Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Hurrache

RobMc59 wrote: »

Of course I don't condone the threats and inflammatory graffiti. I also believe both the UK and EU need to get their heads together and not continue pointing the finger at each other.

The EU negotiated at least 2 deals, the first of which the UK agreed to, then didn't agree. The second of which the UK agreed to, and now apparently are not agreeing to.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Please refer to the EU page with reference to the CE mark.
https://support.ce-check.eu/hc/en-us/articles/360008642600-How-To-Distinguish-A-Real-CE-Mark-From-A-Fake-Chinese-Export-Mark

Just because a random third party uses an urban legend phrase on its own commercial website doesn't mean it actually exists.

I've given you a link to the EU's rejection of the concept of a "Chinese Export" mark and their view that it is nothing more than a badly faked European CE mark. How about you provide a link to an official Chinese government page describing when and how this mythical "Chinese Export" mark should be used?

FrancieBrady

schmoo2k wrote: »

I thought we scheduled a face to face for next week? Nicely dismissing Gove's "this week" ultimatum...

Absolutely brilliant of our negotiators again. Refuse to be trolled by Gove's Britannia rules the waves guff. Calmly tell him where his government are failing and schedule a meeting to talk about it.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Just because a random third party uses an urban legend phrase on its own commercial website doesn't mean it actually exists.

I've given you a link to the EU's rejection of the concept of a "Chinese Export" mark and their view that it is nothing more than a badly faked European CE mark. How about you provide a link to an official Chinese government page describing when and how this mythical "Chinese Export" mark should be used?

The EU has got into bed with china despite its horrendous record of human rights which includes the current treatment of the uighers, also its lies about covid.So complaining about them when the horse has bolted is a bit rich

BonnieSituation

swampgas wrote: »

That was true while the UK was an EU member. However Ireland is threatened by a politically aggressive, treacherous, and unreliable UK, which is hell-bent on damaging the EU (and its member states, especially Ireland) so that its own global status is improved. That's almost political terrorism.

IMO it is a bad idea to be too nice to an entity that is manifestly acting the way the UK is acting. Carrots, olive branches, kid gloves won't work. The only thing the current UK government seems to "respect", and I use the term loosely, is a great big stick.

Maybe in the future we can move on to a cooperative relationship with the UK, but they have to want it first.

This is another thing I don't get from our resident Irexiters, why have we to be nice and cooperative with an entity which has been manifestly aggressive and downright threatening during this process since 2016?

If anything, acquiescence will just see a continuation of this nonsense.

Zubeneschamali

RobMc59 wrote: »

I also believe both the UK and EU need to get their heads together and not continue pointing the finger at each other.

The EU should not point fingers at the UK. They should simply tap the deal the UK agreed and shake their heads.

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The fact they haven't even implemented the easements within the protocol has to be made more of by Dublin. Call them out...spell out how they can ease the difficulties and stress the fact that Brexit will have consequences. We can't mitigate all of the problems it causes.
It was explained over and over again that it would have a negative effect for those who wanted it.

But of course.

At every turn during this clusterfúck they haven't proffered ANY solutions. And they're at it yet again.

I mean, the more cynical of us might have noticed a pattern here. But of course, we need to be "nice" to them, lest they threaten us again.

I mean, there were literal threats to EU staff at the weekend for operating the Protocol in line with the agreement that the UK made with the EU in December. But of course, we are the ones that need to be reasonable.

Strazdas

BonnieSituation wrote: »

This is another thing I don't get from our resident Irexiters, why have we to be nice and cooperative with an entity which has been manifestly aggressive and downright threatening during this process since 2016?

If anything, acquiescence will just see a continuation of this nonsense.

Let's not forget the English Brexiteers couldn't give a flying fig about the other half of their own country (Remain voters, ethnic minorities, immigrants etc), never mind any other nationality.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Just because a random third party uses an urban legend phrase on its own commercial website doesn't mean it actually exists.

I've given you a link to the EU's rejection of the concept of a "Chinese Export" mark and their view that it is nothing more than a badly faked European CE mark. How about you provide a link to an official Chinese government page describing when and how this mythical "Chinese Export" mark should be used?

It does not need a legal official government directive, Chinese manufacturers have decided to use such a mark on their products and the countries of the EU hve permitted the importation of these products. If they had prohibited the use of a mark that implies CE certification, then the imports would not have been allowed.


The CE mark is in wide (ab)use, who is to blame for that!

Yes it does actually exist as everyone can prove by simply looking around themselves to look a random Chinese made product and many of them will have the Chinese CE mark on it instead of the EU CE mark (the better quality stuff will be compliant though).

ancapailldorcha

Mod: A few off topic posts have been removed. Please refrain from insults. A poster has been banned.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

In reality the US is probably looking on in confusion wondering what the heck is going on in Ireland.
And again,in reality,having left the EU the UK has lost influence within that sphere which the US doesn't like but make no mistake,the UK is viewed as Americas greatest ally in Europe which you should accept instead of wasting so much energy hating the UK and all it stands for.

"What the heck is going on in Ireland" he says.

Do pray tell, what exactly is going on? Thanks.

Lemming

RobMc59 wrote: »

The EU has got into bed with china despite its horrendous record of human rights which includes the current treatment of the uighers, also its lies about covid.So complaining about them when the horse has bolted is a bit rich

Rob, if you are going to hold one to account for Chinas horrendous record of human rights, how about holding the other to account too? Or does it only matter when it's not the UK chasing Chinese investment?

BlitzKrieg

Saren Arterius wrote: »

Of course, the EU is creating an army, despite the fact that Old Cleggy had a go at Mr Farage during the referendum campaign for saying there will be an EU army. Farage and the Brexiteers were proven right again.

Ok time to break it down once again for the people in the back

An EU army is a legal minefield for the EU and they know it and this is why

The law allowing for an EU army is Article 42 section 2 of the Treaty of European Union: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012M%2FTXT

"2. The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

The policy of the Union in accordance with this Section shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), under the North Atlantic Treaty and be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework."

the important detail to take is that it requires a unanimous support of the european council and constitutional requirements.

Now lets go over to Britain's lovely neighbours and only land border, Ireland

This is the constitution: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html

and this is article 21 section 9

"9° The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union where that common defence would include the State."

One action requires unanimous support, the other blocks a nation support.

hence no EU army.

And the EU knows this, Junkers a few years back floated the idea of removing the unanimous support requirement in article 42

That got shot down quickly when it was pointed out to make such a change would require a referendum in Ireland to amend the EU treaties.

Some people might be thinking oh the irish have rolled over in the past being forced again ,they'll do it again.

Except where do you think section 9 came from?

Section 9 is the direct result of Ireland voting against the Treaty of Nice, for those thinking being forced to vote again is a undemocratic, Nice is a textbook example of what it should mean, Ireland successfully secured their neutrality within the EU that it will require a referendum either on our own constitution or the EU treaty to remove.

It was called the 26th amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

EU army is tripled locked behind EU and Irish legislation, those in favour of an EU army know this, those against an EU army knows this, it's why the whole debate has shifted long ago to instead focusing on enhancing military cooperation between individual member states then trying to bring in an EU wide army.

fash

RobMc59 wrote: »

The EU has got into bed with china despite its horrendous record of human rights which includes the current treatment of the uighers, also its lies about covid.So complaining about them when the horse has bolted is a bit rich

On that point, how are the UK's relations with Russia and Saudi going?

BonnieSituation

Hurrache wrote: »

Anyway, normal services resume in the north, it's always going to he a political dump when you have stuff like this still being written
https://twitter.com/BelTel/status/1357265474694881280

"Threats of violence are wrong, but only copied from Republicans"

Jesus he would boil your píss.

So loyalists are incapable of independent thought?

I always thought that myself, but nice to have it confirmed.

We always have to remember that the indignation on show here is from a bunch of people who think the planet is 6000 years old. Using that as your starting point is helpful with dismissing them as required.

---

The swiftness of how quickly this has deteriorated from the Unionist and UK government have moved shows the coordinated effort at play here. The AZ controversy was merely the cover. There would have been something else used if that never happened.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Please don't just paste tweets and one-liners here. Post removed.

Hurrache

Brexit not going well.
A brexit positive.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1357327165499539458

RobMc59

fash wrote: »

On that point, how are the UK's relations with Russia and Saudi going?

I don't know fash,but I see that Germany,one of the five top sellers in military hardware have a very lucrative deal with Saudi and its allies for over one billion euros.

BonnieSituation

Saren Arterius wrote: »

The monarch isn't a politician.



The UK does have a constitution, but it consists of many many documents, some old and some modern, such as Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights.



The UK is recognised the world over as being a democracy.

There's unlikely to be any need for a civics lesson this thread given the quality of its content and (most) posters. But thanks I guess.

BonnieSituation

Saren Arterius wrote: »

I think you Remainers need to wake up and see reality.

The war in Ukraine was started by the EU courting it which then led to it's pro-Moscow leader being overthrown. Don't blame it on Russia. The EU started it.

You don't mind me asking, but where in Eire are you from?

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't know fash,but I see that Germany,one of the five top sellers in military hardware have a very lucrative deal with Saudi and its allies for over one billion euros.

Yes, but you also must understand that no poster but you raised human rights and dealings as a negative slur.

So again if you are going to do so be sure to retain some of the criticism more local to home too. As has been pointed out to you.

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

Of course I don't condone the threats and inflammatory graffiti. I also believe both the UK and EU need to get their heads together and not continue pointing the finger at each other.

The UK made an agreement in December and now want to renege on it.

I don't see how the EU have anything to with this except by enforcing the law.

It's up to the UK, as always, to tell us what it wants.

I can't believe we need to do this dance again.

FrancieBrady

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The UK made an agreement in December and now want to renege on it.

I don't see how the EU have anything to with this except by enforcing the law.

It's up to the UK, as always, to tell us what it wants.

I can't believe we need to do this dance again.

EU negotiators aren't 'doing the dance' though.

They have basically said, use the flexibilities in the protocol, then get back to us. Brexit is going to be negative in some way, suck it up.

BonnieSituation

FrancieBrady wrote: »

EU negotiators aren't 'doing the dance' though.

They have basically said, use the flexibilities in the protocol, then get back to us. Brexit is going to be negative in some way, suck it up.

True. But I actually meant us posters explaining the same thing again and again.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

Of course I don't condone the threats and inflammatory graffiti. I also believe both the UK and EU need to get their heads together and not continue pointing the finger at each other.

Just out of curiosity, why should the EU get involved in what is principally a UK issue?
The border checks and delays were all predicted. Similar issues exist in Kent.
This is why the "Farage Garages" were constructed at ports. This is why the UK needed (but has so far failed) to recruit thousands of customs officers and vets.
All of the importation rules were already in place for someone who is importing or exporting with a third country.
Did the DUP not forsee issues with retailers trying to get stock from the UK post Dec 31? The likleihood was pretty much inevitable once the WA was agreed and although the UK dithered and wasted time on a final agreement, the likes of the Irish government (and others within the EU) were able to prepare for the inevitable mess. What was the DUP and other NI politicians doing to ensure that there would be no problems post Jan 1st?

Are you seriously saying that the UK government, the NI unionists and the loyalist terrorists were not aware that these issues might happen?

The main problem is that in NI certain politicians and terrorists are making an issue out of it, despite campaigning for brexit, which they now have obtained.

You see, I'm confused because you persist in your portrayal of the EU as a bad actor who behaves in a Machiavellian manner yet the evidence shows the opposite.
Was this not the Brexit that people voted for?
If not, in what way is it different?

reslfj

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Unelected hereditary head of state
...

Almost all of the members of HoL are appointed life time peers. Some have used corruption to get into the HoL, but most are very qualified for their new position.

Hereditary peers in the HoL are limited to 92 + 26 from the Church.

Lars

RobMc59

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The UK made an agreement in December and now want to renege on it.

I don't see how the EU have anything to with this except by enforcing the law.

It's up to the UK, as always, to tell us what it wants.

I can't believe we need to do this dance again.

This is where some posters diverge from reality. The UK has suggested an extension period,if the EU aren't interested then fine,I'm sure the PSNI will do everything they can to stop the graffiti and Unionist behaviour.

schmoo2k

RobMc59 wrote: »

This is where some posters diverge from reality. The UK has suggested an extension period,if the EU aren't interested then fine,I'm sure the PSNI will do everything they can to stop the graffiti and Unionist behaviour.

And we have suggested using the existing provisions (why the UK isn't is quite telling)...

BonnieSituation

RobMc59 wrote: »

This is where some posters diverge from reality. The UK has suggested an extension period,if the EU aren't interested then fine,I'm sure the PSNI will do everything they can to stop the graffiti and Unionist behaviour.

Ah cmon, really?

One of a number of results where the UK categorically says it doesn't want and will not countenance extending the transition period:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-noextension-idUSKBN28C1B5

That was in December.

What's changed?

schmoo2k wrote: »

And we have suggested using the existing provisions (why the UK isn't is quite telling)...

As schmoo asks, why can't the UK use the existing provisions that they've agreed to but 6 weeks ago?

Sam Russell

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Italy banned sales to Saudi completely last week

In other news the Telegraph is blaming Brexit on ... ... Merkel

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/angela-merkel-is-responsible-for-brexit-the-telegraph-reckons/25/01/

Is that because she did not get the German Auto makers to fall in line and demand EU capitulation to the UK demands of allowing the UK cherry pick a deal that gave them all the cake that they could eat?