It’s either lawfull or unlawfull, so which one in your opinion is it?
It’s either lawfull or unlawfull, so which one in your opinion is it?
roscoe. wrote:
Look I am not saying I have 100% confidence in the government to negotiate the right way in these talks for all issues. Fisheries would be a red line for me. I hope this government has the political skill and will to get what we need and want, but at least Brexit gives us the chance to negotiate these areas.
That is exactly what the Brexiteers don't understand. They think they get what they demand from the negotiations. But that's not how it works. Negotiations go both ways.
The EU has a huge interest to uphold the integrity of the EU.
And Fisheries are such a small factor in the GDP than this is probably the first which will go down for the UK.
Putin funding Leave (trolls, facebook, etc) was definitely unlawful, but you still need evidence, a trial, and so on.
Ultramarkus wrote:
roscoe. wrote:
Look I am not saying I have 100% confidence in the government to negotiate the right way in these talks for all issues. Fisheries would be a red line for me. I hope this government has the political skill and will to get what we need and want, but at least Brexit gives us the chance to negotiate these areas.
That is exactly what the Brexiteers don't understand. They think they get what they demand from the negotiations. But that's not how it works. Negotiations go both ways.
The EU has a huge interest to uphold the integrity of the EU.
And Fisheries are such a small factor in the GDP than this is probably the first which will go down for the UK.
We want a FTA and the EU has previously offered this post Brexit so where is the conflict?
Not everything is about GDP, our boundaries should be sacrosanct. We are island rich in coastal waters and fish that would be our resource we’re it not for the EU and fisheries rules.
roscoe. wrote:
It’s either lawfull or unlawfull, so which one in your opinion is it?
What is "it"? Referendums are lawful, but not binding and the results were not enshrined in law.
Childish thinking from roscoe. Just like “Leave=more fish!”
rekrunner wrote:
roscoe. wrote:
It’s either lawfull or unlawfull, so which one in your opinion is it?
What is "it"? Referendums are lawful, but not binding and the results were not enshrined in law.
We had this discussion but it doesn't matter anymore. The Brits are out in 16 days. And they will painfully find out what Brexit ACTUALLY means. No more red buses with false promises. Just cold hard facts from the negotiating table.
The will get more fish they don't eat.
But maybe tastes change when everything else gets a lot more expensive, like the Dutch tomatoes.
Ultramarkus wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
What is "it"? Referendums are lawful, but not binding and the results were not enshrined in law.
We had this discussion but it doesn't matter anymore. The Brits are out in 16 days. And they will painfully find out what Brexit ACTUALLY means. No more red buses with false promises. Just cold hard facts from the negotiating table.
You popping over the pond to celebrate with me Marcus? I’ll buy you a Union Jack tee shirt to wear. As you are from the US I will assume XXL unless told otherwise.
roscoe. wrote:
You popping over the pond to celebrate with me Marcus? I’ll buy you a Union Jack tee shirt to wear. As you are from the US I will assume XXL unless told otherwise.
I would love to get that T shirt. L is fine.
rekrunner wrote:
roscoe. wrote:
It’s either lawfull or unlawfull, so which one in your opinion is it?
What is "it"? Referendums are lawful, but not binding and the results were not enshrined in law.
Oh great, that clears things up. So the law is not the law despite the European Union Act 2018 and repeal of the EC act of 1972 and triggering of Article 50 being triggered.
New agriculture proposal presented. No protection from countries with lower standards. New, complicated, untested system to learn. No EU, let’s throw it on the wall, and see if it sticks!
jesseriley wrote:
New agriculture proposal presented. No protection from countries with lower standards. New, complicated, untested system to learn. No EU, let’s throw it on the wall, and see if it sticks!
Level playing field on workers rights and environmental issues they say. Ok fair enough, so let’s level up the minimum wage that we have in the U.K. with the other EU 27, let’s see how they respond. Let’s level up U.K. maternity rights with the other EU 27, let’s see how the respond. Let’s level up U.K. green investment across the other 27, let’s see how they respond. Let’s level up reduction of recent carbon emissions across the other EU 27, let’s see how they respond. The fact is we are already ahead on these areas and we will not be dragged down to their level.
Ah, yes, the medieval Continent where no mother or baby is safe; where their votes are funded by Green Russia, ha ha.
Glad I could help. Perhaps you should consult a lawyer about whether the law is the law.
roscoe. wrote:
Oh great, that clears things up. So the law is not the law despite the European Union Act 2018 and repeal of the EC act of 1972 and triggering of Article 50 being triggered.
rekrunner wrote:
Glad I could help. Perhaps you should consult a lawyer about whether the law is the law.
roscoe. wrote:
Oh great, that clears things up. So the law is not the law despite the European Union Act 2018 and repeal of the EC act of 1972 and triggering of Article 50 being triggered.
Maybe you could represent Mike Rossi!
Ultramarkus wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
What is "it"? Referendums are lawful, but not binding and the results were not enshrined in law.
We had this discussion but it doesn't matter anymore. The Brits are out in 16 days. And they will painfully find out what Brexit ACTUALLY means. No more red buses with false promises. Just cold hard facts from the negotiating table.
Hey Markus, the impossible timeframe of the end of 2020 you keep on about. Guess what, the EU 27 agreed to it when they vorted in agreement with the U.K. for article 50 to be triggered and in agreement to Boris withdrawal agreement that will be ratified in the next few days. Who would have thought.
I think you are mixing up things.
We are done with the withdrawal agreement.
Now, in the next 11 month, the UK has to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. Of course things a lot more complicated than you could possibly write on a red bus. The experts say it will take a lot longer to negotiate a decent deal for the UK.
So chances are high that the UK get either a very bad deal or the whole negotiations stall and they crash out, which will have catastrophic consequences.
An easy trade deal with Canada took 7 or 8 years. No idea why the UK thinks they can do it in a couple of month. And don't blame me for the bad news. I am just repeating what I heard from some of the trade experts.
Here is an older video about this subject:
Not to mention that the younger generation who didn’t want brexit will be stuck with the consequences.
"Do you consider your native Britain to be an "international laughing stock?"
LOL
The EU is an international laughing stock!
The EU project is an attempt by a small number of elites to gain control of all of Europe and beyond.
Hitler would have been proud.
“But we have entirely different motives to the Nazis! The Nazis wanted to control all of Europe, but they are evil. We want all of Europe, but our motives are pure, noble and righteous!”
The UK told these elites to F**K OFF!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2zJ8vaB5joRIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!