Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
What with this being the most important event that is going to happen to our country in most of our lifetimes and the Referendum supposedly being a 'once in a lifetime' event (hmm) and all the debate and hot air since then, one would have thought this would have been compulsory reading for the electorate?
Show More
Here's a summary for those who haven't … or can't be bothered:
2mbg6fgb1kl380gtk22pbxgw-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ERGYourRightToKnow.pdf
.
1. We would hand over £39 billion of taxpayer’s money with nothing guaranteed in return.
Under the proposal the UK would agree a financial settlement with the EU of c.£39 billion, made up of various elements, including continued EU budget contributions during the transition period (up to December 2020), contributions to unfunded EU commitments and EU pensions. Despite offering this vast sum of British taxpayer’s money the United Kingdom is not guaranteed any future trading arrangements, which are still to be negotiated.
2. The UK will remain a ‘rule taker’ over large areas of EU law.
The UK will continue to be bound by EU laws in vital areas such as social policy, environmental policy and employment policy, i.e will obey EU laws, but have no further influence over how they are drafted. We will thus become a ‘rule taker’ and will have surrendered our sovereignty in these critical areas.
3. No exit from a ‘backstop’ Customs Union.
The agreement establishes a ‘joint committee’ which will oversee the UK’s ability to proceed to a future trade relationship. If this relationship cannot be agreed by both parties the UK will enter a so called ‘backstop’ Customs Union with the EU, despite many public assurances to the contrary and directly at variance with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election manifesto. We could only subsequently leave the Customs Union with the agreement of the EU. While we remain in a Customs Union we would be unable to strike international trade deals without the EU’s permission.
4. The Agreement creates internal borders within the UK.
Northern Ireland would become a ‘rule taker’ in further areas such as goods, agricultural products and VAT compared to the rest of the UK. This threatens the internal integrity of the United Kingdom and is completely unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party on whom the Conservative Party now rely for a majority in the House of Commons.
5. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will remain in control of the agreement and large areas of EU law directly effective in the UK.
The ECJ will remain as the final arbiter of the agreement and of the EU laws the UK will be subject to.
In summary, the combination of these measures means the United Kingdom will have not left the European Union but will instead be ‘half in and half out’. This will mean that we will become a ‘vassal state’ many of whose laws will have been created abroad and over which we have no influence. This is completely against the spirit of the 2017 referendum in which 17.4 million UK citizens voted to leave the European Union.
Background
The UK Government / EU draft withdrawal agreement, under Article 50, was published on the 14 November 2018. The withdrawal agreement runs to 585 pages. This is almost twice as long as the 300 pages of the 2008 Lisbon Treaty. The draft withdrawal agreement was published alongside a draft political declaration on a permanent ‘future framework’ UK/EU relationship.
Final EU agreement on the withdrawal agreement will be subject to the approval of an “enhanced qualified majority” of EU Member States and the European Parliament.
In the UK, the House of Commons will be given a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on whether or not to approve the draft agreement and future framework. If this is approved by the House of Commons (which currently seems highly unlikely) Parliament will then need to pass a Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill, in order to ratify what would become a legally binding international Treaty.
Key issue 1 – NOT taking back control of our money
Under the proposed agreement the UK would agree to pay to the EU a sum of approximately £39 billion. This would comprise a number of parts, including continued EU budget contributions during the transition period up to December 2020; unfunded EU commitments (known as Reste à Liquider or RAL – where the EU has committed to future projects it has not yet funded), and EU pensions, including for EU Commissioners and civil servants.
Having been through a period of considerable austerity in Britain, it seems difficult to justify paying such a huge amount of money, while the United Kingdom is not guaranteed any future trading relationship in return, as this is still to be subsequently agreed. This hardly constitutes taking back control of our money – rather it is handing over vast amounts of our money, for nothing in return and which could be better spent at home.
Key issue 2 – NOT taking back control of our laws
Under the proposals the UK would continue to be bound by EU laws in a number of critical areas, such as social policy, environmental policy, employment policy and customs. We will thus become a ‘rule taker’, which means we would have to continue to obey EU laws in these areas but having surrendered any influence over how they are drafted.
Furthermore, under the agreement the European Court of Justice will be the final arbiter of EU laws in power in the UK, putting our Courts, even our Supreme Court, in a junior position.
Key issue 3 – Being locked in a Customs Union without the ability to leave
Under the proposed agreement a ‘Joint Committee’ of both the EU and UK would be established to oversee the UK’s path to a future trade relationship – which has yet to be negotiated. However, if this relationship cannot be satisfactorily agreed by both parties the UK would be forced to enter a so called ‘backstop’ Customs Union with the EU. While we remain in a Customs Union (as we are at present) the UK would be unable to strike international trade deals with other countries such as the USA or China or indeed, any other country.
Moreover, and critically, once we enter the backstop we cannot leave without the consent of the European Union. This would be a major surrender of our sovereignty, despite repeated public assurances in Parliament to the contrary. It would also be directly at odds with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election manifesto that stated unequivocally that following the referendum “we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union”.
Key issue 4 – Undermining the integrity of the United Kingdom
The agreement creates internal borders within the United Kingdom, as Northern Ireland, if we enter the backstop, would be treated separately to the rest of the UK. Specifically, Northern Ireland would become a rule taker in further areas such as goods, agricultural products and VAT. This would create ‘a border down the Irish Sea’, despite repeated assurances to Parliament that no British Government would ever contemplate this.
The draft agreement contains a separate Protocol including clauses specific to Northern Ireland not affecting the rest of the UK. Treating Northern Ireland separately from the UK would only encourage separatism in Scotland, to the detriment of our United Kingdom.
The separate treatment of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party (the DUP) on whom the Conservative Party now rely for a working majority in the House of Commons. If the DUP were to withdraw their support from the Conservative Party, because of these proposals, the Government would collapse.
Key issue 5 – The Agreement would be overseen by the European Court of Justice, not the UK Supreme Court.
Under the proposals the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will remain in control of the agreement and those areas of EU law that remain effective in the UK. The ECJ will remain as the final arbiter of the agreement and of the EU laws the UK will be subject to. Again, this is wholly against the spirit of the referendum.
A better alternative - a “Super Canada” Free Trade Deal
The European Research Group (ERG) has argued for some time for a far better alternative which is an advanced Free Trade Deal, known as ‘Super Canada’ (or Canada+++). The Group has spent months trying to persuade the Prime Minister and senior pro EU officials in 10 Downing Street that this would present a superior alternative for the United Kingdom to Chequers and what is now the draft withdrawal agreement. However, these efforts have proved unsuccessful to date – and the Prime Minister appears completely wedded to the current proposals.
The ERG published a paper explaining the case for its alternative at the 2018 Conservative Party Conference. (‘Why an advanced Free Trade Deal – Super Canada – is superior to the Chequers proposal’). In addition, the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) has also published a highly detailed 134 page report this autumn, explaining in precise economic terms, how such an arrangement (which they call PlanA+) would work in practice.
In essence, Super Canada would involve taking an existing EU Canada trade agreement, which was signed in 2016 and updating this framework by adding on some additional elements, such as a security protocol and a protocol on data. The EU Canada agreement took several years to negotiate but this means that most of the ‘heavy lifting’ has already been done and many of the key issues have previously been thrashed out in a manner the EU has already agreed to.
A Super Canada trade agreement would not involve being in the Single Market or Customs Union and would not leave the UK subject to the authority of the European Court of Justice.
It would therefore honour the spirit of the 2016 referendum and the clear instruction to politicians from 17.4 million people that we should leave the European Union. It would also, incidentally, comply with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election Manifesto commitment, on which almost every sitting Conservative MP was elected to Parliament by their constituents. (A handful of Conservative MPs qualified their election addresses on this issue).
Conclusion
For the reasons explained in this paper, Chequers and the associated withdrawal agreement mean that the UK would not, in reality, leave the European Union. Instead we would be left, effectively “half in, half out” (which the Prime Minister specifically warned against in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017).
The aim of this paper has been to explain to the people of the United Kingdom in plain and simple English, what these complex legal proposals really mean for the future of this country. They would mean, in short, that we had surrendered our destiny and breeched the spirit of the 2016 referendum. This is why the ERG is so strongly opposed to them.
APPENDIX
The Agreement in more detail
Internal NI/GB border: The backstop provides for an all UK Customs Union and regulatory and other alignment in Northern Ireland. This would mean that goods from Northern Ireland entering the EU market via Ireland would be EU compliant. Goods from Great Britain would not be. This would entail checks on GB goods going into Northern Ireland to ensure they do not enter the EU’s single market.
For this reason, Article 7 of the Ireland / Northern Ireland Protocol guarantees “unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom”, but not the other way around.
No backstop exit: The ‘backstop’ in the Ireland / Northern Ireland Protocol, is on the face of it supposed to be temporary. However, the decision on when it might end is not one the UK can take alone.
Article 1 (3) of the protocol gives the following condition for when the backstop can end: “This Protocol sets out arrangements necessary to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation, avoid a hard border and protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions.”
Article 20 of the Protocol sets out when these conditions can be met: “If at any time after the end of the transition period the Union or the United Kingdom considers that the Protocol is, in whole or in part, no longer necessary to achieve the objectives set out in Article 1 (3) and should cease to apply”... “the Joint Committee shall meet at ministerial level to consider the notification.”
How the European Court of Justice will remain in control: The European Court of Justice (ECJ), will be given jurisdiction to rule over the withdrawal agreement including the transitional period, the potentially-permanent ‘backstop’ and the financial settlement.
The ‘backstop’ would tie the UK into a Customs Union with the EU where its customs rules, external trade policy, regulations in Northern Ireland and - via the ‘non-regression’ clauses - social, environmental, employment and state aid policy, would all be decided in the EU.
The financial settlement would cost the UK c.£39bn with the final sum adjudicated by the ECJ. This sum would not be conditional on gaining a final permanent trade agreement. It would be payable even if the UK remained trapped in the ‘backstop’.
Also under the ‘backstop’, Northern Ireland would be subject to EU regulations, (remaining in the Single Market for goods) while the UK would not. This would create internal UK borders down the Irish Sea (as well as regulatory borders at Calais and other UK/EU borders).
The European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in the Agreement.
The jurisdiction of the ECJ stems from the following articles:
Over the Transition Period: Article 4(1) “The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States.”
On cases arising under the Transition period for 4 years afterwards: Article 87“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..”
Over EU Citizens rights: Article 150:“References to the Court of Justice of the European Union”.. “which commenced in the first instance within 8 years from the end of the transition period..”
Over the financial settlement: Article 160:“Articles 258, 260, and 267 TFEU shall apply on respect of the interpretation and application of applicable Union law referred to in Article 136 and Article 138 (1) or (2)..” Articles 136&138 relate to the financial settlement.
Ultimately over the arbitration panel set up under Article 171: Article 174:“The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give such a ruling which shall be binding on the arbitration panel..”
Over the ‘backstop’: Article 14 (1) of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol “the authorities of the United Kingdom shall be responsible for implementing and applying the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Protocol..”
Over the ‘backstop’: Article 14 (4) of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol “In particular, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction as provided for in the Treaties..”
It binds the UK into EU social, environmental, employment and state aid policies: Annex 4 of the Ireland / Northern Ireland protocol sets out a number of ‘non-regression’ clauses that will bind the UK into following EU polices including ‘common standards’ on environment, social and labour Law, taxation and state aid directly under the ECJ.
2mbg6fgb1kl380gtk22pbxgw-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ERGYourRightToKnow.pdf
.
1. We would hand over £39 billion of taxpayer’s money with nothing guaranteed in return.
Under the proposal the UK would agree a financial settlement with the EU of c.£39 billion, made up of various elements, including continued EU budget contributions during the transition period (up to December 2020), contributions to unfunded EU commitments and EU pensions. Despite offering this vast sum of British taxpayer’s money the United Kingdom is not guaranteed any future trading arrangements, which are still to be negotiated.
2. The UK will remain a ‘rule taker’ over large areas of EU law.
The UK will continue to be bound by EU laws in vital areas such as social policy, environmental policy and employment policy, i.e will obey EU laws, but have no further influence over how they are drafted. We will thus become a ‘rule taker’ and will have surrendered our sovereignty in these critical areas.
3. No exit from a ‘backstop’ Customs Union.
The agreement establishes a ‘joint committee’ which will oversee the UK’s ability to proceed to a future trade relationship. If this relationship cannot be agreed by both parties the UK will enter a so called ‘backstop’ Customs Union with the EU, despite many public assurances to the contrary and directly at variance with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election manifesto. We could only subsequently leave the Customs Union with the agreement of the EU. While we remain in a Customs Union we would be unable to strike international trade deals without the EU’s permission.
4. The Agreement creates internal borders within the UK.
Northern Ireland would become a ‘rule taker’ in further areas such as goods, agricultural products and VAT compared to the rest of the UK. This threatens the internal integrity of the United Kingdom and is completely unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party on whom the Conservative Party now rely for a majority in the House of Commons.
5. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will remain in control of the agreement and large areas of EU law directly effective in the UK.
The ECJ will remain as the final arbiter of the agreement and of the EU laws the UK will be subject to.
In summary, the combination of these measures means the United Kingdom will have not left the European Union but will instead be ‘half in and half out’. This will mean that we will become a ‘vassal state’ many of whose laws will have been created abroad and over which we have no influence. This is completely against the spirit of the 2017 referendum in which 17.4 million UK citizens voted to leave the European Union.
Background
The UK Government / EU draft withdrawal agreement, under Article 50, was published on the 14 November 2018. The withdrawal agreement runs to 585 pages. This is almost twice as long as the 300 pages of the 2008 Lisbon Treaty. The draft withdrawal agreement was published alongside a draft political declaration on a permanent ‘future framework’ UK/EU relationship.
Final EU agreement on the withdrawal agreement will be subject to the approval of an “enhanced qualified majority” of EU Member States and the European Parliament.
In the UK, the House of Commons will be given a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on whether or not to approve the draft agreement and future framework. If this is approved by the House of Commons (which currently seems highly unlikely) Parliament will then need to pass a Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill, in order to ratify what would become a legally binding international Treaty.
Key issue 1 – NOT taking back control of our money
Under the proposed agreement the UK would agree to pay to the EU a sum of approximately £39 billion. This would comprise a number of parts, including continued EU budget contributions during the transition period up to December 2020; unfunded EU commitments (known as Reste à Liquider or RAL – where the EU has committed to future projects it has not yet funded), and EU pensions, including for EU Commissioners and civil servants.
Having been through a period of considerable austerity in Britain, it seems difficult to justify paying such a huge amount of money, while the United Kingdom is not guaranteed any future trading relationship in return, as this is still to be subsequently agreed. This hardly constitutes taking back control of our money – rather it is handing over vast amounts of our money, for nothing in return and which could be better spent at home.
Key issue 2 – NOT taking back control of our laws
Under the proposals the UK would continue to be bound by EU laws in a number of critical areas, such as social policy, environmental policy, employment policy and customs. We will thus become a ‘rule taker’, which means we would have to continue to obey EU laws in these areas but having surrendered any influence over how they are drafted.
Furthermore, under the agreement the European Court of Justice will be the final arbiter of EU laws in power in the UK, putting our Courts, even our Supreme Court, in a junior position.
Key issue 3 – Being locked in a Customs Union without the ability to leave
Under the proposed agreement a ‘Joint Committee’ of both the EU and UK would be established to oversee the UK’s path to a future trade relationship – which has yet to be negotiated. However, if this relationship cannot be satisfactorily agreed by both parties the UK would be forced to enter a so called ‘backstop’ Customs Union with the EU. While we remain in a Customs Union (as we are at present) the UK would be unable to strike international trade deals with other countries such as the USA or China or indeed, any other country.
Moreover, and critically, once we enter the backstop we cannot leave without the consent of the European Union. This would be a major surrender of our sovereignty, despite repeated public assurances in Parliament to the contrary. It would also be directly at odds with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election manifesto that stated unequivocally that following the referendum “we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union”.
Key issue 4 – Undermining the integrity of the United Kingdom
The agreement creates internal borders within the United Kingdom, as Northern Ireland, if we enter the backstop, would be treated separately to the rest of the UK. Specifically, Northern Ireland would become a rule taker in further areas such as goods, agricultural products and VAT. This would create ‘a border down the Irish Sea’, despite repeated assurances to Parliament that no British Government would ever contemplate this.
The draft agreement contains a separate Protocol including clauses specific to Northern Ireland not affecting the rest of the UK. Treating Northern Ireland separately from the UK would only encourage separatism in Scotland, to the detriment of our United Kingdom.
The separate treatment of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party (the DUP) on whom the Conservative Party now rely for a working majority in the House of Commons. If the DUP were to withdraw their support from the Conservative Party, because of these proposals, the Government would collapse.
Key issue 5 – The Agreement would be overseen by the European Court of Justice, not the UK Supreme Court.
Under the proposals the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will remain in control of the agreement and those areas of EU law that remain effective in the UK. The ECJ will remain as the final arbiter of the agreement and of the EU laws the UK will be subject to. Again, this is wholly against the spirit of the referendum.
A better alternative - a “Super Canada” Free Trade Deal
The European Research Group (ERG) has argued for some time for a far better alternative which is an advanced Free Trade Deal, known as ‘Super Canada’ (or Canada+++). The Group has spent months trying to persuade the Prime Minister and senior pro EU officials in 10 Downing Street that this would present a superior alternative for the United Kingdom to Chequers and what is now the draft withdrawal agreement. However, these efforts have proved unsuccessful to date – and the Prime Minister appears completely wedded to the current proposals.
The ERG published a paper explaining the case for its alternative at the 2018 Conservative Party Conference. (‘Why an advanced Free Trade Deal – Super Canada – is superior to the Chequers proposal’). In addition, the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) has also published a highly detailed 134 page report this autumn, explaining in precise economic terms, how such an arrangement (which they call PlanA+) would work in practice.
In essence, Super Canada would involve taking an existing EU Canada trade agreement, which was signed in 2016 and updating this framework by adding on some additional elements, such as a security protocol and a protocol on data. The EU Canada agreement took several years to negotiate but this means that most of the ‘heavy lifting’ has already been done and many of the key issues have previously been thrashed out in a manner the EU has already agreed to.
A Super Canada trade agreement would not involve being in the Single Market or Customs Union and would not leave the UK subject to the authority of the European Court of Justice.
It would therefore honour the spirit of the 2016 referendum and the clear instruction to politicians from 17.4 million people that we should leave the European Union. It would also, incidentally, comply with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election Manifesto commitment, on which almost every sitting Conservative MP was elected to Parliament by their constituents. (A handful of Conservative MPs qualified their election addresses on this issue).
Conclusion
For the reasons explained in this paper, Chequers and the associated withdrawal agreement mean that the UK would not, in reality, leave the European Union. Instead we would be left, effectively “half in, half out” (which the Prime Minister specifically warned against in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017).
The aim of this paper has been to explain to the people of the United Kingdom in plain and simple English, what these complex legal proposals really mean for the future of this country. They would mean, in short, that we had surrendered our destiny and breeched the spirit of the 2016 referendum. This is why the ERG is so strongly opposed to them.
APPENDIX
The Agreement in more detail
Internal NI/GB border: The backstop provides for an all UK Customs Union and regulatory and other alignment in Northern Ireland. This would mean that goods from Northern Ireland entering the EU market via Ireland would be EU compliant. Goods from Great Britain would not be. This would entail checks on GB goods going into Northern Ireland to ensure they do not enter the EU’s single market.
For this reason, Article 7 of the Ireland / Northern Ireland Protocol guarantees “unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom”, but not the other way around.
No backstop exit: The ‘backstop’ in the Ireland / Northern Ireland Protocol, is on the face of it supposed to be temporary. However, the decision on when it might end is not one the UK can take alone.
Article 1 (3) of the protocol gives the following condition for when the backstop can end: “This Protocol sets out arrangements necessary to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation, avoid a hard border and protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions.”
Article 20 of the Protocol sets out when these conditions can be met: “If at any time after the end of the transition period the Union or the United Kingdom considers that the Protocol is, in whole or in part, no longer necessary to achieve the objectives set out in Article 1 (3) and should cease to apply”... “the Joint Committee shall meet at ministerial level to consider the notification.”
How the European Court of Justice will remain in control: The European Court of Justice (ECJ), will be given jurisdiction to rule over the withdrawal agreement including the transitional period, the potentially-permanent ‘backstop’ and the financial settlement.
The ‘backstop’ would tie the UK into a Customs Union with the EU where its customs rules, external trade policy, regulations in Northern Ireland and - via the ‘non-regression’ clauses - social, environmental, employment and state aid policy, would all be decided in the EU.
The financial settlement would cost the UK c.£39bn with the final sum adjudicated by the ECJ. This sum would not be conditional on gaining a final permanent trade agreement. It would be payable even if the UK remained trapped in the ‘backstop’.
Also under the ‘backstop’, Northern Ireland would be subject to EU regulations, (remaining in the Single Market for goods) while the UK would not. This would create internal UK borders down the Irish Sea (as well as regulatory borders at Calais and other UK/EU borders).
The European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in the Agreement.
The jurisdiction of the ECJ stems from the following articles:
Over the Transition Period: Article 4(1) “The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States.”
On cases arising under the Transition period for 4 years afterwards: Article 87“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..”
Over EU Citizens rights: Article 150:“References to the Court of Justice of the European Union”.. “which commenced in the first instance within 8 years from the end of the transition period..”
Over the financial settlement: Article 160:“Articles 258, 260, and 267 TFEU shall apply on respect of the interpretation and application of applicable Union law referred to in Article 136 and Article 138 (1) or (2)..” Articles 136&138 relate to the financial settlement.
Ultimately over the arbitration panel set up under Article 171: Article 174:“The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give such a ruling which shall be binding on the arbitration panel..”
Over the ‘backstop’: Article 14 (1) of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol “the authorities of the United Kingdom shall be responsible for implementing and applying the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Protocol..”
Over the ‘backstop’: Article 14 (4) of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol “In particular, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction as provided for in the Treaties..”
It binds the UK into EU social, environmental, employment and state aid policies: Annex 4 of the Ireland / Northern Ireland protocol sets out a number of ‘non-regression’ clauses that will bind the UK into following EU polices including ‘common standards’ on environment, social and labour Law, taxation and state aid directly under the ECJ.
It could be condensed into 4 words
"leaving in name only"
Still got to take in migrants, they still get to fish in our waters etc
And we pay 39 billion for the pleasure
Its going to kick off big time in this country
"leaving in name only"
Still got to take in migrants, they still get to fish in our waters etc
And we pay 39 billion for the pleasure
Its going to kick off big time in this country
One thing which depressed me was how comprehensible it actually was. I'll explain what I mean:
Thirty years ago I used to work in an office translating German legal texts from the European Patent Office in Munich. The golden rule of translating is that the ultimate responsibility must lie with someone who is a native speaker of the language into which a text is being translated. So, a German text being translated into English has to be the work of a native English speaker.
Sometimes we'd get texts where a German had ignored this rule, done the English translation themselves, and we had to sort out the mess. You didn't even need to see the original sometimes to spot where the German translating it simply didn't realize how English works.
There's nothing of the sort which I could spot in this document. It reads so smoothly and clearly it's as though the British civil servants formulated it themselves and just handed it over to their EU counterparts to be rubber-stamped.
I mean, just look at Article 124 para 3 on page 77:
3. In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, the United Kingdom shall refrain, during
the transition period, from any action or initiative which is likely to be prejudicial to the Union's
interests, in particular in the framework of any international organisation, agency, conference or
forum of which the United Kingdom is a party in its own right.
How clear is that? Spine-chillingly watertight and all-embracing. Combine that with Barnier's 'offer' yesterday to extend the transition period mentioned in that paragraph for a further couple of years, until 2022, and this country is doomed. It's not just a case of the UK doing something which the EU can complain is to to the UK's advantage and not its own, and then the EU arguing to have it overturned. We can't even attempt anything which is merely likely to be to the UK's advantage without it being legally halted.
Thirty years ago I used to work in an office translating German legal texts from the European Patent Office in Munich. The golden rule of translating is that the ultimate responsibility must lie with someone who is a native speaker of the language into which a text is being translated. So, a German text being translated into English has to be the work of a native English speaker.
Sometimes we'd get texts where a German had ignored this rule, done the English translation themselves, and we had to sort out the mess. You didn't even need to see the original sometimes to spot where the German translating it simply didn't realize how English works.
There's nothing of the sort which I could spot in this document. It reads so smoothly and clearly it's as though the British civil servants formulated it themselves and just handed it over to their EU counterparts to be rubber-stamped.
I mean, just look at Article 124 para 3 on page 77:
3. In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation, the United Kingdom shall refrain, during
the transition period, from any action or initiative which is likely to be prejudicial to the Union's
interests, in particular in the framework of any international organisation, agency, conference or
forum of which the United Kingdom is a party in its own right.
How clear is that? Spine-chillingly watertight and all-embracing. Combine that with Barnier's 'offer' yesterday to extend the transition period mentioned in that paragraph for a further couple of years, until 2022, and this country is doomed. It's not just a case of the UK doing something which the EU can complain is to to the UK's advantage and not its own, and then the EU arguing to have it overturned. We can't even attempt anything which is merely likely to be to the UK's advantage without it being legally halted.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-top-40-horrors-lurking-in-the-small-print-of-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
.
.
Its finished screamning
The cat is out the bag and people will be rioting in the streets
Why do you think they are normalising the idea of putting troops on the streets?, its not to protect the public either, its to protect those rats
The cat is out the bag and people will be rioting in the streets
Why do you think they are normalising the idea of putting troops on the streets?, its not to protect the public either, its to protect those rats
have you read the deal?
dont put the deal up for folk to read, put up a biased bretremist view of it
lol
dont put the deal up for folk to read, put up a biased bretremist view of it
lol
Donny
This deal is staying in the EU but without the human rights act
If another vote is called it'll be "remain or deal"
Conned from the moment Cameron called the referendum
This deal is staying in the EU but without the human rights act
If another vote is called it'll be "remain or deal"
Conned from the moment Cameron called the referendum
Are you kidding me, Donaldo? I'm not trawling through 585 pages of waffle!
Point out where the facts are wrong please
Point out where the facts are wrong please
The whole point of the EU is that you can never leave the EU.
and they mean never..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-3DsJ4jyP8
and they mean never..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-3DsJ4jyP8
As usual a video taken totally out of contact with nothing to do with Brexit. Fits in nicely with the leave campaigns motto of 'why tell the truth when lying to the gullible is much easier.'
I've read it - and am utterly perplexed.
It can be interpreted in so many different ways and with so many references to other documents.
It's as if all parties have spent the last two years making alphabet spaghetti, then tipped a giant vat of it on the floor, pushed it around a bit, taken a pdf of the result and gone 'there we go folks!'
It can be interpreted in so many different ways and with so many references to other documents.
It's as if all parties have spent the last two years making alphabet spaghetti, then tipped a giant vat of it on the floor, pushed it around a bit, taken a pdf of the result and gone 'there we go folks!'
Corbyn has not (reportedly), and he's only the leader of the Labour Party.
anyone who says they have is a liar, and as you have to keep referring elsewhere, anyone who says they can join all the dots is also lying, and as everyone puts their own spin on oi whats the point,its doing the job the EU AND UK intended it to do,boxes and boxes of fudge
I'm up to page 389, I'm tired of the word 'shall' by now.
Thoroughly disenchanted as I am with politicians and politics, you still try to be a clued-up, intelligent punter. You still try to get to the actual guts of this important issue, free from the kind of spin alluded to in the postings above. You try to rise above the din and clamour and sectional interest spin.
But honest to God, what chance have you got?
Google 'Flux Of Pink Indians 1984, Spiderleg Records LP'
But honest to God, what chance have you got?
Google 'Flux Of Pink Indians 1984, Spiderleg Records LP'
I'll let you know when I get there 1tp, I'm reading it backwards, wanted to be ahead of the crowd.
......
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/15/uk/brexit-draft-agreement-full-text-gbr-intl/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/15/uk/brexit-draft-agreement-full-text-gbr-intl/index.html
the whole book is a sport, that's what politicians do, play with people's lives.
sorry that was a bit deep, ahem, no sport at the back but there is a nice crossword, 14 across, 7 letters, _h_f_e_
, ahem, no sport at the back but there is a nice crossword, 14 across, 7 letters, _h_f_e_
that one at the weekend tickled me
the new Brexit sec wont have an input into the talks, just like the previous 2 then
the new Brexit sec wont have an input into the talks, just like the previous 2 then
Only three Brexit secretaries until Christmas this year now !
I certainly wouldn't send Theresea May to haggle over the price of a car.
Price ticket on car £5,000
she would pay £6,000 and pay for the sales office to be refurbished.
Price ticket on car £5,000
she would pay £6,000 and pay for the sales office to be refurbished.
She would give them the full 5,000 but wouldn't take the car, she'd let them keep it
"where's the car mam?"
"We are in a 4 year transitional period, we get the 2nd hand wheels in 2022, I got the best deal"
"We are in a 4 year transitional period, we get the 2nd hand wheels in 2022, I got the best deal"
trade in her one year old roller to sweeten the deal, and her husbands beamer,
and her oirish cousins tractor, to get that little clio for £4k ...
and her oirish cousins tractor, to get that little clio for £4k ...
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539