Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

British PM Johnson hits out at EU President over possibility of “no deal” BREXIT

British PM Johnson hits out at EU President over possibility of “no deal” BREXIT

Johnson threatens to withhold $48 billion ‘divorce bill’ if EU fails to compromise on withdrawal agreement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX_0uu3tv6k&t=697s

In an ongoing war of words, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has told European Council President Donald Tusk that he will go down in history as ‘Mr No-Deal’ if the European Union continues with its refusal to change the withdrawal agreement.

The remark came after the European Council President, who head the EU’s executive body, said that Prime Minister Johnson should accept the withdrawal agreement handed by Brussels to his predecessor Theresa May as he “will not like to go down in history as ‘Mr No Deal’.”

Reacting to EU President Tusk’s comments, Prime Minister Johnson shot back saying that “if Donald Tusk doesn’t want to go down as ‘Mr No-Deal Brexit,’ then I hope that point will be borne in mind by him too.” The British Prime Minister was referring to Tusk’s refusal to make any changes to the withdrawal agreement.

PM Johnson has repeatedly stated he is willing to leave the EU with a reasonable deal in hand, but if the European bloc continues to insist on imposing punitive terms on the UK, he will opt for a no-deal Brexit, scrapping all existing trade and immigration agreements between London and Brussels.

As part of the no-deal, the UK plans to bar EU criminals from entering the country. Under the current British immigration system, subjected to the EU regulations, London was not allowed to impose entry restrictions on travelers holding EU passports. “Boris Johnson will change the rules to allow UK border officials to turn any EU criminals who have previously been jailed for a year or more, sweeping away EU regulations that allowed any EU national entry unless they were a threat to public safety,” UK’s Daily Telegraph reported on Monday quoting an official from the Prime Minister’s office.

Reuters reported PM Johnson’s comments:

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has warned European Council President Donald Tusk that unless he agrees to change the Brexit divorce deal, Tusk will be known as “Mr No Deal”.

Johnson was responding to Tusk’s earlier comments that he would not cooperate in preparing for on a no-deal Brexit.

The prime minister wants the EU to drop the so-called Irish backstop, which is an insurance policy designed to prevent the return of a hard border between the Irish Republic and the British province of Northern Ireland.

“I would say to our friends in the EU if they don’t want a no deal Brexit then we’ve got to get rid of the backstop from the treaty. If Donald Tusk doesn’t want to go down as Mr No Deal then I hope that point will be borne in mind by him too,” Johnson told reporters.

The beleaguered British Prime Minister got support from the other side of the Atlantic on Sunday, as U.S. President Donald Trump told him that he was looking for a “very big trade deal” with the UK after Brexit. President Trump praised PM Johnson, calling him “the right man” to deliver Brexit. The remarks were made as the two leaders met for a breakfast meeting at the G7 summit in France.

PM Johnson is expected to bring some unwelcome news to EU officials this weekend. The UK government was going to renege on the promise of paying all of the £39 billion, around $48 billion, ‘divorce bill.’ “Boris Johnson is set to warn the EU, Britain will hold back £30bn of its Brexit divorce bill in the event of a No Deal,” British daily The Sun reported on Saturday. The move could be an attempt to force the EU to reconsider the terms of the withdrawal agreement.

Despite tough negotiations, PM Johnson continues to express optimism about the outcome of the current round of talks with the EU member states. “If we approach this with sufficient patience and optimism, we can get this done. It’s in the final furlong generally when the horses change places and the winning deal appears,” Johnson said ahead of the G7 summit.

However, with Germany and France united in there opposition to any concession on Brexit, there is little room for such optimism. “Have no doubt that the French and German positions—and elsewhere [within the EU]—are the same. There’s not the thickness of a cigarette paper between us,” a French presidency staffer declared ahead of the summit.

With the October 31 deadline approaching, Britain faces the most crucial choice since the Second World War. At this decisive hour the British Prime Minister is fighting on two fronts: not just with the vindictive Eurocrats in Brussels, but also with a deeply entrenched pro-EU political and media establishment at home. Senior British Members of Parliament (MP) are actively collaborating with the EU to prevent Brexit, according to PM Johnson’s own admission. His political rival, Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, is conspiring to form a caretaker government to stop a no-deal Brexit. The next ten weeks will decide the fate of Britain. The outcome will decide if this once-proud island nation will regain its lost sovereignty or resume its subservient role under the EU’s yoke after a glorious yet brief revolt.

Donald Tusk says he won’t cooperate with a no-deal Brexit at the G7 summit in Biarritz

[Cover image via YouTube]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Boris Johnson is set to warn the EU, Britain will hold back £30bn of its Brexit divorce bill in the event of a No Deal,”

Huh? Surely if there is no deal then the UK needn’t pay anything. The whole idea of a payment was that it would be part of a comprehensive deal. The UK very much wants a deal and is prepared to pay a huge sum for it. But if there isn’t one why pay?

    Milhouse: Surely if there is no deal then the UK needn’t pay anything. The whole idea of a payment was that it would be part of a comprehensive deal.

    The U.K. still owes for expenditures to which they had agreed while a member of the E.U.

      iconotastic in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 12:37 am

      Of course withhold payment.

      It doesn’t really matter that EU expenditures were based partially on agreements by the UK. If the EU forces a no-deal Brexit and cutting all trade agreements then there is no value returned to the UK for those monies. The EU will simply have to adjust their budget, that’s all.

        iconotastic: It doesn’t really matter that EU expenditures were based partially on agreements by the UK.

        Of course it matters. Other countries will avoid doing business with a country that doesn’t live up to its commitments, and is tied up in the international courts for years. U.K. still needs to have trade with E.U., so payment of any outstanding debt will obviously be required to move forward. How much constitutes U.K.’s fair share is subject to negotiation, however.

          Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 11:37 am

          But there is no “outstanding debt” obligations on the part of the U.K. That’s simply a fantasy pushed by the e.u. leadership. And if they leave without a deal then there is also no legal obligation for the U.K. to pay the e.u. their extortion money. And that’s why the e.u. is so desperate to have a “pay us XX billion euros” clause in any agreement. The e.u. leadership knows full well that once the U.K. leaves there’s no hope in hell of ever seeing that money

          Lucifer Morningstar: But there is no “outstanding debt” obligations on the part of the U.K.

          Their signature is on the mortgage paperwork.

          Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 11:43 am

          Their signature is on the mortgage paperwork.

          Link to the relevant documents. Thanks.

          Lucifer Morningstar: Link to the relevant documents.

          There are a number of relevant treaties, but the most important is the Treaty of Lisbon, which amended the Treaty on European Union, and grants the European Parliament and Council legislative and budgetary functions, and gave explicit rights to a country to leave the European Union.

          More particularly, U.K. is liable for spending commitments undertaken during the current EU budget year while it has still been a member, but will receive back its share of assets including capital in the European Investment Bank.

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 3:22 pm

          Their signature is on the mortgage paperwork.

          What mortgage? The Treaty of Lisbon is not a mortgage. Like any treaty, it cannot create any obligations that survive a withdrawal. (And like any treaty it can be abrogated at will.)

          Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 3:39 pm

          Other countries will avoid doing business with a country that doesn’t live up to its commitments, and is tied up in the international courts for years. U.K. still needs to have trade with E.U., so payment of any outstanding debt will obviously be required to move forward.

          Two major fallacies here. First, neither the UK nor any other country is a participant in international trade, so its supposed debts, and whether it chooses to pay them, are irrelevant to trade. Trade happens between individuals and companies in countries, and will or won’t happen depending only on the parties’ creditworthiness, etc. In other words, when a Frenchman considers whether to sell something to an Englishman he cares only whether that Englishman can be relied on to pay the invoice, not whether the UK pays its debts.

          Second, a sovereign country is not subject to the jurisdiction of any “international court” unless it chooses to consent to proceedings. It need not do so. There is no such thing as a world government, or international subpoenas.

          Oh, and a third thing; even actual debt that a country actually owes, because it borrowed the money, can be repudiated. That’s called sovereign risk. You’d think nobody would ever again do business with a country that did so, and yet people do, regularly.

          Milhouse: What mortgage? The Treaty of Lisbon is not a mortgage.

          It’s an analogy. Don’t worry: No one is going to repossess Windsor Palace.

          Milhouse: Like any treaty, it cannot create any obligations that survive a withdrawal.

          So if U.K. has capital funds in the European Investment Bank (it does), then that money doesn’t have to be returned? Or if U.K. owes dues for the time they have been a member of the E.U., they don’t have to make up arrears? Of if U.K. has received advance subsidies, they don’t have to return the subsidies? The treaty does have a withdrawal process to allow time for these issues to be worked out.

          Sure, U.K. can simply walk away. But that would be to renege on their commitments. Even the Brexiteer Prime Minister Johnson has said U.K. will pay billions in the event of a hard Brexit. It’s just a question of how many billions.

          Milhouse: First, neither the UK nor any other country is a participant in international trade, so its supposed debts, and whether it chooses to pay them, are irrelevant to trade.

          You can say that, but the fact is that countries regulate the traffic of people and goods across their borders, allowing some, taxing some, restricting others including numerous regulations as to safety and quality.

          Milhouse: when a Frenchman considers whether to sell something to an Englishman he cares only whether that Englishman can be relied on to pay the invoice, not whether the UK pays its debts.

          He also has to worry about the numerous taxes, regulations and restrictions of the U.K., and if U.K. is perceived as a scofflaw, then trade may be significantly curtailed. Also, the value of British Sterling will be affected by the perception that U.K. is a deadbeat.

          However, that’s now how this is going to play out. U.K. knows they have to work out a deal.

          Milhouse: a sovereign country is not subject to the jurisdiction of any “international court” unless it chooses to consent to proceedings.

          U.K. remains a party to the Permanent Court of International Justice (since 1921) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (since 1909).

          However, that’s now how this is going to play out. U.K. knows they have to work out a deal.

          Milhouse: even actual debt that a country actually owes, because it borrowed the money, can be repudiated.

          Sure. Trump has (insanely) threatened to do just that for the U.S. If a country repudiates their debts, it nearly always results in a much weaker economy.

          However, that’s now how this is going to play out. U.K. knows they have to work out a deal.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 10:49 am

      The U.K. still owes for expenditures to which they had agreed while a member of the E.U.

      Tough tits to the E.U. then. In the event of a No Deal Brexit then the U.K. owes nothing. All bets and agreements are null and void and any “negotiations” with the E.U start over at the beginning.

        Lucifer Morningstar: In the event of a No Deal Brexit then the U.K. owes nothing.

        Well, you can say that, but it doesn’t make it true. There are legal obligations, and U.K. will have to make good on them, or their credibility will be affected. U.K. obviously needs to deal with E.U., so they will have to reach some sort of agreement. The previous agreement was for £39 billion. Prime Minister Johnson says they will pay £7 billion.

    puhiawa in reply to Milhouse. | August 26, 2019 at 2:14 am

    Nail…Head

Nobody wants a no-deal Brexit. It would be bad for both sides. But the EU seems to be under the delusion that it doesn’t need a deal, that the deal it offered was a favor to the UK, it’s made as many concessions as it can, and if the UK won’t take the deal then it’ll have to leave without one. Johnson is correctly calling the EU’s bluff, or reminding it that it is a bluff. The EU needs a deal too. Not only does it not want to lose out on trade with the UK, but without a deal it won’t get all that lovely money, and its nationals will no longer have automatic entry to the UK. So it’s as much in its interest to compromise as it is in the UK’s. The deal May got is dead; the UK cannot accept it. So it had better get realistic, or both Tusk and Johnson will go down as “Mr No-Deal”. Johnson’s willing to bear that, if necessary; is Tusk?

    Olinser in reply to Milhouse. | August 25, 2019 at 7:42 pm

    No, the EU is under the delusion that they’ve bought off enough of Parliament that Britain will not leave. Under the pathetically weak May, they were right. The do not seem to understand that Johnson is ready to do it.

    This is the functional equivalent of the EU trying to bluff somebody that has already pushed all-in.

“Boris Johnson will change the rules to allow UK border officials to turn any EU criminals who have previously been jailed for a year or more, sweeping away EU regulations that allowed any EU national entry unless they were a threat to public safety,”

Good God Almighty! That alone would be enough to justify a Brexit, for me.

Felons are a threat to public safety.

    Milhouse in reply to Valerie. | August 25, 2019 at 3:48 pm

    Felons who are a threat to public safety can already be excluded. But most felons are not threats — the public is perfectly safe around them; but they still might not be desirable people to have around.

      Petrushka in reply to Milhouse. | August 25, 2019 at 4:09 pm

      Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word ‘safe’ that I wasn’t previously aware of.

      — Douglas Adams

      Where do you come up with these nonsensical conclusions?

      Proven reoffending statistics in the UK:
      https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics

      hopp singg in reply to Milhouse. | August 25, 2019 at 4:46 pm

      Maybe so, maybe not, but the issue, my dear Horatio, is who decides.

        Milhouse in reply to hopp singg. | August 25, 2019 at 6:55 pm

        No, the issue is simply whether the UK will exclude people whom it fully agrees are no threat to public safety, but whom it doesn’t want anyway. As part of the EU it can’t; when it is once again a fully sovereign country then it will be able to. The EU wants it to keep letting them in, and Johnson is saying that sure, as part of a deal he can promise that, but if there’s no deal then of course he will have no reason to.

      WestRock in reply to Milhouse. | August 25, 2019 at 8:32 pm

      Where do I get one of these magical infallible “Is This Felon a Threat?” detectors? Innocent until proven guilty, sure? Proven guilty and determined to never pose a threat based on what, gut instinct? If England wants to determine how they are going to protect their borders they should have that right. Besides, the key word is “allow”, it wasn’t “deny and and all felons.”

        Milhouse in reply to WestRock. | August 26, 2019 at 3:43 pm

        Every country decides whether someone is a threat to public safety. The UK currently does so, and does not admit EU nationals whom it so considers. This story is entirely about felons whom the UK has determined are not threats to public safety. Right now, if they are EU nationals it has no choice but to admit them; after Brexit it will have a choice. The EU would like it to continue admitting them, and Johnson is saying he’s willing to agree to that being one of the terms of a deal, but if there’s no deal then they will not be admitted.

I would assume the Britain would get its own central bank with Brexit. That would be the big part of the deal. It would even be sweeter if they received a good or no deal from the BIS. That would give Britain a real economic boost.

    Milhouse in reply to InEssence. | August 25, 2019 at 6:56 pm

    Um, the UK already has a central bank. It never didn’t have one. So I don’t know what you’re on about here.

If Britain leaves, will Italy, amongst others, be far behind?

No, the EU is not going to budge; preventing Brexit is existential to their crooked little empire.

caseoftheblues | August 25, 2019 at 4:47 pm

Milhouse ..victims of felons would beg to differ with your ignorant opinion that felons aren’t a threat…..perhaps you can post your address so felons can come to your house and post no threat….

caseoftheblues | August 25, 2019 at 4:47 pm

*pose

There is no reason to take such a lousy deal and put lipstick on it.
It is a total loser.
Get out with you wallet and your sovereign rights.

    Milhouse in reply to snowshooze. | August 25, 2019 at 6:58 pm

    Nobody’s suggesting doing that. What the UK wants is a new deal, a reasonable deal.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Milhouse. | August 26, 2019 at 11:08 am

      What the UK wants is a new deal, a reasonable deal.

      The E.U. will never negotiate in good faith and give the U.K a “reasonable deal”. The E.U. leadership promised from the outset that their goal was to make Brexit the most difficult, drawn out, and painful process as they could accomplish. And they’re not about to change and be nice now. It’s best the the U.K. prepare for a “No Deal” Brexit and act accordingly at this point. The E.U. will never offer “reasonable” terms and it’s foolish of Johnson to believe that will ever happen.

        Lucifer Morningstar: The E.U. will never offer “reasonable” terms and it’s foolish of Johnson to believe that will ever happen.

        U.K. is much smaller than E.U., so will inevitably be at a disadvantage in trade negotiations. Going forward, U.K. will be dealing with much larger trading partners, including the U.S., who will be able to demand large concessions for any sort of deal. More particularly, if U.K. wants to export to the E.U., they will have to produce products that meet E.U. standards, except now they will have no say in the making of those standards.

          Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 11:27 am

          Well, you can say that, but it doesn’t make it true. There are legal obligations, and U.K. will have to make good on them, or their credibility will be affected. U.K. obviously needs to deal with E.U., so they will have to reach some sort of agreement. The previous agreement was for £39 billion. Prime Minister Johnson says they will pay £7 billion.

          You can claim “legal obligations” all you want but once the U.K leaves they are under no legal obligations to pay any sum of extortion money to the E.U. leadership. That is why the E.U. is so desperate to force a “pay us XX billion euros” clause into any Brexit Agreement. They know full well they won’t see a euro coming their way if they don’t have that clause. Period.

          Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 11:32 am

          Sorry, for some reason got my reply posted to the wrong comment. Still holds though. The U.K. doesn’t have any legal obligations to the e.u once they leave. Period.

          Lucifer Morningstar: You can claim “legal obligations” all you want but once the U.K leaves they are under no legal obligations to pay any sum of extortion money to the E.U. leadership.

          It is a legal obligation, but no one is going to repossess Windsor Castle. However, it could very well be treated as a sovereign debt default by other countries.

          Lucifer Morningstar: They know full well they won’t see a euro coming their way if they don’t have that clause.

          Actually, Prime Minister Johnson said U.K. would pay £7 billion or so in the event of a hard Brexit. Ultimately, U.K. will have to have a trade deal with E.U., so they will have to come to some sort of agreement on the outstanding debt.

What is non-elected prig doing at G7?

Mulhouse: Surely if there is no deal then the UK needn’t pay anything. The whole idea of a payment was that it would be part of a comprehensive deal.

The U.K. still owes for expenditures to which they had agreed while a member of the E.U.

    rightway in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 12:37 am

    Sort of like the German promise to pay at least 2% of GDP for defense.

    iconotastic in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 12:42 am

    Not if the two sides don’t come to an agreement regarding Brexit. If all agreements between the UK and the EU are canceled then so is any obligation to provide funding to the EU.

      iconotastic: Not if the two sides don’t come to an agreement regarding Brexit. If all agreements between the UK and the EU are canceled then so is any obligation to provide funding to the EU.

      Just because you storm out of the house, leaving your family behind, even if you utter the magic words “I don’t owe you nothin’!”, doesn’t mean you have no financial obligations.

      U.K. entered into an agreement, and commitments made under that agreement up until the time of the divorce decree are legally binding. A newly independent U.K. will need a trade agreement with E.U., so there will have to be some accommodation on their debt.

        iconotastic in reply to Zachriel. | August 26, 2019 at 11:20 am

        “U.K. entered into an agreement, and commitments made under that agreement up until the time of the divorce decree are legally binding.”

        Brexit voids the commitment. If the EU wants any of the money then they had best modify the Brexit agreement.

        “A newly independent U.K. will need a trade agreement with E.U., so there will have to be some accommodation on their debt.”

        Agreed. That is the point, after all.

          iconotastic: Brexit voids the commitment.

          Uh, no it doesn’t, any more than getting a divorce means you can repudiate all financial obligations incurred during the marriage. If you and your wife took on a mortgage, then you’re still on the hook. What happens in most jurisdictions is that assets and liabilities incurred during the marriage are split. But just pretending you don’t have to meet your commitments won’t fly among your creditors. Even Brexiteer Prime Minister Johnson accepts that there are some residual liabilities.

          iconotastic: Agreed. That is the point, after all.

          Keep in mind that U.K. is the junior partner in any trade negotiation, and that they will have to meet E.U. standards to export to the E.U. More than likely, a hard Brexit will be hard.

          iconotastic in reply to iconotastic. | August 26, 2019 at 12:36 pm

          “Uh, no it doesn’t, any more than getting a divorce means you can repudiate all financial obligations incurred during the marriage.”

          Umm, you do know that your analogy is fatally flawed, right? There is no ‘controlling legal authority”, as a past presidential candidate once said. Furthermore, a commitment to fund is not the same thing as debt, which you are attempting to state.

          If the EU has some sovereign debt then it must be paid. But ending a treaty ends the obligations to that treaty, absent any other agreements.

          “But just pretending you don’t have to meet your commitments won’t fly among your creditors.”

          The EU is not a creditor. The UK did not issue sovereign debt to the EU. You should stop mixing up your terminology.

          “that they will have to meet E.U. standards to export to the E.U.”

          Just as the US and other countries do right now. The UK may not be the largest economy in the EU but ending trade between the UK and EU will hurt the EU badly. The UK is a major market for EU products and hammering that trade will hurt EU producers.

          iconotastic: There is no ‘controlling legal authority”

          That doesn’t mean they don’t have to pay what they had agreed to pay.

          U.K. is still a party to many other treaties, such as the international arbitration court in the Hague. It’s doubtful that would be the course E.U. would take, however. Rather, E.U. would simply not engage in a new trade deal until the matter was settled, and other countries may see U.K. as unreliable in paying its debts.

          iconotastic: The UK did not issue sovereign debt to the EU.

          U.K. agreed to make certain payments and also accepted certain subsidies. When you agree to pay something, it creates a liability. All of this has to be sorted out.

          iconotastic: The UK may not be the largest economy in the EU but ending trade between the UK and EU will hurt the EU badly.

          Sure, but it will be a much worse problem for U.K. than the E.U. minus U.K., which is six times larger, and won’t have to renegotiate trade deals with the rest of the world.

          iconotastic in reply to iconotastic. | August 26, 2019 at 3:21 pm

          “That doesn’t mean they don’t have to pay what they had agreed to pay.”

          And who will force that payment? There is no court other than the Hague and that will take decades, if ever.

          “Rather, E.U. would simply not engage in a new trade deal until the matter was settled, and other countries may see U.K. as unreliable in paying its debts.”

          Since it is not a debt, despite your increasingly desperate attempts to make it so, lenders will discount sovereign disagreements. And if the EU will not enter into a trade deal then it will have to face member states who can no longer compete in the UK because of EU intransigence. That knife has two edges.

          “U.K. agreed to make certain payments and also accepted certain subsidies. When you agree to pay something, it creates a liability. All of this has to be sorted out.”

          When the subsidies end then the liability ends. As for agreeing to pay something, we have already addressed that that is under the EU agreement. Once that is ended the legal liability ends.

          Ultimately the only way to get payment from the UK is to create a mutually beneficial trade deal. Not a deal that continues EU bureaucratic and judicial control over the UK. That the EU refuses to work out such a deal just means the EU goals go beyond just trade agreements.

          iconotastic: And who will force that payment?

          The proper term is pressure. There will be a lot of pressure on U.K., economic and political, to clean up their accounts.

          iconotastic: Since it is not a debt, despite your increasingly desperate attempts to make it so, lenders will discount sovereign disagreements.

          There is good reason to consider some of it as debt. Does U.K. have a valid claim for capital in the European Investment Bank? Of course they do. Does E.U. have a valid claim on U.K. spending commitments made while they were a member? Of course they do.

          iconotastic: And if the EU will not enter into a trade deal then it will have to face member states who can no longer compete in the UK because of EU intransigence. That knife has two edges.

          Sure, but it’s much sharper on the one side. E.U. GDP is six times larger than U.K., and has long-standing trade agreements with the rest of the world. U.K. doesn’t even have a trade agreement with the U.S. or E.U. or China, the three largest economies in the world, and they will be negotiating from a position of weakness. The British Sterling will probably lose value, they may enter recession, there may be various shortages causing bottlenecks in the economy, and they will be desperate to make trade deals. Other countries will see this, and may make some allowances for their past relationships, but ultimately they won’t leave money on the table.

          iconotastic: When the subsidies end then the liability ends.

          Do you think they pay subsidies on a daily basis, or do you think there is a budget process that extends over several years? How do you untangle all this?

          iconotastic: Not a deal that continues EU bureaucratic and judicial control over the UK.

          The intractable problem is the Irish border. How do you think this should be resolved?

Raise it by a billion a day.

The deal May stupidly agreed to gave EVERYTHING to the EU.

It basically agreed to keeping the UK in the common market, paying £39 billion divorce deal and getting absolutely nothing back in return.

What May essentially did was to sell the UK out to the EU.

Also now that Boris is the PM and actually working for the benefit of the UK all the traitors are coming out fighting against leaving with no deal.

What these traitors are really doing is ensuring that all we will ever get from the EU is the very thing they are fighting against, No Deal!

Why would the EU negotiate in good faith with the UK? They can see all the members of parliament actively working to undermine the British position for the EU’s benefit.

If Parliament wins and makes condition of leaving having an agreement in place then the cards are all in the EU’s favour. They can see they dont have to be serious about offering anything to the UK because they know the UK will not be leaving. So the EU continues to include the NI backstop in their offer (which effectively puts a HARD border between Northern Iteland and the Republic of Ireland) and the ONLY way the EU will remove it is with the UK remaining in the common market and the only way that can happen is by the UK remaining subject to EU law and paying up their membership dues every year (so effectively not ever leaving and telling the people to go get fucked).

This was May’s plan all along. Her heart was never in it to leave the EU.

    mailman: So the EU continues to include the NI backstop in their offer (which effectively puts a HARD border between Northern Iteland and the Republic of Ireland) and the ONLY way the EU will remove it is with the UK remaining in the common market

    If you don’t have a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, or between Ireland and Great Britain, then how do you control trade between the two newly separated markets?

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | August 26, 2019 at 3:52 pm

    If Parliament wins

    Um, Parliament is sovereign. It’s not in competition with anyone, and it can’t “lose”.

Thank God, Britain at last has a p.m. with backbone–the U.s. should;d do everything possible to assist him against the European scum. The French are inveterate anti-American in resentment of their reduction to minor league status militarily, economically, and culturally.
As for Germany–nothwithstansing its honeyed words–I can testify from personal experience
there that the Germans are basically the same–pushy, domineering, and arrogant. We can
do without Volswagon, BMW, and Mercedes cars; but can German do without its selling them
here

Zachriel,

This is 2019…where we can track, manage and control millions of people every day flying, driving, boating, walking around the world and control millions if tons of freight via technology.

Thats at a GLOBAL level yet are you telling me there is absolutely no solution other than a Berlin wall type border between NI and RI??

Give me a fucking break here pal. Only the terminally brain dead (or EU supporters…so like I said, the terminally brain dead) thinks this is an utterly unsolvable problem on a small border within a country that would see North and South Korea style family separations or the UK remaining in the EU to avoid a hard border within it’s own physical territory!!

    mailman: Thats at a GLOBAL level yet are you telling me there is absolutely no solution other than a Berlin wall type border between NI and RI??

    You’re thinking of the United States, which wants a wall across its southern border.

    Currently, there are no border inspections, and trucks can just drive across the Irish border. If U.K. isn’t part of the common market, then how do you regulate and tax goods crossing the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland? The honor system?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend