Are we bovvered?

[Barry]

Pardon? The six founding countries are Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/from-6-to-27-members_en

You are confusing the 6 of the Common Market with the formation of the European Union. (1993) Maastricht, signed up to by John Major the incredibly strong Europhile.

[Cor Blimey!]

Yes, he is.

He's a landslide winning politician who had always been able to attract voters from both sides of the political divide.
Has always been wildly popular and is highly educated and technically speaking, a genius.

A globally recognised name long before he got the top job.
And who is he pitted against?  A collection of unelectable no ones.
The society of least effective politicians in Europe. The failures that fell out of the back of their own systems.

And what does he know about them?
Pretty much everything. He studied the EU for a decade in person and is at the head of the worlds greatest intelligence service.

Wrong league, Ursula Von Whothehell.

And what has he got behind him?
Millions of fanatics. One of the richest and most powerful nations on earth with a two thousand year long and very proud history of standing up alone against the nations of Europe.

Whatever where you thinking.
We've really got the UK right where we want them this time men, over the top!

Well, he's got Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe's vote for life.

[Stevlin]

I don't agree, if the treaty has an exit mechanism (Art50 for the EU) then simple, other wise you can't just notify the other party, you have to sit down and agree with them the termination of the treaty, it's not just "we're off". If it were that simple the UK would just "leave" the WA, their not doing that.

The Vienna convention on Treaties does outline how treaties can be set aside, if such clauses in a treaty don't exist, but "we're off" isn't one of them.

On the other hand the UK could just walk, back to the good old empire days when the UK would crap all over the countries they did treaties (at gun point) with, but lets say the UK does that, the EU or any other trading partner can take action, such as sanctions, refusing travel, punitive tariffs etc.. and this would be done by the EU without breaking WTO terms because it would be in response to a rogue EU breaking international law. Hopefully we don't get to that stage.

Nope - 'as usual' - it is YOU that just doesn't comprehend what 'sovereignty' really means. tell me - how many trade agreements has the EU established  with 'sovereign' countries, wherein they have insisted on 'free access to their territorial waters', and or required those sovereign countries to resolve  'issues' in the EU 'court', and acceptance of certain  EU dictats as a necessary requirement in resolution of 'trade disputes'. Your inherent hatred of the 'UK' just blinds you to reality....the UK merely seek a FTA with the EU....so don't blindly confuse EU specified supplementary requirements with a requirement to meet 'product standards'.
The EU are currently insisting on the UK complying with issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with trading rules, to an extent that doesn't apply to other 'sovereign ' countries.
My point about the UK's approach to cutting ties IS somewhat unsavoury,because their one sided decision to 'break an agreement' was indeed unsavoury, as due notice should certainly have been made beforehand, with the attempt to agree a modification, or merely serving due notice of terminating their treaty agreement prior to leaving.....but the point is - they DO have the sovereign right to terminate their participation in that agreement.
So you can stop spouting all that  tripe about the UK's imperial past - the UK's  sovereign rights speak for themselves, no more, and no less than the rights enjoyed by other truly 'sovereign' countries.... ie ALL sovereign countries, non-of -which are members of the unofficial United Soviet States of Europe!

[Baff]

The WA and the future trade deal are intimately linked.
The EU would not offer us a trade deal unless we signed a WA first.

The WA we signed included all the compromises we were willing to make to get a trade deal with them.

We do not want an FTA the same as it was in 2016. We run screaming from this. It took us 28 years to get out of the last one. No way on earth we want that back.
That is not in our national interest. We wish for something more limited.

So either we get a good trade deal from the EU or the purpose of accepting all the compromises we have offered in the WA becomes redundant.


Barney tried to sequence talks in the EUs favour. To sepreate the two deals.
So that we had to accept all the EU's core demands in writing before we even got to discussing the EU accepting any of ours.

But nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
And stupid manouvering, an attempt to get one over on your negotiating partner, isn't going to provide you with a lasting agreement.
Only a very bad one that is guarenteed to fail.


They have come to the table with the entirely wrong attitude.
Acted in bad faith from day one.

Why you expect any such deal to be honoured is beyond me.
If it's not in our national interests we won't agree to it. Grow up.

[Baff]

Yes, he is.

He's a landslide winning politician who had always been able to attract voters from both sides of the political divide.
Has always been wildly popular and is highly educated and technically speaking, a genius.

A globally recognised name long before he got the top job.
And who is he pitted against?  A collection of unelectable no ones.
The society of least effective politicians in Europe. The failures that fell out of the back of their own systems.

And what does he know about them?
Pretty much everything. He studied the EU for a decade in person and is at the head of the worlds greatest intelligence service.

Wrong league, Ursula Von Whothehell.

And what has he got behind him?
Millions of fanatics. One of the richest and most powerful nations on earth with a two thousand year long and very proud history of standing up alone against the nations of Europe.

Whatever where you thinking.
We've really got the UK right where we want them this time men, over the top!

[GerryT]

That is correct.
The UK is saying that it will abide by the spirit and the letter of the WA, until such time as the EU does not.
Conditional on the EU doing the same.
This is in direct response to an EU threat made at the highest levels to break the spirit and the letter of the WA.
We have acted in such a way as to be able to prevent them from doing so.
They can still withdraw if they truely feel that honouring it is too much for them to bear. But we currently have no need to.
And let's be quite honest, the only reason they threatened to break the WA in the first place, was in an cyncial attempt to pressure us into screwing our own economy over to advantage theirs.
Bluff called. outmanouvred politically by Boris, who is a world class act that they are unable to follow. He is cat amingst those pigeons. Listen to them sqwark. See those disgruntled feathers fly.

He's a class act all right, BoJo the world class clown, a man of details 
The EU hasn't in ANY way threatened the WA, there is a hugh portion of the WA in the Northern Ireland Protocol that stipulates there will be no border in NI, that NI would be aligned to the EU single market, that NI is no like GB it is different, the UK signed up to this. Johnson was party to forming that agreement and he signed it on your behalf, he's a class act.
The WA has nothing to do with a future trade deal, there is no link between the WA and a future trade deal.
The political declaration deals with a future trade deal. What the EU wants in a FTA is the same as it was in 2016, nothing new, no surprises. The reason the UK hasn't yet struck a deal is exceptional thinking and unrealistic expectations. The largest of small countries.

[Baff]

What does the Vienna Convention have to say about not honouring the NATO agreement?
What punitive sanctions do you suggest we take for that breach of international law?
Do you suggest that we should make further deals with these dishonourable countries who don't live up to their treaty obligations?

Are you a man of principle or are all these arguments you make arguments of convenience.
A route to getting your own way on something else?

I think it is the later.
Which is why I coudn't care less what you have to say on that matter.
It is nothing more than a cynical attempt at manipulation over a country you wish to rule.


Your boys tried to screw us and they got caught.
Measures were taken and now they can't do it.
Oh but you really, really want to screw us. And this has pissed you off royally.

Adjust your attitude and you will get a trade deal that will make you richer.
Carry on as you are and you will get WW3.

[GerryT]

As usual, you miss the point!! Of course a sovereign country has the ability to unilaterally withdraw from ANY agreement that it has made....but clearly, that action should ONLY be effected after informing the relevant Partiy/ Parties that are also signatories to that agreement! Hence my comment of 'unsavoury'...

I don't agree, if the treaty has an exit mechanism (Art50 for the EU) then simple, other wise you can't just notify the other party, you have to sit down and agree with them the termination of the treaty, it's not just "we're off". If it were that simple the UK would just "leave" the WA, their not doing that.

The Vienna convention on Treaties does outline how treaties can be set aside, if such clauses in a treaty don't exist, but "we're off" isn't one of them.

On the other hand the UK could just walk, back to the good old empire days when the UK would crap all over the countries they did treaties (at gun point) with, but lets say the UK does that, the EU or any other trading partner can take action, such as sanctions, refusing travel, punitive tariffs etc.. and this would be done by the EU without breaking WTO terms because it would be in response to a rogue EU breaking international law. Hopefully we don't get to that stage.

[Baff]

The UK, like everyone else can always break agreements.
And like everyone else, if the agreements are bad, it will do so.

So instead of getting the UK to sign a bad deal and thinking how clever you are to have got one over on the UK....

Offer the UK a good deal in the first place.
And then your agreement will last more than just a few weeks while a new government beds in.


Trying to guilt us into doing what you say isn't going to get you anywhere.
We have to recognise our self interest in doing so.

Threatening us with the destruction of our country isn't getting you anywhere either.
We will take you with us when we go. Mutually assured destruction.

Offer us something we want. If you even have anything and quite frankly it sounds like you do not. Some over priced goods you can't sell anywhere else.

So change your attitude.
Buck your ideas up, or go without.

This constant childish mewling isn't working for you.

[GerryT]

But that is the whole point.
Whether we end up with what you call a fascist state because it won't dance to YOUR tune is hardly relevant.
The fact is we voted to take back the right to put two fingers up to the EU becaue we were totally pissed off with them putting two fingers up to us.
And now we have control back. Best get ready for a bumpy ride Gerry.

I didn't think the purpose of Brexit was to just put two fingers in the air, but I do get your point. And yes when you leave you can do what you like. But when you sign a trade deal, and that doesn't mean the EU it means any trade deal you no longer can do what ever you what as you now have commitments you have to honour.
What you don't seem to appreciate is the UK doesn't rule anymore, it can't just make and break agreements at will. Im not saying you can't get out of a deal but you would have to stipulate that at the start and have it written into the deal, the there's no issue, if the UK had done this with the WA then the EU wouldn't have signed it in the first place.
It tries to rule in the UK union, bossing Scotland/Wales & NI about, poor Scotland wants another vote and England just says no. Hove democratic of England, and hypocritical also.
As for a bumpy ride for the EU 

[patman post]

The Tories founded the EU.

They signed up to it — but that's hardly founding it...

[papasmurf]

The Tories founded the EU.

Pardon? The six founding countries are Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/from-6-to-27-members_en

[Baff]

That sounds like the Tories.

The Tories founded the EU.

[Baff]

I do hope you are right, not in your assessment of the EU, I agree wholeheartedly with that, but with your trust in BJ et al.

Barnier was forced to make a public retraction of his threat.
His bluff got nuked from high orbit.

[papasmurf]

Who will steal anything that isn't nailed down and rape anyone who isn't pointing a gun at their head.
These people are the historical pinnacle of untrustworthiness.
Men without honour.  They are out to screw us and we are not so dumb as to be oblivious to this.
Play the victim all you like.

That sounds like the Tories.