Off Topic The Politics Thread

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Should the UK remain a part of the EU or leave?

  • Stay in

    Votes: 56 47.9%

  • Get out

    Votes: 61 52.1%
  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
Goldhawk-Road said:
Some agreements you set out principles and key obligations, and rely on good faith bdtween the parties to impliment. The problem is the EU is using the WA to leverage the second agreement, the trade agreement.
Click to expand...
What you on about? You negotiate those principles and obligations, then sign if you're happy with them or dont sign if you're unhappy with them. If you fail to implement them, then youre breaking the signed agreement and open to some repercussions for doing so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willhoops
bobmid said:
What you on about? You negotiate those principles and obligations, then sign if you're happy with them or dont sign if you're unhappy with them. If you fail to implement them, then youre breaking the signed agreement and open to some repercussions for doing so.
Click to expand...

A skeletal agreement needs good faith to implement. Barnier is acting in bad faith
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
A skeletal agreement needs good faith to implement. Barnier is acting in bad faith
Click to expand...
It's an agreement that was signed by our government because they were happy with it. It's not a skeletal agreement or however you wish to describe it to suit your point of view. It's a signed agreement by two parties which the government themselves put into law.
 
bobmid said:
It's an agreement that was signed by our government because they were happy with it. It's not a skeletal agreement or however you wish to describe it to suit your point of view. It's a signed agreement by two parties which the government themselves put into law.
Click to expand...

MSM are calling it skeletal, but suit yourself if you think you know better
 
bobmid said:
It's an agreement that was signed by our government because they were happy with it. It's not a skeletal agreement or however you wish to describe it to suit your point of view. It's a signed agreement by two parties which the government themselves put into law.
Click to expand...

It's so skeletal that the Government are having to introduce primary legislation to override it's specific, written, impact.

Go figure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, QPR Oslo, sb_73 and 1 other person
bobmid said:
With your stubbornness to acknowledge that your own PM negoiated and signed this agreement, rushing it through parliment yet then decides he doesnt like it.
Click to expand...

There may be an element of naivety in believing the EU would implement in good faith. Once trade negotiations went bad and Barnier threatened UK internal trading arrangements, Boris had to act
 
Goldhawk-Road said:
There may be an element of naivety in believing the EU would implement in good faith. Once trade negotiations went bad and Barnier threatened UK internal trading arrangements, Boris had to act
Click to expand...
There may be an element of naivety in believing anything that comes out of Johnsons mouth too.
 
I think what would be very helpful and I'm sure you will agree, if any threats have been made by the EU for Johnson to break international law, then surely the easiest thing would be to publish them officially, so that we all could see why he has suddenly found the need to break the signed WA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back