Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What now for the EU ?

Oyibo

LE
Surely they are "rescued" in French waters at the point they start the escort? If not, why not "escort" them back again.
I'd have to go through all the IMO stuff to check the wording to know, but have found a packet of toothpicks to shove into my eyes and genitals - which is a more enjoyable pastime.

The same was happening in the early noughties in the Med when peopleon boats from North Africa were invading gas platforms in the Med and Adriatic (just within the boundries of European countries) knowing that they would be taken to those countries once 'rescued'.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
Cyprus will be bullied to change it's mind and vote the correct way. That may not work as well as the EU thinks.

I doubt the wealthier Cypriots have forgotten the EU grabbing chunks of their bank accounts without a bye your leave during the last recession when Cyprus needed a bailout.

On 25 March 2013, a €10 billion international bailout by the Eurogroup, European Commission (EC), European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) was announced, in return for Cyprus agreeing to close the country's second-largest bank, the Cyprus Popular Bank (also known as Laiki Bank), imposing a one-time bank deposit levy on all uninsured deposits there, and possibly around 48% of uninsured deposits in the Bank of Cyprus (the island's largest commercial bank). A minority proportion of it held by citizens of other countries (many of whom from Russia), who preferred Cypriot banks because of their higher interest on bank account deposits, relatively low corporate tax, and easier access to the rest of the European banking sector. This resulted in numerous insinuations by US and European media, which presented Cyprus as a 'tax haven' and suggested that the prospective bailout loans were meant for saving the accounts of Russian depositors. No insured deposit of €100,000 or less would be affected, though 47.5% of all bank deposits above €100,000 were seized.

Next time the EU tries a financial grab of that nature, I suspect they'll find the Cypriot bird has flown.

Although I expect the EU will try something similar in other countries when the financial excrement truly hits the fan.

What a pity we're leaving...

Wordsmith
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
As far as I remember, IMO rules say that if you rescue someone in your own waters you take them to your own country. Doesn't excuse the French 'escorting them to UK waters though'.
They don't change from being Not needing rescued to Need rescued by crossing into our waters. Turn them back.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
Due to Covid Cunard couldn’t keep all their fleet there. Queen Victoria was off Lowestoft ness last month. With a potential of 20k people for a short crossing they could potentially use two liners to take our current population of rescues back to France on say January 31st next year. In fact even better they could emulate DDay ....just so long as the French don’t occupy the pill boxes.
Make sure we send copious supplies of white flags to France the week before. Be reet.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
Park a "gunboat" (whatever) 100m inside our waters. Conduct live firing exercises at the sight of a French vessel. Nearer anything gets to our waters, nearer our fire gets to their bows.
 
Last edited:
As far as I remember, IMO rules say that if you rescue someone in your own waters you take them to your own country. Doesn't excuse the French 'escorting them to UK waters though'.
I think the French excuse was that the alledged asylum seekers refused to be picked up by the French boats, and threatened to jump in the sea with any women or kids onboard. Therefore la belle France had a duty of care to escort them to make sure that they didn't come to any harm until the perfidious English picked them up.
 

Oyibo

LE
I think the French excuse was that the alledged asylum seekers refused to be picked up by the French boats, and threatened to jump in the sea with any women or kids onboard. Therefore la belle France had a duty of care to escort them to make sure that they didn't come to any harm until the perfidious English picked them up.

Maybe, but a ****-ton of people on a small dighy would also require the French (under SOLAS) to pluck them out and take them back to France.

Time to refurbish some Lysanders and drop some plucky characters into France for sabotage again methinks.
 
Oh Dear



It gets even better for the Commission.



I've no idea of what "halloumi cheese" is and I've never heard of it. However, with regards to Cypriot cheese and CETA, this is an internal EU political issue, as are any related issues with Italy, the Netherlands, and any others that come up. They are using their local ratifications as leverage in negotiations with the EU on other unrelated issues. In the case of Cyprus it's really all about the EU's policy with regards to the division of the island.

The CETA treaty is what is called a "mixed agreement". Nearly all of it can be approved solely by the EU, and so those parts go into effect "provisionally".

However, certain elements of it affect matters which are still under the authority of individual states, so they have to ratify it as well in order for those parts to go into effect. Various countries in the past (primarily part of Belgium) have used spurious objections to parts of the treaty in order to extract concessions from Brussels. Cyprus is doing more of the same in this instance.

"Worst case" scenario is for those parts of the treaty which make it a "mixed agreement" to get dropped from the treaty altogether, making it one that the EU can approve on their own authority and so cut out local ratification altogether. The figures that I have seen in the press would put this at less than 5% of the trade value of the treaty.

In Canada there were parts of the treaty which infringed upon provincial jurisdiction and so require their consent. Canada however consulted with the provinces as things progressed and so got their agreement on matters ahead of time, resulting in no problems on this end. Politics in the EU however seems to be a somewhat more ponderous affair.

Britain could face a similar situation should a trade agreement be negotiated with the EU which is a "mixed agreement". There will likely also be internal EU politics involved where some member states will try to hold up some parts of it in order to extract concessions from Brussels on unrelated matters. There are a number of internal EU issues coming up which I understand are considered to be controversial.

Should this happen, the bulk of the UK-EU treaty may still go into effect without requiring approval from national parliaments. If the CETA treaty is a guide, this would be 95% or more of the trade value.

So, should a UK-EU trade agreement be signed, and should it turn out to be a "mixed agreement" from the EU's perspective , and should the above scenario repeat itself, then the question to be asking before panicking about the treaty is how much of it can go through strictly on the EU's say so, what value of total trade does it represent.

There is also the potential for an UK-EU treaty to be of a deliberately narrowed scope in order to avoid the "mixed agreement" problem altogether and that needs to be taken into account when trying to understand any trade agreement.
 
I've no idea of what "halloumi cheese" is and I've never heard of it. However, with regards to Cypriot cheese and CETA, this is an internal EU political issue, as are any related issues with Italy, the Netherlands, and any others that come up. They are using their local ratifications as leverage in negotiations with the EU on other unrelated issues. In the case of Cyprus it's really all about the EU's policy with regards to the division of the island.

The CETA treaty is what is called a "mixed agreement". Nearly all of it can be approved solely by the EU, and so those parts go into effect "provisionally".

However, certain elements of it affect matters which are still under the authority of individual states, so they have to ratify it as well in order for those parts to go into effect. Various countries in the past (primarily part of Belgium) have used spurious objections to parts of the treaty in order to extract concessions from Brussels. Cyprus is doing more of the same in this instance.

"Worst case" scenario is for those parts of the treaty which make it a "mixed agreement" to get dropped from the treaty altogether, making it one that the EU can approve on their own authority and so cut out local ratification altogether. The figures that I have seen in the press would put this at less than 5% of the trade value of the treaty.

In Canada there were parts of the treaty which infringed upon provincial jurisdiction and so require their consent. Canada however consulted with the provinces as things progressed and so got their agreement on matters ahead of time, resulting in no problems on this end. Politics in the EU however seems to be a somewhat more ponderous affair.

Britain could face a similar situation should a trade agreement be negotiated with the EU which is a "mixed agreement". There will likely also be internal EU politics involved where some member states will try to hold up some parts of it in order to extract concessions from Brussels on unrelated matters. There are a number of internal EU issues coming up which I understand are considered to be controversial.

Should this happen, the bulk of the UK-EU treaty may still go into effect without requiring approval from national parliaments. If the CETA treaty is a guide, this would be 95% or more of the trade value.

So, should a UK-EU trade agreement be signed, and should it turn out to be a "mixed agreement" from the EU's perspective , and should the above scenario repeat itself, then the question to be asking before panicking about the treaty is how much of it can go through strictly on the EU's say so, what value of total trade does it represent.

There is also the potential for an UK-EU treaty to be of a deliberately narrowed scope in order to avoid the "mixed agreement" problem altogether and that needs to be taken into account when trying to understand any trade agreement.
This post highlights one of the bigger issues with leavers/remainers.
I've no doubt that it is factual and well argued. But for the life of me I can't be arsed enough to read it. I wanted out, we're out end of story. Remainers probably won't read it either and even if they did nothing is going to change their minds
So, both sides are sticking with their decision. The difference being leave won and remain lost, but won't concede that they did.
We can argue for the next 10 years and not one mind will be changed.
So I'd be obliged if everyone could keep it short and ideally funny from now on .

Thanks awfully.
 
I've no idea of what "halloumi cheese" is and I've never heard of it. However, with regards to Cypriot cheese and CETA, this is an internal EU political issue, as are any related issues with Italy, the Netherlands, and any others that come up. They are using their local ratifications as leverage in negotiations with the EU on other unrelated issues. In the case of Cyprus it's really all about the EU's policy with regards to the division of the island.

The CETA treaty is what is called a "mixed agreement". Nearly all of it can be approved solely by the EU, and so those parts go into effect "provisionally".

However, certain elements of it affect matters which are still under the authority of individual states, so they have to ratify it as well in order for those parts to go into effect. Various countries in the past (primarily part of Belgium) have used spurious objections to parts of the treaty in order to extract concessions from Brussels. Cyprus is doing more of the same in this instance.

"Worst case" scenario is for those parts of the treaty which make it a "mixed agreement" to get dropped from the treaty altogether, making it one that the EU can approve on their own authority and so cut out local ratification altogether. The figures that I have seen in the press would put this at less than 5% of the trade value of the treaty.

In Canada there were parts of the treaty which infringed upon provincial jurisdiction and so require their consent. Canada however consulted with the provinces as things progressed and so got their agreement on matters ahead of time, resulting in no problems on this end. Politics in the EU however seems to be a somewhat more ponderous affair.

Britain could face a similar situation should a trade agreement be negotiated with the EU which is a "mixed agreement". There will likely also be internal EU politics involved where some member states will try to hold up some parts of it in order to extract concessions from Brussels on unrelated matters. There are a number of internal EU issues coming up which I understand are considered to be controversial.

Should this happen, the bulk of the UK-EU treaty may still go into effect without requiring approval from national parliaments. If the CETA treaty is a guide, this would be 95% or more of the trade value.

So, should a UK-EU trade agreement be signed, and should it turn out to be a "mixed agreement" from the EU's perspective , and should the above scenario repeat itself, then the question to be asking before panicking about the treaty is how much of it can go through strictly on the EU's say so, what value of total trade does it represent.

There is also the potential for an UK-EU treaty to be of a deliberately narrowed scope in order to avoid the "mixed agreement" problem altogether and that needs to be taken into account when trying to understand any trade agreement.

The chances of there being an UK-EU FTA are minimal. Neither side really wants one.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
I wanted out, we're out end of story. Remainers probably won't read it either and even if they did nothing is going to change their minds.

Not quite - we're out on the 31st December - at which point the transition period ends. What has yet to be agreed is the terms on which we trade with the EU from 1st January 2021 on.

The EU would dearly love to hamstring us with an agreement that would hinder our ability to become far more competitive than the EU and increase trade with the rest of the world. The UK is going it's own way, but will sign an agreement with the EU should it drop most of the aforementioned conditions.

Wordsmith
 

4(T)

LE
The EU would dearly love to hamstring us with an agreement that would hinder our ability to become far more competitive than the EU and increase trade with the rest of the world. The UK is going it's own way, but will sign an agreement with the EU should it drop most of the aforementioned conditions.

Wordsmith


With the Chancellor apparently floating the idea of raising corporate tax, it doesn't look like there is any government inclination to make the UK more competitive.
 
With the Chancellor apparently floating the idea of raising corporate tax, it doesn't look like there is any government inclination to make the UK more competitive.

You are correct that the Chancellor is looking to recoup the cash spent in the covid cash spunkathon, most other countries will be in the same boat.

Cast a glance across the Oirish Sea now they are the fifth largest contributor and will be paying for Italy, Spain and Greece.

When Oirish eyes are weeping...

JB
 

Latest Threads

Top