Brexit - merged threads

[Newbie to this]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

But now we want to stop illegal's.

We've always wanted to stop illegals

[oowee]

Just now, Newbie to this said:

Are they all the second coming of Jesus, Eire is an island

With no border they walk from the EU to NI. 🙂 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, oowee said:

But now we want to stop illegal's.

We were never able to stop terrorists anyway

 

[Newbie to this]

Just now, oowee said:

With no border they walk from the EU to NI. 🙂 

But they have to get to Ireland first.

[oowee]

Just now, Newbie to this said:

We've always wanted to stop illegals

? We are leaving the EU so that we can control them.

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

We were never able to stop terrorists anyway

 

Yep but if we do not have a border every migrant accepted by the EU can become an asylum seeker in the UK.  For me migration control requires a border.

[das]

6 hours ago, panoma1 said:

The UK had something, but it was not worth our sovereignty or £350 million a day! Now we want to leave they want to punish us and make us pay for the priviledge, give up our sovereignty tied to the EU forever, jeopardise the union and not have any say in decisions that determine our future!.......we would have to be mad to accept that! 

Tell them to **** off! That we will not be bullied or dictated to, tell them what we want (don't ask them what they want!) and if they don't agree, walk away........if the UK just walks away....it is not just the UK that will be damaged.......the EU will be too! The UK will survive, but the EU will fold, as without our money, they cannot pay their employees the obscene salaries and pensions they receive and hand out money to EU members who have (and will) never put in!.....

Well said Panoma, words from my mouth too. Lets take a bit of stick and tell the EU to stick it and go to the Devil. I cannot believe that such  a deal as our govt has produced could be accepted by any sane person in the UK. It should be obvious to a band of chimps that the  EU want our money at any cost. Pay up and abide by this agreement, drafted by a retard, and the UK will be little better than the Roman slaves for decades and decades to come.
RIP this sceptered Isle, you have become a third world country!!!

[Newbie to this]

15 minutes ago, oowee said:

We are leaving the EU so that we can control them

Control immigration, we've always tried to stop illigal immigration. (supposedly)

Edited November 18, 2018 by Newbie to this

[12gauge82]

24 minutes ago, oowee said:

Europe lets them in they walk over to Ireland and then claim asylum in the UK. 

That's the point, illegal immigrants won't be walking to Ireland, not unless they've super powers, only those with an EU passport can go from Ireland to the UK and we haven't yet seen a large issue with that, if it becomes a problem we can review it then but it will be no bigger problem than it already is will it. We had an open border with Ireland long before we were a member of the EU, it really is a non issue that has been manufactured by unscrupulous EU snakes.

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

That's the point, illegal immigrants won't be walking to Ireland, not unless they've super powers, only those with an EU passport can go from Ireland to the UK and we haven't yet seen a large issue with that, if it becomes a problem we can review it then but it will be no bigger problem than it already is will it. We had an open border with Ireland long before we were a member of the EU, it really is a non issue that has been manufactured by unscrupulous EU snakes.

Without a border between NI and Eire you wont need a passport to get into the UK. I thought we wanted to get a handle on migration. If it is a non issue why would we put a border at Dover? 

 

35 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

We have bitten and chewed on too many bullets; the EU needs to learn negotiation - and give up dictation.

And the way to do that is? Bite the bullet accept the economic hit put in place full prep for no deal and if need be set a longer time frame to put it in place. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by oowee

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, oowee said:

And the way to do that is?

Stop giving in ......... and start banging some heads together .......... starting with Barmier, Juncker (if sufficiently sober) and the horribly smug pair, Verhofstat and Tusk.

You do not have successful negotiations by giving in all of the time.  You have to hold out.  They have at least as much to loose, very possibly more.  Turn the heat up and fry them.

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Stop giving in ......... and start banging some heads together .......... starting with Barmier, Juncker (if sufficiently sober) and the horribly smug pair, Verhofstat and Tusk.

You do not have successful negotiations by giving in all of the time.  You have to hold out.  They have at least as much to loose, very possibly more.  Turn the heat up and fry them.

As I said.  Bite the bullet accept the economic hit put in place full prep for no deal and if need be set a longer time frame to put it in place. 

[12gauge82]

19 minutes ago, oowee said:

Without a border between NI and Eire you wont need a passport to get into the UK. I thought we wanted to get a handle on migration. If it is a non issue why would we put a border at Dover? 

 

And the way to do that is? Bite the bullet accept the economic hit put in place full prep for no deal and if need be set a longer time frame to put it in place. 

Can you not see that to get to Ireland there will have been a passport check, it's an island, you can't walk there.

[old man]

Buy a UK passport in Athens starting 400 euros up to 800?

That's a real euro deal?

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

As I said.  Bite the bullet accept the economic hit put in place full prep for no deal and if need be set a longer time frame to put it in place. 

And as I said "They have at least as much to loose, very possibly more."  No need for a longer time frame.  It just needs a 'will to get things done'.

If Mrs May (and her civil servants) had been 1/10th as 'obstinate' with the EU as she has with her own team, we would be home and dry with a good deal.

[pinfireman]

3 hours ago, oowee said:

Friction and tariff free trade.

Name one and don't say JLR as they are Indian. The package for the Nissan Leaf design in Cranfield and Manufacture in NE was won against France, jaguar when it was Ford in Castle Bromwich won against the States. These things are not easy to win and avoid State Aid, any deal including in France or Italy is scrutinised very carefully, particularly by the loosers only too quick to point out unfair aid. There is / was a Million sqft wafer fab plant built in Scotland that was never occupied in part due to state aid rules and payback clauses. 

The UK had a weighted voice worth more for voting than a 1 in 28. Problem was that the Euro politicians work in groups and we had the like of Farage along for the free ride. 

You mean by competition? 

I would not disagree but say again what sort of deal would people expect to get out of the club? 

? What does that have to do with the type of deal we would expect? I would not expect a free trade deal from the EU. Why would they want to do that? I would not expect a free trade deal from anyone else. Nothing in life is free. Everything comes at a cost. 

 

My point being that given the vote to leave we then have a simple choice to accept a Canada or whatever type of deal. Move forward with that a build on it over time. Alternatively bite the no deal bullet at the start take the early hit (cost) plan for it and work forward to a trade deal on the basis we have gone. Politically it's not possible for the party in power to suffer the economic impact of no deal so quickly or to take a lesser Canada or whatever deal so we try to square the circle. Squaring the circle is always going to produce a fudge with no one happy.  Hence my statement what type of deal would people expect? 

Leave surely means LEAVE! Not Canada, not Norway, but out! Able to do our own deals with whoever we like! The EU would have to give us a fair deal, as German industry rules the EU...Mercedes, Audi, BMW et al would not sit back and trade with us on unfavourable terms! It,s not in their interest to upset a major customer! Same goes for the French car industry, and the Italians!

[Stonepark]

Below is a list of the top 40 draft deal "horrors" (courtesy of the Spectator):

    May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6).
    Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
    The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)
    The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
    The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
    Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168).
    This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
    “UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
    The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
    Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.
    The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
    Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
    The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.
    The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164).
    This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165)
    The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39).
    The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article 😎
    The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)
    All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)
    Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)
    The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)
    Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.
    Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.
    The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50). The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61). The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)
    The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)
    We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)
    The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)
    The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)
    Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)
    The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).
    Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)
    The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)
    The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)
    The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).
    The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)
    And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.
    The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
    The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)
    The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of  Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.
    And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Below is a list of the top 40 draft deal "horrors" (courtesy of the Spectator):

    May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6).
    Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
    The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)
    The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
    The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
    Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168).
    This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
    “UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
    The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
    Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.
    The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
    Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
    The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.
    The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164).
    This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165)
    The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39).
    The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article 😎
    The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)
    All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)
    Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)
    The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)
    Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.
    Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.
    The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50). The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61). The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)
    The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)
    We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)
    The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)
    The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)
    Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)
    The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).
    Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)
    The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)
    The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)
    The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).
    The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)
    And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.
    The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
    The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)
    The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of  Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.
    And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)

That is very sobering reading, Theresa May is an idiot.

[Dave-G]

40 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

If Mrs May (and her civil servants) had been 1/10th as 'obstinate' with the EU as she has with her own team, we would be home and dry with a good deal.

Chuckin well said.

[pinfireman]

4 hours ago, oowee said:

Friction and tariff free trade.

Name one and don't say JLR as they are Indian. The package for the Nissan Leaf design in Cranfield and Manufacture in NE was won against France, jaguar when it was Ford in Castle Bromwich won against the States. These things are not easy to win and avoid State Aid, any deal including in France or Italy is scrutinised very carefully, particularly by the loosers only too quick to point out unfair aid. There is / was a Million sqft wafer fab plant built in Scotland that was never occupied in part due to state aid rules and payback clauses. 

The UK had a weighted voice worth more for voting than a 1 in 28. Problem was that the Euro politicians work in groups and we had the like of Farage along for the free ride. 

You mean by competition? 

I would not disagree but say again what sort of deal would people expect to get out of the club? 

? What does that have to do with the type of deal we would expect? I would not expect a free trade deal from the EU. Why would they want to do that? I would not expect a free trade deal from anyone else. Nothing in life is free. Everything comes at a cost. 

 

My point being that given the vote to leave we then have a simple choice to accept a Canada or whatever type of deal. Move forward with that a build on it over time. Alternatively bite the no deal bullet at the start take the early hit (cost) plan for it and work forward to a trade deal on the basis we have gone. Politically it's not possible for the party in power to suffer the economic impact of no deal so quickly or to take a lesser Canada or whatever deal so we try to square the circle. Squaring the circle is always going to produce a fudge with no one happy.  Hence my statement what type of deal would people expect? 

The EU has prevented UK subsidy of industry under its state aids rules, but has often provided subsidised loans and grants to businesses to set up elsewhere in the EU. The UK has seen a spate of factory closures balanced by new and expanded facilities in poorer EU countries. The UK lost van production to Turkey, car capacity to Slovakia, chocolate to Poland, domestic appliances to the Netherlands and the Czech Republic and metal containers to Poland amongst others in recent years. In various cases there was an EU grant or loan involved in the new capacity. And when I can find where I filed it, I,ll give you a list of named companies who moved production to EU countries, with the aid of a grant from Brussels! Yet we were not allowed to support our industies, with government aid!

20 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

That is very sobering reading, Theresa May is an idiot.

Or a traitor! It,s a SELL-OUT!  

4 hours ago, oowee said:

Friction and tariff free trade.

Name one and don't say JLR as they are Indian. The package for the Nissan Leaf design in Cranfield and Manufacture in NE was won against France, jaguar when it was Ford in Castle Bromwich won against the States. These things are not easy to win and avoid State Aid, any deal including in France or Italy is scrutinised very carefully, particularly by the loosers only too quick to point out unfair aid. There is / was a Million sqft wafer fab plant built in Scotland that was never occupied in part due to state aid rules and payback clauses. 

The UK had a weighted voice worth more for voting than a 1 in 28. Problem was that the Euro politicians work in groups and we had the like of Farage along for the free ride. 

You mean by competition? 

I would not disagree but say again what sort of deal would people expect to get out of the club? 

? What does that have to do with the type of deal we would expect? I would not expect a free trade deal from the EU. Why would they want to do that? I would not expect a free trade deal from anyone else. Nothing in life is free. Everything comes at a cost. 

 

My point being that given the vote to leave we then have a simple choice to accept a Canada or whatever type of deal. Move forward with that a build on it over time. Alternatively bite the no deal bullet at the start take the early hit (cost) plan for it and work forward to a trade deal on the basis we have gone. Politically it's not possible for the party in power to suffer the economic impact of no deal so quickly or to take a lesser Canada or whatever deal so we try to square the circle. Squaring the circle is always going to produce a fudge with no one happy.  Hence my statement what type of deal would people expect? 

Canada or "whatever" is not a simple choice! We did NOT vote for a Canada, or similar, deal!

Why have we suffered industrial decline and closures with production shifting elsewhere in Europe since joining the EEC? (as it was known)

Why do we  trade in surplus with the rest of the world but have such a huge deficit with the EU?

Why have we ended up importing fish, electricity, steel and much else when we used to self sufficient?

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

The EU has prevented UK subsidy of industry under its state aids rules, but has often provided subsidised loans and grants to businesses to set up elsewhere in the EU.

That is (partly) because the EU has always resented the City of London being by far the most influential the financial centre in Europe - and the close relations between the City and Wall St/New York.  They have never been able to 'touch' the City, so have penalised other areas in revenge.

Edited November 18, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[Gerry78]

Causing some **** here in N Ireland at the end of the day the politicians dont care about the average working man Just wondering what effects brexit will have for the shooting communities

[pinfireman]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

With no border they walk from the EU to NI. 🙂 

And how do they get to Eire! It,s a ruddy island!

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

That's the point, illegal immigrants won't be walking to Ireland, not unless they've super powers, only those with an EU passport can go from Ireland to the UK and we haven't yet seen a large issue with that, if it becomes a problem we can review it then but it will be no bigger problem than it already is will it. We had an open border with Ireland long before we were a member of the EU, it really is a non issue that has been manufactured by unscrupulous EU snakes.

Correct!

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, pinfireman said:

And how do they get to Eire! It,s a ruddy island!

If you believed the Remainers, the biggest worry Eire will have is the British refugees fleeing over the border into Eire to escape food and medicine shortages in the UK, not to mention the widespread power outages.

[pinfireman]

32 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Below is a list of the top 40 draft deal "horrors" (courtesy of the Spectator):

    May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6).
    Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)
    The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)
    The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).
    The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))
    Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168).
    This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)
    “UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.
    The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.
    Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.
    The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)
    Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)
    The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.
    The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164).
    This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165)
    The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39).
    The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article 😎
    The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)
    All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)
    Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)
    The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)
    Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.
    Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.
    The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50). The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61). The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)
    The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)
    We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)
    The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)
    The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)
    Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)
    The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).
    Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)
    The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)
    The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)
    The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).
    The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)
    And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.
    The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)
    The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)
    The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of  Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.
    And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)

Correct!

6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

That is (partly) because the EU has always resented the City of London being by far the most influential the financial centre in Europe.  They have never been able to 'touch' the City, so have penalised other areas in revenge.

True! And some years ago, well before the Referendum, the shysters in Brussels set about trying to compete with the City, by setting up a centre in Frankfurt! But smart money saw through them, and stayed in London!

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

If you believed the Remainers, the biggest worry Eire will have is the British refugees fleeing over the border into Eire to escape food and medicine shortages in the UK, not to mention the widespread power outages.

That should be in the Jokes thread! 

[oowee]

State aid rules apply across Europe and are strongly enforced by competing nations. Much of my working life has been spent negotiating subsidies under state aid rules including LDV vans to Birmingham, Jaguar to Castle Bromwich as part of Ford, BMW to Wolverhampton, and Nissan to the NE with EV's. I can assure you that the UK has not been prevented applying agreed state aid subsidy. We loose where we are uncompetetive. 

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

That is (partly) because the EU has always resented the City of London being by far the most influential the financial centre in Europe.  They have never been able to 'touch' the City, so have penalised other areas in revenge.

Rubbish.