Brexit (Old)

[Sephiroth]

[QUOTE=jonbxx;35966344]Well those ‘poisonous cretins’ never accommodated us apart from;

Economic and monetary union, AKA the Euro [SEPH]: You're getting me going now! The Euro is flawed because there is no fiscal union, which requires a single fiscal/budgetary authority. So we get to the Greece and perhaps Italy situations; in the case of Greece, nothing but misery has been brought to the people; admittedly the Greek mentality of not paying tax and poor productivity is why reality caught up with them but it threatened the Euro. Also the credit crunch caused problems for countries that could not adjust their financial policies in the same way that we could, being outside the Euro. The Euro would have been a good thing if Germany hadn't skewed its valuation against the DM by allowing countries that didn't meet the 3% deficit rule to join the Euro club. The Euro is a political project and founded on monetary union with all its ramifications and responsibilities.

Charter of fundamental rights [SEPH]: Big deal. It has brought us nothing but stupid rulings; like we couldn't deport criminals because of the right to family life; or because they had a cat. We are the UK - we do human rights and don't need crass extensions imposed by others.


Schengen Agreement [SEPH]: I can't fault the benefits of Schengen for internal (EU) travel - except that foolishly permitted ingress of 1 million refugees (and terrorists) from the Syrian conflagration has caused countries to threaten and actually impose border controls.


Area of Freedom, Security and Justice [SEPH]: Not sure about justice. The EU countries administer law by codex whereas we use case law where statute doesn't cover a situation. It means that in Codex based countries, the law states what you can do and everything else you cannot do and judges interpret this. In the UK the law states what you cannot do or what you must do; the rest is determined by case law.


Plus, of course a big old rebate. [SEPH]: The history of/reason for the rebate is explained at http://theconversation.com/the-uks-e...xplained-58019. Just thought people might like to know.

I warn you all again, if they can realise their direction of travel (i.e. federalisation), then our parliament will be trumped by the European Parliament - and those power hungry politicians are no better than our useless politicians. Difficult as it is to unshackle and untangle, the longer we leave it, the harder it will get.




---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:33 ----------

Originally Posted by jonbxx

But they have compromised and allowed the uk to opt out of some things yes?

Have they compromised? Didn't we opt out where our veto could have stopped the whole thing they were trying to do? I think it is we who compromised by not using the veto.

Those tricksters allowed France to make working rules as restricted across the EU as they were in France - to stop others being more competitive. When we vetoed it, they moved the directive into Health & Safety which only required a qualified majority. As Mick says, they are con-merchants and only want our net contribution and market because we are otherwise a lost cause to their stupid federalisation plans.

[pip08456]

[QUOTE=Sephiroth;35966352]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Well those ‘poisonous cretins’ never accommodated us apart from;

Economic and monetary union, AKA the Euro [SEPH]: You're getting me going now! The Euro is flawed because there is no fiscal union, which requires a single fiscal/budgetary authority. So we get to the Greece and perhaps Italy situations; in the case of Greece, nothing but misery has been brought to the people; admittedly the Greek mentality of not paying tax and poor productivity is why reality caught up with them but it threatened the Euro. Also the credit crunch caused problems for countries that could not adjust their financial policies in the same way that we could, being outside the Euro. The Euro would have been a good thing if Germany hadn't skewed its valuation against the DM by allowing countries that didn't meet the 3% deficit rule to join the Euro club. The Euro is a political project and founded on monetary union with all its ramifications and responsibilities.

Charter of fundamental rights [SEPH]: Big deal. It has brought us nothing but stupid rulings; like we couldn't deport criminals because of the right to family life; or because they had a cat. We are the UK - we do human rights and don't need crass extensions imposed by others.


Schengen Agreement [SEPH]: I can't fault the benefits of Schengen for internal (EU) travel - except that foolishly permitted ingress of 1 million refugees (and terrorists) from the Syrian conflagration has caused countries to threaten and actually impose border controls.


Area of Freedom, Security and Justice [SEPH]: Not sure about justice. The EU countries administer law by codex whereas we use case law where statute doesn't cover a situation. It means that in Codex based countries, the law states what you can do and everything else you cannot do and judges interpret this. In the UK the law states what you cannot do or what you must do; the rest is determined by case law.


Plus, of course a big old rebate. [SEPH]: The history of/reason for the rebate is explained at http://theconversation.com/the-uks-e...xplained-58019. Just thought people might like to know.

I warn you all again, if they can realise their direction of travel (i.e. federalisation), then our parliament will be trumped by the European Parliament - and those power hungry politicians are no better than our useless politicians. Difficult as it is to unshackle and untangle, the longer we leave it, the harder it will get.




---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:33 ----------



Have they compromised? Didn't we opt out where our veto could have stopped the whole thing they were trying to do? I think it is we who compromised by not using the veto.

Those tricksters allowed France to make working rules as restricted across the EU as they were in France - to stop others being more competitive. When we vetoed it, they moved the directive into Health & Safety which only required a qualified majority. As Mick says, they are con-merchants and only want our net contribution and market because we are otherwise a lost cause to their stupid federalisation plans.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

In fairness, the remainers on this forum have all said that the EU is imperfect but on balance, it is better to be in than out. I don't call that a love affair. In contrast, it is the Brexiters who ignore the economists who state leaving the EU will cause a long term negative impact on the UK and not just a short sharp shock.

Well, personally, I would not be confident about what the economists say. They have got it wrong on countless occasions and I am absolutely certain that they've got Brexit wrong, too.

Too much emphasis on the negatives with no suitable allowance for the positives. How do they calculate the impact of new trade deals, for example, before they know who they will be with, what they will cover and when they will be effective? It's much easier for them to concentrate on what we will be losing from the EU as this is more predictable.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, personally, I would not be confident about what the economists say. They have got it wrong on countless occasions and I am absolutely certain that they've got Brexit wrong, too.

Too much emphasis on the negatives with no suitable allowance for the positives. How do they calculate the impact of new trade deals, for example, before they know who they will be with, what they will cover and when they will be effective? It's much easier for them to concentrate on what we will be losing from the EU as this is more predictable.

And that is the problem with economists, they can only go with the model they have.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by pip08456

And that is the problem with economists, they can only go with the model they have.

they also no we be only country in world with 0 trade deals if it a no deal Brexit the pound will plummet must worse that it did after the vote to leave

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Dave42

they also no we be only country in world with 0 trade deals if it a no deal Brexit the pound will plummet must worse that it did after the vote to leave

You are assuming no trade deals have been made already pending our exit.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by pip08456

And that is the problem with economists, they can only go with the model they have.

Yes, that's right. If they put rubbish in, they will get rubbish out. And yet some are quite happy to base their decisions on the dodgy conclusions they come up with.

Economic assessments should certainly be considered when taking decisions, but only as an assessment of possible risk. This ensures that you have some contingencies to mitigate against those risks.

However, take the conclusions as gospel and 90% of the time you'd be screwed.

[jonbxx]

[QUOTE=Sephiroth;35966352]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Well those ‘poisonous cretins’ never accommodated us apart from;

Economic and monetary union, AKA the Euro [SEPH]: You're getting me going now! The Euro is flawed because there is no fiscal union, which requires a single fiscal/budgetary authority. So we get to the Greece and perhaps Italy situations; in the case of Greece, nothing but misery has been brought to the people; admittedly the Greek mentality of not paying tax and poor productivity is why reality caught up with them but it threatened the Euro. Also the credit crunch caused problems for countries that could not adjust their financial policies in the same way that we could, being outside the Euro. The Euro would have been a good thing if Germany hadn't skewed its valuation against the DM by allowing countries that didn't meet the 3% deficit rule to join the Euro club. The Euro is a political project and founded on monetary union with all its ramifications and responsibilities.

Charter of fundamental rights [SEPH]: Big deal. It has brought us nothing but stupid rulings; like we couldn't deport criminals because of the right to family life; or because they had a cat. We are the UK - we do human rights and don't need crass extensions imposed by others.


Schengen Agreement [SEPH]: I can't fault the benefits of Schengen for internal (EU) travel - except that foolishly permitted ingress of 1 million refugees (and terrorists) from the Syrian conflagration has caused countries to threaten and actually impose border controls.


Area of Freedom, Security and Justice [SEPH]: Not sure about justice. The EU countries administer law by codex whereas we use case law where statute doesn't cover a situation. It means that in Codex based countries, the law states what you can do and everything else you cannot do and judges interpret this. In the UK the law states what you cannot do or what you must do; the rest is determined by case law.


Plus, of course a big old rebate. [SEPH]: The history of/reason for the rebate is explained at http://theconversation.com/the-uks-e...xplained-58019. Just thought people might like to know.

I warn you all again, if they can realise their direction of travel (i.e. federalisation), then our parliament will be trumped by the European Parliament - and those power hungry politicians are no better than our useless politicians. Difficult as it is to unshackle and untangle, the longer we leave it, the harder it will get.




---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:33 ----------



Have they compromised? Didn't we opt out where our veto could have stopped the whole thing they were trying to do? I think it is we who compromised by not using the veto.

Those tricksters allowed France to make working rules as restricted across the EU as they were in France - to stop others being more competitive. When we vetoed it, they moved the directive into Health & Safety which only required a qualified majority. As Mick says, they are con-merchants and only want our net contribution and market because we are otherwise a lost cause to their stupid federalisation plans.

My questions was, did the EU compromise and let countries opt out? Not just the UK by the way of course. To say the EU never accommodate the UK is not correct.

By the way, the ‘cannot deport due to owning a cat’ is a lie. It was after a deportation hearing about a Bolivian and their right to family life under ECHR, not an EU thing. Thereasa May has been criticised for repeating this lie - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171980

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Dave42

they also no we be only country in world with 0 trade deals if it a no deal Brexit the pound will plummet must worse that it did after the vote to leave

Well, you keep saying that, Dave, but has it occurred to you that we could use much of the same wording we have with the EU trade deals as a transitional arrangement pending negotiation of new bespoke trade deals? This is not rocket science, and talks have been held with many countries behind the scenes, including with Japan, Ausralia, New Zealand, India and the US that I know about.

Don't forget also that you don't need a trade deal to trade!

[Sephiroth]

[QUOTE=jonbxx;35966380]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

My questions was, did the EU compromise and let countries opt out? Not just the UK by the way of course. To say the EU never accommodate the UK is not correct.

[SEPH]: You didn't pose a question. You extolled what you perceived to be accommodation for the UK by the EU.

By the way, the ‘cannot deport due to owning a cat’ is a lie. It was after a deportation hearing about a Bolivian and their right to family life under ECHR, not an EU thing. Thereasa May has been criticised for repeating this lie - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171980

[SEPH]: That's more or less calling me a liar; you shouldn't do that unless I am lying.

The same case was reported in the Telegraph:

The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a "private and family life", and joint ownership of a pet was evidence that he was fully settled in this country.

:

A court's consideration of the right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights often focuses on whether an immigrant should stay in Britain because they have children who were born in this country. However, this is believed to be the first time the courts have been asked to attach weight to joint custody of a pet.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...f-pet-cat.html

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Well, you keep saying that, Dave, but has it occurred to you that we could use much of the same wording we have with the EU trade deals as a transitional arrangement pending negotiation of new bespoke trade deals? This is not rocket science, and talks have been held with many countries behind the scenes, including with Japan, Ausralia, New Zealand, India and the US that I know about.

Don't forget also that you don't need a trade deal to trade!

they is no transitional arrangement if it a no deal Brexit it a massive fall of a cliff edge OB and there is countries lining up to object to our WTO terms too

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Dave42

they is no transitional arrangement if it a no deal Brexit it a massive fall of a cliff edge OB and there is countries lining up to object to our WTO terms too

Dave, if I was in charge of this, I would be talking to various countries with whom we wanted a trade deal and getting agreement in principle on the detailed arrangements we were looking for post Brexit. You are aware, of course, that we cannot enter into anything formally until we actually leave.

If it is not possible to ensure that we can get bespoke deals on day one when we leave, all we have to do is get a general agreement with each of those countries that the existing arrangements will continue, for a period of, say, 2 years, during which time negotiations for a new deal were continuing. The document for these interim arrangements would be drawn up, and this would give us the window we need to secure a new bespoke deal with each country.

As I said, not rocket science, you just have to think it through. You can't just throw up your hands at every problem that comes your way and declare "We're doomed" or "The end of the world is nigh" bcause we're not, and it isn't.

And let's not forget that we will continue to trade with the EU, deal or no deal.

Originally Posted by Dave42

they is no transitional arrangement if it a no deal Brexit it a massive fall of a cliff edge OB and there is countries lining up to object to our WTO terms too

Then get your precious EU to stop pissing about with the negotiations, they are the ones currently being the bloody difficult imbeciles here offering zero concessions as per usual, but oh no, not a bad word to say about the corrupted EU fools have you ?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mick

Then get your precious EU to stop pissing about with the negotiations, they are the ones currently being the bloody difficult imbeciles here offering zero concessions as per usual, but oh no, not a bad word to say about the corrupted EU fools have you ?

So HMG is not being difficult in the negotiations either? as yes the EU are being difficult but they are not the ones who are pulling out of the EU as its up to Theresa May and her government at the end of the day to come to a agreement with the EU and thus so far in two years they have agreed basically diddly squat and my hunch is there will be another delay come next March l suspect.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Mick

Then get your precious EU to stop pissing about with the negotiations, they are the ones currently being the bloody difficult imbeciles here offering zero concessions as per usual, but oh no, not a bad word to say about the corrupted EU fools have you ?

trying to put words in my mouth again when have a I ever said EU was precious like most remain votes on here EU is far from perfect but we have benefits being a member and our MPs been more corrupted that EU has even been