopefully I can offer a link here, from a very popular with the majority of British ladies website, which gives a plainspeak not dribblespek precis of where we are at.

    Johnson can indeed rip up the Withdrawal Agreement

    https://conservativewoman.co.uk/tcws...wal-agreement/

    I hope that clarifies things for everyone.
    13/11/2022 Sir Keir Starmer. "Brexit is safe in my hands, Let me be really clear about Brexit. There is no case for going back into the EU and no case for going into the single market or customs union. Freedom of movement is over"

  17. #25637
    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    The UK certainly won't be arbitrating anything with the EU if negotiating fails. And as for the WA the only part which needs to be read and understood is clause 38. Accordingly, nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
    It's becoming clear that you have not failed to read the Withdrawal Agreement, you don't even know what the Withdrawal Agreement is.

    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    Where do you think the EU will take this legal action? The ECJ? We don't recognise that anymore either after todays bill. Oopsie, the EU haven't really thought this out have they.
    ECJ's competence is EU law, whereas internal law is handled by another process in the Withdrawal Agreement, which you would have known if you read it.

    However, clearly the UK can ignore international law.

    A state, such as North Korea, is free to ignore every part of internation law - and the United Kingdom can do the same. Nothing, but common sense, can stop the UK from joining NK.

  18. #25638
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,595
    Clause 38 means that the EU can't pass laws on the UK's behalf, nothing more. So yes, the UK is CAPABLE of ripping up the Withdrawal Agreement. But the EU is absolutely within it's rights to seek relief via the methods agreed to between the UK and the EU. The UK can also ignore those, but that would make the UK a rogue state, and lead to things like sanctions against them. This is a type of escalation that no sane person should be asking for, because EVERYONE suffers if the UK becomes another North Korea.

  19. #25639
    Quote Originally Posted by dribbles View Post
    Hallelujah and ty for that clarifcation.

    I have to apologise that I often forget this is an international forum full of non native English speakers who struggle to understand the intellectual position and complexities of the current brexit situation I present. Hopefully I can offer a link here, from a very popular with the majority of British ladies website, which gives a plainspeak not dribblespek precis of where we are at.

    Johnson can indeed rip up the Withdrawal Agreement

    https://conservativewoman.co.uk/tcws...wal-agreement/

    I hope that clarifies things for everyone.
    You seem to be misunderstanding what people are saying.
    Yes, the UK can rip up the WA, its a sovereign nation it can do whatever the fuck it wants so long as no one decides to remove that sovereignty by force (which isn't going to happen, and you could this do while inside the EU, didn't need to leave for that)

    But the UK is not immune from the consequences of ripping up the WA. The EU is threatening legal action because that is the correct path to start on in case of a dispute. Sanctions, tariffs and potential ceasing of assets comes later. And shouting "Sovereignty" wouldn't make you immune to that.
    It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death

  20. #25640
    The Lightbringer dribbles's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    The Sunny Uplands
    Posts
    3,803
    Quote Originally Posted by Gorsameth View Post
    You seem to be misunderstanding what people are saying.
    Yes, the UK can rip up the WA, its a sovereign nation it can do whatever the fuck it wants so long as no one decides to remove that sovereignty by force (which isn't going to happen, and you could this do while inside the EU, didn't need to leave for that)

    But the UK is not immune from the consequences of ripping up the WA. The EU is threatening legal action because that is the correct path to start on in case of a dispute. Sanctions, tariffs and potential ceasing of assets comes later. And shouting "Sovereignty" wouldn't make you immune to that.
    There are no consequences to EU international legal actions in practice and it is extreme of you to say otherwise. The suggestion of yours that the EU could seize UK assets without any retaliatory measures back in the same from the UK is a nonsense. You are going down the road to WW3, not going to happen.

    International law is advisory at best and every country every year ignores it. If that makes the UK a rogue state then so is every other country in the world. Here is one of the most recent examples from last year of the UK ignoring international law, you could find an example from any nation if you looked.

    UK government rejects International Court of Justice verdict on Chagos Islands

    https://www.chagossupport.org.uk/pos...chagos-islands

    As you can see the UK says thanks for the advice, but we think otherwise. Any legal ruling by the EU against the UK would be rejected, that's sovereignty for you.
    13/11/2022 Sir Keir Starmer. "Brexit is safe in my hands, Let me be really clear about Brexit. There is no case for going back into the EU and no case for going into the single market or customs union. Freedom of movement is over"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •