Post Brexit (n/g) | Page 7 | Vital Football

Post Brexit (n/g)

MedwayModernist said:
No it doesn't GBN.

The UK made a decision, so it's the UK's responsibility to manage that decision.

Ireland were just vibing along, the UK did something stupid, and now they're supposed to change how they live??

If your neighbour built an extension, something went wrong, and it pulled down your adjoining wall, you'd be pretty fucking adamant your neighbour should be the one to fix it, not you.
Click to expand...

Vibing along? :lol: Cool, man !

So every time you exercise your free will, you are doing something stupid?

Doesn't really matter much as only a truly independent court can decide what is reasonable, as we are no longer under the authority of the EU funded ECJ.

The fact is that the EU had openly threatened to invoke article 16 on a previous occasion themselves in connection with Covid vaccinations, so they are clearly being hypocritical, and that article includes the following:
"if the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures."

If we were not sufficiently prudent when the Treaty was being drafted, how did that clause get included?
 
Last edited:
GillsBluenose said:
Vibing along? :lol: Cool, man !

So every time you exercise your free will, you are doing something stupid?

Doesn't really matter much as only a truly independent court can decide what is reasonable, as we are no longer under the authority of the EU funded ECJ.

The fact is that the EU had openly threatened to invoke article 16 on a previous occasion themselves so they are clearly being hypocritical, and that article includes the following:
"if the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures."
Click to expand...

interesting you quote that.

that is the exact legal position that was brought up but rejected by brexiteer MPs and used to stop the may deal.

the AG said at the time that that article could be used but was not a legal matter but a political matter ( a copout - not wanting to upset the tory machine).

strange how brexit supporters choose to use it in opposite ways to fit their agenda lol.
 
Surely if an agreement is signed by two parties, and is very quickly seen by one party not to be working. Because the other party is being openly obstructive and will not discuss changes, then the ending of the agreement is the only option. Take the border back to where it before, and tell the EU you man it if you want to. We won't.
 
Jerryattrick said:
interesting you quote that.
that is the exact legal position that was brought up but rejected by brexiteer MPs and used to stop the may deal.
the AG said at the time that that article could be used but was not a legal matter but a political matter ( a copout - not wanting to upset the tory machine).
strange how brexit supporters choose to use it in opposite ways to fit their agenda lol.
Click to expand...

The May deal was not only being rejected by hard line Brexiteers but also by the likes of Dominic Grieve and other remainers who were just trying to sabotage and frustrate Brexit from being delivered. She could therefore never get the numbers she required.

That was why Johnson called an election and replaced Grieve and other remainers as parliamentary candidates, replacing them with those who were willing to deliver the democratic will of the people.

I can not remember how May's backstop differed from Johnson's protocol but I have a feeling that the backstop involved staying in either the single market or customs union, with the associated and unacceptable strings attached.
 
GillsBluenose said:
That was why Johnson called an election and replaced Grieve and other remainers as parliamentary candidates, replacing them with those who were willing to deliver the democratic will of the people.
Click to expand...

Orrrrr.....

The mps blocking the deals were trying to ensure it met the promises made in the referendum that "the will of the people" was based on, which it clearly did not.

Johnson removed the whip from the mps that didn't agree with him, replacing them with yes men, to fudge a populist policy through that would not work long term.

It was one of his first acts of fascism, which we're seeing a lot more of now.
 
GillsBluenose said:
The May deal was not only being rejected by hard line Brexiteers but also by the likes of Dominic Grieve and other remainers who were just trying to sabotage and frustrate Brexit from being delivered. She could therefore never get the numbers she required.

That was why Johnson called an election and replaced Grieve and other remainers as parliamentary candidates, replacing them with those who were willing to deliver the democratic will of the people.

I can not remember how May's backstop differed from Johnson's protocol but I have a feeling that the backstop involved staying in either the single market or customs union, with the associated and unacceptable strings attached.
Click to expand...

The main reason for the may deal failing was the legal advice by the GE. He gave them what they wanted and even though he was asked about the vienna get out clause he said it was debatable legally and aat on the fence saying that nothing had changed in the legal response. On being pushed he agreed that clause is true but that it was a political decision. That legal fence sitting allowed MPs to use this as an excuse.
The risk of an agreement not being made within the two years of the transition was sold as a major risk of us being locked in.

as has now been revealed it was a lie as they are using the same clause to say we could break any treaty if we wanted to.
 
valenciagill said:
Too many here , dragging up the same old arguments. We're out , get over it , look forward not back 😀
Click to expand...

No one here is arguing to go back in. Out won, get over it. (Although you’re in Spain so very much still in).

The debate to be had now is what we do next for the good of the whole country through existing protocols and trade deals, and it’s a very worthy debate to be had.
 
valenciagill said:
Too many here , dragging up the same old arguments. We're out , get over it , look forward not back 😀
Click to expand...
To what,what has Brexit achieved?
Where is the mountains of money we now save?
I already posted some of the drawbacks of Brexit nobody came up with any advantages?
What have we gained apart from a Prime Minister who can't comb his hair ?
Or do anything else apart from party.
 
chris who said:
To what,what has Brexit achieved?
Where is the mountains of money we now save?
I already posted some of the drawbacks of Brexit nobody came up with any advantages?
What have we gained apart from a Prime Minister who can't comb his hair ?
Or do anything else apart from party.
Click to expand...
Agree with lots of that
 
PuB said:
No one here is arguing to go back in. Out won, get over it. (Although you’re in Spain so very much still in).

The debate to be had now is what we do next for the good of the whole country through existing protocols and trade deals, and it’s a very worthy debate to be had.
Click to expand...
So why do so many on here refer to the past tense ?
 
The Roone said:
Surely if an agreement is signed by two parties, and is very quickly seen by one party not to be working. Because the other party is being openly obstructive and will not discuss changes, then the ending of the agreement is the only option. Take the border back to where it before, and tell the EU you man it if you want to. We won't.
Click to expand...
??? You sign an agreement
Tell people how marvellous it is and fhen say it is it is no good. Wtf?
 
Gills 58 said:
??? You sign an agreement
Tell people how marvellous it is and fhen say it is it is no good. Wtf?
Click to expand...
In the words of Priestfield faithful normally aimed at the ref.But this time outside number ten.
"You don't know what your doing.You don't know what your doing. "
"Your not fit to be Prime Minister.Your not fit to be Prime Minister".
 
chris who said:
In the words of Priestfield faithful normally aimed at the ref.But this time outside number ten.
"You don't know what your doing.You don't know what your doing. "
"Your not fit to be Prime Minister.Your not fit to be Prime Minister".
Click to expand...
Johnson Out! Johnson Out!
 
Spitting image did the Presidents Brain is missing. Perhaps a new one the Prime Ministers brain is missing.
 
PuB said:
The debate to be had now is what we do next for the good of the whole country through existing protocols and trade deals, and it’s a very worthy debate to be had.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is only one issue that both delayed Brexit in the first place and is still the fly in the ointment to both sides getting what they want, and it needs addressing maturely from both sides.

The word unilaterally is in Article 16 of the Treaty, it is there in black and white, so I can not see that the EU legal action can succeed.

Power sharing needs to be returned to Stormont and so the EU does need to show pragmatism for once (red and green lanes or technology, perhaps) and help restore the smooth movement of goods from the rest of the UK to NI and back.

The ROI is still an EU member and it impacts on them so a "not our problem" approach from the EU will not wash.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.