Jump to content

What happens next with UK plan to breach Brexit divorce treaty?


snoop1130

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Not sure what you’re referring to and what that has to do with the fact that leaving the EU is each member state’s own business as a sovereign nation.  

and how many member states have granted their citizens a binding referendum  on if they would like to leave?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, evadgib said:

????????'s would have been binding if we'd lost! ????

 

I don't recall there ever being a referendum on the Union Flag!

 

The result of any and all UK referendums is only binding if the Act which provides for it says so.

 

I don't know if this has ever been the case; but it certainly wasn't in 2016.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, kingdong said:

and how many member states have granted their citizens a binding referendum  on if they would like to leave?

Your question rests on the assumption that referendums are, by definition, beneficial to a nation. Recent experience might suggest otherwise. Imo we elect governments to make decisions and govern on our behalf; we shouldn't govern by referendums.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

One last thing, though

 

There you go, full of pony and your own importance again.

I knew you would not keep your word. A bit like Boris knowing the EU really.

 

 

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

There are only two explanations for Johnson's actions regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol in the WA.

 

Either he was too stupid to realise what he was signing, even though it was his idea; or he knew full well all the implications of what he was signing and had no intention of sticking to it.

 

So he's either a useless buffoon or a liar.

 

So come on, Brexiteers, which is it?

You are wrong again. There are more explanations;

Boris is better at negotiations than the EU. That's why he's winning.

Come on 49, you know that's it.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

The British government did not give our fishing quota rights away. The British government allocated those quota rights to British fleet owners.

 

The majority of those British fleet owners then sold those quota rights to foreign, EU fleet owners.

 

Privatising the seas: how the UK turned fishing rights into a commodity

 

 

It is a bit more complex than that, but seldom explained clearly. 

 

Each country gets a quota for each species. However, it is not necessarily caught inside its national boundaries. So the British quota (managed by UK fishing rights) is less than the total stock caught in British waters.

A distinction is usually made between sedentary species and migrating species.  For sedentary species such as scallop, lobster or shrimp, UK controls most of the catch.

For migrating species, such as mackerel, the UK quota can be much lower than the total allowed catch. It makes sense as, unlike sedentary species, they are not British, Irish or French. Their lifecycle is spread over several national waters.

So when people say UK owners have sold fishing rights to foreign companies, it's true. However, it only about fishing rights for the current UK quota. It will likely not change after Brexit.

What is at stake,  because of Brexit, is the fish currently caught in British waters but which is not part of the British quota.

 

Let's consider a fictitious example.

- the EU allows a total catch of 100,000 tons of fish A

- the quota allocated to UK is 60,000 tons. The other 40,000 tons can be fished by other countries according to their own quota

- British owners have sold 50% of the fishing rights inside the British quota (=30,000 tons) to foreign companies. After Brexit they will likely keep the right to catch 30,000 tons.

- however, UK will have the right to prevent foreign fleets from catching the 40,000 tons of fish which were previously outside the scope of the UK quota.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

The EU threatened to blockade GB goods and foods at that border, that's enough to blow it out of the water. No other conclusion is necessary.

Not the case https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/14/brexit-boris-johnson-eu-uk-internal-market-bill

 

And playing devil's advocate, even if it were the case, the possibility could have been foreseen in January.

 

Back to the same old questions: Either Johnson didn't know what he was signing and/or he had no intention of keeping to the WA.

 

1 hour ago, Loiner said:


If you want to continue about what Boris knew or didn't know, then I'm happy to be of the opinion that he did know and predicted the EU threat, and preempted that with the IMB. I don't care if he didn't intend to adhere to the WA, he can now ditch the whole thing for me.

At least it's a consistent argument. By the same token, no doubt, you are of the opinion that the breakdown in the trade talks is therefore due to the UK government not acting in 'good faith'? I thought that this was the charge that Brexiters were levelling at the EU?

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, kingdong said:

cameron promised the electorate a vote on the eu before the election which put him in as pm.after the election he decided to have a binding referendum as he was worried about ukip,despite project fear and Cameron illeagally using over 9 million pounds of taxpayers to send a threatening letter to every household in the uk.however the british people had had enough of the eu and voted to leave,a resounding victory for nigel farage and his red bus and democracy.

Hence the "catfight" in his party about "yes / no " for E.U. membership ....as was up to latest still  same problem ...leavers & remainers ....with referendum as a hope for a solution ....

It didn't .... status quo problem ..

 

So brexit was born .

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, david555 said:

You still dont have a clue about the structure of the E.U. 

As your own U.K. "brexit  action " proves each member has his own independance still .....

 

Far more fair than your U.K. refusal for a new Scotish referendum ...isn't it ?

????

 

 

 

nonsensical deflection.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, david555 said:

Hence the "catfight" in his party about "yes / no " for E.U. membership ....as was up to latest still  same problem ...leavers & remainers ....with referendum as a hope for a solution ....

It didn't .... status quo problem ..

 

So brexit was born .

 

 

 

1 hour ago, david555 said:

 

It didn't .... status quo problem ..

 

 

well get francis rossi in to sort it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Phulublub said:

Clearly, in your case and in the specific area of UK fishing quotas, you did NOT know what you were voting for as your posts here show you think the UK has some sort of claim on quotas the Government gave to British fishermen who then sold them

Clearly another non Brit telling us, we didn't know what we voted for. Pathetic. The fish is in British waters, so belongs to the British. It is that simple.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...