Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

RobMc59

SNIP. No more one-liners please.

An Ciarraioch

Appears May informed Tusk at their meeting this week that even were the Withdrawal Agreement to be approved at the next vote, Brexit legislation couldn't be completed by the 29th, and so a technical extension would be required.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/theresa-may-told-donald-tusk-that-brexit-might-have-to-be

Akrasia

lawred2 wrote: »

The EU

The EU is stopping no one leaving. The UK can leave right now if they want. It is the UK that knows it needs a deal to prevent economic death.

This was a poll of leave voters so the fact that 20% dont blame the EU at all is a significant shift.

demfad

Don't know if people have seen this but there was a case against Brexit last week to try and void it based on law breaking and criminality by Vote Leave.

Apparently, the case was defeated because it wasn't madwe within 3 months of A50 notification (this wasn't possible), Parliament are in control of process and it's up to them (not exactly true), and as it's so late the administrative progress takes precedence.

What neither the court nor the QC defending Theresa May denied was that the referendum would have been voided if it was binding.

Theresa May's "Will of the people" uses a language of a binding decision while simultaneously knowing this to be untrue and the result was unsafe.

The QC (Simor) interviewed here also says there should have been a process in place for parliament to interrogate the result in these conditions.

(Points to Cameron again I think for lack of planning)

Capt'n Midnight

The mess about the £13.8m ferry contract to a company with no ferries has been sorted.

Instead the UK Government will now be handing over £33m to a company that isn't allowed to operate ferries.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2019/0301/1033620-fishing-trawlers/

Speaking on RTɒs Morning Ireland, Cllr Reilly said two Kilkeel skippers and their colleagues were out in the Irish Sea "when a massive warship comes up ... and tells them you are British foreigners and not allowed to fish here anymore".

A unionist councillor getting upset that if you are British and you are in another country then you are the foreigner ?


Contrast with
The fishermen were given the Probation Act and released, so no criminal records. Boats released too

They thanked the district court judge, gardaí, the navy and local fishing community in Clogherhead, who they said treated them professionally and with courtesy and respect at all times.

VinLieger

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2019/0301/1033620-fishing-trawlers/
A unionist councillor getting upset that if you are British and you are in another country then you are the foreigner ?


Contrast with
The fishermen were given the Probation Act and released, so no criminal records. Boats released too

Their insistence on describing it as a warship is just so pathetic

Irishmale0399

VinLieger wrote: »

Their insistence on describing it as a warship is just so pathetic

Its exactly the same wording that they gave to the British Navy vessel that was at home in Carlingford Lough during the troubles. Let them call it what they want.....all we can do is hope that the UK can soon decide what it is they want. Time is running out....

Enzokk

demfad wrote: »

Don't know if people have seen this but there was a case against Brexit last week to try and void it based on law breaking and criminality by Vote Leave.

Apparently, the case was defeated because it wasn't madwe within 3 months of A50 notification (this wasn't possible), Parliament are in control of process and it's up to them (not exactly true), and as it's so late the administrative progress takes precedence.

What neither the court nor the QC defending Theresa May denied was that the referendum would have been voided if it was binding.

Theresa May's "Will of the people" uses a language of a binding decision while simultaneously knowing this to be untrue and the result was unsafe.

The QC (Simor) interviewed here also says there should have been a process in place for parliament to interrogate the result in these conditions.

(Points to Cameron again I think for lack of planning)

The absolute state of this. The referendum wasn't binding so the rules that normally governs elections does not come into effect, regarding challenging the result or voiding it in the case of fraud. But the UK government treats the result as binding and they will not go back on the result.

But you cannot challenge the result, because it isn't binding and it is up to parliament to decide if they want to ignore or act on the result of the referendum.

For me that shouts that the current drivers in the government want to leave the EU. There is no way someone who wanted to stay in the EU would stand for this as there is more than ample opportunities and facts to show that if a turnaround is challenged in court that they would actually win their case. Either they will argue that the result must be respected, which will mean you should be able to challenge the result in court as well, or if you want to avoid that it means it is only advisory.

Still we go marching towards no-deal, step by step and day by day.

RobMc59

VinLieger wrote: »

Their insistence on describing it as a warship is just so pathetic

Thankfully the Taoisearch cleared that up so probably best left there- although gunboat diplomacy is`nt the answer.

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

The absolute state of this. The referendum wasn't binding so the rules that normally governs elections does not come into effect, regarding challenging the result or voiding it in the case of fraud. But the UK government treats the result as binding and they will not go back on the result.

But you cannot challenge the result, because it isn't binding and it is up to parliament to decide if they want to ignore or act on the result of the referendum.

For me that shouts that the current drivers in the government want to leave the EU. There is no way someone who wanted to stay in the EU would stand for this as there is more than ample opportunities and facts to show that if a turnaround is challenged in court that they would actually win their case. Either they will argue that the result must be respected, which will mean you should be able to challenge the result in court as well, or if you want to avoid that it means it is only advisory.

Still we go marching towards no-deal, step by step and day by day.

The legality of the referendum and its implementation is highly dubious. It was little more than a glorified opinion poll but was described by that fraud Cameron as virtually the most important vote in British history.

It's a bit shocking to hear that if this was a binding referendum it would be thrown out by the courts (so flawed was it) and yet they're going full steam ahead with it.

VinLieger

RobMc59 wrote: »

Thankfully the Taoisearch cleared that up so probably best left there- although gunboat diplomacy is`nt the answer.

Yes it would be best left there apart from your insistence on defaulting to jingoistic claptrap

jm08

RobMc59 wrote: »

Thankfully the Taoisearch cleared that up so probably best left there- although gunboat diplomacy is`nt the answer.

Indeed:

But in a comment that is likely to be seized upon by his opponents in Westminster, Mr Varadkar said it "would be helpful" if the UK government gave a commitment not to take Northern Ireland out of London Fisheries Convention after Brexit.

That Bill will not get through the Oireachtas until the UK declares what its up to.

Mr.Nice Guy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A unionist councillor getting upset that if you are British and you are in another country then you are the foreigner ?

Henry Reilly wouldn't be any ordinary unionist councillor. He was expelled from UKIP a few years ago and was for a brief stage a member of Jim Allister's TUV party. I've heard him a few times on BBC NI radio shows and he'll never shy away from an opportunity to take some shots at the Republic.

Kermit.de.frog

Barnier is writing in Die Welt tomorrow.

He says the EU is ready to give further guarantees that the backstop will be temporary.

No linkys.

Tell me how

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Barnier is writing in Die Welt tomorrow.

He says the EU is ready to give further guarantees that the backstop will be temporary.

No linkys.

What? None? What happened? Did he ring you and tell you what he was going to be saying.

The Guardian did comment on what he has been saying today.

Michel Barnier has warned EU ambassadors about the flailing state of the Brexit negotiations after British negotiators insisted on a time limit or exit mechanism to the Irish backstop in recent talks despite repeated rebuttals.

During a meeting on Friday in Brussels, the EU’s chief negotiator complained there had been “no progress” in recent negotiations despite the prime minister’s intention to put a revised deal to the Commons in two weeks’ time.

Doesn't indicate whatsoever any movement on European position on backstop.

Leroy42

That is not news. The backstop is designed to be temporary, hence the until bit.

But it seems that many mps haven't actually read the WA so repeating it in a separate letter seems to be the only way to help them understand.

bob mcbob

reslfj wrote: »

Re 1)
As i wrote above to total quota is by an UN treaty. It has allowed more stock to recover somewhat from wild and reckless over fishing.

Re 3)
Fishmen might think it's hard, cold and stormy to catch the fish. It is however relatively easy to catch the fish.
What really matters to the fishing industry is market assess to a large well paying market. This requires frictionless borders without read tape, delays and without 12+ % tariffs.

It is really that simple

The EU has demanded that the CFP be 100% preserved post Brexit for any trade deal to be agreed. The CFP will be renamed - reciprocal access - but it will it will be the same CFP quotas etc.
Without the de facto CFP any FTA will simply not ratify in more EU27 countries.

Lars

I agree but this simple statement has huge implications in Scotland.

At the last general election, the Tories gained 7 MPs in coastal area's on the basis of taking back control of fishing. If this is not the case, they are gone.

More importantly, while there is little difference in the headline figure in support of independence in Scotland, dig a little deeper and there are. Since Brexit, there has been a swing of 7% in support in favour. of indy. However this has been offset by 7% in the coastal (fishing) areas (i.e. those who voted for the Tories) moving the other way.

If the coastal areas do not get what they want then ........

Capt'n Midnight

bob mcbob wrote: »

I agree but this simple statement has huge implications in Scotland.

At the last general election, the Tories gained 7 MPs in coastal area's on the basis of taking back control of fishing. If this is not the case, they are gone.

More importantly, while there is little difference in the headline figure in support of independence in Scotland, dig a little deeper and there are. Since Brexit, there has been a swing of 7% in support in favour. of indy. However this has been offset by 7% in the coastal (fishing) areas (i.e. those who voted for the Tories) moving the other way.

If the coastal areas do not get what they want then ........

About that...
One of the few deals the UK has done is with the Faroe Islands

Faroese will still be allowed to fish in Scottish waters and sell Scottish fish back to Scotland. Scottish boats aren't allowed in Faroese waters.

The UK imports about £200m of fish from the Faroe Islands (98% of their exports are seafood) , but only sells £6m of stuff back to them.

Very one sided deal if you ask me.

Donald Trump

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

About that...
One of the few deals the UK has done is with the Faroe Islands

Faroese will still be allowed to fish in Scottish waters and sell Scottish fish back to Scotland. Scottish boats aren't allowed in Faroese waters.

The UK imports about £200m of fish from the Faroe Islands (98% of their exports are seafood) , but only sells £6m of stuff back to them.

Very one sided deal if you ask me.

Are those stats real? A bit mad if so. Would mean that the UK buys about GBP 11 worth of fish for every Faroese man woman and child every day.......or to scale it up, would be like Rep. Ireland selling the UK GBP 19bn worth of fish a year!

Harry Palmr

The terms and conditions being set put by the Americans for any trade deal are as one should have expected - not at all a friendly free trade nirvana as the Brexiteers would have us believe was likely.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/01/us-seeks-greater-access-to-uk-food-markets-after-brexit-trade-deal

The outline requirements were published [pdf] by the office of the US trade representative (USTR), headed by Robert Lighthizer, as required by Congress. The office said it was seeking “comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK”.

It was also looking to remove “unwarranted barriers” related to “sanitary and phytosanitary” standards in the farm industry, something that would put it at loggerheads with the UK environment secretary, Michael Gove, who has repeatedly said British food standards will remain the same if not be better than they currently are.

listermint

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Barnier is writing in Die Welt tomorrow.

He says the EU is ready to give further guarantees that the backstop will be temporary.

No linkys.

This Facebook style posting has to stop. You consistently use this sensationalist tone when you believe you have some news that's exciting and new. And to date you've always been wrong.

I'd suggest you stop misreading quotes or else layoff the telegraph for a while

Calina

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Barnier is writing in Die Welt tomorrow.

He says the EU is ready to give further guarantees that the backstop will be temporary.

No linkys.

What the British want is a black and white time limit.

What the EU are telling them is no. When you have a method by which we don't need it, it goes away. It. Is. Temporary. This is nothing new.

And incidentally, it is an interview. Not him writing.

Link is here. https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/plus189656629/Michel-Barnier-Ungeduld-der-27-EU-Staaten-mit-Grossbritannien-ist-spuerbar.html - it is a pay link however.

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Barnier is writing in Die Welt tomorrow.

He says the EU is ready to give further guarantees that the backstop will be temporary.

No linkys.

I have not read the article yet, but is this anything different to what the EU has offered before? They have stated many times already that the backstop is time limited. It is the UK that has stated getting technology or the trade deal will make border checks unnecessary, the WA reflects this. It is tiring if the EU has stated once again something that is already known.

Panrich

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The UK imports about £200m of fish from the Faroe Islands (98% of their exports are seafood) , but only sells £6m of stuff back to them.

Very one sided deal if you ask me.

In fairness it would be a Herculean task for the Faroe islanders to consume £200M worth of imported seafood.

RobMc59

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes it would be best left there apart from your insistence on defaulting to jingoistic claptrap

I think you misunderstood me,I thought the navy vessel was unnecessary-i thought the Unionists who waded in should have kept out of it.
The navy vessel was quite formidable and the visible gun/guns were certainly not pea shooters!
https://www.lmfm.ie/news/two-uk-registered-fishing-vessels-detained-by-le-o/

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I think you misunderstood me,I thought the navy vessel was unnecessary-i thought the Unionists who waded in should have kept out of it.
The navy vessel was quite formidable and the visible gun/guns were certainly not pea shooters!
https://www.lmfm.ie/news/two-uk-registered-fishing-vessels-detained-by-le-o/

Who normally carries out arrests at sea? Men in row boats?

Sam Russell

demfad wrote: »

Don't know if people have seen this but there was a case against Brexit last week to try and void it based on law breaking and criminality by Vote Leave.

Apparently, the case was defeated because it wasn't madwe within 3 months of A50 notification (this wasn't possible), Parliament are in control of process and it's up to them (not exactly true), and as it's so late the administrative progress takes precedence.

What neither the court nor the QC defending Theresa May denied was that the referendum would have been voided if it was binding.

Theresa May's "Will of the people" uses a language of a binding decision while simultaneously knowing this to be untrue and the result was unsafe.

The QC (Simor) interviewed here also says there should have been a process in place for parliament to interrogate the result in these conditions.

(Points to Cameron again I think for lack of planning)

The above video shows the twisted nature of British Justice. If the referendum was binding, then the case would be won, but it was lost because it was brought before the evidence on which it relied was not available until after the deadline to bring the case. As I say - twisted.


It appears to me that the British Government is quite willing to go against the law and do anything to pursue its agendas in the face of opposition, come what may.

This last week, we had the Supreme Court finding that they had failed to investigate the Pat Finnucane murder, where Government collusion was involved. They were found to be in the wrong in the Birmingham Six case, which coincidentally the inquest into those deaths began this week.

They have had judgements against them on the Article 50 matter, and having lost in the High Court (amid cries of 'Traitors', and 'Enemies of the People' against the High Court Judges) took the case to appeal to the Supreme Court and lost there.

Now, TM is running down the clock on Art 50 to force a decision on her deal because the known catastrophe of NO Deal is such that the HoC could not vote it through - but do not count on that.

It is appalling that such behaviour is not bringing the masses out onto the streets in protest.

Capt'n Midnight

Donald Trump wrote: »

Are those stats real? A bit mad if so. Would mean that the UK buys about GBP 11 worth of fish for every Faroese man woman and child every day.......or to scale it up, would be like Rep. Ireland selling the UK GBP 19bn worth of fish a year!

The UK is the third biggest export marked for the Faroese. Could this actually be a case of they need us more than we need them ?


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/continuing-the-uks-trade-relationship-with-the-faroe-islands-parliamentary-report

In 2017, UK exports to the Faroe Islands were £6 million, making it the UK’s joint 192nd
largest export market (accounting for <0.1% of all UK exports). UK imports from the Faroe
Islands were £230 million, making it the UK’s 94th largest import source (accounting for
<0.1% of all UK imports)

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who normally carries out arrests at sea? Men in row boats?

Haven't they got anything better to do than arrest a few poor fishermen-their families were probably worried sick.