|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 9, 2020 20:54:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by longdistancekiddie on Aug 13, 2020 22:00:00 GMT
Stopping travel to France, is this part of the negotiations.
Or a way of tackling the refugees in the dinghies.
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Aug 19, 2020 3:43:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Aug 19, 2020 6:29:00 GMT
Boo hiss any deal is a sellout
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 19, 2020 6:31:19 GMT
I'm sure they'll cobble some agreement together, which both sides will be able to sell to their respective audiences.
From our perspective, no doubt the Express and Mail etc will sell it as a great victory and over the next few months and years it'll slowly be shown to be complete bollocks, much like the 'absence' of the Irish Sea border, or indeed the 100,000 covid tests a day.
But, as long as the headlines at the time hit home, the Tory papers will have done their job, Brexiteers can convince themselves it's already a great success and ignore the less extensively reported realities of the deal over the following months.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 19, 2020 9:04:42 GMT
I'm sure they'll cobble some agreement together, which both sides will be able to sell to their respective audiences. From our perspective, no doubt the Express and Mail etc will sell it as a great victory and over the next few months and years it'll slowly be shown to be complete bollocks, much like the 'absence' of the Irish Sea border, or indeed the 100,000 covid tests a day. But, as long as the headlines at the time hit home, the Tory papers will have done their job, Brexiteers can convince themselves it's already a great success and ignore the less extensively reported realities of the deal over the following months. I agree with you on paragraphs 1 and 2, but as for paragraph 3 I think you still don't get it. We have left the EU. We are now an independant country with our own government which we can change at general elections. We are a sovereign nation again, like USA, Canada, Japan, etc. I think the success you refer to is regarding economics. Naturally the economy is going to go through a difficult period of adjustment, which is now made 10 times worse by the pandemic. I also expect it will also be made difficult by retaliatory action by the EU to our leaving. It was noticeable that as soon as the government placed self isolating regulation on people travelling from France, they talked of retaliation, although their infection rate had risen to circa 3,000 cases per day, c.f. UK's c.1,000 per day. But most of our trade is with the rest of the world, which is the area of future growth, so we are now much better placed for generations to come.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 19, 2020 9:27:47 GMT
I'm sure they'll cobble some agreement together, which both sides will be able to sell to their respective audiences. From our perspective, no doubt the Express and Mail etc will sell it as a great victory and over the next few months and years it'll slowly be shown to be complete bollocks, much like the 'absence' of the Irish Sea border, or indeed the 100,000 covid tests a day. But, as long as the headlines at the time hit home, the Tory papers will have done their job, Brexiteers can convince themselves it's already a great success and ignore the less extensively reported realities of the deal over the following months. I agree with you on paragraphs 1 and 2, but as for paragraph 3 I think you still don't get it. We have left the EU. We are now an independant country with our own government which we can change at general elections. We are a sovereign nation again, like USA, Canada, Japan, etc. I think the success you refer to is regarding economics. Naturally the economy is going to go through a difficult period of adjustment, which is now made 10 times worse by the pandemic. I also expect it will also be made difficult by retaliatory action by the EU to our leaving. It was noticeable that as soon as the government placed self isolating regulation on people travelling from France, they talked of retaliation, although their infection rate had risen to circa 3,000 cases per day, c.f. UK's c.1,000 per day. But most of our trade is with the rest of the world, which is the area of future growth, so we are now much better placed for generations to come. Of course the 'success' I'm referring to is about economics - we're talking about negotiations around a Trade deal, right?! We all know the economy is going to suffer for some time post Brexit. Expect more borrowing, the national debt to balloon and debt interest payments to far exceed anything we'd have ever contributed to the EU! £350mill a week? Make that closer to a billion a week to our creditors... As I said, the pro-Brexit press will present any deal (or no deal!) as a great success, because Brexit cannot be anything other than a great success so this will be the approach. This will satisfy Brexiteers at the time of the deal/no deal. Thereafter, the realities will be picked over in greater detail, but won't make any significant headlines in the pro-Brexit media, in much the same way that NI is effectively now a 'different' part of the UK and there is a sea border between Britain and Ireland (including NI), despite this being flatly denied would ever happen. I'm well aware that sovereignty is the be all and end all for Brexiteers, now they appear to have moved on from immigration being the issue it was, and that the UK will be a more independent country. (It's not fully independent - it will still have to comply with the demands of other externally governed organisations which it agrees to observe eg NATO, WTO, ICHR etc). If, overall, that's the price people want to pay because the concept of an 'independent' country matters that much, so be it I guess.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Aug 19, 2020 9:58:36 GMT
I agree with you on paragraphs 1 and 2, but as for paragraph 3 I think you still don't get it. We have left the EU. We are now an independant country with our own government which we can change at general elections. We are a sovereign nation again, like USA, Canada, Japan, etc. I think the success you refer to is regarding economics. Naturally the economy is going to go through a difficult period of adjustment, which is now made 10 times worse by the pandemic. I also expect it will also be made difficult by retaliatory action by the EU to our leaving. It was noticeable that as soon as the government placed self isolating regulation on people travelling from France, they talked of retaliation, although their infection rate had risen to circa 3,000 cases per day, c.f. UK's c.1,000 per day. But most of our trade is with the rest of the world, which is the area of future growth, so we are now much better placed for generations to come. Of course the 'success' I'm referring to is about economics - we're talking about negotiations around a Trade deal, right?! We all know the economy is going to suffer for some time post Brexit. Expect more borrowing, the national debt to balloon and debt interest payments to far exceed anything we'd have ever contributed to the EU! £350mill a week? Make that closer to a billion a week to our creditors... As I said, the pro-Brexit press will present any deal (or no deal!) as a great success, because Brexit cannot be anything other than a great success so this will be the approach. This will satisfy Brexiteers at the time of the deal/no deal. Thereafter, the realities will be picked over in greater detail, but won't make any significant headlines in the pro-Brexit media, in much the same way that NI is effectively now a 'different' part of the UK and there is a sea border between Britain and Ireland (including NI), despite this being flatly denied would ever happen. I'm well aware that sovereignty is the be all and end all for Brexiteers, now they appear to have moved on from immigration being the issue it was, and that the UK will be a more independent country. (It's not fully independent - it will still have to comply with the demands of other externally governed organisations which it agrees to observe eg NATO, WTO, ICHR etc). If, overall, that's the price people want to pay because the concept of an 'independent' country matters that much, so be it I guess. “ This will satisfy Brexiteers at the time of the deal/no deal.” Patronising twaddle. Even us thick ‘Brexiteers’ will be able to recognise whether what has been agreed is a good deal or a bad deal for the UK. That is assuming, of course, that we are told the truth. “… now they appear to have moved on from immigration being the issue it was,” Proof that you really don’t get it, do you? We know you don't - you don't need to keep displaying your ignorance to us.
“ …..it will still have to comply with the demands of other externally governed organisations which it agrees to observe eg NATO, WTO, ICHR etc)” The point being that it will be our politicians (for better or worse) who enter into these agreements, not some pen pushing bureaucrat or faux parliament in an entirely different country which decides. There’s nothing I can write here which hasn’t been said a million times so this post will make absolutely no difference to your blind, bigoted viewpoint. You have every right to hold different views, but please stop presenting your views as fact. They are nothing more than your opinions. Do you get it – they are your opinions, they are NOT facts.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 19, 2020 10:46:25 GMT
Of course the 'success' I'm referring to is about economics - we're talking about negotiations around a Trade deal, right?! We all know the economy is going to suffer for some time post Brexit. Expect more borrowing, the national debt to balloon and debt interest payments to far exceed anything we'd have ever contributed to the EU! £350mill a week? Make that closer to a billion a week to our creditors... As I said, the pro-Brexit press will present any deal (or no deal!) as a great success, because Brexit cannot be anything other than a great success so this will be the approach. This will satisfy Brexiteers at the time of the deal/no deal. Thereafter, the realities will be picked over in greater detail, but won't make any significant headlines in the pro-Brexit media, in much the same way that NI is effectively now a 'different' part of the UK and there is a sea border between Britain and Ireland (including NI), despite this being flatly denied would ever happen. I'm well aware that sovereignty is the be all and end all for Brexiteers, now they appear to have moved on from immigration being the issue it was, and that the UK will be a more independent country. (It's not fully independent - it will still have to comply with the demands of other externally governed organisations which it agrees to observe eg NATO, WTO, ICHR etc). If, overall, that's the price people want to pay because the concept of an 'independent' country matters that much, so be it I guess. “ This will satisfy Brexiteers at the time of the deal/no deal.” Patronising twaddle. Even us thick ‘Brexiteers’ will be able to recognise whether what has been agreed is a good deal or a bad deal for the UK. That is assuming, of course, that we are told the truth. “… now they appear to have moved on from immigration being the issue it was,” Proof that you really don’t get it, do you? We know you don't - you don't need to keep displaying your ignorance to us.
“ …..it will still have to comply with the demands of other externally governed organisations which it agrees to observe eg NATO, WTO, ICHR etc)” The point being that it will be our politicians (for better or worse) who enter into these agreements, not some pen pushing bureaucrat or faux parliament in an entirely different country which decides. There’s nothing I can write here which hasn’t been said a million times so this post will make absolutely no difference to your blind, bigoted viewpoint. You have every right to hold different views, but please stop presenting your views as fact. They are nothing more than your opinions. Do you get it – they are your opinions, they are NOT facts. Blimey, that touched a raw nerve! Take a deep breath and calm down, yeokel! Well, let's see what headlines the pro-Brexit papers come up with - deal or no deal - it'll be a resoundingly positive 'victory for Britain', I'll have a little bet with you! And why? Because they'll be trying to paint Brexit in as positive a light as possible to "satisfy Brexiteers at the time of the deal". I don't see that as being controversial or even patronising and certainly not twaddle! Come back in a few months if a deal or no deal is announced and we'll have a look at what the papers are saying. I could show you some Oxford Uni research which shows that immigration was the number one driver for many Brexiteers, it's been on here several times already. I understand why Brexiteers wish to pretend it was never anything to do with immigration, but that's just revisionism, plain and simple. It might shock you to know it was our politicians previously who entered into all sorts of agreements, treaties etc, including those of the European and international variety. Actually some of those decisions from other international organisations we abide by are indeed made in other countries by unelected bureaucrats too. It's a forum for expressing opinions last time I checked! The better ones are supported by evidence, but that doesn't stop people expressing their opinions whatever the topic.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Aug 19, 2020 11:04:41 GMT
No raw nerves here – I’m perfectly calm thanks.
As for the rest of what you wrote, why don’t you pop along to tell it to Heyzeus, Volkswagen and all the others who think the same as you. You can all express your opinions together, between yourselves and won’t have to dress them as facts like you seem to think you have to do when not talking to your chums.
“It's a forum for expressing opinions last time I checked! The better ones are supported by evidence”. I fully agree but would point out that there is no “evidence” yet of something which is yet to happen. There is speculation, rumour and opinion – but no evidence.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 19, 2020 11:54:32 GMT
“ This will satisfy Brexiteers at the time of the deal/no deal.” Patronising twaddle. Even us thick ‘Brexiteers’ will be able to recognise whether what has been agreed is a good deal or a bad deal for the UK. That is assuming, of course, that we are told the truth. “… now they appear to have moved on from immigration being the issue it was,” Proof that you really don’t get it, do you? We know you don't - you don't need to keep displaying your ignorance to us.
“ …..it will still have to comply with the demands of other externally governed organisations which it agrees to observe eg NATO, WTO, ICHR etc)” The point being that it will be our politicians (for better or worse) who enter into these agreements, not some pen pushing bureaucrat or faux parliament in an entirely different country which decides. There’s nothing I can write here which hasn’t been said a million times so this post will make absolutely no difference to your blind, bigoted viewpoint. You have every right to hold different views, but please stop presenting your views as fact. They are nothing more than your opinions. Do you get it – they are your opinions, they are NOT facts. Blimey, that touched a raw nerve! Take a deep breath and calm down, yeokel! Well, let's see what headlines the pro-Brexit papers come up with - deal or no deal - it'll be a resoundingly positive 'victory for Britain', I'll have a little bet with you! And why? Because they'll be trying to paint Brexit in as positive a light as possible to "satisfy Brexiteers at the time of the deal". I don't see that as being controversial or even patronising and certainly not twaddle! Come back in a few months if a deal or no deal is announced and we'll have a look at what the papers are saying. I could show you some Oxford Uni research which shows that immigration was the number one driver for many Brexiteers, it's been on here several times already. I understand why Brexiteers wish to pretend it was never anything to do with immigration, but that's just revisionism, plain and simple. It might shock you to know it was our politicians previously who entered into all sorts of agreements, treaties etc, including those of the European and international variety. Actually some of those decisions from other international organisations we abide by are indeed made in other countries by unelected bureaucrats too. It's a forum for expressing opinions last time I checked! The better ones are supported by evidence, but that doesn't stop people expressing their opinions whatever the topic. I presume that would be opinion polls, opinion surveys, questionnaires, etc. Such research is highly unreliable and/or inaccurate. Who predicted the outcome of the referendum correctly? Who predicted Johnson would win the election with such a large majority? Similarly Blair in 1997; he was forecast to win, but not by such a thumping majority. The BBC did a major investigation into opinion polls many years ago. They found that people tend to give the answer they think the question(er) is wanting, or they give the answer they think is popular, or causes least offence, or the first thing that comes into their head, or an answer that will not provoke another question. There are in fact a host of reasons people don't actually give their true opinion, unlike the anonymous posters on Oatcake! The BBC found that when people gave an opinion they were often unable to give any reason or supporting fact for their opinion. For example they asked "What faults do TV programmes have?" and give a number of options for an answer. Often the reply would be "Too much violence". When then asked "Which programmes have too much violence?" the person being asked was often stuck for an answer and one of the most common answers was "The News". Regarding your penultimate paragraph. Obviously as a member of international organisations with HQs in other countries, we have to abide by membership or treaty rules, but I am interested to learn which organisations have bureaucrats making decisions the UK has to abide by.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 19, 2020 12:32:13 GMT
Blimey, that touched a raw nerve! Take a deep breath and calm down, yeokel! Well, let's see what headlines the pro-Brexit papers come up with - deal or no deal - it'll be a resoundingly positive 'victory for Britain', I'll have a little bet with you! And why? Because they'll be trying to paint Brexit in as positive a light as possible to "satisfy Brexiteers at the time of the deal". I don't see that as being controversial or even patronising and certainly not twaddle! Come back in a few months if a deal or no deal is announced and we'll have a look at what the papers are saying. I could show you some Oxford Uni research which shows that immigration was the number one driver for many Brexiteers, it's been on here several times already. I understand why Brexiteers wish to pretend it was never anything to do with immigration, but that's just revisionism, plain and simple. It might shock you to know it was our politicians previously who entered into all sorts of agreements, treaties etc, including those of the European and international variety. Actually some of those decisions from other international organisations we abide by are indeed made in other countries by unelected bureaucrats too. It's a forum for expressing opinions last time I checked! The better ones are supported by evidence, but that doesn't stop people expressing their opinions whatever the topic. I presume that would be opinion polls, opinion surveys, questionnaires, etc. Such research is highly unreliable and/or inaccurate. Who predicted the outcome of the referendum correctly? Who predicted Johnson would win the election with such a large majority? Similarly Blair in 1997; he was forecast to win, but not by such a thumping majority. The BBC did a major investigation into opinion polls many years ago. They found that people tend to give the answer they think the question(er) is wanting, or they give the answer they think is popular, or causes least offence, or the first thing that comes into their head, or an answer that will not provoke another question. There are in fact a host of reasons people don't actually give their true opinion, unlike the anonymous posters on Oatcake! The BBC found that when people gave an opinion they were often unable to give any reason or supporting fact for their opinion. For example they asked "What faults do TV programmes have?" and give a number of options for an answer. Often the reply would be "Too much violence". When then asked "Which programmes have too much violence?" the person being asked was often stuck for an answer and one of the most common answers was "The News". Regarding your penultimate paragraph. Obviously as a member of international organisations with HQs in other countries, we have to abide by membership or treaty rules, but I am interested to learn which organisations have bureaucrats making decisions the UK has to abide by. There is a whole host of data out there which gives the reasons why people voted they did. Feel free to look into it and correct me if immigration and sovereignty weren't at the top of the list for most Leavers. The Oxford Uni research I cited was of 3,000 respondents and immigration was the primary reason. Maybe all the peer-reviewed research was flawed, who knows? You're right, there are lots of organisations which the UK has signed up to through various treaties, agreements etc. It's not just the EU which has had some ability to influence UK legislation and behaviour, (whose influence incidentally was freely signed up to by our own govts). There are various legal bodies for example, ICJ, ITLOS whose judgements may have similar impact on UK law, but nobody seems to get too upset about this. Apart from wagsastokie, perhaps, who wants a truly isolated UK.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Aug 19, 2020 13:09:05 GMT
I presume that would be opinion polls, opinion surveys, questionnaires, etc. Such research is highly unreliable and/or inaccurate. Who predicted the outcome of the referendum correctly? Who predicted Johnson would win the election with such a large majority? Similarly Blair in 1997; he was forecast to win, but not by such a thumping majority. The BBC did a major investigation into opinion polls many years ago. They found that people tend to give the answer they think the question(er) is wanting, or they give the answer they think is popular, or causes least offence, or the first thing that comes into their head, or an answer that will not provoke another question. There are in fact a host of reasons people don't actually give their true opinion, unlike the anonymous posters on Oatcake! The BBC found that when people gave an opinion they were often unable to give any reason or supporting fact for their opinion. For example they asked "What faults do TV programmes have?" and give a number of options for an answer. Often the reply would be "Too much violence". When then asked "Which programmes have too much violence?" the person being asked was often stuck for an answer and one of the most common answers was "The News". Regarding your penultimate paragraph. Obviously as a member of international organisations with HQs in other countries, we have to abide by membership or treaty rules, but I am interested to learn which organisations have bureaucrats making decisions the UK has to abide by. There is a whole host of data out there which gives the reasons why people voted they did. Feel free to look into it and correct me if immigration and sovereignty weren't at the top of the list for most Leavers. The Oxford Uni research I cited was of 3,000 respondents and immigration was the primary reason. Maybe all the peer-reviewed research was flawed, who knows? You're right, there are lots of organisations which the UK has signed up to through various treaties, agreements etc. It's not just the EU which has had some ability to influence UK legislation and behaviour, (whose influence incidentally was freely signed up to by our own govts). There are various legal bodies for example, ICJ, ITLOS whose judgements may have similar impact on UK law, but nobody seems to get too upset about this. Apart from wagsastokie, perhaps, who wants a truly isolated UK. " Apart from wagsastokie, perhaps, who wants a truly isolated UK." " no idea why you felt the need to link this to anyone else at all?" Oh dear!
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 19, 2020 13:12:14 GMT
There is a whole host of data out there which gives the reasons why people voted they did. Feel free to look into it and correct me if immigration and sovereignty weren't at the top of the list for most Leavers. The Oxford Uni research I cited was of 3,000 respondents and immigration was the primary reason. Maybe all the peer-reviewed research was flawed, who knows? You're right, there are lots of organisations which the UK has signed up to through various treaties, agreements etc. It's not just the EU which has had some ability to influence UK legislation and behaviour, (whose influence incidentally was freely signed up to by our own govts). There are various legal bodies for example, ICJ, ITLOS whose judgements may have similar impact on UK law, but nobody seems to get too upset about this. Apart from wagsastokie, perhaps, who wants a truly isolated UK. " Apart from wagsastokie, perhaps, who wants a truly isolated UK." " no idea why you felt the need to link this to anyone else at all?" Oh dear! Er, because it was relevant to the point I was making about not having a fully independent UK, which wagastokie wants - No EU, No NATO, No nothing basically. Not tricky!
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Aug 19, 2020 13:30:40 GMT
There is a whole host of data out there which gives the reasons why people voted they did. Feel free to look into it and correct me if immigration and sovereignty weren't at the top of the list for most Leavers. The Oxford Uni research I cited was of 3,000 respondents and immigration was the primary reason. Maybe all the peer-reviewed research was flawed, who knows? You're right, there are lots of organisations which the UK has signed up to through various treaties, agreements etc. It's not just the EU which has had some ability to influence UK legislation and behaviour, (whose influence incidentally was freely signed up to by our own govts). There are various legal bodies for example, ICJ, ITLOS whose judgements may have similar impact on UK law, but nobody seems to get too upset about this. Apart from wagsastokie, perhaps, who wants a truly isolated UK. " Apart from wagsastokie, perhaps, who wants a truly isolated UK." " no idea why you felt the need to link this to anyone else at all?" Oh dear! I think I'm starting to get to him It is a perfectly logical viewpoint to want no deal and fall back onto wto terms As for nato I mentioned I would personally advocate leaving as I believe it has fundamentaly served its purpose and we should concentrate are resources on the future threat from the far East
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 19, 2020 14:21:32 GMT
" Apart from wagsastokie, perhaps, who wants a truly isolated UK." " no idea why you felt the need to link this to anyone else at all?" Oh dear! I think I'm starting to get to him It is a perfectly logical viewpoint to want no deal and fall back onto wto terms As for nato I mentioned I would personally advocate leaving as I believe it has fundamentaly served its purpose and we should concentrate are resources on the future threat from the far East Well, it's a viewpoint, I'm not sure even MrCoke would agree with 'logical' on that one, but you never know! Our discussion previously focused on the inconsistency of your acceptance of WTO rules whilst, at the same time, wanting the UK to be completely free from any external interference. You don't have freedom from external interference if you accept WTO rules. There is still an adjudication service which can exert influence on the UK, amongst other rules which need to be observed. If you want complete freedom you trade outside of WTO rules like the 16 countries who are not currently members of the WTO: Aruba, Curacao, Eritrea, Kiribati, Kosovo, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, North Korea, Palau, the Palestinian Territories, San Marino, Sint Maarten, Turkmenistan, and Tuvalu.
|
|
|
Post by questionable on Aug 19, 2020 14:30:43 GMT
I can’t believe that this keeps getting brought up it’s done and dusted and all over bar the singing, please accept it.
Can’t wait to see the back of the bunch of idiots from Brussels or wherever they’re from.
Viva a la 🇬🇧
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 19, 2020 14:37:59 GMT
I can’t believe that this keeps getting brought up it’s done and dusted and all over bar the singing, please accept it. Can’t wait to see the back of the bunch of idiots from Brussels or wherever they’re from. Viva a la 🇬🇧 But it's not about xenophobia I don't see the problem with wanting to keep track of what was promised and seeing how it all pans out. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to just shrug and say "oh well" to any policy, let alone one as critical as this to the country's future. Everyone knows we're leaving by the end of the year. Then the real impacts start.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Aug 19, 2020 15:17:53 GMT
I think I'm starting to get to him It is a perfectly logical viewpoint to want no deal and fall back onto wto terms As for nato I mentioned I would personally advocate leaving as I believe it has fundamentaly served its purpose and we should concentrate are resources on the future threat from the far East Well, it's a viewpoint, I'm not sure even MrCoke would agree with 'logical' on that one, but you never know! Our discussion previously focused on the inconsistency of your acceptance of WTO rules whilst, at the same time, wanting the UK to be completely free from any external interference. You don't have freedom from external interference if you accept WTO rules. There is still an adjudication service which can exert influence on the UK, amongst other rules which need to be observed. If you want complete freedom you trade outside of WTO rules like the 16 countries who are not currently members of the WTO: Aruba, Curacao, Eritrea, Kiribati, Kosovo, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, North Korea, Palau, the Palestinian Territories, San Marino, Sint Maarten, Turkmenistan, and Tuvalu. If you can be bothered to trawl through this thread I have been consistant in saying I would accept wto terms What I will not accept is any interference from the European Union Who fishes in british waters should be decided by Britain the European Union should have no say Where the government decides it will spend British tax payers money should be decided by Britain the European Union should have no say And I can assure you there are plenty of people who think likewise And I'm quite sure this will become apparent when as you predict this shower of shit sells the country out and accept a deal
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 19, 2020 16:39:22 GMT
Well, it's a viewpoint, I'm not sure even MrCoke would agree with 'logical' on that one, but you never know! Our discussion previously focused on the inconsistency of your acceptance of WTO rules whilst, at the same time, wanting the UK to be completely free from any external interference. You don't have freedom from external interference if you accept WTO rules. There is still an adjudication service which can exert influence on the UK, amongst other rules which need to be observed. If you want complete freedom you trade outside of WTO rules like the 16 countries who are not currently members of the WTO: Aruba, Curacao, Eritrea, Kiribati, Kosovo, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, North Korea, Palau, the Palestinian Territories, San Marino, Sint Maarten, Turkmenistan, and Tuvalu. If you can be bothered to trawl through this thread I have been consistant in saying I would accept wto terms What I will not accept is any interference from the European Union Who fishes in british waters should be decided by Britain the European Union should have no say Where the government decides it will spend British tax payers money should be decided by Britain the European Union should have no say And I can assure you there are plenty of people who think likewise And I'm quite sure this will become apparent when as you predict this shower of shit sells the country out and accept a deal Yes, I know you're quite happy on WTO terms. However, you also said recently that: I would happily sign any free trade deal providing there are no conditions attached. Free trade should have no conditions attached or else it ceases to be free WTO membership comes with conditions: rules of membership, tariffs, its own adjudication service which the UK would agree to abide by etc etc. So you're just swapping one set of rules (membership of the EU single market) for another, which is also likely to increase the price of goods generally.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Aug 19, 2020 16:52:51 GMT
If you can be bothered to trawl through this thread I have been consistant in saying I would accept wto terms What I will not accept is any interference from the European Union Who fishes in british waters should be decided by Britain the European Union should have no say Where the government decides it will spend British tax payers money should be decided by Britain the European Union should have no say And I can assure you there are plenty of people who think likewise And I'm quite sure this will become apparent when as you predict this shower of shit sells the country out and accept a deal Yes, I know you're quite happy on WTO terms. However, you also said recently that: I would happily sign any free trade deal providing there are no conditions attached. Free trade should have no conditions attached or else it ceases to be free WTO membership comes with conditions: rules of membership, tariffs, its own adjudication service which the UK would agree to abide by etc etc. So you're just swapping one set of rules (the single market) for another. Then you are in agreement that there is no such thing as a free trade deal So it is totally disingenuous for the press and politicians to keep banging on about such matters No deal is free but wto rules is far more preferable than the protectionist racket masquerading as the European single market and the political baggage that comes with it
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 19, 2020 17:05:54 GMT
I've never claimed there is. It's not me who insists on a country free to trade without any interference/constraints!
Unless you want the UK to drop out of the EU and NATO and the WTO and every other organisation we've previously signed up to so that we can achieve the kind of independence you crave, you're not going to get it I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 19, 2020 17:57:31 GMT
I've never claimed there is. It's not me who insists on a country free to trade without any interference/constraints! Unless you want the UK to drop out of the EU and NATO and the WTO and every other organisation we've previously signed up to so that we can achieve the kind of independence you crave, you're not going to get it I'm afraid. I think your post above is very significant. This and recent posts you have made seem to infer that the EU is similar or equivalent to NATO, WTO, and other international organisations. It isn't, it is fundamentally different. Forty + years ago, we joined the EEC which was a trade organisation. But is has changed without true consultation with the people to a political organisation committed to ever closer union. Laws are drafted by the bureaucrats in Brussels which are then rubber stamped by the politicians. The laws are all in one direction, to create a single state. There is no possibility of an individual country submitting legislation contrary to the "master plan". I have seen this type of philosophy in the European committe I sat on. The Germans were the largest group, with numerous members, they dictated the policy, vetoed any changes that were contrary to their interests, "he who pays the piper calls the tune", and their neighbours who had only one or two representatives, meekly concurred with their wishes. The southern European members of the group were "detatched" and often did not bother to turn up for meetings. The Baltic states on the committee just sat and followed the majority. The French just did their own thing!
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 20, 2020 21:19:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 20, 2020 21:33:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Aug 20, 2020 21:42:12 GMT
Is anyone still pressing on that it is even a remotely good idea?
Or are you still waiting for the unicorns to come?
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 20, 2020 21:44:52 GMT
If there are any fucking idiots around here it's you. Do some research on Odey for starters you arsehole.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Aug 20, 2020 21:44:56 GMT
Is anyone still pressing on that it is even a remotely good idea? Or are you still waiting for the unicorns to come? We'll have to make the best of it now eh? Life's like that.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 20, 2020 21:46:09 GMT
But you're not happy on WTO terms. You don't want a deal with any conditions. WTO terms come with conditions, tariffs and external legal interference and adjudication. I have said from the out set of this tread I wanted a no deal Anyone who has two functional brain cells realise that means wto terms Nowhere have I said I am against wto terms What I am against is any deal with the eu that involves any judicial interference from the eu Complete control of British waters Complete judicial independence The complete right to subsidies where when and what amount we wish I want the cherry on the cake the cake itself the crumbs And to be able to lick the plate You have a very long wait pal.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 20, 2020 21:48:54 GMT
Well, it's a viewpoint, I'm not sure even MrCoke would agree with 'logical' on that one, but you never know! Our discussion previously focused on the inconsistency of your acceptance of WTO rules whilst, at the same time, wanting the UK to be completely free from any external interference. You don't have freedom from external interference if you accept WTO rules. There is still an adjudication service which can exert influence on the UK, amongst other rules which need to be observed. If you want complete freedom you trade outside of WTO rules like the 16 countries who are not currently members of the WTO: Aruba, Curacao, Eritrea, Kiribati, Kosovo, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Nauru, North Korea, Palau, the Palestinian Territories, San Marino, Sint Maarten, Turkmenistan, and Tuvalu. If you can be bothered to trawl through this thread I have been consistant in saying I would accept wto terms What I will not accept is any interference from the European Union Who fishes in british waters should be decided by Britain the European Union should have no say Where the government decides it will spend British tax payers money should be decided by Britain the European Union should have no say And I can assure you there are plenty of people who think likewise And I'm quite sure this will become apparent when as you predict this shower of shit sells the country out and accept a deal Do you know what has happened to "British Waters"? You're going to be ever so upset when you've researched it.
|
|