How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 11)
Discussion
banjowilly said:
More vitriol
Of course there will be a solution. It's a when, not an if. For there to be a solution both sides need to agree to talk about finding one that is mutually acceptable. - The one we have on the table currently has been rejected by Parliament 3 times, so clearly something else has to give. Unless you are insisting that the Government enforces the WA as it currently stands, thereby overriding Parliament? Thought not. Ok, so the question is how the UK and the EU can have the discussion. Some here clearly think that it is incumbent on the UK to come up with the solution all by itself. The problems there are:
1. Do we just keep firing ideas at them until the EU hear one they like? - sort of like an International game of Cluedo?
2. Since the EU has already said it cannot change the WA, what is the point in the UK suggesting anything?
Of course, a sensible conclusion would be that the EU and the UK have to have substantive talks around an amended WA. I wonder why so many Remainers on here seem reluctant to call upon the EU to engage in this?
Nickgnome said:
However you want to wrap it up it was a cock up by the UK, who then tried to change the law. Additionally you admit 41 vessels were not reregistered in Spain but in the UK.
You seem to be upset that the ECJ ruled against us, without any counter argument as to why you consider they got it wrong.
On a connected point why did the British allow the Spanish vessels to be re registered in the UK in a he first place.
I’ve met a number of Partners in quite a few of the legal practices in London. Without exception their phraseology is much more measured than yours and they would find your approach counter productive.
If you had read the judgements you might realise just how stupid your response is.You seem to be upset that the ECJ ruled against us, without any counter argument as to why you consider they got it wrong.
On a connected point why did the British allow the Spanish vessels to be re registered in the UK in a he first place.
I’ve met a number of Partners in quite a few of the legal practices in London. Without exception their phraseology is much more measured than yours and they would find your approach counter productive.
andymadmak said:
banjowilly said:
More vitriol
Of course there will be a solution. It's a when, not an if. For there to be a solution both sides need to agree to talk about finding one that is mutually acceptable. - The one we have on the table currently has been rejected by Parliament 3 times, so clearly something else has to give. Unless you are insisting that the Government enforces the WA as it currently stands, thereby overriding Parliament? Thought not. Ok, so the question is how the UK and the EU can have the discussion. Some here clearly think that it is incumbent on the UK to come up with the solution all by itself. The problems there are:
1. Do we just keep firing ideas at them until the EU hear one they like? - sort of like an International game of Cluedo?
2. Since the EU has already said it cannot change the WA, what is the point in the UK suggesting anything?
Of course, a sensible conclusion would be that the EU and the UK have to have substantive talks around an amended WA. I wonder why so many Remainers on here seem reluctant to call upon the EU to engage in this?
quick question:
If the Remainers on here are so convinced that there can be no solution to the NI Backstop/Border issue, why are they so keen for the UK to sign up to the Backstop, knowing full well that do so would lock the UK into a colony status in perpetuity? (or at least until the UK rolled over and gave the EU everything they want)
If the Remainers on here are so convinced that there can be no solution to the NI Backstop/Border issue, why are they so keen for the UK to sign up to the Backstop, knowing full well that do so would lock the UK into a colony status in perpetuity? (or at least until the UK rolled over and gave the EU everything they want)
andymadmak said:
banjowilly said:
More plain sense.
Of course there will be a solution. It's a when, not an if. For there to be a solution both sides need to agree to talk about finding one that is mutually acceptable. - The one we have on the table currently has been rejected by Parliament 3 times, so clearly something else has to give. Unless you are insisting that the Government enforces the WA as it currently stands, thereby overriding Parliament? Thought not. Ok, so the question is how the UK and the EU can have the discussion. Some here clearly think that it is incumbent on the UK to come up with the solution all by itself. The problems there are:
1. Do we just keep firing ideas at them until the EU hear one they like? - sort of like an International game of Cluedo?
2. Since the EU has already said it cannot change the WA, what is the point in the UK suggesting anything?
Of course, a sensible conclusion would be that the EU and the UK have to have substantive talks around an amended WA. I wonder why so many Remainers on here seem reluctant to call upon the EU to engage in this?
So your faith (Of course there will be a solution) is based on what? The letter dent by the First lord of the admiralty last night? Right you are chief.
1) Even one proposal would be a start.
2) You're ignoring statements from EU leaders & reasoned, evidenced posts above, but crack on lad.
3) If you hold a vote & opt to leave a territory that has borders, in the process effectively creating the economic re-partitioning of Ireland, it is not enough to spin it as the fault of party that has not changed anything. You have to say how it will work after you enact your decision. And don't expect nationalist communities to assist in that. The ball is in the UK's court no matter how much your rampant Brexit bias insists otherwise.
andymadmak said:
quick question:
If the Remainers on here are so convinced that there can be no solution to the NI Backstop/Border issue, why are they so keen for the UK to sign up to the Backstop, knowing full well that do so would lock the UK into a colony status in perpetuity? (or at least until the UK rolled over and gave the EU everything they want)
The clue is in the name & As a leaver, if your solutions are so viable, why won't you accept the backstop, since according to you, it will never be needed?If the Remainers on here are so convinced that there can be no solution to the NI Backstop/Border issue, why are they so keen for the UK to sign up to the Backstop, knowing full well that do so would lock the UK into a colony status in perpetuity? (or at least until the UK rolled over and gave the EU everything they want)
Fittster said:
Which red lines will the ERG be prepared to give up?
I don't think the ERG is an homogenous unit with just one position. It's made up of individuals, each of whom will have thresholds that must be met, some higher and some lower than others. In any event I think that Boris can, to some degree, bypass the ERG. I think a majority of the house want an orderly exit, based around a sensible WA, sans backstop. It's just my guess, and I might be wrong on this. banjowilly said:
Le Controleur Horizontal said:
banjowilly said:
But Johnson must table a proposal. He hasn't done that. It's hard to draw any other conclusion.
He has, he has said he is happy to discuss commitments and their relationship to the Uk's position, do you want him to negotiate on Twitter ?I wonder how that will play in Brussels & it still doesn't address the one key line in the letter - we'll aim to search out alternative arrangements. But you haven't PM, none of you have in two years & there's 72 days to go. The strategy is clear - there's no workable solution, so run the clock down, save the party, screw the country, job jobbed.
banjowilly said:
This is the inescapable truth about the letter. If the government had any confidence in the alternatives, the backstop would be of no concern. Once you make the leap, then you understand that Brexit starts & ends with saving the Tory party.
- A proposal is not going to be made by letter!
- If the EU are going to ‘engage’ why have their officials already poo-poo’d Boris’ letter?
- The UK can have as much confidence in the alternatives but the current WA relies on the EU agreeing and does not allow for independent arbitration in the event that it doesn’t and plays silly buggers.
banjowilly said:
FTFY Mr. weedy comprehension balls.
So your faith (Of course there will be a solution) is based on what? The letter dent by the First lord of the admiralty last night? Right you are chief.
1) Even one proposal would be a start.
2) You're ignoring statements from EU leaders & reasoned, evidenced posts above, but crack on lad.
3) If you hold a vote & opt to leave a territory that has borders, in the process effectively creating the economic re-partitioning of Ireland, it is not enough to spin it as the fault of party that has not changed anything. You have to say how it will work after you enact your decision. And don't expect nationalist communities to assist in that. The ball is in the UK's court no matter how much your rampant Brexit bias insists otherwise.
Oh dear. Why don't you go back to making homophobic rants? You were better at that. Your complete failure to address the two questions posed is telling. So your faith (Of course there will be a solution) is based on what? The letter dent by the First lord of the admiralty last night? Right you are chief.
1) Even one proposal would be a start.
2) You're ignoring statements from EU leaders & reasoned, evidenced posts above, but crack on lad.
3) If you hold a vote & opt to leave a territory that has borders, in the process effectively creating the economic re-partitioning of Ireland, it is not enough to spin it as the fault of party that has not changed anything. You have to say how it will work after you enact your decision. And don't expect nationalist communities to assist in that. The ball is in the UK's court no matter how much your rampant Brexit bias insists otherwise.
Mrr T said:
Murph7355 said:
Exactly.
BUT...
Don't forget MrrT knows all our aircraft will be grounded and our airports will look like something out of I Am Legend (not to mention our citizens) immediately after a no deal catastrophic cliff edge disaster....
So is your hope for no deal brexit, still, that the EU rolls overs it's 11 and 12 month dispensation for the UK aerospace industry?BUT...
Don't forget MrrT knows all our aircraft will be grounded and our airports will look like something out of I Am Legend (not to mention our citizens) immediately after a no deal catastrophic cliff edge disaster....
How is this taking back control?
That may include continued membership of EASA and EurAtom etc if it suits the UK to do so and for as long as it suits the UK to do so/can be sensibly negotiated.
You utterly fail to understand what "taking back control" means. It's never been about isolationism and assuming we can live in a bubble. It's about being able to choose which bubbles we operate in. Just like ANY other FTA arrangement.
Next you may ask why the UK didn't set its stall out that way from the outset. A good question. The answer to which is a PM and advisor who quite simply did not want us to leave and preferred more fudge than Roly Polys on a summer Saturday morning.
Barring the CS from preparing for a no deal outcome was insane of Cameron, and a downright dereliction of duty by May.
hutchst said:
I posted earlier that you should read the cases. It is patently obvious that neither you nor your mate wittering on about selling quotas have done that. You can find any answer you want on google or wikipedia, but most of them are wrong. Here is a relevant extract from the transcript of the judgement:
The appellants in the main proceedings, including Factortame Ltd (the applicants), are a number of companies incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and also the directors and share-holders of those companies, most of whom are Spanish nationals. Those companies between them own or manage 95 fishing vessels which were until 31 March 1989 registered as British fishing vessels under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. 53 of those vessels were originally registered in Spain and flew the Spanish flag. Those 53 vessels were registered under the 1894 Act at various dates from 1980 onwards. The remaining 42 vessels had always been British. They were purchased by the applicants at various dates, mainly since 1983.
The statutory system governing the registration of British fishing vessels was radically altered by Pt II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1926. It is common ground that the United Kingdom amended the previous legislation in order to put a stop to the practice known as 'quota hopping', whereby, according to that state, its fishing quotas are 'plundered' by fishing vessels flying the British flag but lacking any genuine link with the United Kingdom.
I have underlined the important parts, which are facts. Real ones.
Factortame & others v Secretary of State for Transport (No.2) [1991] 1 All ER 70, 75
Just for starters can you explain to me UK law I have never heard of it. The appellants in the main proceedings, including Factortame Ltd (the applicants), are a number of companies incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and also the directors and share-holders of those companies, most of whom are Spanish nationals. Those companies between them own or manage 95 fishing vessels which were until 31 March 1989 registered as British fishing vessels under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. 53 of those vessels were originally registered in Spain and flew the Spanish flag. Those 53 vessels were registered under the 1894 Act at various dates from 1980 onwards. The remaining 42 vessels had always been British. They were purchased by the applicants at various dates, mainly since 1983.
The statutory system governing the registration of British fishing vessels was radically altered by Pt II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1926. It is common ground that the United Kingdom amended the previous legislation in order to put a stop to the practice known as 'quota hopping', whereby, according to that state, its fishing quotas are 'plundered' by fishing vessels flying the British flag but lacking any genuine link with the United Kingdom.
I have underlined the important parts, which are facts. Real ones.
Factortame & others v Secretary of State for Transport (No.2) [1991] 1 All ER 70, 75
The case is much more complex. These where companies incorporated under the law of England and Wales. Some had owners and directors who where not UK resident. There is nothing wrong with that. The ships where owned by the company and where entitled to use UK quota.
The UK wanted to impose further restrictions on access to UK quota. There where several cases in the UK courts and ECJ.
The ECJ did not give the quota to the Spanish it ruled that the UK could not discriminate on grounds of nationality. WTO rules contain similar requirements.
For those interested.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)...
andymadmak said:
Oh dear. Why don't you go back to making homophobic rants? You were better at that. Your complete failure to address the two questions posed is telling.
Oh mate. Is that really where you went? Quote it then. Andy lad, if you can't stop reverting to type as a spiteful piece of work, then you really should leave well alone.
banjowilly said:
andymadmak said:
Oh dear. Why don't you go back to making homophobic rants? You were better at that. Your complete failure to address the two questions posed is telling.
Oh mate. Is that really where you went? Quote it then. Andy lad, if you can't stop reverting to type as a spiteful piece of work, then you really should leave well alone.
OK, well, I am sure you want to put it behind you. But we both know that your responses to Crackie were both racist in language (cracker) and homophobic in thought..
But I can see why you would be ashamed of this.
Murph7355 said:
My expectation has always been that your black and white "no deal", all shutters must come down and men with guns and barbed wire be deployed simply won't happen and that pragmatic, common sense arrangements will take place.
That may include continued membership of EASA and EurAtom etc if it suits the UK to do so and for as long as it suits the UK to do so/can be sensibly negotiated.
So let's get this straight. Having left with no deal. Having not paid the 39bn. Having caused the EU economies some disruption. We rock up to the EU and say we deicided to stay in the EASA and EurAtom for a bit. Not sure that's a cunning plan. That may include continued membership of EASA and EurAtom etc if it suits the UK to do so and for as long as it suits the UK to do so/can be sensibly negotiated.
andymadmak said:
OK, well, I am sure you want to put it behind you. But we both know that your responses to Crackie were both racist in language (cracker) and homophobic in thought..
But I can see why you would be ashamed of this.
What??!!! You can read my thoughts? Christ, the absolute state of it. We're done, enough crazies in my life between the kids & the missus without taking any more on, gratis.
hutchst said:
I posted earlier that you should read the cases. It is patently obvious that neither you nor your mate wittering on about selling quotas have done that. You can find any answer you want on google or wikipedia, but most of them are wrong. Here is a relevant extract from the transcript of the judgement:
The appellants in the main proceedings, including Factortame Ltd (the applicants), are a number of companies incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and also the directors and share-holders of those companies, most of whom are Spanish nationals. Those companies between them own or manage 95 fishing vessels which were until 31 March 1989 registered as British fishing vessels under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. 53 of those vessels were originally registered in Spain and flew the Spanish flag. Those 53 vessels were registered under the 1894 Act at various dates from 1980 onwards. The remaining 42 vessels had always been British. They were purchased by the applicants at various dates, mainly since 1983.
The statutory system governing the registration of British fishing vessels was radically altered by Pt II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1926. It is common ground that the United Kingdom amended the previous legislation in order to put a stop to the practice known as 'quota hopping', whereby, according to that state, its fishing quotas are 'plundered' by fishing vessels flying the British flag but lacking any genuine link with the United Kingdom.
I have underlined the important parts, which are facts. Real ones.
Factortame & others v Secretary of State for Transport (No.2) [1991] 1 All ER 70, 75
All that said is it not correct that the U.K. has sold portions of the quota on a piecemeal basis which has ended up with a heavy concentration in a few commercial hands and potentially disadvantaged smaller operators ?The appellants in the main proceedings, including Factortame Ltd (the applicants), are a number of companies incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom and also the directors and share-holders of those companies, most of whom are Spanish nationals. Those companies between them own or manage 95 fishing vessels which were until 31 March 1989 registered as British fishing vessels under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. 53 of those vessels were originally registered in Spain and flew the Spanish flag. Those 53 vessels were registered under the 1894 Act at various dates from 1980 onwards. The remaining 42 vessels had always been British. They were purchased by the applicants at various dates, mainly since 1983.
The statutory system governing the registration of British fishing vessels was radically altered by Pt II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 and the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1988, SI 1988/1926. It is common ground that the United Kingdom amended the previous legislation in order to put a stop to the practice known as 'quota hopping', whereby, according to that state, its fishing quotas are 'plundered' by fishing vessels flying the British flag but lacking any genuine link with the United Kingdom.
I have underlined the important parts, which are facts. Real ones.
Factortame & others v Secretary of State for Transport (No.2) [1991] 1 All ER 70, 75
I understand that some of those operators are to all intents and purposes non U.K. but exploiting the rulings you refer to have demonstrated a tenuous economic link and are in continued receipt of access of rights granted by HM Govt, in return for monies paid. Is my understanding wrong ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff