Froggies not living in real world

Advocates of new Brexit deal ‘not living in real world’ – Irish minister
Pro-Brexit British ministers are “not living in the real world” if they think they can renegotiate the divorce treaty agreed with the EU last week, Irish Foreign …

Reuters UK

France demands UK climate pledge in return for Brexit trade deal
President Macron and other member states fear Britain could gain advantage over them by undercutting EU environment laws.

The Guardian

Google News headlines……

24 comments on “Froggies not living in real world

  1. If we left on WTO, do you think that would be the end of perpetual fighting about Europe in the UK. Would there be a bunch of rejoiners? Would preferential terms be dangled in front of us? In short, will it ever go away? If we leave and do well, will they still wish we were in it? Up until the day the whole rotten edifice comes crashing down. And will they blame the UK for that?

  2. Watching a bunch of Europeans accuse each other of the clueless constitutes today’s chuckle.

  3. Kevin

    The Yellowjacket fuckwits managed to block my (highly necessary) trip to Carrefour this morning.

    I know it’s the French way to take to the streets the moment there’s any unhappiness with the government that they elected, but I really fail to see how fucking over the daily life of the citizens is a useful attack on the government.

    And, yeah, the inconsistencies in the French populace’s position on eco greenery is marvelous to behold.

  4. France demands UK climate pledge in return for Brexit trade deal
    President Macron and other member states fear Britain could gain advantage over them by undercutting EU environment laws.

    Given that our insane political class is dedicated to fucking the country up for Green reasons anyway, we get a trade deal for effectively nothing.

  5. All the propaganda today is that there aren’t 48 letters (chairman of 1922 cmte saying MPs are lying).

    I find it difficult to believe there won’t be enough leave Tories ready to pull the plug.

  6. ERG publish Your Right To Know – the case against the Government’s Brexit deal
    Four days after the release of the 585-page draft Withdrawal Agreement for the UK’s exit from the European Union, the European Research Group (ERG) of eurosceptic Conservative MPs today publishes a concise guide making the case against the putative deal.

    In Your Right to Know, the group – chaired by Jacob Rees-Mogg – seeks to put the case against what Theresa May has agreed with the EU in plain English – and BrexitCentral is exclusively publishing the full text of the 7-page document.

  7. Re May’s act of treachery, I’ve now written to my MP.

    I doubt it will achieve anything, but the more constituent letters he receives, the more he might possibly hesitate…

  8. Writing to one’s MP. What a lovely and quaint idea, implying the MP gives a shit.

    Perhaps I’m jaded because I live where Tory MPs are more concerned to cultivate SJW and vibrant votes. Perhaps elsewhere they care more.

  9. Lud

    Actually, I do know he doesn’t give a shit, he demonstrated that once before without any hint of embarrassment!

    You are right, a futile gesture on my part. Hey, for two seconds, it made me feel better, I’ll take it..;)

  10. This ‘level playing field’ stuff is a clear admission from the EU itself that the UK is better off out.

  11. Pcar/M’lud

    I wrote to mine a while ago to tell her that I would be voting for a Corbyn govt rather than see her returned again. Oddly, MPs are more interested in your vote than your opinions.

  12. Mr B, they’re not interested in my vote if they can import replacements and hook them up to the drop feed.

    See also: world governance.

  13. PF–You’ve NOW written to him?

    You should have written and kept on writing when the Chequers turd emerged from her rectum

    . I’ve sent 250 communications both written and electronic. Not to my own MP–A ZaNu remainiac slug– but to all Tory remainiac trash. If every Brexit and democracy supporter–20 million plus by my calculation –had done the same then the Tory Party would have had several thousand million threats on their doorstep. There are limits to their arrogance and I think the FFC would already be history.

    If every supporter as above had sent even just ONE letter that would be twenty million. Imagine the post van cues just for one action each.

  14. Ecks,

    “You should have written .. when the Chequers turd emerged from her rectum”

    Behave yourself – I did! And I mentioned it at the time, and reported how effing clueless / useless he was…

    Interesting thought though. Forwarding that on to a shit load of other MPs. The way it works, I think, is that they can simply ignore any letters that aren’t from their own constituents. At least mine is obliged to read it and formulate a reply (or have one of his staff do it). But it’s a fair point, simply as a numbers game.

  15. PF–Write to the Associations. The replies I’ve got suggest that lots of them are not keen on what their fuckwit MPs are up to. It will get back to the idiots.

    And the numbers will do the trick. If the cunts can’t get into their offices for complaints and hate mail even the dumbest will get the message.

  16. A Lawyers for Britain QC:

    Theresa May’s backstop plan would drop the UK into a legal black hole
    …much more important than seeing the Attorney’s advice is seeing the actual legal text of the deal being negotiated in secret between the UK government and the EU.

    There is no valid diplomatic reason for keeping the text secret, since it is known to the other side in the negotiations. I fear that the real reason for this secrecy is to limit the ability of Parliamentarians, lawyers, experts and others to study the details of what is being agreed behind closed doors, and to identify problems and other issues which arise from the detailed provisions of the legal text which may not be apparent from what is in the public domain.

    If a backstop arrangement is taken forward and put into a treaty text, it will become legally binding. If we sign a treaty committing the UK to operate a backstop arrangement, is not realistic to say (as some have) that it is just a treaty and we can either change it in future or just leave it or even break it. Under international law, we cannot change the treaty or legally leave

    what the EU is currently asking for – a clause which would allow the UK to terminate the backstop only if the backstop is replaced by a subsequent agreement with the EU – is wholly exceptional in international trade treaty practice. This would lock the UK into a relationship with the EU which the UK could not escape except with the EU’s permission.

    It appears that that relationship would involve obligations to follow the EU’s rules on external tariffs and customs, on so-called “level playing field” measures relating to state aids, the environment, employment and other areas, and (according to latest news reports) a continuing obligation to maintain access for EU boats into UK fishing waters.

    Further, these would be obligations to follow EU rules not as they stand today but as they are altered in the future. Unlike now, we would have no vote or veto on changes to these rules. So they could be altered (intentionally or not) in ways which damage British businesses compared with their Continental competitors. The rules would also be subject to unpredictable changes of interpretation as a result judgments of the ECJ, a court on which we will no longer have representation.

    Trade & Jobs
    ..The tariff and non-tariff barriers of the EU single market and customs union make it more difficult and costly to import competing goods from non-EU countries, so EU27 producers are able to sell this large surplus of goods into the UK market at significantly above world prices.

    These “backstop” terms would force the UK to keep in place the barriers against competing goods from non-EU countries entering the UK market.The “level playing field” terms would suppress the competitiveness of UK industry.

    This would make it impossible in practice to negotiate away the “level playing field” restrictions and barriers against non-EU imports when concluding a long term trade agreement with the EU. Why should the EU concede terms which are worse for the EU in the trade agreement, than it can get simply by not agreeing a trade agreement and letting the “backstop” come into force?

    Conclusion
    my advice to the Cabinet is that agreeing to a backstop which the UK can only leave if we satisfy a review mechanism risks dropping the UK into a legal black hole for probably a number of years – and quite possibly for longer. While in that black hole, we would be subject to EU control of our tariffs and external trade policy and of wide areas of our internal laws, without having any vote on the rules which bind us.

    At present, we have a clear legal right to free ourselves from obeying EU rules and from EU control of our external trade policy by giving two years notice. We have given that notice under Article 50 and we shall be free on 30 March 2019. Under the backstop as contemplated we would be worse off than we are as an EU member because our right to escape from EU laws would no longer be under our control. In the best case it would be subject to severe delay of unpredictable length, and in the worst case might be dependent on satisfying conditions which we can never successfully achieve.

    The final piece of advice I give to the Cabinet is you are mad, simply mad, if you pursue this course.

  17. Pcar

    Thanks, I’ve now forwarded that Martin Howe link on to various. The Conclusion part is explosive enough (and is nice and concise for most people who won’t click on the actual link).

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.