The Internal market bill

[GerryT]

No, Teressa May pissed about cause her husband sells into the EU, not the UK. Brexiteers knew exactly what we wanted. The same we still want, OUT at any cost.

Where was that big red bus.

[GerryT]

Thank you for the detailed reply. I always read your posts with some interest because you seem to hold the exact opposite view to me. I hate long posts they make the thread difficult so in the light of our inability to be persuaded to the other's view I will just say that I hope your are wrong. 

Thanks toot's, and I hope we're both wrong and somewhere in the middle the UK and EU find a solution !

[Baff]

I don't care whose fault it is.
I care that it is prevented.

You don't get to win.
Any time you say the EU has to have control over us because XYZ, we will take away your toys.

Boris is nailing it with this bill.
Great bit of theatre.

[patman post]

The problem is successive govts have surrendered our independence and freedom of action,we have slowly been enveloped by a web of directives laws and treaties that we were never properly consulted about,various people had us sleepwalk in to this knowing full well the difficulties we would face if we ever chose to leave.

This was all done by purpose because they never and still do not want us to leave,tossers the lot of 'em IMO to a man and woman.

BTW this should read as the infernal market as a thread header

Not sure I understand — when you say: "we have slowly been enveloped by a web of directives laws and treaties that we were never properly consulted about", is this "we" the UK, the government, or the voters?
If the governments of the day weren't up to fighting the UK's corner over those laws and directives it disagreed with or hadn't instigated, that's hardly the EU's fault. And Thatcher, for one, handbagged the others when she thought their demands unfair, and got compromises.
And if you mean voters should have been able to vote on every bit of legisation before the UK accepted it, have you thought that through?
Anyhow, you finally got your way, but the route ahead is still messy and unclear thanks to another group of incompetents who don't seem to understand that the businesses that build the economy can't suddenly change change direction, gear up, recruit, get new customers, markets and suppliers when most of them are currently treading water...

[Sheepy]

The same we still want, OUT at any cost.

Who is this "we?"

The UK.

Ah yes toots, that little matter of what the electorate have voted for and backed it up.

[T00ts]

The same we still want, OUT at any cost.

Who is this "we?"

The UK.

[papasmurf]

The same we still want, OUT at any cost.

Who is this "we?"

[Nick]

No the UK muddled along BECAUSE it didn't know what it wanted,

No, Teressa May pissed about cause her husband sells into the EU, not the UK. Brexiteers knew exactly what we wanted. The same we still want, OUT at any cost.

[T00ts]

I have tried several times to join the thread about this but to be honest I lost the courage with all the slanging matches going on. You guys don't make it very easy sometimes. So perhaps if I try afresh someone will help.

Don't worry Toots I'll do my best.

I have tried to get a handle on it and can't understand why all the dissent. I have seen arguments that we signed willingly. Is that really true? Didn't the WA negotiations wander on for ever more because the EU ruled how and when they would progress? We let them set the agenda, we allowed them to hold everything up unless agreement was reached pretty much one at a time and generally in their favour. Didn't they hold a carrot out to us that a WA would precede a Trade agreement but only if we agreed to their demands? Didn't we have negotiators who were put in that position because they were Brexiteers for PR purposes but they actually had their hands tied by remainers?

The UK did agree to the agenda for leaving, effectively sort the WA and when that's substantially finished then future trade talks were to begin, right or wrong that was agreed. Prob shows the inexperience or naivety on the UK side. But isn't that logical, the UK was leaving, no point in discussing future trade if there's no agreement on leaving. If you think the discussions went in the EU favour then you need better negotiators or maybe from the start the UK expectations were too much, either way the UK did agree to two final documents. The WA and the political declaration, the WA dealing with leaving but not future trade and the PD dealing with future trade. The first being a treaty and the second a wish list.
From memory it was the UK delaying proceedings, not showing up to meetings. But that's prob one sides view over the other.

Didn't we muddle along being told that we didn't know what we wanted with the EU winning the upper hand to the point that we allowed them to box us into a corner over NI? Wasn't it then that Westminster mutinied? Wasn't it then that the Remain lobby thought that they had a chance of turning it around? Didn't we then give the EU the idea that if they just hung on long enough we would never leave? Didn't May have to recourse to kidnapping to persuade Cabinet to agree?

No the UK muddled along BECAUSE it didn't know what it wanted, you weren't told that, it may have been an observation. The boxing in thing is interesting, basically May drew a lot of red lines. the biggest issue-and still is, for the UK was the GFA, but it was classed by the UK as insignificant and pushed down the list. The EU is rules based, it won't throw a member state off the bus, the GFA meant there would be no border on the island of IRL, so any future deal had to ensure that that was secured. The UK for a long time persisted with alternative solutions which were never possible, eventually May agreed this was the case and her WA had a backstop. In comes Johnson and he changes that and tells everyone that he has a great deal, but nobody examines what he agreed but in Johnson's own words this was an oven baked deal. But remember it was always only relating to leaving and NOT future trade. It secured no border in IRL so the EU were happy.

We didn't sign that WA willingly. It was the only way to get on after so abysmally letting the country down. Even now we are being played all over again, but the EU is actually too stupid to realise that this time we are not the walk over we were. We are not going to be pushed into handing over NI as part of the EU. We are not going to stand by while they decide just how badly they can damage us. I understood that this bill was to make sure that we weren't if the EU continue to string us along.

WRONG you didn't have to sign any agreement, not if you didn't agree, that's nonsense. All that would happen is you would have left without the possibility of discussing a future trade deal. Life would have gone on and the issues under the WA would with time have been resolved. The UK would trade under WTO during this time and at some point in the future after the WA is agreed a trade deal might or might not be agreed. No issue. The EU is not doing anything (yet) to try hurt the UK, your simply leaving, settling the outstanding issues and that's it. There is no guarantee of a FTA, just that we will discuss the possibility.
The EU or ROI have no wish to take NI, all they are doing is making sure the provision in the GFA is not being ignored. The UK is a party to the GFA, you would think they would want to do the same, but their not.

Already German car makers are up in arms just as promised. Of course the EU is spitting feathers because at last someone has the courage to stand up to them and look like carrying through. Greece tried, Italy tried even Southern Ireland tried but all were brow beaten and bowed to the EU way. If the EU is ever going to improve someone has to make a stand if for no other reason than for the weaker members.

Well I'm from ROI and grateful that we are in the EU and it is protecting ROI and trying to protect our interests. Any country in the EU can leave. submit a very simple Art50 doc and 2yr's later your out. One of the two main anti EU parties in Italy are now saying the Euro and EU are where Italy should be, Brexit is proven to show people what a great co-op it is. In the EU the weaker members pay less and receive financial support, those nations become stronger. Why would they want to leave a FTA with 450m people buying their products hassle free under those conditions. You are wrong with the assumption that others want to leave.

Simply put the UK would like a FTA, which removed all tariff and non tariff barriers. Allows product and service trade. On the surface it's a very logical position to take and when put like that it's understandable that the UK thinks the EU is holding back. BUt the reality is no country on the planet does this, so ask yourself why ?
The EU will give these things but want others in return. It's an impasse at the moment, but that's not the EU being a bully or controlling. It has a base position and will not go below that. The UK has to respect that just like the EU respects the UK's red lines. A trade deal might not be possible and that's ok. But serious
ly stop blaming the EU on what the UK does. The UK left 8 months ago and has to take responsibility for what it does.

Thank you for the detailed reply. I always read your posts with some interest because you seem to hold the exact opposite view to me. I hate long posts they make the thread difficult so in the light of our inability to be persuaded to the other's view I will just say that I hope your are wrong. 

[cromwell]

The problem is successive govts have surrendered our independence and freedom of action,we have slowly been enveloped by a web of directives laws and treaties that we were never properly consulted about,various people had us sleepwalk in to this knowing full well the difficulties we would face if we ever chose to leave.

This was all done by purpose because they never and still do not want us to leave,tossers the lot of 'em IMO to a man and woman.

BTW this should read as the infernal market as a thread header

[GerryT]

I have tried several times to join the thread about this but to be honest I lost the courage with all the slanging matches going on. You guys don't make it very easy sometimes. So perhaps if I try afresh someone will help.

Don't worry Toots I'll do my best.

I have tried to get a handle on it and can't understand why all the dissent. I have seen arguments that we signed willingly. Is that really true? Didn't the WA negotiations wander on for ever more because the EU ruled how and when they would progress? We let them set the agenda, we allowed them to hold everything up unless agreement was reached pretty much one at a time and generally in their favour. Didn't they hold a carrot out to us that a WA would precede a Trade agreement but only if we agreed to their demands? Didn't we have negotiators who were put in that position because they were Brexiteers for PR purposes but they actually had their hands tied by remainers?

The UK did agree to the agenda for leaving, effectively sort the WA and when that's substantially finished then future trade talks were to begin, right or wrong that was agreed. Prob shows the inexperience or naivety on the UK side. But isn't that logical, the UK was leaving, no point in discussing future trade if there's no agreement on leaving. If you think the discussions went in the EU favour then you need better negotiators or maybe from the start the UK expectations were too much, either way the UK did agree to two final documents. The WA and the political declaration, the WA dealing with leaving but not future trade and the PD dealing with future trade. The first being a treaty and the second a wish list.
From memory it was the UK delaying proceedings, not showing up to meetings. But that's prob one sides view over the other.

Didn't we muddle along being told that we didn't know what we wanted with the EU winning the upper hand to the point that we allowed them to box us into a corner over NI? Wasn't it then that Westminster mutinied? Wasn't it then that the Remain lobby thought that they had a chance of turning it around? Didn't we then give the EU the idea that if they just hung on long enough we would never leave? Didn't May have to recourse to kidnapping to persuade Cabinet to agree?

No the UK muddled along BECAUSE it didn't know what it wanted, you weren't told that, it may have been an observation. The boxing in thing is interesting, basically May drew a lot of red lines. the biggest issue-and still is, for the UK was the GFA, but it was classed by the UK as insignificant and pushed down the list. The EU is rules based, it won't throw a member state off the bus, the GFA meant there would be no border on the island of IRL, so any future deal had to ensure that that was secured. The UK for a long time persisted with alternative solutions which were never possible, eventually May agreed this was the case and her WA had a backstop. In comes Johnson and he changes that and tells everyone that he has a great deal, but nobody examines what he agreed but in Johnson's own words this was an oven baked deal. But remember it was always only relating to leaving and NOT future trade. It secured no border in IRL so the EU were happy.

We didn't sign that WA willingly. It was the only way to get on after so abysmally letting the country down. Even now we are being played all over again, but the EU is actually too stupid to realise that this time we are not the walk over we were. We are not going to be pushed into handing over NI as part of the EU. We are not going to stand by while they decide just how badly they can damage us. I understood that this bill was to make sure that we weren't if the EU continue to string us along.

WRONG you didn't have to sign any agreement, not if you didn't agree, that's nonsense. All that would happen is you would have left without the possibility of discussing a future trade deal. Life would have gone on and the issues under the WA would with time have been resolved. The UK would trade under WTO during this time and at some point in the future after the WA is agreed a trade deal might or might not be agreed. No issue. The EU is not doing anything (yet) to try hurt the UK, your simply leaving, settling the outstanding issues and that's it. There is no guarantee of a FTA, just that we will discuss the possibility.
The EU or ROI have no wish to take NI, all they are doing is making sure the provision in the GFA is not being ignored. The UK is a party to the GFA, you would think they would want to do the same, but their not.

Already German car makers are up in arms just as promised. Of course the EU is spitting feathers because at last someone has the courage to stand up to them and look like carrying through. Greece tried, Italy tried even Southern Ireland tried but all were brow beaten and bowed to the EU way. If the EU is ever going to improve someone has to make a stand if for no other reason than for the weaker members.

Well I'm from ROI and grateful that we are in the EU and it is protecting ROI and trying to protect our interests. Any country in the EU can leave. submit a very simple Art50 doc and 2yr's later your out. One of the two main anti EU parties in Italy are now saying the Euro and EU are where Italy should be, Brexit is proven to show people what a great co-op it is. In the EU the weaker members pay less and receive financial support, those nations become stronger. Why would they want to leave a FTA with 450m people buying their products hassle free under those conditions. You are wrong with the assumption that others want to leave.

Simply put the UK would like a FTA, which removed all tariff and non tariff barriers. Allows product and service trade. On the surface it's a very logical position to take and when put like that it's understandable that the UK thinks the EU is holding back. BUt the reality is no country on the planet does this, so ask yourself why ?
The EU will give these things but want others in return. It's an impasse at the moment, but that's not the EU being a bully or controlling. It has a base position and will not go below that. The UK has to respect that just like the EU respects the UK's red lines. A trade deal might not be possible and that's ok. But seriously stop blaming the EU on what the UK does. The UK left 8 months ago and has to take responsibility for what it does.

[Streetwalker]

I have tried several times to join the thread about this but to be honest I lost the courage with all the slanging matches going on. You guys don't make it very easy sometimes. So perhaps if I try afresh someone will help.

I have tried to get a handle on it and can't understand why all the dissent. I have seen arguments that we signed willingly. Is that really true? Didn't the WA negotiations wander on for ever more because the EU ruled how and when they would progress? We let them set the agenda, we allowed them to hold everything up unless agreement was reached pretty much one at a time and generally in their favour. Didn't they hold a carrot out to us that a WA would precede a Trade agreement but only if we agreed to their demands? Didn't we have negotiators who were put in that position because they were Brexiteers for PR purposes but they actually had their hands tied by remainers?

Didn't we muddle along being told that we didn't know what we wanted with the EU winning the upper hand to the point that we allowed them to box us into a corner over NI? Wasn't it then that Westminster mutinied? Wasn't it then that the Remain lobby thought that they had a chance of turning it around? Didn't we then give the EU the idea that if they just hung on long enough we would never leave? Didn't May have to recourse to kidnapping to persuade Cabinet to agree?

We didn't sign that WA willingly. It was the only way to get on after so abysmally letting the country down. Even now we are being played all over again, but the EU is actually too stupid to realise that this time we are not the walk over we were. We are not going to be pushed into handing over NI as part of the EU. We are not going to stand by while they decide just how badly they can damage us. I understood that this bill was to make sure that we weren't if the EU continue to string us along.

Already German car makers are up in arms just as promised. Of course the EU is spitting feathers because at last someone has the courage to stand up to them and look like carrying through. Greece tried, Italy tried even Southern Ireland tried but all were brow beaten and bowed to the EU way. If the EU is ever going to improve someone has to make a stand if for no other reason than for the weaker members.

Thats about the strength of it .   The crux of the matter is that the UK voted to leave and the Eu wants to keep us tied to it and is using N Ireland for that purpose  .

For all our differing opinions on what should happen next or slanging matches as you call them  it is hard to see how the supreme court doesn't make an appearance at some stage in the future .
You might  need a glass of wine or two to get your head round this but once you have it may might make things a bit clearer or at least as clear as mud .

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/09/09/kenneth-armstrong-can-the-uk-breach-the-withdrawal-agreement-and-get-away-with-it-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-bill/

[Baff]

I can't really imagine a trade deal with the EU taking any less than 10 years to arrange.
Those people are famously slow on such things.


And I'm not fussed about having one at all.


Brexit is the only political issue I cared enough about to actually vote for.
And most certainly the key political issue of my lifetime.

I have no higher political priority than this.
It's a war issue. A social fundamental.

[Good old]

I have tried several times to join the thread about this but to be honest I lost the courage with all the slanging matches going on. You guys don't make it very easy sometimes. So perhaps if I try afresh someone will help.

I have tried to get a handle on it and can't understand why all the dissent. I have seen arguments that we signed willingly. Is that really true? Didn't the WA negotiations wander on for ever more because the EU ruled how and when they would progress? We let them set the agenda, we allowed them to hold everything up unless agreement was reached pretty much one at a time and generally in their favour. Didn't they hold a carrot out to us that a WA would precede a Trade agreement but only if we agreed to their demands? Didn't we have negotiators who were put in that position because they were Brexiteers for PR purposes but they actually had their hands tied by remainers?

Didn't we muddle along being told that we didn't know what we wanted with the EU winning the upper hand to the point that we allowed them to box us into a corner over NI? Wasn't it then that Westminster mutinied? Wasn't it then that the Remain lobby thought that they had a chance of turning it around? Didn't we then give the EU the idea that if they just hung on long enough we would never leave? Didn't May have to recourse to kidnapping to persuade Cabinet to agree?

We didn't sign that WA willingly. It was the only way to get on after so abysmally letting the country down. Even now we are being played all over again, but the EU is actually too stupid to realise that this time we are not the walk over we were. We are not going to be pushed into handing over NI as part of the EU. We are not going to stand by while they decide just how badly they can damage us. I understood that this bill was to make sure that we weren't if the EU continue to string us along.

Already German car makers are up in arms just as promised. Of course the EU is spitting feathers because at last someone has the courage to stand up to them and look like carrying through. Greece tried, Italy tried even Southern Ireland tried but all were brow beaten and bowed to the EU way. If the EU is ever going to improve someone has to make a stand if for no other reason than for the weaker members.

Surely Toots, whether you applaud Brexit or not. The problem has always been apart we can damage each other.
Both sides know it. What we really want would infringe the EUs reason for existing. And probably end its existence. What they want is us in . We see that as outside of our reasons to exist.
It doesn't look good , unless you want Brexit more than anything.  And are happy to try for a trade deal over the next ten years.

[papasmurf]

You don't live abroad and you never trusted your country in the first place.

I trust my country but not the government.