Agreed on those matters, that's why until recently I was a remainer. Unfortunately that good deal came with a lot of baggage that we didn't want and you've known that for the last three decades.
Now we need a new deal.
Agreed on those matters, that's why until recently I was a remainer. Unfortunately that good deal came with a lot of baggage that we didn't want and you've known that for the last three decades.
Now we need a new deal.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
A deal which will boil down to :
1. You will pay the 'exit-fee'
2. You will play by our rules
3. You will give free movement to EU citizens
4. If 1-3 are satisfying to the EU you will stay in the internal market
What you will have won is the right to not give those idiotic in-job benefits to people who can't support themselves through work.
Congratulations Britain, you have reduced yourself from member to supplicant, in order to uphold some crazy law nobody else would consider.
Congratulations America
No that is not the deal since we are not seeking 4. If we were you might have a point. Before negotiations even start we have already said we will leave the Market and not just the EU.
For what it's worth I would have been happiest probably with an EFTA style solution but oh well.
WTO rules it is, then. Have fun.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Hope is the denial of reality
You are not imaginative enough to think of something between Single Market membership and WTO rules?
So you can form other agreements with nations like Erdogan's Turkey and Canada etc but not us? Interesting.
You still fail to understand that non-tariff barriers are far more damaging than tariff ones. And simple trade agreements don't do much to remove them.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't, I hope and expect a trade agreement that deals with NTBs. You might want to look into the removal of non-tariff barriers in deals with nations like Erdogan's.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Shows how divorced from reality some people are that they think getting what we want is a punishment.
Got to laugh too at the faux outrage at the suggestion that security co-operation can't be up for discussion with trade and must be completely separate and divided; while at the same time having for years suggested that trade and other issues like immigration were indivisible. If trade is to be discussed on its own completely separate from other issues like migration and security etc then that seems good for both sides.
We can. But not in 18 months. Look at how long CETA took. And Turkey might not be the best example, either.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
18 months is achievable if we put our mind to it, especially if we agree transitional arrangements.
Normally with third party negotiations like Canada etc we are starting with two completely different sets of arrangements and laws etc and trying to negotiate where to merge them to be the same and who should give way where. This isn't the case for the UK, we already have the same laws etc where relevant to the EU as we are already a part of the EU. Instead in future we may divert but if we sign agreements not to divert in critical areas X, Y and Z that are necessary for the free trade agreement then to simplify things that is the end of the matter. Much easier.
Yeah, easy. Right. Nevermind actual experts saying that it's far from easy. Pardon me if I trust the word of people who actually craft such agreements over armchair generals.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Keep shifting those goalposts. I never said it would be easy, I said it would be different to normal.
Dude, "easy" is equal to "achievable in 18 months". Agreements on trade deals are usually measured in years. Not to mention that discussions on anything trade related will come after the discussions on what the Brexit will actually mean.
I never shifted any goalposts. I pointed out that you're deluding yourself.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
How a Brexiter can complain about changing goalposts with a straight face is beyond me.
Hope is the denial of reality
Transitional agreement = Continued and full application of EU law, being under ECJ jurisdiction and NO voting powers. We can live with that, but can you?
Congratulations America
Sure we were routinely outvoted anyway and I was hoping to Remain until a few months before the Referendum it's not like I'm a hardcore leaver.
Loki because that's what's been happening by Remoaners ever since the vote. Hence my joke at the top of the thread about "but you haven't invoked Article 50 yet".
Semi-off topic: https://dutchreview.com/news/interna...nt-annexation/
Dude, you had Veto-rights on the important stuff. Nobody could "outvote" you.
It's the same thing which will make the exit talks very dicey - because everybody has veto-rights. "Outvoted". Yeah, right.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
So you're saying nothing important was decided by QMV?
Well, let's see. Nice, and later Lisbon, did indeed change some stuff from unamity to QMV. Strangely enough, this change required a unanimous vote. So, you're complaining about rules you yourself established.
I think that's what the word "hipocrisy" is for.
Oh, and regarding "routinely": let's have a look at 2008 (since that's a year easily found). How many times were you outvoted?
So, there were 147 Council decisions. 128 of them passed unanimously. For the rest, there was a number of abstentions (32 in total) and 8 real counter votes.
Two by Luxembourg, and one each for Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, and Portugal.
Yeah. "Regularly", my ass.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I did look some more. November 2016:
Total decisions by the council: 8. The Uk voted against: Zilch.
October 2016:
Decisions: 8. Uk voted against: Nada.
I'm detecting a trend here. Have fun looking for yourself.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I voted against Lisbon not for it. Well as close as possible to it I voted for a party pledging a referendum on the EU Constitution as it was then called when we had an election as Indeed did all UK parties in the 2005 election. Unfortunately because the Constitution was rejected by the French and Dutch it was rebranded Lisbon and passed without asking the French, Dutch or indeed the British what we think. And we in fact threw out the Brown government that did that dirty deed and the rest is history.
I'm a firm believer that no government should bind it's successors and so no in no way do I accept we endorsed Lisbon. Brown's government did violating his parties manifesto and was chucked out of office afterwards. If this was a regular piece of legislation domestically we could repeal it but because it was an international Treaty that was not an option.
Then you oppose all treaties. Pacta sunt servanda.
Are you also opposed to WTO, NATO, and UN membership?
Hope is the denial of reality
Had the government that implemented the WTO done so having distinctly pledged at the election not to without a referendum first then yes it would be very dodgy the way it was endorsed.
Actually very little is decided by voting at all in the EU. Holding a formal vote over a subject almost amounts to admitting defeat. It's something I don't particularly like in the way the EU works, but it is very uncommon for a country to be outvoted. And that includes the UK.
Congratulations America
All very nice, but international agreements are not ruled by internal considerations of a high contracting party. To introduce your way of thinking in the way you deal with treaties means you are not a suitable party to engage with.
In the real world walking away from your liabilities means you become a pariah. And if you want to get some idea of what that means, ask the Argentineans.
Congratulations America
If you believe no government should ever be able to bind its successors, in any situation, then it doesn't really matter whether or not a govt went against its own election manifesto in joining an international treaty. And, if my recollection of our most recent discussion is even remotely accurate, your position is indeed that even the most kosher international treaties are in practice non-binding for the purposes of international law.
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
Now, who is changing the goalposts here? You were just talking about how you were "regularly outvoted". I just proved that this is bullshit.
In case you're unable to comprehend your own language: "Regularly" means "more than once, on a predictable basis".
And this "no government should be bound by its successors" is equally bullshit and shows that you are a moron of the highest order. Go back to your pub and stay there.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Okay look RB says a lot of objectionable things but that there was wholly unwarranted. Go to the corner and take a time out
Or to a pub
“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
