Jump to content
Jools

The Positive Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Good to see you confirm that hand crank has previously used that word in respect of my posts a number of times

I have yet to find conclusive proof of w/c

and poor old plod is too simple to realise he is being strung along

and if you had half a brain hand crank, you would grasp that one piece of the jigsaw merely adds to the bigger picture, it is not the picture itself

but thanks for drawing attention to this one particular word - there are others that link your log ins, but that will do for now

Its the matrix.  Truth is we are all avatars of the same computer algorithm with just an illusion of free will and consciousness.

That and the deep state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

 

Does the EU really have 100 free trade agreements? Of course not

Only 11 real EU trade deals are actually in force, according to EU data

propaganda.jpg

Brexit Facts4EU.Org blows apart the EU’s (and Remainer-Rejoiners’) myth about trade deals

Europhiles in the UK continue to claim that Brexit will mean the loss of 100 trade deals which the EU has negotiated with other countries. This report provides readers with the solid evidence to refute these claims completely.

On 23 July 2020, the EU Parliament updated its pages about the EU’s trade agreements. Here is what they said:-

eu_parliament_trade_page_080820.jpg

Source: EU Parliament, updated by them on 23 July 2020, accessed by us on Sat 08 Aug 2020

So, the EU Parliament says that “The EU currently has about 100 trade agreements in place or in the process of being updated or negotiated.”

Readers will note that the claimed “100 trade agreements” bizarrely includes those agreements which are still being negotiated. Using the same basis, the UK’s Department for International Trade could make the same claim. We hope they do not, because it would be equally misleading for the public.

Readers who scroll down the EU Parliament’s page will find that even the Parliament has to admit that only 38 agreements are “in place”.

eu_parliament_trade_page_2_080820.jpg

Source: EU Parliament, updated by them on 23 July 2020, accessed by us on Sat 08 Aug 2020

It gets worse for the EU

The EU groups its “trade agreements” and says
“There are three main types of agreement”

  1. Customs Unions
    • eliminate customs duties in bilateral trade, and;
    • establish a joint customs tariff for foreign importers
  2. Association Agreements, Stabilisation Agreements, (Deep and Comprehensive) Free Trade Agreements and Economic Partnership Agreements
    • remove or reduce customs tariffs in bilateral trade
  3. Partnership and Cooperation Agreements
    • provide a general framework for bilateral economic relations, and;
    • leave customs tariffs as they are

Taking the first category there are just three countries listed. Of these, the tiny states of Andorra and San Marino are effectively both part of the EU anyway. Turkey is the only real country listed as being in a Customs Union with the EU.

We can eliminate the final category completely. These are not trade agreements in any normal understanding of the term. They do not affect tariffs at all, by the EU’s own admission.

In the middle category we must also eliminate “Association” and “Stabilisation” Agreements on the same basis. Below is the official text we accessed from the EU’s law library for an “Association Agreement”. This one is with a country we picked at random: the Middle Eastern country of Jordan.

Association Agreement - Jordan

The aims of this Agreement are:

— to provide an appropriate framework for the political dialogue, allowing the development of close political relations between the Parties,

— to establish the conditions for the progressive liberalisation of trade in goods, services and capital,

— to foster the development of balanced economic and social relations between the Parties through dialogue and cooperation,

— to improve living and employment conditions, and enhance productivity and financial stability

— to encourage regional cooperation with a view to the consolidation of peaceful coexistence and economic and political stability,

— to promote cooperation in other areas which are of reciprocal interest.

This kind of agreement is akin to saying “Let’s be nice to each other and talk about trade.” Even the EU does not describe these as free trade agreements, although it includes them in the overall numbers. Some of the “Economic Partnership Agreements”, such as that with Lesotho in Africa, contain similar sections and only grant “Most Favoured Nation” status on WTO rules, albeit with tariff reductions in some areas.

So how many free trade agreements does the EU actually have in force?

According to the Trade Directorate of the EU Commission, only 11 out of the claimed 100 trade agreements are actually in force:-

  • Switzerland - Agreement
  • Faroe Islands - Agreement
  • Turkey - Customs union
  • Iceland - Economic Area Agreement
  • Norway - Economic Area Agreement
  • Liechtenstein - Economic Area Agreement
  • South Korea - Free Trade Agreement
  • Singapore - Free Trade Agreement
  • Vietnam - Free Trade Agreement
  • Mexico - Global Agreement
  • Japan - Global agreement

We have excluded “Association”, “Partnership and Cooperation”, and “Stabilisation and Association” Agreements as these are not real trade agreements. We have also excluded Andorra and San Marino as they are both effectively part of the EU. (The French President, Emmanuel Macron, is even the “Co-Prince of Andorra”.) It is possible to make a similar argument about the Faroe Islands in relation to Denmark, but we let that one stand.

There are of course trade deals which are not yet in force, but is America, China, or India on the list? No.

Observations

 

The pro-EU lobby will naturally take issue with the above. The problem they have is the EU’s own declarations and descriptions of its agreements. The EU may wish to headline “100 trade agreements”, but what the British people and British businesses care about is what affects them.

We have taken a fairly firm view on what constitutes a “trade deal in force”, but we have used the EU Trade Directorates’s own data. We have also used their list for “trade deals in force”. The only removals are for what most reasonable people would consider to be double-counting (eg Andorra) and agreements which aren’t really trade deals at all.

The reality of the EU Commission’s efforts at doing trade deals is very, very different from the EU’s propaganda.

 

[ Sources: EU Parliament | EU Commission Trade Directorate ] Politicians, journalists and Pink'Un Remainiacs can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Sat, 08 Aug 2020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jools said:

 

Does the EU really have 100 free trade agreements? Of course not

Only 11 real EU trade deals are actually in force, according to EU data

propaganda.jpg

Brexit Facts4EU.Org blows apart the EU’s (and Remainer-Rejoiners’) myth about trade deals

Europhiles in the UK continue to claim that Brexit will mean the loss of 100 trade deals which the EU has negotiated with other countries. This report provides readers with the solid evidence to refute these claims completely.

On 23 July 2020, the EU Parliament updated its pages about the EU’s trade agreements. Here is what they said:-

eu_parliament_trade_page_080820.jpg

Source: EU Parliament, updated by them on 23 July 2020, accessed by us on Sat 08 Aug 2020

So, the EU Parliament says that “The EU currently has about 100 trade agreements in place or in the process of being updated or negotiated.”

Readers will note that the claimed “100 trade agreements” bizarrely includes those agreements which are still being negotiated. Using the same basis, the UK’s Department for International Trade could make the same claim. We hope they do not, because it would be equally misleading for the public.

Readers who scroll down the EU Parliament’s page will find that even the Parliament has to admit that only 38 agreements are “in place”.

eu_parliament_trade_page_2_080820.jpg

Source: EU Parliament, updated by them on 23 July 2020, accessed by us on Sat 08 Aug 2020

It gets worse for the EU

The EU groups its “trade agreements” and says
“There are three main types of agreement”

  1. Customs Unions
    • eliminate customs duties in bilateral trade, and;
    • establish a joint customs tariff for foreign importers
  2. Association Agreements, Stabilisation Agreements, (Deep and Comprehensive) Free Trade Agreements and Economic Partnership Agreements
    • remove or reduce customs tariffs in bilateral trade
  3. Partnership and Cooperation Agreements
    • provide a general framework for bilateral economic relations, and;
    • leave customs tariffs as they are

Taking the first category there are just three countries listed. Of these, the tiny states of Andorra and San Marino are effectively both part of the EU anyway. Turkey is the only real country listed as being in a Customs Union with the EU.

We can eliminate the final category completely. These are not trade agreements in any normal understanding of the term. They do not affect tariffs at all, by the EU’s own admission.

In the middle category we must also eliminate “Association” and “Stabilisation” Agreements on the same basis. Below is the official text we accessed from the EU’s law library for an “Association Agreement”. This one is with a country we picked at random: the Middle Eastern country of Jordan.

Association Agreement - Jordan

The aims of this Agreement are:

— to provide an appropriate framework for the political dialogue, allowing the development of close political relations between the Parties,

— to establish the conditions for the progressive liberalisation of trade in goods, services and capital,

— to foster the development of balanced economic and social relations between the Parties through dialogue and cooperation,

— to improve living and employment conditions, and enhance productivity and financial stability

— to encourage regional cooperation with a view to the consolidation of peaceful coexistence and economic and political stability,

— to promote cooperation in other areas which are of reciprocal interest.

This kind of agreement is akin to saying “Let’s be nice to each other and talk about trade.” Even the EU does not describe these as free trade agreements, although it includes them in the overall numbers. Some of the “Economic Partnership Agreements”, such as that with Lesotho in Africa, contain similar sections and only grant “Most Favoured Nation” status on WTO rules, albeit with tariff reductions in some areas.

So how many free trade agreements does the EU actually have in force?

According to the Trade Directorate of the EU Commission, only 11 out of the claimed 100 trade agreements are actually in force:-

  • Switzerland - Agreement
  • Faroe Islands - Agreement
  • Turkey - Customs union
  • Iceland - Economic Area Agreement
  • Norway - Economic Area Agreement
  • Liechtenstein - Economic Area Agreement
  • South Korea - Free Trade Agreement
  • Singapore - Free Trade Agreement
  • Vietnam - Free Trade Agreement
  • Mexico - Global Agreement
  • Japan - Global agreement

We have excluded “Association”, “Partnership and Cooperation”, and “Stabilisation and Association” Agreements as these are not real trade agreements. We have also excluded Andorra and San Marino as they are both effectively part of the EU. (The French President, Emmanuel Macron, is even the “Co-Prince of Andorra”.) It is possible to make a similar argument about the Faroe Islands in relation to Denmark, but we let that one stand.

There are of course trade deals which are not yet in force, but is America, China, or India on the list? No.

Observations

 

The pro-EU lobby will naturally take issue with the above. The problem they have is the EU’s own declarations and descriptions of its agreements. The EU may wish to headline “100 trade agreements”, but what the British people and British businesses care about is what affects them.

We have taken a fairly firm view on what constitutes a “trade deal in force”, but we have used the EU Trade Directorates’s own data. We have also used their list for “trade deals in force”. The only removals are for what most reasonable people would consider to be double-counting (eg Andorra) and agreements which aren’t really trade deals at all.

The reality of the EU Commission’s efforts at doing trade deals is very, very different from the EU’s propaganda.

 

[ Sources: EU Parliament | EU Commission Trade Directorate ] Politicians, journalists and Pink'Un Remainiacs can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Sat, 08 Aug 2020

Another long cut and paste from a comedy web site from Jools.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Another long cut and paste from a comedy web site from Jools.

 

Pink'Un Remainiacs can contact us for details, as ever 👈

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jools said:

Pink'Un Remainiacs can contact us for details, as ever 👈

No-one has ever contacted you for details as we know it's b0ll0cks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

Another long cut and paste from a comedy web site from Jools.

 

Do you remember those binners that tried to take the mick out of City fans, in the Prem, while they languished mid League 1? That's Jools's whole argument this afternoon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A Load of Squit said:

No-one has ever contacted you for details as we know it's b0ll0cks.

David Bowie called him for advice on Tin Machine...and look how that turned out. 🤣

Apples

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/08/2020 at 12:18, BigFish said:

Ok, that is only fair in repayment of the hilarity the situation you Brexiteers got yourselves into and your reactions provokes. But lets start with a fact we can all agree on:

The UK and EU signed the Withdrawal Agreement - this is now UK, European and International Law.

So when Day talks about Brexiteers rejecting the WA, now with the benefit of hindsight this is untrue. Sure the Brexit Party campaigned against but in the 2019 GE they got 2% of the vote so we can largely ignore them. It is worth remembering that Johnson, Gove, JRM, IDS, Francois, Davis, the ERG all not only voted for this but crowed about it in Parliament as well.

Then Day talks about FTA. Stranegely, Day makes this totemic but like all Brexiteers doesn't define what he means by this. I assume he means tariff and quota free trade but we can only guess because as I said he does not articulate what he means e.g. the facts are missing.

Day talks about the EU being unable to agree FTA. Assuming, because he doesn't define his terms he means tariff and quota free trade the fact is that the EU already has that with a large number of countries for a large number of products. For example 57% of all trade between the EU and Africa. Further more the EU in itself is the largest and deepest free trade area in the world and that area is growing, certainly in terms of member nations. So his assertion that the EU cannot make FTA, or rather enable free trade, is untrue.

Day talks about a US FTA being a good thing without explaining how and why. So essentially fact free but also wrong because this would be of nugatory value and high costs. So also untrue.

He also adopts a common Brexit trope in using facts that are true but irrelevent. Guido does the same. These are then misinterpreted or misapplied to support arguments that they clearly do not. His reference to NAFTA and CPTTP fall into this category. It matters not what the exit criteria are for these agreement, the UK exit was governed by the process in the Lisbon treaty under International Law. So his assertions on this, not referring to international law, were essentially fact free.

Difficult to know whether Day was full out lieing or plain ignorant. Certainly very funny that you though it proved anything.

Bumping my own threads seems a bit much but for @Jools I will make an exception. Seems like he has been struck down with FTAitis. Perhaps if he could address any of these points it might be worth taking him seriously. Until then, he seems strangely silent. What's wrong @Jools, cat got your tongue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Bumping my own threads seems a bit much but for @Jools I will make an exception. Seems like he has been struck down with FTAitis. Perhaps if he could address any of these points it might be worth taking him seriously. Until then, he seems strangely silent. What's wrong @Jools, cat got your tongue?

💤 💤 💤                                                                                   👇

 

“EU breached Withdrawal Agreement, UK must revise or revoke,” say lawyers

How to tear up the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration – the legal case

tear_up.jpg

An important Brexit legal paper, freeing the UK from EU control,
summarised for everyday readers by Brexit Facts4EU.Org

In this report we summarise the case for revoking the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) and Political Declaration (PD) first agreed by Theresa May and her civil servant Olly Robbins in September 2018. The subsequent Withdrawal Bill was then signed by Boris Johnson on 24 January 2019, after a change to the Northern Ireland Protocol.

boris_signs_wab_240120_sml.jpg

Brexit Facts4EU.Org has reviewed the legal arguments contained in a 102-page paper published by the new think tank named the “Centre for Brexit Policy” on 11 July 2020. The arguments are written by some of the country’s top lawyers experienced in these matters, such as Martin Howe QC, Chairman of Lawyers for Britain, and Barnabas Reynolds, a Partner at Shearman and Sterling, amongst other experienced lawyers in EU matters.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

The fundamental legal arguments for revoking the Withdrawal Agreement
and Political Declaration in a legally compliant manner

Below we quote from the legal summary contained within the CBP Paper “REPLACING THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT - How to ensure the UK takes back control on exiting the transition period”

  1. The UK as a state retains its sovereign right to withdrawal from the EU, which is an international organisation
  2. When the UK exercised its right to leave, it participated in the WA process on the basis of an essential condition: agreement on a future permanent arrangement with the EU that enshrines UK sovereignty and secures an FTA
  3. The Protocol and other aspects of the WA are incompatible with the agreement intended for the end of 2020
  4. The EU has been acting in breach of a material term of the WA, meaning that the treaty was entered into on a false premise
  5. The Protocol is in breach of the ECHR principle of the right to vote
  6. The UK must exercise its right to suspend and terminate the WA obligations
  7. The UK must subsequently pass an Act of Parliament superseding the WA, in line with Parliamentary Sovereignty under Section 38 of the Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020

The full legal argument for tearing up the WA and PD

As for the rest of the legal arguments, they are best read in full in the CBP paper, starting on page 68. Of necessity this Brexit Facts4EU.Org article can only present a summary together with key points from the document.

Right: Barnaba Reynolds, Partner at Shearman and Sterling, and one of the report's authors

barney_reynolds.jpg

The process from now until 31 December 2020

The CBP advocates a course of action from now until the end of the year. Below we present key excerpts.

“As can be seen, the key elements of the Withdrawal Agreement including the Northern Ireland Protocol are incompatible with UK sovereignty if continued into the future and should operate merely as a steppingstone to an end of year long-term relationship between the UK and the EU.

“The EU has seriously breached the agreement, even as it stands, since it has been structurally unable to engage in meaningful negotiations (for what is now the majority of the intended negotiation period) towards a sovereign outcome for the UK.

“The UK therefore needs to prevail on the EU to agree to remove the sovereignty-incompliant elements of the WA and the Protocol or be ready to repudiate the arrangement.”

As a result, the UK’s offer should be as follows:

  1. A mutually beneficial long-term trade deal which respects UK sovereignty, covering both goods and services
  2. Suitable arrangements on security that respect the UK’s sovereignty
  3. Warm words on defence, preserving the UK’s ability to act in its own interests at all times
  4. Sovereign arrangements for EU access to UK fishing waters on the basis of reciprocity, capable of being re-calibrated and ultimately terminated at will by the UK
  5. Making the remaining payments under the financial provisions in the now defunct Withdrawal Agreement, but subject to a cap
  6. Alternative Arrangements or Mutual Enforcement, as set out above, for the North-South border on the Island of Ireland

If the EU refuses a mutually beneficial future arrangement by the end of 2020, then the UK should:

  1. Treat the Withdrawal Agreement and Protocol as no longer having any legal force
  2. Implement Alternative Arrangements for the North-South border on the Island of Ireland, indicating to the EU that the Government is prepared to negotiate Mutual Enforcement instead, if preferred, from the end of 2020
  3. Cease to make payments to the EU under its provisions
  4. Treat EU citizens resident in the UK unilaterally in a manner consistent with the UK’s legal framework

Observations

This paper, which was predominantly written by expert lawyers, in effect proposes the tearing up of the WA and PD. It pays lip service to a new agreement being negotiated with the EU, but we cannot imagine that the intelligent people who wrote it actually believe that the EU would ever agree to that.

In short, the paper provides a road map to tearing up the abomination that is the WA and PD, based on the EU being in breach of its obligations.

There is much else in the paper which we have not summarised, in order to ensure that this article is read by the widest number of people. Some of the Brexit Facts4EU.EU.Org team have now read the paper from cover to cover twice. We will be amongst the very few who have.

There is no doubt that this paper contains important legal arguments justifying a revocation of the WA and PD, and we welcome it on that basis. In the interests of remaining positive, we will not comment on certain areas in the paper with which we disagree. Neither, for the avoidance of doubt, will we comment on the fact that we, as the organisation with the largest repository of Brexit facts in the world, (the Brexit Index), has had no approach from the CBP, and nor were we given prior notification of the preparation of this paper.

amended_surrender_sml.jpg

The only change to the abomination that was Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement after Boris Johnson became Prime Minister was the change to the N.I. Protocol – all other appalling provisions of that Treaty remained intact. Many of those who supported Boris Johnson and the Conservative Government agreeing this Treaty in November last year and signing it in January this year are now advocating and promoting that the WA and PD be revoked.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org’s repeated repudiations and rejections of both versions of the WA and PD, starting back in September 2018 when they were first published, have now been entirely vindicated by this latest report and its legal conclusions.

Now we need the political will

We are sure that the Prime Minister and his team will be digesting this report and we very much hope that it influences policy. We must extricate ourselves from this awful treaty as soon as possible.

 

[ Sources: Centre for Brexit Policy paper 11 July 2020 | Barnabas Reynolds ] Politicians, journalists and Pink'Un Remainiacs can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Sat 18 July 2020

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jools said:

💤 💤 💤                                                                                   👇

 

“EU breached Withdrawal Agreement, UK must revise or revoke,” say lawyers

How to tear up the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration – the legal case

tear_up.jpg

An important Brexit legal paper, freeing the UK from EU control,
summarised for everyday readers by Brexit Facts4EU.Org

In this report we summarise the case for revoking the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) and Political Declaration (PD) first agreed by Theresa May and her civil servant Olly Robbins in September 2018. The subsequent Withdrawal Bill was then signed by Boris Johnson on 24 January 2019, after a change to the Northern Ireland Protocol.

boris_signs_wab_240120_sml.jpg

Brexit Facts4EU.Org has reviewed the legal arguments contained in a 102-page paper published by the new think tank named the “Centre for Brexit Policy” on 11 July 2020. The arguments are written by some of the country’s top lawyers experienced in these matters, such as Martin Howe QC, Chairman of Lawyers for Britain, and Barnabas Reynolds, a Partner at Shearman and Sterling, amongst other experienced lawyers in EU matters.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

The fundamental legal arguments for revoking the Withdrawal Agreement
and Political Declaration in a legally compliant manner

Below we quote from the legal summary contained within the CBP Paper “REPLACING THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT - How to ensure the UK takes back control on exiting the transition period”

  1. The UK as a state retains its sovereign right to withdrawal from the EU, which is an international organisation
  2. When the UK exercised its right to leave, it participated in the WA process on the basis of an essential condition: agreement on a future permanent arrangement with the EU that enshrines UK sovereignty and secures an FTA
  3. The Protocol and other aspects of the WA are incompatible with the agreement intended for the end of 2020
  4. The EU has been acting in breach of a material term of the WA, meaning that the treaty was entered into on a false premise
  5. The Protocol is in breach of the ECHR principle of the right to vote
  6. The UK must exercise its right to suspend and terminate the WA obligations
  7. The UK must subsequently pass an Act of Parliament superseding the WA, in line with Parliamentary Sovereignty under Section 38 of the Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020

The full legal argument for tearing up the WA and PD

As for the rest of the legal arguments, they are best read in full in the CBP paper, starting on page 68. Of necessity this Brexit Facts4EU.Org article can only present a summary together with key points from the document.

Right: Barnaba Reynolds, Partner at Shearman and Sterling, and one of the report's authors

barney_reynolds.jpg

The process from now until 31 December 2020

The CBP advocates a course of action from now until the end of the year. Below we present key excerpts.

“As can be seen, the key elements of the Withdrawal Agreement including the Northern Ireland Protocol are incompatible with UK sovereignty if continued into the future and should operate merely as a steppingstone to an end of year long-term relationship between the UK and the EU.

“The EU has seriously breached the agreement, even as it stands, since it has been structurally unable to engage in meaningful negotiations (for what is now the majority of the intended negotiation period) towards a sovereign outcome for the UK.

“The UK therefore needs to prevail on the EU to agree to remove the sovereignty-incompliant elements of the WA and the Protocol or be ready to repudiate the arrangement.”

As a result, the UK’s offer should be as follows:

  1. A mutually beneficial long-term trade deal which respects UK sovereignty, covering both goods and services
  2. Suitable arrangements on security that respect the UK’s sovereignty
  3. Warm words on defence, preserving the UK’s ability to act in its own interests at all times
  4. Sovereign arrangements for EU access to UK fishing waters on the basis of reciprocity, capable of being re-calibrated and ultimately terminated at will by the UK
  5. Making the remaining payments under the financial provisions in the now defunct Withdrawal Agreement, but subject to a cap
  6. Alternative Arrangements or Mutual Enforcement, as set out above, for the North-South border on the Island of Ireland

If the EU refuses a mutually beneficial future arrangement by the end of 2020, then the UK should:

  1. Treat the Withdrawal Agreement and Protocol as no longer having any legal force
  2. Implement Alternative Arrangements for the North-South border on the Island of Ireland, indicating to the EU that the Government is prepared to negotiate Mutual Enforcement instead, if preferred, from the end of 2020
  3. Cease to make payments to the EU under its provisions
  4. Treat EU citizens resident in the UK unilaterally in a manner consistent with the UK’s legal framework

Observations

This paper, which was predominantly written by expert lawyers, in effect proposes the tearing up of the WA and PD. It pays lip service to a new agreement being negotiated with the EU, but we cannot imagine that the intelligent people who wrote it actually believe that the EU would ever agree to that.

In short, the paper provides a road map to tearing up the abomination that is the WA and PD, based on the EU being in breach of its obligations.

There is much else in the paper which we have not summarised, in order to ensure that this article is read by the widest number of people. Some of the Brexit Facts4EU.EU.Org team have now read the paper from cover to cover twice. We will be amongst the very few who have.

There is no doubt that this paper contains important legal arguments justifying a revocation of the WA and PD, and we welcome it on that basis. In the interests of remaining positive, we will not comment on certain areas in the paper with which we disagree. Neither, for the avoidance of doubt, will we comment on the fact that we, as the organisation with the largest repository of Brexit facts in the world, (the Brexit Index), has had no approach from the CBP, and nor were we given prior notification of the preparation of this paper.

amended_surrender_sml.jpg

The only change to the abomination that was Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement after Boris Johnson became Prime Minister was the change to the N.I. Protocol – all other appalling provisions of that Treaty remained intact. Many of those who supported Boris Johnson and the Conservative Government agreeing this Treaty in November last year and signing it in January this year are now advocating and promoting that the WA and PD be revoked.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org’s repeated repudiations and rejections of both versions of the WA and PD, starting back in September 2018 when they were first published, have now been entirely vindicated by this latest report and its legal conclusions.

Now we need the political will

We are sure that the Prime Minister and his team will be digesting this report and we very much hope that it influences policy. We must extricate ourselves from this awful treaty as soon as possible.

 

[ Sources: Centre for Brexit Policy paper 11 July 2020 | Barnabas Reynolds ] Politicians, journalists and Pink'Un Remainiacs can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Sat 18 July 2020

More comedy gold. So Boris Johnson's "Oven Ready Deal" wasn't oven ready or a deal?

This is riddled with more errors than is usual for you @Jools . Apparently Boris Johnson signed the Withdrawal Act. I know he disregards the law when he choses but this might be news to the Queen who sign Acts of Parliament. So the EU hasn't been negotiating despite publishing hundreds of pages of draft legal text while the UK hasn't? So these numpties think the UK can walk away without any consequences. Not happening, it is nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

More comedy gold. So Boris Johnson's "Oven Ready Deal" wasn't oven ready or a deal?

This is riddled with more errors than is usual for you @Jools . Apparently Boris Johnson signed the Withdrawal Act. I know he disregards the law when he choses but this might be news to the Queen who sign Acts of Parliament. So the EU hasn't been negotiating despite publishing hundreds of pages of draft legal text while the UK hasn't? So these numpties think the UK can walk away without any consequences. Not happening, it is nonsense.

Have to wait and see won't we, cod-lips 🙃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Boris Johnson's "Oven Ready Deal" wasn't oven ready or a deal?

It would have been if the EU didn't attach stings to the deal  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

So Boris Johnson's "Oven Ready Deal" wasn't oven ready or a deal?

It would have been if the EU didn't attach stings to the deal  

Everything was written and agreed to in the WA. Johnson won an election on the basis that it was virtually done and dusted. He lied to you yet again and you fell for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We weren't ever rulrd by the EU. We were members of the EU. Something ****wits like you have never got your head around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I just did.  Turns out that til and wccanary use the word 'wriggle' as much as van wink.   Probably the same person then.

How can anyone not use the word wriggle when referring to Bill, particularly when he has lost a bet.

Vagazzle is another one that is hard to resist when we speak of Bill. 

 

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm blocking you again Swindo. Tired of your idiocy.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Everything you always wanted to know about Brexit but never dared ask’ is a book by William Dartmouth and you can read it free online here 👉   https://everythingbrexit.com/flipbook_index.html?page=1

Originally begun in 2016 while William Dartmouth was an MEP, and worked on over the past four years, ‘Everything Brexit’ is a significant volume of work. As the author says:

“The actual Brexit debate tells us very little. That debate was - and has always been - long on emotion and short on facts. This free book aims to set out – in over 80 essential tables, charts and graphs, as well as photographs and text – what underlies Brexit, what drove it, and why the Brexit earthquake came about.”

 

This book, with its powerful content about Brexit and UK-EU relations, is coming out at a very interesting time. On Thursday 13 August the UK’s Chief Negotiator, David Frost, made the following statement:-

barnier_frost_no10_080720.jpg

“Looking forward to going to Brussels next week for Round 7 (sic) of the UK/EU negotiations with the EU Commission and Michel Barnier. As always, we go in good faith to talk constructively about all the issues. Our assessment is that agreement can be reached in September and we will work to achieve this if we can.

“As we keep saying, we are not looking for a special or unique agreement. We want a deal with, at its core, an FTA like those the EU has agreed with other friendly countries, like Canada.

“The UK's sovereignty, over our laws, our courts, or our fishing waters, is of course not up for discussion and we will not accept anything which compromises it - just as we aren't looking for anything which threatens the integrity of the EU’s single market.”

As a Coordinator (Ranking Member) of the EU Parliament’s International Trade Committee for 10 years (2009 - 2019) William Dartmouth is in a special position to write about trade and relations generally between the UK and the EU, post-Brexit.

About the author

William Dartmouth had a ringside seat on Brexit for the crucial decade up to 2019 as an elected Member of the European Parliament; almost all that time as a Group Coordinator (in US parlance “ranking member”) on the European Parliament’s Committee for International Trade.

As an MEP he represented the people of the South West Counties and Gibraltar 2009-2019. He is a Chartered Accountant and holds a post-graduate degree in business from Harvard University.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the author:

 

Why are they trying to hide who he really is ? William Dartmouth is in fact William Legge, 10th Earl of Dartmouth, and previously the self styled  Viscount Lewisham  as an hereditary peer .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MooreMarriot said:

About the author:

 

Why are they trying to hide who he really is ? William Dartmouth is in fact William Legge, 10th Earl of Dartmouth, and previously the self styled  Viscount Lewisham  as an hereditary peer .

 

 

For something that was supposed to be an anti-establishment, anti-elite movement, Brexit sure has a lot of billionaires, millionaires, Lords, Viscounts, Barons and assorted toffs running it. You don't think the people were scammed by any chance?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/08/2020 at 17:59, SwindonCanary said:

We weren't ever rulrd by the EU.

we were under the European court !

god you are thick

stop lying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

I suppose you could read this and then realise why people think you're an idiot.

think ?

I would suggest replacing think with know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruling by them =France v. United Kingdom (case C-141/78), judgement of 14.10.1979 (ECLI:EU:C:1979:225) on a British unilateral fishery protection measure, infringement because UK had to consult and seek approval of commission

I don't think they can do that after we have completely left 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SwindonCanary said:

Ruling by them =France v. United Kingdom (case C-141/78), judgement of 14.10.1979 (ECLI:EU:C:1979:225) on a British unilateral fishery protection measure, infringement because UK had to consult and seek approval of commission

I don't think they can do that after we have completely left 

oh dear, 

as it is an international dispute it would have to be resolved through some form of international court

as both were members of the Common Market they used that court

just as if you were accused of stealing from a sailor you would be subject to a navy court

which doesn't mean that if you left the navy you could steal without any court hearing

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...