Joe Biden speaks out on Brexit – saying “we’ve just got to keep the border open”

[GerryT]

I make no sense? Looks like you never proof read your own posts and TBH As far as you are concerned  I don't really care if you've built a bridge to the continent,agreement no agreement what will be be and all that.

It's clear why you're here whatever you say to the opposite and your posts about us  us hanging round the eu clubhouse and when we beg to come back there'll be no opt outs and how it'll all end in tears for us

Your motives are as plain glass and why you're hanging round this club house still you carry on I appreciate a good laugh.

Your quoting a message sent to Nick and I don't have an agenda, just opinions and facts

[Borchester]

You make a lot of good points there, but I'm simply saying Biden isn't some magic bullet -- he's a Corporatist yank president. He'd rip off his own mother to attain power/money/whatever.

Quite. Gaga Joe is just another politician and is just throwing out bromides to his supporters. He wants an open border which will suit both the UK and the Micks fine. It will also punch a hole in the EU's tariff wall, which will cause a few brown trouser jobs in Brussels but that's show business.

In the unlikely event that Biden actually knows where Ireland is, it will be pretty low down on his list of priorities. The Latinos in Texas are Democrats and the ones in Florida are Republicans while the Montana trade unionists are redskins who support Trump. Meanwhile the Boston Irish are largely black and not as keen on Biden as before. And there are more Proddie Paddies in the US than left footers, so one way and another Joe will be too busy trying to sort out the electoral base for Kamala Harris' run in 2024 to meddle in Ulster's incomprehensible politics.

[Nick]

Again you make no sense, If nothing happens before Jan1 then the UK has no FTA with the EU. It can start signing FTA's with others but that's not what we were discussing. AND trading on WTO is not a FTA, it's what you do when you don't have a FTA.
The EU offered more concessions to the UK today, but the way talks are going it does look like no deal.
In other news DFDS have put on 3 new ferries from Rosslare to Dunkirk with two sailings a day, 6 days a week. That's on top of all the other ferries discussed on here. Thought you'd like to hear the good news, less Irish trucks on UK roads.

Marvellous Gerry but you didn't address the one point I made: That an FTA will negate any necessity to use the countermeasures contained in the bill.
Rather than as you postulate, we won't get a deal if we use countermeasures.

Again you fail to recognise that the U.K. isn't sitting here with a deal put forward by the EU. They haven't offered a deal, certainly not one that doesn't tie us up like a Kipper. So come 1st Jan the WA terminates, unless you can show me somewhere in it that outlines what clauses are persistent.

That is how contracts work: Once the contract is terminated any clauses in it sees to be legal, so unless there is a paragraph somewhere stating that clauses x,y,z are persistent the WA is done.

[Borg Refinery]

I agree, Trump has his agenda and part of it was "America first", translated means screw all other countries. With Trump around the UK wasn't going to get any sort of good deal, Biden offers a better chance. Trump is a destroyer. I do get the big picture, small countries in this new world will get taken advantage of and the EU as a block didn't form purely to confront that issue but it is becoming a more relevant objective.
You could argue that prior to WW1 the UK was still an empire, but since then it's been all down hill. You could say it's because of China / India / Japan etc encroaching on the UK but that's not what I see, the UK got it's strength from the empire, as countries steadily gained independence so did the UK loose out. The international aspect of the UK would have being the foundations to it's powerful financial and services sectors, accounting for 80% of GDP. It's why I would consider leaving the EU a big mistake, building a big wall around the UK is not the way forward, I'm not saying that's your ambition but it is what Brexit is delivering.
China is going to rise, starting a trade war like USA did with them is not the way forward, I believe in global trade, that goes both ways. If the UK wants to become self sufficient it should start with food production. Really the UK is way to small to be self sufficient. The best way to trust a trade partner is to be the larger party to the agreement.
Fair enough, wrong to say you don't understand, and as you say the large countries or trade blocks have the upper hand. Prob why you see so many smaller nations forming trade alliances, and it's why Trump tries to break them. You don't think he wanted the EU to fail, would have made his day.

Yes being independent as a block and moving to renewable energy will be a fantastic achievement if it's ever achieved. If countries don't want to see countries like China to come into their country then they should not do the same. It's not a cherry picking exercise.

You make a lot of good points there, but I'm simply saying Biden isn't some magic bullet -- he's a Corporatist yank president. He'd rip off his own mother to attain power/money/whatever. You acknowledge my point about TTIP implicitly, yet that was (almost til Trump + EU scrapped it) done under Obama who was more benevolent than Joe appears to be. I agree with points like the UK should be sufficient in food prod, yes that's true -- and the better CAP reforms were opposed by Tories & Nu Lab so it's not the EU's fault. And our services based economy is horribly unbalanced and could easily collapse; isn't sustainable as-is, indeed

Anyway, we agree in principle on most of that apart from on Biden so we may as well leave it there.

[cromwell]

I miss the point, you give a list of treaties the USA broke and when I scratch the surface is all nonsense. You use that against a point I made that the UK should honour its treaties. It's not me missing the point, you should try stay on point.
And again what track record, you have shown ZERO (bar the indian's) track record in the USA breaking treaties. Joe is saying the USA will not talk trade with the UK while the UK looks to break international treaty law in a matter where the USA brokered that very same treaty. The USA has skin in the game.
No I don't think, what I see is the UK shouting "we want our sovereignty" and then you don't afford the same principal to the USA. The USA is also a sovereign country, it makes it's own decisions and if it decides not to talk trade to you then that's their business and you should(as a believer in sovereignty) respect and back their decision.  The UK has no god given right to a trade deal with anyone, if the USA or any other country think your being dishonourable, no matter how you perceive their morals, they are fully entitled to do as they please. Get used to it, your in the big bad world now.

This is what I mean about you reading your own posts first before claiming things I never said.

[Borchester]

Again you make no sense, If nothing happens before Jan1 then the UK has no FTA with the EU.

Which will suit both sides. The EU will blame the UK and Boris will probably bomb Dublin, steal all the potatoes and thereby restoring his waning popularity. No UK PM every lost votes by being unpleasant to Johnny Foreigner.

I suspect that most of the deals have been done. A while back the UK economy was going to crumble because German motor manufacturers were refusing to sell Beamers to our drug dealers, but that seems to have been sorted out.

[cromwell]

Again you make no sense, If nothing happens before Jan1 then the UK has no FTA with the EU. It can start signing FTA's with others but that's not what we were discussing. AND trading on WTO is not a FTA, it's what you do when you don't have a FTA.
The EU offered more concessions to the UK today, but the way talks are going it does look like no deal.
In other news DFDS have put on 3 new ferries from Rosslare to Dunkirk with two sailings a day, 6 days a week. That's on top of all the other ferries discussed on here. Thought you'd like to hear the good news, less Irish trucks on UK roads.

I make no sense? Looks like you never proof read your own posts and TBH As far as you are concerned  I don't really care if you've built a bridge to the continent,agreement no agreement what will be be and all that.

It's clear why you're here whatever you say to the opposite and your posts about us  us hanging round the eu clubhouse and when we beg to come back there'll be no opt outs and how it'll all end in tears for us

Your motives are as plain glass and why you're hanging round this club house still you carry on I appreciate a good laugh.

[GerryT]

You've got that the wrong way round. The FTA is the thing that results in the U.K. not having to implement any countermeasures. Not, you won't get a deal if you implement countermeasures.

You really need to take your EU tinted specs off.

Again you make no sense, If nothing happens before Jan1 then the UK has no FTA with the EU. It can start signing FTA's with others but that's not what we were discussing. AND trading on WTO is not a FTA, it's what you do when you don't have a FTA.
The EU offered more concessions to the UK today, but the way talks are going it does look like no deal.
In other news DFDS have put on 3 new ferries from Rosslare to Dunkirk with two sailings a day, 6 days a week. That's on top of all the other ferries discussed on here. Thought you'd like to hear the good news, less Irish trucks on UK roads.

[GerryT]

Well as usual you ignore the point (no surprise) and almost all the treaties were after the US was formed,you can give Z for all I care because you only see what you want to see.
FYI I wasn't saying what you imply other than its a bit rich for Irish Joe's stance given their track record.

I miss the point, you give a list of treaties the USA broke and when I scratch the surface is all nonsense. You use that against a point I made that the UK should honour its treaties. It's not me missing the point, you should try stay on point.
And again what track record, you have shown ZERO (bar the indian's) track record in the USA breaking treaties. Joe is saying the USA will not talk trade with the UK while the UK looks to break international treaty law in a matter where the USA brokered that very same treaty. The USA has skin in the game.

Still you revel how many Irish Americans there are and how they'll support you and make us pay,sad bunch don't you think that they are Americans now and should be looking to their own and the bloody plank in their own eye rather than in ours.

No I don't think, what I see is the UK shouting "we want our sovereignty" and then you don't afford the same principal to the USA. The USA is also a sovereign country, it makes it's own decisions and if it decides not to talk trade to you then that's their business and you should(as a believer in sovereignty) respect and back their decision.  The UK has no god given right to a trade deal with anyone, if the USA or any other country think your being dishonourable, no matter how you perceive their morals, they are fully entitled to do as they please. Get used to it, your in the big bad world now.

[GerryT]

Gerry you're not looking at the bigger picture.
OK I hate Trump. Fine. We both do.
But as a fellow anti-colonialist, look, did Trump actually invade any countries for example? Now look at the 'enlightened' Obama?
Trump made stupid pronouncements which were kargely ignored.. big deal.

I agree, Trump has his agenda and part of it was "America first", translated means screw all other countries. With Trump around the UK wasn't going to get any sort of good deal, Biden offers a better chance. Trump is a destroyer. I do get the big picture, small countries in this new world will get taken advantage of and the EU as a block didn't form purely to confront that issue but it is becoming a more relevant objective.

Yeah look at the state of our country mate. We are being kicked around by Tories and successive labour govts selling off ALL the family silver. You think it's OK to let the Chinese run nyclear plants here? Are you really serious?
You miss the point, we are sinking while China is rising, look at GDP figures if you don't believe me right now.
I want us to decouple from anyone other than each other - solid trustworthy allies only, who can be depended on. No Saudi's, no Chinese, no Russians, no yanks. I like yanks and Russians and Chinese people but I want us to extricate ourselves from them all.
We should be as self sufficient as we can be - the whole of EU bloc Europe.

You could argue that prior to WW1 the UK was still an empire, but since then it's been all down hill. You could say it's because of China / India / Japan etc encroaching on the UK but that's not what I see, the UK got it's strength from the empire, as countries steadily gained independence so did the UK loose out. The international aspect of the UK would have being the foundations to it's powerful financial and services sectors, accounting for 80% of GDP. It's why I would consider leaving the EU a big mistake, building a big wall around the UK is not the way forward, I'm not saying that's your ambition but it is what Brexit is delivering.
China is going to rise, starting a trade war like USA did with them is not the way forward, I believe in global trade, that goes both ways. If the UK wants to become self sufficient it should start with food production. Really the UK is way to small to be self sufficient. The best way to trust a trade partner is to be the larger party to the agreement.

I get it only too well, the big players screw smaller countries, tdeals like TTIP would've destroyed all our economies. You're talking nonsense that I don't 'get' free trade..

Fair enough, wrong to say you don't understand, and as you say the large countries or trade blocks have the upper hand. Prob why you see so many smaller nations forming trade alliances, and it's why Trump tries to break them. You don't think he wanted the EU to fail, would have made his day.

I don't approve of what our govt does or our China policy.
It's not about China, it's about ANYONE except ourselves - we can only trust each other. I trust the EU over all other blocs and would rather decouple from.everyone else, I believe this is possible over time. Take energy, the EU green energy initiatives should guarantee sufficiency - no more Russian/Azeri/Ukrainian energy. We don't want to rely on fickle regimes be they yank or Chinese.. what part don't you get?
Mindless garbage is all Biden really has mostly, but they now appear to be spreading conspiritard theories about how China has been hard done by which is complete inane brainless drivel which they're lumbered with btw..
Suggested reading:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/07/why-china-wants-donald-trump-win/613864/

Yes being independent as a block and moving to renewable energy will be a fantastic achievement if it's ever achieved. If countries don't want to see countries like China to come into their country then they should not do the same. It's not a cherry picking exercise.

[cromwell]

I said the UK needs to honour the GFA or WA, else the EU won't sign a FTA and the USA is saying the same. Then you say the USA doesn't honour it's agreement, were you trying to imply that international agreements don't need to be honoured because the USA doesn't ? I'm not sure but here we are going down that rabbit hole. I had a look at the govexec article and in summary.

Counting the Indian Nations treaties as 1 example the article lists 14 examples. This breaks into 3 categories, the first is the treaty the USA pulled out of, the second is a list of the treaties the USA broke and thirdly is a list of treaties the USA never ratified, were never in force for the USA so why they are on this article is baffling.

1 List of treaties the USA left
The UK would understand this one, like the way you exercised your sovereign right to leave a treaty by the mechanism provided, all correct and no issue with that.

Paris Climate 2015 - Trump pulled the USA out 1/6/17, but that's ok as that treaty had an exit mechanism. As part of that the USA was bound legally until the start of 2020.

2 List of treaties broke

1722 to 1869 - Treaties with Indian nations. No details given but I'll accept this. Seen as the UK was in charge in 1775 to what became the USA, we can assume a number of these Indian treaties that were broken, were broken by the UK or whatever it was called back then. You could provide more details though, how many of these treaties were broken by the Indian's ? either way a shameful period in USA history where the indigenous people were crushed, far worse than any treaty breach.

3 List of treaties not ratified
These treaties were not ratified by the USA, so they never came into force. Unless of course there were more than 2 other countries involved then it was in force legally between them but most importantly did not apply to the USA because they were not part of the treaty. Why are treaties the USA didn't legally agree to wind up on a list of treaties the USA broke.

Human Rights - USA ratified 5 of 18, these 5 are in force. The other 13 don't apply as the USA didn't finally agree
Versaillas 1919
Labour convention 1949
Geneva 1954
Human Rights ICESCR 1966
Discrimination against women CEDAW 1979
Law of the sea UNCLOS 1982
Rights for children CRC 1989
Nuclear test ban 1996
Mine ban 1997
Rome statute 1998
Kyoto protocol 1997


So it boils down to some of the treaties the USA broke were agreed before the USA existed and when the UK were in charge. Cromwell you can do better than that, I give you a D for effort.

Back on topic, the UK has an internationally binding, ratified, agreed treaty, unlike most of the nonsense above and the EU will be surprised if the UK decides it will be a dishonest broker and loose it's international reputation by breaking it's word and agreement. But look above, he USA breaks treaties over 200 yrs ago and has this reputation of being a unreliable international partner, I suppose once you get that name tag it's hard to lose it.

Well as usual you ignore the point (no surprise) and almost all the treaties were after the US was formed,you can give Z for all I care because you only see what you want to see.

FYI I wasn't saying what you imply other than its a bit rich for Irish Joe's stance given their track record.

Still you revel how many Irish Americans there are and how they'll support you and make us pay,sad bunch don't you think that they are Americans now and should be looking to their own and the bloody plank in their own eye rather than in ours.

[Nick]

else the EU won't sign a FTA

You've got that the wrong way round. The FTA is the thing that results in the U.K. not having to implement any countermeasures. Not, you won't get a deal if you implement countermeasures.

You really need to take your EU tinted specs off.

[Sheepy]

I said the UK needs to honour the GFA or WA, else the EU won't sign a FTA and the USA is saying the same. Then you say the USA doesn't honour it's agreement, were you trying to imply that international agreements don't need to be honoured because the USA doesn't ? I'm not sure but here we are going down that rabbit hole. I had a look at the govexec article and in summary.

Counting the Indian Nations treaties as 1 example the article lists 14 examples. This breaks into 3 categories, the first is the treaty the USA pulled out of, the second is a list of the treaties the USA broke and thirdly is a list of treaties the USA never ratified, were never in force for the USA so why they are on this article is baffling.

1 List of treaties the USA left
The UK would understand this one, like the way you exercised your sovereign right to leave a treaty by the mechanism provided, all correct and no issue with that.

Paris Climate 2015 - Trump pulled the USA out 1/6/17, but that's ok as that treaty had an exit mechanism. As part of that the USA was bound legally until the start of 2020.

2 List of treaties broke

1722 to 1869 - Treaties with Indian nations. No details given but I'll accept this. Seen as the UK was in charge in 1775 to what became the USA, we can assume a number of these Indian treaties that were broken, were broken by the UK or whatever it was called back then. You could provide more details though, how many of these treaties were broken by the Indian's ? either way a shameful period in USA history where the indigenous people were crushed, far worse than any treaty breach.

3 List of treaties not ratified
These treaties were not ratified by the USA, so they never came into force. Unless of course there were more than 2 other countries involved then it was in force legally between them but most importantly did not apply to the USA because they were not part of the treaty. Why are treaties the USA didn't legally agree to wind up on a list of treaties the USA broke.

Human Rights - USA ratified 5 of 18, these 5 are in force. The other 13 don't apply as the USA didn't finally agree
Versaillas 1919
Labour convention 1949
Geneva 1954
Human Rights ICESCR 1966
Discrimination against women CEDAW 1979
Law of the sea UNCLOS 1982
Rights for children CRC 1989
Nuclear test ban 1996
Mine ban 1997
Rome statute 1998
Kyoto protocol 1997


So it boils down to some of the treaties the USA broke were agreed before the USA existed and when the UK were in charge. Cromwell you can do better than that, I give you a D for effort.

Back on topic, the UK has an internationally binding, ratified, agreed treaty, unlike most of the nonsense above and the EU will be surprised if the UK decides it will be a dishonest broker and loose it's international reputation by breaking it's word and agreement. But look above, he USA breaks treaties over 200 yrs ago and has this reputation of being a unreliable international partner, I suppose once you get that name tag it's hard to lose it.

Not really, we have the reluctant against the reluctant, they both need a kick up the backside and let other people get on and deal with the real problems. The UK isn't going to give them fishing rights just like the Australians are not going to give the Chinese fishing rights for Australian waters, but I doubt you see the connection. Or maybe you do?

[GerryT]

Does this work for anyone?
https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2018/05/its-not-just-trump-us-has-always-broken-its-treaties-pacts-and-promises/148179/

I said the UK needs to honour the GFA or WA, else the EU won't sign a FTA and the USA is saying the same. Then you say the USA doesn't honour it's agreement, were you trying to imply that international agreements don't need to be honoured because the USA doesn't ? I'm not sure but here we are going down that rabbit hole. I had a look at the govexec article and in summary.

Counting the Indian Nations treaties as 1 example the article lists 14 examples. This breaks into 3 categories, the first is the treaty the USA pulled out of, the second is a list of the treaties the USA broke and thirdly is a list of treaties the USA never ratified, were never in force for the USA so why they are on this article is baffling.

1 List of treaties the USA left
The UK would understand this one, like the way you exercised your sovereign right to leave a treaty by the mechanism provided, all correct and no issue with that.

Paris Climate 2015 - Trump pulled the USA out 1/6/17, but that's ok as that treaty had an exit mechanism. As part of that the USA was bound legally until the start of 2020.

2 List of treaties broke

1722 to 1869 - Treaties with Indian nations. No details given but I'll accept this. Seen as the UK was in charge in 1775 to what became the USA, we can assume a number of these Indian treaties that were broken, were broken by the UK or whatever it was called back then. You could provide more details though, how many of these treaties were broken by the Indian's ? either way a shameful period in USA history where the indigenous people were crushed, far worse than any treaty breach.

3 List of treaties not ratified
These treaties were not ratified by the USA, so they never came into force. Unless of course there were more than 2 other countries involved then it was in force legally between them but most importantly did not apply to the USA because they were not part of the treaty. Why are treaties the USA didn't legally agree to wind up on a list of treaties the USA broke.

Human Rights - USA ratified 5 of 18, these 5 are in force. The other 13 don't apply as the USA didn't finally agree
Versaillas 1919
Labour convention 1949
Geneva 1954
Human Rights ICESCR 1966
Discrimination against women CEDAW 1979
Law of the sea UNCLOS 1982
Rights for children CRC 1989
Nuclear test ban 1996
Mine ban 1997
Rome statute 1998
Kyoto protocol 1997


So it boils down to some of the treaties the USA broke were agreed before the USA existed and when the UK were in charge. Cromwell you can do better than that, I give you a D for effort.

Back on topic, the UK has an internationally binding, ratified, agreed treaty, unlike most of the nonsense above and the EU will be surprised if the UK decides it will be a dishonest broker and loose it's international reputation by breaking it's word and agreement. But look above, he USA breaks treaties over 200 yrs ago and has this reputation of being a unreliable international partner, I suppose once you get that name tag it's hard to lose it.

[Borg Refinery]

Great article btw ^ good find crom.

One more thing: China are wanting to be self-sufficient and have been forced to look after themselves more - and to reorientate their economy towards their internal markets, and closer neighbours.

That's commendable, self sufficiency is what ANY country should aim for.

Gerry, you make the mistake yet again of saying "stupid ignorant anglo bloke hates China", but you couldn't be more wrong, like when you said I had it in for Irl. It's simply untrue.