Jump to content

Brexit brinkmanship: Johnson says prepare for no-deal, cancels trade talks


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, 7by7 said:
Quote
On 11/27/2020 at 4:33 AM, Tofer said:

Ah, but they are UK trade deals now, independent of the EU's protectionist levies and taxes.

 As they are merely transfers of EU trade deals then any levies and taxes contained therein are still extant.

 

But tell us, what are/were these EU protectionist levies and taxes?

Expand  

 

Still waiting for an answer.

 

Since you are still crowing about your unanswered questions, like a broken record.

 

Have you never heard of the EU CCT - Common Customs Tariff?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There will be no downside to Brexit, only considerable upside. David Davis   The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and can choose the path we want. Michael Gove

Why should the EU negotiate with an ex-member, that voted to leave ? They should let Britain stand outside in the cold for twenty or twenty-five years. Then maybe let them back in, if they ask nicely.

Hilarious so if  those 27  countries  all had an 3  trillion economy it should   be  81   trillion instead of the paltry 18.4  trillion

Posted Images

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Do they still want to extradite our fishies too?

I understand in full your doubts ....that is why i marked it came from  The Express quality 🙄 tabloid ....so even i dont take this serious ....

 

But i found anyway to show the " quality newspaper article "

 

Dont take it as i believe it ..😉

Edited by david555
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, david555 said:

I understand in full your doubts ....that is why i marked it came from  The Express quality  tabloid ....so even i dont take this serious ....

 

But i found anyway to show the " quality newspaper article "

 

Dont take it as i believe it ..😉

 

Well I didn't see any similar stories yet but if the Express has it - good enough for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2020 at 4:36 AM, Tofer said:

 

Don't be insulting - your arrogance knows no bounds.

 

You can woffle around inconsequential potential scenarios as much as you like but the FACT remains it was EU LAW that dictated the decision in this case.

 

Don't ask for proof, if you can't accept the truth of the answer.

 

 

The VIDEO report from Nigel Farage, that you choose to deride, is uncontestable evidence to the contrary, unlike the cosy office produced newspaper article you linked.

 

 

What part of "in difficulties" did the French / EU navy vessels not understand in the Farage videos?

 

The British Border Force vessels stopped them and picked them up IMMEDIATELY they entered UK waters. And before you start spouting that they asked to be picked up, you do not know that for certain. You watch the video and then try to justify this well managed exercise of escorting and transferring illegal / unsafe migrants across the French border into the UK.

 

 

Rather disingenuous I have to say, as I presume (because I'm not about to read International Maritime Law on the subject), this refers to seaworthy vessels going about their legal business.

 

Illegal migrants without passports being trafficked from a safe country in unsuitable, unseaworthy and dangerously overloaded dinghies is not legal or safe activity. Aside from the fact it is unconscionable activity to be aiding their passage to their potential death. 

 

Using your logic, I presume you consider the interception of drug traffickers and terrorists is breaking International Maritime Law...

 

How do the threats to impound Nigel Farage's vessel, for filming these activities, not transgress Int. Maritime Law?

 

 

Rubbish. And before you ask, I'm not about to trawl through 130 pages to disprove you're disingenuous statement - it's simply not worth the effort. I am not so pedantic, and have better things to do with my time.

The points you raise illustrate the inadequencies of existing laws that were made how ever well intentioned totally useless regarding the criminal activity of human trafficking.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2020 at 3:49 AM, david555 said:

True..but by this way saving ruining your roads and lower road congestion for goods with  anyway not U.K. destination .

 

 

The post covid depression and legislation that landlords are unable to evict tenants during covid will do that,though doubtless the remainers will claim its because of brexit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

The post covid depression and legislation that landlords are unable to evict tenants during covid will do that,though doubtless the remainers will claim its because of brexit.

What has that to do with my post you reply on ....?🤔

I was pointing out that bypas detour saves time and cogestion & and no paperwork for delivering goods who even are not for U.K. destination ....as from E.U to E.U. territory.😉

Edited by david555
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tofer said:

Aside from ignoring the evidential facts,

 

What evidential facts am I ignoring?

 

The  ruling from the UK's Asylum and Immigration Tribunal?

 

An article on the relevant law by a well respected UK barrister?

 

The numerous media reports about the French authorities clearing migrant camps in the Pas de Calais?

 

The report by the UK's Home Office's clandestine Channel threat commander, to the UK Parliament's Home Affairs select committee!!

 

International maritime law?

 

No, I have not ignored any of those; I cited them!

 

It is you who is ignoring all of them in favour of a self publicist and proven liar.

 

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

you also have a selective memory.

 

Really? Remind me, then; what have I forgotten?

 

6 hours ago, Tofer said:

But, as I said before I'm not wasting anytime trying to prove you wrong, as I don't enjoy banging my head against a brick wall.

 

The frequently used Brexiteer equivalent of a small boy throwing a tantrum, screwing up his little face to stop the tears of frustration and taking his bat and ball home because he's losing.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The frequently used Brexiteer equivalent of a small boy throwing a tantrum, screwing up his little face to stop the tears of frustration and taking his bat and ball home because he's losing.

Amply describing your own behavior...:giggle:

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Amply describing your own behavior...:giggle:

 You must be looking in a mirror.

 

I have answered every question put to me, provided evidence to back up my assertions and opinions at every opportunity.

 

You, on the other hand...........

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/2/2020 at 6:05 PM, 7by7 said:

@Tofer, you have now made three posts in which you've tried, and failed, to prove me wrong since you said 

 

That's a matter of your personal misguided opinion, since.....

 

On 12/2/2020 at 6:05 PM, 7by7 said:

I did not deny that EU law was used in Chindamo's AIT hearing. However,

 

Finally you concede my answer was correct., although it took you an inordinate length of time and convincing for you to comprehend it! You have, in fact, quoted the answer to your original question which, bye the way, shows you contradicting your opening statement... 

 

There is no "however" and hypothesis necessary, the subject ended with the actual court decision being evidence of the EU's control of UK laws, as per your original question. Further pontification is absolutely irrelevant.

 

On 12/2/2020 at 6:05 PM, 7by7 said:

The duty to rescue vessels in peril begins when the vessel in question becomes, as the quote from the article you, yourself posted, says  "in need of a rescue." Until the vessel in question indicates such, the French, or British, have no right, let alone duty, to rescue them. The only moral duty they have is to stand by in case the vessels do indicate their need to be rescued.

 

Make your mind up! Is my quote correct or your spurious interpretation of it, since "in need of rescue" and "indicate their need to be rescued" are 2 completely different situations.

 

In a dangerously overloaded and unseaworthy dinghy taking on water and at imminent risk of sinking, they are quite obviously "in need of rescue", not a detached escort for 12 nautical miles and however many hours on their journey in freezing cold rough seas and busy shipping lanes, during which they are undoubtedly in serious danger of drowning / hypothermia, not to mention the blatantly criminal activity of people trafficking.

 

But hey, don't let the death of a few insignificant foreign migrants, that the French are happy to see take the risk to be rid of, bother your pedantic attitude on the subject. I'm sure you sleep nights very well, knowing you are right, as per the letter of the law..... I'll concede that one on the grounds of your apparent questionable morals.

 

On 12/2/2020 at 6:05 PM, 7by7 said:

But to assume, as you did, that once we are free of the shackles of the CCT there will be none, that all future deals the UK makes will be tariff free shows enormous naivety on your part. 

 

There you go again with your creative imagination, and false quotes, since I never said or implied such a statement. Go on, prove me wrong, quote my ACTUAL words.... 🤥

 

I rest my case. 🥱

 

 

Edited by Tofer
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
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...