Remind me again about how happy the french are about the fishing, what do you expect from a deal done over a few months, it takes time for any new arrangement to settle in.Precisely. FFS. What a deceitful headline. Should have been "UK kicks up fuss over deal it wrote, insisted it had been read in minute detail and was perfect."
I think you are missing the point (possibly deliberately). The fuss (in my headline) is the fuss the very people are kicking up about the terms that they themselves insisted were brilliant. Or are you suggested that Fat Frost just stops moaning? (If so I agree with you 100%)
And asking to be reminded again about another issue is just trying to obfuscate.
The Withdrawal Agreement was legally binding, signed by 'both sides'. And Bunter anyway refused repeatedly to consider any delay. And the UK had so, so much time to get its ducks in a row. So now to say, 'we didn't know' or 'we want this' is pathetic. I can only imagine the furore in the gammon press if it were the other way around. And it's not very adult at all.I dont recall any one saying it was "brilliant" in any agreement there are bits both sides dont like, so why not sort it.
I havent read the the agreement so not in a position to really commrnt on the ni part but it is bonkers to me
Why it's not another issue, those in ni arent happy about bits of the agreement and the french arent happy about bits I'm sure there are others who arent happy with some aspects, surely as adults things can be sorted out
So British sausages going to one part of the UK to the other undermine the EU Single Market ?
The text of the NIP, which both parties signed, is quite clear. Nothing in its implementation can affect the daily live of the people of NI, nor lead to trade diversion. Why would the EU sign such a document and then insist on implementing it in a manner which breaks the NIP?
THE EU's decision to treat all GB/NI trade as at risk both affects the daily lives of the people of NI and leads to trade diversion. Both stated reasons in the NIP for the UK Gov to act unilaterally.
What you mean like the french still wanting access to our fish etc. It works both ways.The Withdrawal Agreement was legally binding, signed by 'both sides'. And Bunter anyway refused repeatedly to consider any delay. And the UK had so, so much time to get its ducks in a row. So now to say, 'we didn't know' or 'we want this' is pathetic. I can only imagine the furore in the gammon press if it were the other way around. And it's not very adult at all.
Didn't the original Yes Minister description have emulsified in there as well ?Sausage war!
They will be wanting to call them high fat offal tubes next
The text of the NIP, which both parties signed, is quite clear. Nothing in its implementation can affect the daily live of the people of NI, nor lead to trade diversion. Why would the EU sign such a document and then insist on implementing it in a manner which breaks the NIP?
THE EU's decision to treat all GB/NI trade as at risk both affects the daily lives of the people of NI and leads to trade diversion. Both stated reasons in the NIP for the UK Gov to act unilaterally.
Nah , Oiland are the EU's patsys .Absolutely, the EU have been deliberately playing tunes about the NI border from the outset and have caused division and resentment on both sides of the water I suspect? I bet the people South of the border are pished off with the EU as well.