I have read (in another place) that although Countries can approve outside the EU mechanism the other 26 have followed the German plan on waiting on the EU regulator ..... if we were still in the EU the UK would have almost certainly have waited for the Europeans to approve the vaccine before approving it ourselves. This is the way it always worked for the UK in the EU, even under Maggie Thatcher we ALWAYS followed the rules
Off Topic The EU thread ... first 100 weeks
- Thread starter lardiman
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I have read (in another place) that although Countries can approve outside the EU mechanism the other 26 have followed the German plan on waiting on the EU regulator ..... if we were still in the EU the UK would have almost certainly have waited for the Europeans to approve the vaccine before approving it ourselves. This is the way it always worked for the UK in the EU, even under Maggie Thatcher we ALWAYS followed the rules
We lost, I'm over it, why resurrect the debate, especially in such a dishonest way as Hancock did? We're out of the EU, end of argument.
I know we were famous for 'gold plating' the rules, apparently following them to the spirit and the letter, when other countries supposedly bent them quite a lot.
But that bone of contention is pretty much in the past now, like most others.
I do think there are serious issues to be faced in the future which we may have strong feelings about and wish to debate here.
The gravest perhaps is the question of possible border problems between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
Not yesterdays old arguments, but new matters of importance.
This thread exists for that reason primarily.
The border question shows you can only kick the can down the road for so long. Nicola Sturgeon is doing exactly the same thing with regard to the border between Scotland and England, not to mention the questions of the fiscal deficit and the currency. She is focussing on the emotional nationalistic argument, which may well prevail in the short term, but requires a measure of dishonesty.
Though I was a Brexiteer I believed from the start that peace in Northern Ireland was the one thing that should never be endangered by Brexit.
It is the first responsibility of politicians in the UK, the EU and the ROI that the peace is defended.
I trusted our leaders to ensure that was so.
If things don't work out that way, there will be Hell to pay.
It is the first responsibility of politicians in the UK, the EU and the ROI that the peace is defended.
I trusted our leaders to ensure that was so.
If things don't work out that way, there will be Hell to pay.
Can't agree with you there Lardi.... peace in NI is for the people of Northern Ireland to sort out... nobody else!
I'm afraid I can't agree with that.
Hard borders and checkpoints imposed by either side (UK or EU) against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland but totally beyond their control, will do huge damage to normal life on the Island of Ireland.
It cannot be allowed to happen.
I would rather the UK remain in the EU than almost 30 years of peace be undone, or even seriously threatened.
I trusted all the political leaders involved to make sure peace and free movement was protected.
If they fail they betray their responsibility, and throw away all the sacrifices made to find a better way than guns and bombs.
I feel that the people of NI should be offered a referendum on their own future .... because of BREXIT their futures have changed more than any other part of the UK.... so give them a choice... do they want
a) To stay part of the UK
b) To become part of an enlarged RoI
If they choose to stay in the UK then the EU must accept that it has no say in the administration of NI
Peace in Northern Ireland has already been sorted out - although after decades of hate, it's a finely balanced thing. Ot was the Good Friday Agreement. All sides entered it in good faith and signed, under the auspices of the US who chaired the peace talks. We cannot just up and waltz off - we gave our word to stick by the terms of the agreement, and for those of us who grew up in the seventies, the idea of breaking our agreement and allowing the violence to return hould be repellent. You cannot argue this is for the people of Irealnd to decide, we agreed there would be no hard border, so whatever the Brexit talks unveil, that should be written in stone. Besides, it was hard enough to get this agreement done - another referendum will be divisive, as neither side will want to give ground, and why should they when they already agreed what we have now.
Finally the US (both the Republicans and the Democrats) have made it clear if we renege on out treaty agreements, they would not sign any sort of trade agreement with the UK. Apart from basically becoming a pariah internationally by not being prepared to stick by our agreements. Considering this would be 'the easiest deal in history' and an 'oven ready deal', it seems the UK had no idea that the Eire/NI border even existed.
Finally the US (both the Republicans and the Democrats) have made it clear if we renege on out treaty agreements, they would not sign any sort of trade agreement with the UK. Apart from basically becoming a pariah internationally by not being prepared to stick by our agreements. Considering this would be 'the easiest deal in history' and an 'oven ready deal', it seems the UK had no idea that the Eire/NI border even existed.
Any nation or government that tries to impose border restrictions between NI and ROI will not be forgiven by history.
I hope the grave potential consequences will make everybody think twice.
More likely it seems is some kind of 'border' restrictions across the Irish Sea - dividing NI from the rest of the UK even more than it is now.
This too (though the lesser of two evils) would be a very bad solution in my view.
This - in my view - is one of the consequences of the EU behaving like a Superstate - not only a sovereign country in its own right but setting itself up above the status of the 27 actual countries (now reduced to little more than provinces) from which it is constituted.
Any new 'border' of the EU between ROI and NI is the creation of this self-anointed Superstate. A monolith bearing no resemblence to what the UK joined in the 1970's, and the very reason the UK voted to leave in 2016.
I hope the grave potential consequences will make everybody think twice.
More likely it seems is some kind of 'border' restrictions across the Irish Sea - dividing NI from the rest of the UK even more than it is now.
This too (though the lesser of two evils) would be a very bad solution in my view.
This - in my view - is one of the consequences of the EU behaving like a Superstate - not only a sovereign country in its own right but setting itself up above the status of the 27 actual countries (now reduced to little more than provinces) from which it is constituted.
Any new 'border' of the EU between ROI and NI is the creation of this self-anointed Superstate. A monolith bearing no resemblence to what the UK joined in the 1970's, and the very reason the UK voted to leave in 2016.
Last edited:
What was never agreed in the Good Friday Agreement is that the UK should be tied to the corrupt EU for eternity... the EU are trying to use the Irish border issue as a way to derail Brexit talks .... THEY WANT TO KEEP OUR MONEY.... the British people have decided to leave the EU and any agreements that prevent this must be modified simples.
International Agreements are like ANY Agreement, when they become outdated they have to change and this is the case here. The British Government offered the EU several options for keeping an open boarder between RoI and NI but they refused them all and insisted on a boarder down the Irish Sea..... if this is not acceptable to the people of NI then there is either a hard boarder between NI and RoI or NI joins the RoI it doesn't bother me either way..... but .... WE HAVE LEFT THE EU ... and customs agreements (together with British payments) stop on 1/1/21 .... that is clear.
Most Brexiteers sound angry these days, despite the fact that they're getting what they want. Should they not be happy?
Yeah, I get we've left the EU, but the topic is the GFI not ongoing payments to the EU. When you leave stuff, you need to renegotiate trade and agreements, and in the case of the GFI, it needs to be acceptable to all parties. I accept the EU could be a bit more flexible, but the UK is hardly a shining light for this, and given that Cnut Gove said it would be the easiest deal in history, it doesn't seem as if there was any planning about the Irish border from the UK side. Bearing in mind the UK doesn't want to have an open border with the EU in order to take back control, surely they should have thought up a solution, and included all parts of the GFI in the process. The US certainly seems from their neutral stance to feel it's the UK who are inflexible- why would they imply future trade agreements won't happen if the fault is on the side of the EU?
It's best to try to forget all the things that were said in the referendum debate.
Fair enough, but "oven-ready deal" was a pre-election pledge, no doubt one of Cummings' 3-word soundbites, and for those of us who want to see a deal Johnson should be held to account for it. Although some think that only politicians of one party should be held to account.
For proper negotiation there needs to be a willingness on both sides to reach a deal... Macron does not want a deal (like me in fact) and so he will never agree to any compromises .... when French fishermen are banned from UK waters and the price of fish increases substantially in French Shops I think the fishing industry in France will turn violently against him and.... quite quickly!. My guess is that we will have an acceptable deal by the end of March after the German Dame has finished kicking Frenchies @rse.
The EU wants Brexit to be a failure.
That is obvious.
The European Union sees itself as an organisation that countries join, but don't leave.
A successful UK outside the EU weakens it in so many ways.
The aim of its leaders is total federalisation. Ever closer union. Logically that means eventually a United States of Europe with former sovereign nations reduced to regions with Governors, and the whole thing ruled by one parliament, one President.
One economy, one (or at most two) official languages, one military, one legislature.
Individual countries will have to decide in time whether that is the future they want.
Personally I don't mind whether they accept it or not. What I'm relieved about is that the UK will not be part of it.
But for the European Federalists their long term goal will be made more difficult by the UK leaving now.
And their eventual power on this continent will be much less complete.
Politically, they have nothing to gain from a Brexit deal.
They want to point to us in a few years time and say to other EU countries "look at what happened to the UK when it left. Don't make the same mistake."
So why should they negotiate in good faith.
A good trading relationship can be built in the future, once both sides respect each other's strength and sovereignty.
But that respect does not yet exist. So in the short term there will be friction, suffering and recriminations.
Sadly only to be expected.
That is obvious.
The European Union sees itself as an organisation that countries join, but don't leave.
A successful UK outside the EU weakens it in so many ways.
The aim of its leaders is total federalisation. Ever closer union. Logically that means eventually a United States of Europe with former sovereign nations reduced to regions with Governors, and the whole thing ruled by one parliament, one President.
One economy, one (or at most two) official languages, one military, one legislature.
Individual countries will have to decide in time whether that is the future they want.
Personally I don't mind whether they accept it or not. What I'm relieved about is that the UK will not be part of it.
But for the European Federalists their long term goal will be made more difficult by the UK leaving now.
And their eventual power on this continent will be much less complete.
Politically, they have nothing to gain from a Brexit deal.
They want to point to us in a few years time and say to other EU countries "look at what happened to the UK when it left. Don't make the same mistake."
So why should they negotiate in good faith.
A good trading relationship can be built in the future, once both sides respect each other's strength and sovereignty.
But that respect does not yet exist. So in the short term there will be friction, suffering and recriminations.
Sadly only to be expected.