Brexit (Old)

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The Olly Robbins' Remainer credentials, as with TM's and her weasel words that she'll give the Brexit the people voted for (52/48?), that discredits the civil service's impartiality.

Civil servants have been tasked with preparing impartial analysis. You've provided no evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Civil servants have been tasked with preparing impartial analysis. You've provided no evidence to the contrary.

Irrelevant what they have been tasked with - democracy should prevail and democracy decided we leave the EU.

You haven't provided any evidence from day one, because there isn't any, they are predictions and predictions can be wrong (like they have been so far with project fear being nothing but utter fiction!).

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

#2268 from Pierre.

I have not taken issue with countries exercising their sovereign rights! I am simply pointing out that doing a negotiation with the EU is actually doing a negotiation with 27 countries. This is not the case in respect of any other country with whom we will be and are negotiating.

There is no difference of opinion that I can ascertain in respect of there also being EU trade deals with other countries, so I am not sure why you have made that point.

---------- Post added at 13:28 ---------- Previous post was at 13:25 ----------



You know very well that most of the withdrawal arrangements are in place. That's what the 95% was referring to.

0% merely reflects the fact that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

That's rather thin. £39 billion; citizenship rights; What else? Flights? Tourism? Ports? Fisheries? Power exchange? Political statement on trade? Looks like we're being snowed. The whole problem with this process has been that the UK public have been told diddly squat on what's being negotiated.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Only trade deals with the EU seem to be interminable.

I am not sure how long you think "interminable" is? Here's some data on FTA's with the US:

How Long Does It Take to Conclude a Trade Agreement With the US?

A look at the negotiation period for 20 US trade agreements reveals interesting details about the actual process. On average it takes 1½ years to negotiate an FTA with the United States but over 3½ years to reach the implementation stage, though there is a lot of variation (table 1).

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am not sure how long you think "interminable" is? Here's some data on FTA's with the US:

How Long Does It Take to Conclude a Trade Agreement With the US?

And the EU is still yet to agree a deal with the US, the negotiations for which started over a decade ago.

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That's rather thin. £39 billion; citizenship rights; What else? Flights? Tourism? Ports? Fisheries? Power exchange? Political statement on trade? Looks like we're being snowed. The whole problem with this process has been that the UK public have been told diddly squat on what's being negotiated.

The full details will be made publicly available at the end of the process.

Surely, you are not suggesting that negotiations should be carried out under the full glare of publicity? It's chaotic enough with the morsels the public have been thrown so far!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And the EU is still yet to agree a deal with the US, the negotiations for which started over a decade ago.

---------- Post added at 15:20 ---------- Previous post was at 15:18 ----------



The full details will be made publicly available at the end of the process.

Surely, you are not suggesting that negotiations should be carried out under the full glare of publicity? It's chaotic enough with the morsels the public have been thrown so far!

This is where the public are being duped, possibly. If 95% is agreed, there is no threat to negotiations for the content of the 95% to be disclosed to the public. The EU isn't negotiating with the public.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

This is where the public are being duped, possibly. If 95% is agreed, there is no threat to negotiations for the content of the 95% to be disclosed to the public. The EU isn't negotiating with the public.

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and details will not be made available until there is agreement.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

None of the EU trade deals had the obstacles that Brexit currently has. The EU are both the irresistible force and the immovable object in the Brexit case. Your question was entirely flawed and in the usual spirit of talking the UK down.


---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------



You've invented an argument here. The EC and Parliament are at one about the Irish Border. So those scheisters in the European Parliament, whose aim is to trump national parliaments through federalisation, would not be over-ruling the EC. Again, an artificially construed sneer.

Those 'scheisters' were elected by the people through direct elections. Are our 73 MEPs 'scheisters'?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Only trade deals with the EU seem to be interminable.

Asking for a friend of a friend. Please can you give her her magic calculator back. Please post it to D. Abbott, House of Commons, Westminster.

But seriously, any real evidence for your statement?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Those 'scheisters' were elected by the people through direct elections. Are our 73 MEPs 'scheisters'?

I've told you why I call them scheisters; they want parliamentary supremacy over national parliaments. Seems undemocratic to me.


---------- Post added at 15:40 ---------- Previous post was at 15:38 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and details will not be made available until there is agreement.

That's what I'm complaining about. The nothing/everything phrase is irrelevant. The public want to know what's in the 95%? What has the guvmin given away up to this stage? What has it won?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I've told you why I call them scheisters; they want parliamentary supremacy over national parliaments. Seems undemocratic to me.


---------- Post added at 15:40 ---------- Previous post was at 15:38 ----------



That's what I'm complaining about. The nothing/everything phrase is irrelevant. The public want to know what's in the 95%? What has the guvmin given away up to this stage? What has it won?

You will have to be patient, Seph. Negotiations should be confidential, same as carriage deals being negotiated by VM are not revealed until there is agreement.

---------- Post added at 16:33 ---------- Previous post was at 16:32 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Asking for a friend of a friend. Please can you give her her magic calculator back. Please post it to D. Abbott, House of Commons, Westminster.

But seriously, any real evidence for your statement?

Answered twice now, Andrew.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I've told you why I call them scheisters; they want parliamentary supremacy over national parliaments. Seems undemocratic to me.
[COLOR="Silver"]

But we voted for them so they are our democratically elected representatives...

I can understand where the EU might intervene in issues that affect EU treaties, principles and laws but do you have examples of where the EU parliament, commission or council have broken the principles of subsidiarity?

[papa smurf]

The petition is doing well

https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...J9XAT85WC240hQ


48,000

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Answered twice now, Andrew.

We all know they take several years!
The request is to substantiate your argument that the EU takes longer to negotiate trade deals than its peers.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

But we voted for them so they are our democratically elected representatives...

I can understand where the EU might intervene in issues that affect EU treaties, principles and laws but do you have examples of where the EU parliament, commission or council have broken the principles of subsidiarity?

Rubbish and you know it. We voted for a small percentage of MEPs and ours don't want federalisation and domination of the European Parliament over ours. We look like them but don't think like them.


As to your question - what's the current situation got to do with my point about their drive to federalisation? The MEPs are right behind the EC's game.

---------- Post added at 16:53 ---------- Previous post was at 16:52 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You haven't. You have been asked to demonstrate that the EU takes longer to negotiate trade deals than its peers. We all know they take several years.

…. and ours shouldn't take years because we start on the same page. It's just they are bloody minded and intent on punishing us.