web analytics

BELIEVE IT

By Pete Moore On September 12th, 2020

“We never seriously believed that the EU would be willing to use a treaty, negotiated in good faith, to blockade one part of the UK, to cut it off, or that they would actually threaten to destroy the economic and territorial integrity of the UK.”

Prime Minister Boris Johnson

HM Government has been more than generous to the EU. Major concessions were made to achieve the Withdrawal Agreement and an orderly exit from the EU. The EU’s thanks was to demand that the UK give up its territorial waters and agree to follow EU rules in perpetuity. If the UK did not agree then the EU would annexe and blockade a part of our territory to prevent food movements.

We already knew that the EU is sick and foul, but they’ve really outdone themselves in these talks.

National liberation is never pretty but the EU has played dirty. We should not allow it to piggyback off of the UK’s decency and credibility a moment longer. There is no good case for carrying on the trade negotiations. The rest of the world wants to sit across the table from us on friendly terms. We should get on with being a global nation once again and leave the EU to its inevitable sclerotic decline.

40 Responses to “BELIEVE IT”

  1. Johnson is Trumpian in his lies to cover himself in breaking International Law. Did he not know that these were part of the WA?:

    https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2020/0514/1138311-brexit/

    There is no good case for carrying on the trade negotiations.

    I agree, so let the Brits walk out. They’ll be seen as perfidious internationally anyway so what’s one more black mark in the book?

    The rest of the world wants to sit across the table from us on friendly terms.

    Yeah, sure:

    http://www.atangledweb.org/?p=64059

    Dropping import tariffs on tens of millions of quid of motors in order for some farms in Somerset to sell a couple of kilos of cheese to a country where lactose intolerance is common is a great idea.

  2. How is the EU blockading any part of the UK? Does he know what the word means?

    Are they seeking to change the deal that the Johnson led government agreed to, and which Mr Johnson praised, earlier this year?

  3. What precipitated this crisis was an EU threat last week that if no trade deal was negotiated (there won’t be one) it would interpret the Withdrawal Agreement signed last December in the hardest possible way. This would include food exports from GB to Northern Ireland being subjected to checks and tariffs. This was a blatant provocation and totally outside the spirit of that agreement.

    A no-deal Brexit is now virtually certain. It would be best for both sides to end the talks now and use the remaining time to get their customs posts ready for 1 January 2021.

  4. But that would not be a blockade nor would it be a step in the direction of a blockade

    How does using inflamed language help with this kind of negotiation?

    He doesn’t know what he is doing

  5. What precipitated this crisis was an EU threat last week that if no trade deal was negotiated (there won’t be one) it would interpret the Withdrawal Agreement signed last December in the hardest possible way.

    Do you have a link to this Peter?

    A no-deal Brexit is now virtually certain

    There’s a theory that that was the plan all along.

    It would be best for both sides to end the talks now and use the remaining time to get their customs posts ready for 1 January 2021.

    I welcome the hardening of the British border in Ireland. It will hasten the demise of the UK.

  6. Phantom –

    He knows what he is doing. If the EU caves he comes out of it good. If the EU does not cave we get no deal and Hardline Boris the Brexiteer comes out of it good.

    Are you seriously suggesting that a foreign power should be allowed to economically annexe a part of the UK? That it should be allowed to prevent foodstuffs from the rest of the UK to NI? (This is what the EU has threatened.)

    One day I hope you will explain why we are not entitled to have what you take for granted in your own country. I have asked you enough times.

  7. I don’t see any annexing or any blockade.

    Criticize what needs criticism, but OTT language is best used on blogs, not in negotiations like this.

    This sounds like a manufactured crisis.

  8. Pete,

    The NI Protocol has been in the public domain since last year.

    So, either: a) no Brexiteers read the agreement last year or b) they did and were too stupid to understand it or c) they did and were ok with it and are now lying and pretending they arent as part of trade negotiation brinkmanship.

    In short, Brexiteers are either a) lazy, b) stupid or c) liars.

    Which is it?

  9. Phantom –

    The EU has a “Third Country” list of approved countries that can import agricultural goods into the EU area. Under the Withdrawal Agreement the export of “products of animal origin” UK mainland to NI will become subject to EU oversight.

    Michel Barnier started threatening the UK by siggesting that the EU would leave the mainland UK off of the list of Third Countries entirely if we did not give in to EU demands with regard to trade deal negotiations. It would mean, in the hardline interpretation, no “products of animal origin” being allowed into NI and all other foodstuffs subject to high tariffs.

    I’m sorry, but that you think it acceptable for a foreign power to threaten the UK’s sovereignty like this is demented. You are demented. Go bang your head against a wall. That’s not disrespectful. You are being disrespectful about my country.

  10. MR –

    The Withdrawal Agreement has a clause in it, no 38, the sovereignty clause, which allows the UK to do exactly what it is doing in the event of the EU doing what it is doing.

    Let’s be clear, the EU has long been “breaking international law” by not not negotiating in good faith. The WA obliges the EU and UK to make best efforts towards agreeing a trade deal. The EU has never done so.

    I know, you have to be a Brexiteer to see these things and speak honestly about them. You and your side can’t and don’t.

  11. The Withdrawal Agreement has a clause in it, no 38, the sovereignty clause, which allows the UK to do exactly what it is doing in the event of the EU doing what it is doing.

    Still dying in the Parliamentary Soverignty ditch while ignoring the breaking of International Law by reneging on a previously concluded internataional treaty.

    Michel Barnier started threatening the UK by siggesting that the EU would leave the mainland UK off of the list of Third Countries entirely if we did not give in to EU demands with regard to trade deal negotiations.

    That’s another Brexiteer untruth.

    If the EU caves he comes out of it good. If the EU does not cave we get no deal and Hardline Boris the Brexiteer comes out of it good.

    What’s his strategy when it gets turfed out by the Lords?

  12. Do you have a link to this Peter?

    This has been briefed by the UK government and the EU have not denied it.

  13. Firstly the tariff thing is utter, utter nonsense. The protocol is clear that goods that are going to Northern Ireland and are not at risk of continuing from Northern Ireland into the EU Single Market will be tariff free. So the idea that food going from Britain to be consumed in Northern Ireland would have tariffs added onto is simply hysterical nonsense.

    Secondly the food issue was caused by the British reopening the talks on the issue. The EU and the UK had reached agreement on food. The UK went back about two weeks ago and said they wanted to reopen the issue (and would be removing legal protections for EU food products in British law). So the EU hit back and said that unless Britain was 100% open about what its sanitary and phytosanitary measures post-Brexit (when EU law will no longer apply) then the EU wouldn’t grant 3rd party status to British food producers. Now given that the EU have granted 3rd party status twice (under threat of no-deal) to British producers can you blame them for not doing it a third time when the British are playing silly buggers with the rules?

    “The Withdrawal Agreement has a clause in it, no 38, the sovereignty clause, which allows the UK to do exactly what it is doing in the event of the EU doing what it is doing.”

    Actually Clause 38 is in the Withdrawal Agreement Act, not the Withdrawal Agreement. And all Clause 38 does is say that Parliament is sovereign. However, parliamentary sovereignty is a feature of UK domestic law, not international law. And while parliamentary sovereignty makes it impossible for Parliament to be unlawful in domestic law, doing so will still be a breach of international law.

  14. “This has been briefed by the UK government and the EU have not denied it.”

    It also has nothing to do with Northern Ireland, and everything to do with the UK playing fast and loose with what SPS systems they will be putting in place 1st January.

  15. Another thing to add is that none of these “problems” identified (or made up) by Boris Johnson and his cronies are in anyway shape or form addressed in the Internal Market Bill. With regards to protocol the Internal Market Bill only deals with State Aid and Export Declarations (trade from Northern Ireland to Britain). It in no way shape or form adds anything to do with moving goods from Britain to Northern Ireland.

  16. Michel Barnier started threatening the UK by suggesting that the EU would leave the mainland UK off of the list of Third Countries entirely if we did not give in to EU demands with regard to trade deal negotiations. It would mean, in the hardline interpretation, no “products of animal origin” being allowed into NI and all other foodstuffs subject to high tariffs.

    Yes Pete, that threat was made last week. As you know I despise Johnson, but he was forced to respond. No-deal is now a near-certainty, it’s best for both sides to accept that and prepare for it. It will be economically damaging for sure and the UK will come off worst.

    There is a battle scene in the William Wallace movie Braveheart where King Edward I orders his crossbowmen to open fire on the skirmishing soldiers ahead. His general protests “But Sire, we will hit our own men!” To which the king replies “Yes, but we’ll hit theirs too!” That’s a no-deal Brexit in a nutshell.

  17. This has been briefed by the UK government and the EU have not denied it.

    The UK has briefed that ‘EU threatened last week that if no trade deal was negotiated it would interpret the Withdrawal Agreement signed last December in the hardest possible way’

    I find that difficult to believe. The only thing I can see in reference to this was Barnier’s concern regarding state aid competition & Britain using NI as a means of getting sub standard regulation food into the EU SM.

  18. ” As you know I despise Johnson, but he was forced to respond. “

    So why did Johnson not respond to it? Why is there absolutely nothing in the Internal Market Bill about SPS checks in Northern Ireland?

  19. Completely O/T

    I just receiveda text from Charles: He and Mrs. In_Texas have landed safe and sound in Dallas 🙂

  20. So why did Johnson not respond to it? Why is there absolutely nothing in the Internal Market Bill about SPS checks in Northern Ireland?

    The bill is meant to ensure that GB foodstuffs can be imported into NI without checks or tariffs. The wording is probably about 1000 times longer than that, but that is the intention. And it is in response to Barnier’s threat last week.

    To be clear, I have always supported Brexit, not a no-deal Brexit. But it seems that’s now the only Brexit on offer. No doubt some Ukip Tories and their right-wing media cheerleaders will be having wet dreams but most Brexiters will regret this outcome. Johnson is probably one of them but maybe not Gove and certainly not “move fast and break things” Cummings.

  21. “The bill is meant to ensure that GB foodstuffs can be imported into NI without checks or tariffs. The wording is probably about 1000 times longer than that, but that is the intention. And it is in response to Barnier’s threat last week.”

    Ok can you show me which sections of the Bill would enable the UK government to do so?

  22. Firstly the tariff thing is utter, utter nonsense. The protocol is clear that goods that are going to Northern Ireland and are not at risk of continuing from Northern Ireland into the EU Single Market will be tariff free. So the idea that food going from Britain to be consumed in Northern Ireland would have tariffs added onto is simply hysterical nonsense.

    Exactly, Seamus. It is an out and out lie. Unlike most here (excluding probably Seamus) I have actually read it. There can be no tariffs on goods between GB and NI unless the joint committee agree that the goods are at risk of onward supply to the single market and, even then, if they remain in NI they can obtain a refund.

    The regulatory checks piece was agreed as part of the WA. It is not new.

  23. Ok can you show me which sections of the Bill would enable the UK government to do so?

    No, I haven’t read it but I know what Johnson has said and it has not been denied by the EU. They threatened an embargo on GB food exports to NI, and of course to ROI as well.

    It is an out and out lie.

    So can you show where the EU have denied it? You guys need to get real about the EU. It is not Mother Teresa as you seem to think. Ask Yannis Varoufakis how they treated Greece in 2015.

  24. Even if the EU wished an insane embargo on food from GB to NI, How in the world could they ever enforce it

  25. “No, I haven’t read it but I know what Johnson has said and it has not been denied by the EU.”

    Well I have read it. And Johnson is talking utter, utter bollocks. There is not a single line in the bill that would in any way shape or form alleviate the “problem” Johnson has highlighted.

    The bill allows the UK to violate the protocol on export declarations (on goods moving from NI to GB) and on state aid. Nothing else. You have been lied to.

    “They threatened an embargo on GB food exports to NI, and of course to ROI as well.”

    No they threatened to not give the UK preferential treatment if the UK continues to play silly bugger with SPS rules. All it would take would be for the UK to announce what biosecurity measures they plan to take on 1st January.

    “Ask Yannis Varoufakis how they treated Greece in 2015.”

    I would but all I’d get in return would be some self-serving bollocks about how everything is someone else’s fault.

  26. And Johnson is talking utter, utter bollocks.

    So why doesn’t the saintly EU refute the bollocks? Maybe you could email a press release to Barnier which would nail it?

    You should read the Varoufakis book Adults in the Room and then moan about him. Or if you can’t be bothered maybe you should stfu about him.

  27. “So why doesn’t the saintly EU refute the bollocks?”

    Because Johnson is talking through his hole. He is using Northern Ireland to further a little England agenda. English producers will be prevented from selling to France and Germany. That is what Johnson is aiming at in his gurning.

    The easiest way to get the EU to drop that is to clarify the UK’s biosecurity.

    It is also utterly removed from the Internal Market Bill, which doesn’t mention it. So if you honestly belief the Internal Market Bill is about SPS checks in Northern Ireland then you are gullable fool believing whatever fairy tale Dominic Cummings is telling you.

    “You should read the Varoufakis book Adults in the Room and then moan about him. Or if you can’t be bothered maybe you should stfu about him.”

    a) I have read his book
    b) The last time you made a similar snide remark about his book you wet yourself like a little girl when I told you to go fuck yourself
    c) Go fuck yourself

  28. Or to borrow from the other thread:

    Peter and Pete are flogging a dead horse. It shows how desperate the Brexiteers are.

  29. Great reply Seamus, you win in your usual way. No question about it.

  30. “Great reply Seamus, you win in your usual way.”

    It is the general pattern. You make up some bullshit, I refute it, you try to make up more bullshit, I refute that, you then insult me, I insult you back, you then cry. Rinse and repeat.

  31. a) I have read his book
    b) The last time you made a similar snide remark about his book you wet yourself like a little girl when I told you to go fuck yourself
    c) Go fuck yourself

    Classy stuff Seamus. Have you ever thought about anger management therapy?

  32. “Classy stuff Seamus. Have you ever thought about anger management therapy?”

    It is pretty classy. Certainly better than last time. I haven’t even called you a cunt (despite the fact that you are acting like a cunt).

  33. you then insult me

    No, that’s always you calling me names. I could call you a pathetic enraged jerk, but I never do that. It’s always you calling me a C**** or some such. You drag the level of debate down here any time someone disagrees with you. You shouldn’t take yourself so seriously.

  34. “No, that’s always you calling me names. I could call you a pathetic enraged jerk, but I never do that. It’s always you calling me a C**** or some such. You drag the level of debate down here any time someone disagrees with you. You shouldn’t take yourself so seriously.”

    No people disagree with me all the time. I disagree with them, I provide evidence to disagree with them. It remains civil. That is how I debate. That is the level of debate I engage in.

    You have no interest in doing that. I offered that to you a few months ago and you said no. You didn’t want to stop insulting me (you just wanted me to stop insulting you).

    You through out easily disproved nonsense, and then act the dick when someone disproves it. And then gurn when someone responds in kind.

  35. It remains civil. That is how I debate. That is the level of debate I engage in.

    LOL

    You through out easily disproved nonsense, and then act the dick when someone disproves it. And then gurn when someone responds in kind.

    WTAF? The “someone” is only you that I debate with like this, because of the childish foul language name-calling way that you debate with me. But I would never resort to calling you a ***t. That would be getting in your very own gutter.

    You are very like Cummings. The same anorak arrogance, just different beliefs.

  36. “The “someone” is only you that I debate with like this, because of the childish foul language name-calling way that you debate with me.”

    I don’t debate with you with name-calling, childish or otherwise. I debate with you the same way I debate with everyone, with facts and evidence (something that seems to annoy you – some shit about me always having the last word).

    However when you insult me I will insult you back. So I again offer the same thing I offered a few months ago:

    If you stop insulting me, I will stop insulting you. Deal or no deal?

  37. Seamus

    I fully support your arguments and agree with your analysis more than anyone else’s here but I think its a great shame you ended up resorting to swearing and using abusive language at Peter. I don’t see where he insulted you here in a manner to merit that. Yes he annoyed you with his comments back to you over the Varifakous book but that hardly rose to the level of you having to tell him to go fuck himself.

  38. He first, in his snide and pathetic way, insinuated that I was ignorant for having the gall to disagree with him. He then, in continuing that pattern, suggested that I shut the fuck up. So I don’t honestly see how him suggesting that I shut the fuck up is of a lower level than me telling him to go fuck himself.

  39. He said he would resign if the UK ended up breaking international law “in a way I find unacceptable”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54137643

    A ‘justice’ secretary excusing breaking IL as long as he finds it acceptable? Christ, the arrogance of these deceitful back pedalers is astounding.

  40. Simon Coveney on the Andrew Marr show:

    AM “Would the EU block goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain?”

    SC “Sorry, there is no blockade proposed. And that is the type of inflammatory language coming from No 10 which is spin. And not truth”

    https://twitter.com/OxfordDiplomat/status/1305075439183056896