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

[Thomas]

FFS Crom, calm down mate you're getting hysterical.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_jXs3TeDdjw&t=0m50s

 

have  you no nothing to say dyno about carole making up stories about the russians and brexit?

What do you fink, looks like it really was all down to your fellow countrymen wanting out. Wasnt vlad , wasnt thomas and his mind control , just plain old english euroscepticsim.

[Borg Refinery]

Why does everybody think Im permanently wound up

FFS Crom, calm down mate you're getting hysterical.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_jXs3TeDdjw&t=0m50s

 

[Thomas]

well done gerry nice to see ireland will keep the wheels of european industry turning after the yookay leaves.

Ireland to be EU budget net contributor for some time

https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2020/1109/1177074-ireland-eu-budget-contribution/

[Thomas]

Oh Carole: Admits Russia Claims Untrue, Agrees to Pay Banks's Costs

Late last night with the Banks v Cadwalladr hearing scheduled for 10:30 this morning, Carole Cadwalladr finally admitted what we all knew, there was no evidence to back up her claims that the Russians financed the Brexit campaign or that Arron Banks was involved in shady deals with the Russians. Why she left it to the eve of the hearing to admit it was all bollocks defies belief, cynics might note she still has two crowdfunders running. One to fund this hopeless case and another to fund her "investigative journalism" – which produced the Russia nonsense.

Cadwalladr now has to pay £62,000 of costs on account this morning as a down payment, expect that figure to go higher. Cadwalladr has avoided the humiliation of appearing in court this morning by submitting in writing an amended defence which

    "... removes the Truth Defence and the Limitation Defence"

Which is legalese for "it was all complete cock 'n bull".

She has not stopped milking the crowdfunding mugs yet, Carole has learnt there are plenty of gullible idiots who still want to believe her fairy tales. She intends to continue battling Banks by trying to mitigate her costs with the argument that, despite there being no truth to the allegations, she has being making around the world to much acclaim, they were made in the public interest. So she will run up her crowdfunded legal bill to argue that her disinformation was in the public interest. Guido admires the novelty of that argument.

Cadwalladr has tried to portray this legal case as some kind of freedom of the press battle, it wasn't. She has for years made unchallenged allegations, which were motivated out of political malice. Finally she has had to admit they were untrue. A lucrative, prize winning, journalistic hoax...

https://order-order.com/2020/11/26/exclusive-oh-carole-admits-russia-claims-untrue-agrees-to-pay-banks-costs/#comments


what do you fink gerry? Im still no convinced , i think the russians are behind everything?

[Thomas]

Why does everybody think Im permanently wound up,

we are all walking about on eggshells when you are about cromwell.

Nerves are feckin shattered with your heavy haded approach to modding and deleting everyones posts...

[Thomas]

Why does everybody think Im permanently wound up,I don't mind Gerry except when he gets carried away on his anti English crap and what his mammy told him,history is littered with shit things done but this is about us leaving not the Easter rising.

Gerry is about as irish as tony cascarino cromwell.

He sounds and comes across as an embittered anglo left wing labour luvvie who hates his own people fur voting to leave his precious eu.

Hes on here for a noise up , just read his posts and laugh.

[Thomas]

I would imagine farage and pretty much every single brexiter is more than happy when gaga joe speaks out on brexit and the irish border.

Telling the english how naughty they are will be like a red rag to a bull. It should ensure the end of the transition period and the uk finally exiting the eu in 4 half weeks or so goes pretty smoothly,  and that the hardline stance against accepting eu rules laws or some sort of BRINO stays in place.

Gerry seems to be doing a spiffing job of entrenching brexiters views.

I nearly spat my coffee all over the pc screen when reading gerrys latest claim that brexit is building a wall around the uk and isolating everyone in it.

[johnofgwent]

Under EU law an employer can't have you sign a contract that would prevent you from gaining employment elsewhere.

Then someone should tell the European parliament about the employment and service contracts demanded of the workforce across the automotive sector

Because it is an industry standard to demand that employees have no employment other than the one with the automotive company currently employing them.

And I don't mean you can't work for ford and nissan at the same time and I don't mean you have to sign NDAs that will crucify you if you take design ideas from one employer to the next ...

I mean your automotive employer require you to declare annually that a) you have had no other employment of any kind elsewhere at all and b) you have no investments you are aware of and control over the investment in, in any of your clients, suppliers or competitors.

I've worked or freelanced at six EU-wide automotive companies in my career, including the last three years  in permanent employment at one, and every time I was required to sign one of those or not get the job. And all but two of those were post Maastricht.

So either the automotive industry is bribing the EU to turn a blind eye, or you're bullshitting again.

I wonder which ?

(To be fair to you, I wouldn't put it past the EU for it to be the bribery)

[Nick]

Under EU law an employer can't have you sign a contract that would prevent you from gaining employment elsewhere. This is what sets aside those clauses between an employer and employee.  Your suggestion that a person leaving employment and that contract being terminated and all clauses being useless is also bollox. For example your employmen contract can state you will not share sensitive information (pricing information, design documentation etc or a HR peron sharing personal info). This can be in your contract and after you leave you most certainly be held accountable.

I can tell that you don't employ anybody Gerry or you would know what you're talking about. You're talking nonsense.
Gerry, there is no employment law governing sharing proprietary information. The clause in a contract telling you that you can't share secrets is garbage. The law comes into place when your new employer is taken to court for copyright infringement.

Tell me how the clauses in a terminated contract are still in force Gerry?

[GerryT]

Of course that is how they work. If you're in a business similar to the one I'm in there are only about four major players. Employment contracts usually contain something along the lines of you cannot work for a competitor or any of our customers within a 12 month period of leaving. This is of course bollox as the second you leave that employment contract is terminated and ALL clauses in it are useless. Unless there is a statement built into the contract stating that clauses x, y, z are persistent for the 12 month period outlined.

Under EU law an employer can't have you sign a contract that would prevent you from gaining employment elsewhere. This is what sets aside those clauses between an employer and employee.  Your suggestion that a person leaving employment and that contract being terminated and all clauses being useless is also bollox. For example your employmen contract can state you will not share sensitive information (pricing information, design documentation etc or a HR peron sharing personal info). This can be in your contract and after you leave you most certainly be held accountable.

So, I can only surmise that as it's called the Withdrawal as it governs the UK's withdrawal from the EU. And it expires on the 31st Dec 2020.
If none of the clauses in it are persistent then it's a worthless piece of legislation. Seeing as the U.K. internal bill won't be able to be used until after the transition period there is no way it can break any international law.

No, the UK left the EU at the end of Jan 2020, the WA is now in play forever, unless both the EU and UK agree otherwise, jointly. The WA has zero to do with the transition period. Go onto any EU site and look at the members list, the UK doesn't exist, it's been removed. Your like the guy going home for holiday, your bags in reception, you can use the bar, swimming pool and a room to shower but your not really like the rest of the guests.

Scenario 1. 1st Jan there is no deal, WA is terminated with no persistent clauses. The EU try to tie us up like a kipper, we use the bill and no law is broken as the WA is defunct.
Scenario 2. We get a deal and we don't need to use to use the bill. No law broken.

Where is this mythical international law being broken?

Scenario 1 is nonsense, WA is in place foreveeeerrrrr
Scenario 2 is just speculation, I guess the deal agreed is the gold plated one, in that case yes the UK may not pass the bill and it's binned. But most likely the UK with get at best a very very very basic deal, and Johnson would then have to pass the bill, breaking the WA. But knowing Johnson he will try sell the shit deal as the best deal in history. Like he did the WA in January, what was it oven ready, turned out for he UK to be an oven ready turd.

[Nick]

Is that how contracts work ?

Of course that is how they work. If you're in a business similar to the one I'm in there are only about four major players. Employment contracts usually contain something along the lines of you cannot work for a competitor or any of our customers within a 12 month period of leaving. This is of course bollox as the second you leave that employment contract is terminated and ALL clauses in it are useless. Unless there is a statement built into the contract stating that clauses x, y, z are persistent for the 12 month period outlined.

So, I can only surmise that as it's called the Withdrawal as it governs the UK's withdrawal from the EU. And it expires on the 31st Dec 2020.
If none of the clauses in it are persistent then it's a worthless piece of legislation. Seeing as the U.K. internal bill won't be able to be used until after the transition period there is no way it can break any international law.

Scenario 1. 1st Jan there is no deal, WA is terminated with no persistent clauses. The EU try to tie us up like a kipper, we use the bill and no law is broken as the WA is defunct.
Scenario 2. We get a deal and we don't need to use to use the bill. No law broken.

Where is this mythical international law being broken?

[GerryT]

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

My main point was Biden is more open to doing deals. But we will wait and see how he performs as a president, I'm not a member of his fan club but time will tell.

[GerryT]

I'll say nothing, I'll prob do the same thing next week 

[GerryT]

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.

Having countermeasures in the bill is a breach of the WA. It doesn't matter if they are acted upon or not, once the bill is passed and those clauses are there, implemented or not.

My understanding is the The UK included the IMB clauses because a sovereign country like the UK couldn't be shackled with a treaty such as the WA, and the UK should have the unilateral right to overrule any international law if it see's fit. On that basis it matters not if the UK has a trade deal or not, what happens if the UK didn't like the FTA, surely in 9 mths time it could just use the IMB clauses and make it all disappear.
What your suggesting is the IMB clauses were just a bluff to leverage the UK's hand against the EU in the trade talks.

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

Is that how contracts work ?
Or maybe contracts (such as treaties) can be terminated a number of ways.
First a contract can have a termination date or be for a fixed duration.
Second the contract can be set aside if both parties agree to do that.
Third the contract has a mechanism for either party to exit the contract (such as art50 and EU membership)

Unless the treaty has a means to be terminated or both parties agree then one party can't decide to ignore it. SO you should know their won't be a clause in the WA saying it will continue. If there is a termination method then it will be in the WA, so why don't you go and get that.

Finally the EU isn't offering a deal, both parties negotiating a deal. That would suggest the UK is a active party and not just sitting back waiting for the EU to solve the UK's problems

[cromwell]

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