Cycling UK Forum

MM only uses natural goods no synthetic employed!
It is not my emphasis over International law but that of Unilever, or is it totally within the remit of the E.U. to to dictate global business terms & conditions? No soft soap from Unilever, more a case of hard cheese from the E.U. MM

merseymouth wrote:MM only uses natural goods no synthetic employed!
It is not my emphasis over International law but that of Unilever, or is it totally within the remit of the E.U. to to dictate global business terms & conditions? No soft soap from Unilever, more a case of hard cheese from the E.U. MM

You didn't read the responses, did you?

Either that or you just ignored them.

It turns out, unsurprisingly, that MMs assertions are wrong.

The tax is not proposed by the EU, but by the Dutch Green Party.

Unilever believe it is "illegal", though they don't say under which juristiction. My guess would be they believe it's illegal under EU law, and will take the case to the ECJ if such a law is passed. Which is the exact opposite of MM's claims - far from the EU breaking international law in this case, they would be upholding it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-unil ... SKBN25Z34I

It's almost as though MM cares nothing for the facts, and merely wants to believe the worst of the EU, regardless of the truth. Whoda thunk.

So now you want to bring facts into it?

; -)

Jonathan

If I may misquote Acts 20:35

It is easier to transmit (at full volume) than to receive.

To fully understand & appreciate the insistence that I must be conversant with all of the details of International Law I may have to wait until I get my Doctorate in such matter! It may be in the post but I doubt it .. Even then I may have to wait until hell freezes over before the points are firmly nailed down . MM

merseymouth wrote:To fully understand & appreciate the insistence that I must be conversant with all of the details of International Law I may have to wait until I get my Doctorate in such matter! It may be in the post but I doubt it .. Even then I may have to wait until hell freezes over before the points are firmly nailed down . MM

Yet you're certain the EU are breaking it, in a case where they're not even involved yet.

Read the Reuters link. The Dutch Green Party, not the EU, are proposing the tax.

None of this requires any knowledge of any law, it just requires you to read the facts rather than automatically assume the worst of the EU.

Hello Ruby Hurry, You should read what I post and not what you think that I post!
I said the Unilever lawyers held such views.
A poor ill-educated oink like me isn't allowed to hold any opinion on such esoteric matters, just sit back and let the over educated twits screw things up!
I'll just hurry up dying to make some posters here happy . MM

merseymouth wrote:Hello Ruby Hurry, You should read what I post and not what you think that I post!
I said the Unilever lawyers held such views.
A poor ill-educated oink like me isn't allowed to hold any opinion on such esoteric matters, just sit back and let the over educated twits screw things up!
I'll just hurry up dying to make some posters here happy . MM

Suggestion: Give up the ill educated act and take responsibility for what you write?

Which was

They are doing it despite the threats coming directly from the E.U. that they will be hit with a £10 billion departure tax hit?

That was incorrect, as the Reuters report clearly shows.

merseymouth wrote:To fully understand & appreciate the insistence that I must be conversant with all of the details of International Law...

Ignorance doesn't have to cause problems. (Unlike stupidity.)

One useful technique when you don't know as much as you'd like about something is to ask a question rather than making an assertion, especially a false assertion.

Jonathan

Can you advise m as to how low I should position myself to avoid risking injury to you whilst you give me a kicking? it is te least I can do do help you. TTFN MM

I recommend that we all stay upright, facing towards each other, with ears and minds open. And mouths and keyboard fingers in neutral until brains are engaged.

Precisely the opposite of the easy position in the Biblical misquotation above.

Jonathan

pete75 wrote:

bikepacker wrote:

pete75 wrote:Mrs May refused any terms in her agreement that would have led to a "border" in the Irish Sea. Johnson readily agreed to such a thing in his "oven ready" deal. You've got things completely the wrong way round in your misogynist rant.

If Mrs May's backstop agreement had been accepted by parliament. In the event of no deal where would the "border" have been placed?

There wouldn't have been one. There would have been a customs union between the UK and the EU.

But how about the border between Kent and the rest of the UK?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/23/truck-queues-could-be-7000-long-when-brexit-transition-ends-ministers-warn

Papiere, bitte.

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote:But how about the border between Kent and the rest of the UK?

Papiere, bitte.

Jonathan

Bloody remainer.

Vote Leave very clearly laid out the need for borders between UK and NI, and also UK and Kent in their campaign.

Suck it up, snowflake!

[seriously though, at what point will those who support this debacle admit what an unholy mess it actually is? So far, nothing, no matter how far from the original promises, makes any difference]

Anglo-Saxon values... or Government policy?



Jonathan