we have that every 5 years :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Printable View
we have that every 5 years :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
Noel you are being totally vague.
"is this what you want?"
something along those lines? That gives us a yes or no and in all likelihood puts us nowhere nearer as the WA of may would receive a no.
The devil is in the detail, but you don't give us any!!
This is what I want.
Out of the EU.
Able to set our own trade deals.
UK Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the law.
Note I'm quite relaxed about immigration which is a perceived biggy, because once we have the above, immigration policy will be down to the UK Government of the day and we can vote them in and vote them out.
There's the big plus. Once we have a clean Brexit, many of the nuances everyone are on both sides are on about are still options. Parties can campaign on them and if elected carry them forward.
What is key is not signing up to an agreement from which a future Govt cannot leave.
My "wish list" is entirely within the scope of the referendum debate.
Anyone who says we didn't vote to leave the EU or Customs union are Remainers. Leavers did. We were told it on numerous occasions by Cameron, Osborne, Gove, Johnson, Mandelson, Major, Clegg.....
So it's Canada style FTA, WTO basis and if we cannot agree a Withdrawal Agreement alongside a signature ready FTA (which is what the May Government said 2 years ago we would have had 2 months ago, then we just leave.
YOu might not agree, but that is a clear position. I don't give a toss about Dr Pat telling me about the Belfast Agreement or hard borders. That is what I voted for, I haven't heard one Leave voter advise me they voted for anything different.
Only those learned Remainers who can't quite grasp why I voted how I did, but seem to be able to grasp the nuances that influenced my vote.
Say the EU and the UK have a trade deal. There is a dispute because one side is accused of violating it?
Which court has the jurisdiction to make a ruling?
When countries agree free trade deals they normally agree that an impartial body or panel is set up to adjudicate in the event of a dispute or they can ask an international body such as the International Court of Justice or WTO to adjudicate.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
You seem to want to paint a united front on this. But in reality there's clearly a difference of opinion among leavers about what type of brexit we should be pursuing and how to get there. Some would prefer a no-deal, some would prefer a deal, some would even prefer to be within the customs union, some would settle for a no-deal if the deal isn't what they think would be in our best interests (which is entirely understandable). And there's a lot of difference of opinion about what would constitute a deal that would be worth avoiding a no-deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
There are also those who voted on the basis of what certain politicians told them was achievable, and who have changed their minds having seen that this isn't the case.
Where do you get this assumption Noel ? The referendum asked do you want to leave or remain? Anything that came after is not relevant. I never for one moment had any notion of a "deal" when I cast my vote. I assumed we would leave in totality not with some half baked political film flam.
So anything will do as long as it is not the ECJQuote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
There are trade deals all over the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
They started centuries before EU and ECJ existed.
They will continue long after EU and ECJ are thankfully dead and buried.
Europe will still trade, and as exporter pre 92 all over the world I can say it it was actually easier.
Much as the over expensive, useless , undemocratic , low growth EU would have you believe, you don't need an ECJ to trade.
Tribunals sort it out. Sometimes not pretty. But then, the French ignore rulings anyway.
Next?
I am still waiting for a good reason to remain?
The world has bigger problems. The avalanche of fiat money.
Wherever you look, from Japan to Italy, china to Australia, and worst of all the US
The financial system is teetering on a knife edge.
The Chinese will not buy US treasuries again, so the ability of US to prolong the imbalance of trade will fail. The US will find the time honoured practice of US military attacks on those who threaten the dollar hegemony will no longer work as a foreign policy which is all that keeps the dollar from collapse because of domestic deficit. The list of those who wanted to settle oil in other currencies than the dollar is long and distinguished: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Iran...sounds Familiar? The ability of US to hide inflation of 6-7 percent pA with creative accounting is also coming to a close. All are quietly stockpiling gold, except Fort Knox which is increasingly empty. It won't be pretty when the bubble bursts.
Let's see who can get an economics question right: who owns the Fed? The biggest central bank of the lot?
Who cares ‘who owns the Fed?’ ?
Who’s our best bet to look after the NHS? Who’s likely to protect jobs over the next say 10 to 30 years? Who has even a vague interest in the environment, maybe not for us but for our children’s children? Oh, and who really funds the wretched Farage’s latest pack of lies and deception? One last one: would you recommend we vote for what I saw described recently as Poundland Capt Mainwaring on his ‘vote now, see what I’m going to do at some point in the future’ ticket?
You've lost me there. Why do you call referring a dispute to a respected and neutral international organisation "anything will do"? Of course it is infinitely preferable to the dispute being adjudicated by the other side.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
As Wheeze has said, where do you get this from?Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I haven't come across one Leaver who wants the Customs Union. The EU wants it. Some Remainers who are cracking on they want to leave now want it. probably as they see it as keeping us "rejoin ready".
But no leavers.
And then you talk about a deal. Mrs May doesn't have a deal. She's agreed a notice process in the form of a treaty that hands the EU all the future leverage for the negotiation of any deal, and makes it impossible for the UK to leave that process without the permission of the EU.
The EU has said, it will not put any meat on the bone of a deal, until we have signed off on the Withdrawal.
So we cannot leave with a deal, we can only leave with a view to discussing a deal, whilst handing the EU it's severance.
You do understand that don't you Noel?
Now in terms of leavers there is an almost unanimous united front.
We want to leave with preference for a FTA, but if that cannot be secured in a satisfactory way, yes we will accept leaving to WTO terms.
Just consider that the Brexit Party is polling at around 35% on a platform of just leaving. It could be at 40% by next week,
I know people who do. I also know people who now think Brexit was oversold and wouldn't have backed it if they'd known the reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
If there's so much consensus and as you point out both major parties are for Brexit, who do you think it hasn't been achieved? It seems to me that people are pulling in different directions and want different things out of Brexit. What's your take on it?
I think we've covered that before - the people who have been in charge of the process are not leavers. They see Brexit as a mistake not an opportunity. So they are engaged in what they perceive as a damage limitation exercise. It was very telling when Guy Verhofstadt revealed that Olly Robbins had asked him for Belgium citizenship. I don't know if he was joking or not but even if it was it shows his mindset.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Known the reality? We haven't got it yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
and what Muddy said ;)
By the way, I don't think I've ever said both main parties were for Brexit. I have said they both claimed to be, in their manifestos at the last election for example, but its clear that out of their 550 ish MPs probably only 200 or so really are for Brexit and that is why it hasn't been achieved.
Yes she did, without shouting, and did brings things back to a panel discussion. This is in reply to CL post above!
They certainly know the reality now, is just as we told themQuote:
Originally Posted by noel
Eu are a bunch of sh??ts! That pour money down drains,
More intent on expanding their own power than the wellbeing of citizens.
Nobody surely can now support EU , now they know how it behaves,
Remain was always oversold, since it has nothing to commend it, but costs a fortune.
Yes, I think that's true. If there had been a majority of MPs genuinely in favour of brexit we probably would have left without an agreement by now. Some will say we might have achieved a deal by now if that were the case, as we would have taken a harder line in the negotiations, but I'm not convinced about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Having said that, a majority of MPs did vote to invoke article 50, so they must have been up for Brexit on some level.
Still, we are where we are. It's still hard to see what's going to happen. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't be putting any bets on just yet.
Noel, I have no doubt that people have had second thoughts about this. I did too but have enjoined in this thread to examine that doubt and listen to the arguments. Over time I have been able to put my doubts to one side as it becomes clear that all this political prevarication is clearly designed to overturn the referendum result. It is despicable political chicanery. But no question, other people may well have changed their mind. Its inevitable.
Had Davis been allowed to proceed without interference from the start, I think we would have left.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
The EU want access to our market, they want as frictionless trade as possible.
That's what we want.
They also want £39B.
If we could not have reached a full agreement by 29/3 then we would have left in to a WTO perhaps with an interim holding plan, left the £39b on the table and said, come on, let's see what we can work out.
I'm convinced the EU would have come to an arrangement, even if they waited until the current Commission was moved on.
[/QUOTE] Having said that, a majority of MPs did vote to invoke article 50, so they must have been up for Brexit on some level.
[/QUOTE]
Remember the Article 50 vote was in March 2017.
May then called a General Election and lost 13 seats.
That meant returning Remain MPs could actually create mischief knowing they could actually beat a minority Govt even with the DUP support, if only 10 or so Tories rebelled.
That's what happened.
The whole shit-show is down to May and her inner circle.
She conceded on the timetabling.
She called an election without consulting cabinet, when she'd insisted all along she wouldn't.
Worst manifesto since Foot - arguably worse.
Lost an almost 20% poll lead in 4 weeks.
She agreed to the Dec 2017 protocol which put the backstop in to place.
She brought in a backdoor white paper at Chequers.
but it cuts both ways. Some Remainers will now be leavers. Roughly the polling says not much has changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
I thing more remainers are changing.
EU election will show a massive response to leave
2 to 4 I’d say. A big change on earlier
You couldn’t resist. Ah well that’s the way it goes. Funnily enough I did have a bad feeling about it despite the first leg lead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
Ah, now I get it. well done Derby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
Boris Johnson has confirmed he will stand for leader once Mrs May goes
And she is going when she loses the next brexit vote
The sooner the better so as to give a new Brexiteer prime minister time to greatly increase no deal planning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
Will we see more ferry companies set up?
This all reminds me of the Millenium Bug.
On the stroke of the new millenium, computers were supposed to fail causing power supplies to fail, planes to fall from the sky, everything to stop working. In a word, Armageddon.
And what happened? A load of IT people made a shedload of money, companies shelled out thousands on bug fixes and the rest of us crossed our fingers and hoped.
Apart from a massive hangover, I did not notice anything different about Jan 1 2000. The harbingers of doom were all piss and wind!!
Let’s hope you’re right Wheeze (assuming this Brexit thing actually goes ahead at some time)
Speaking of piss and wind what’s happened to th’ Oracle. I have a post a couple of pages back he didn’t reply to
and we are repeating it again with the climate change emergency. Apparently money invested in Green technology is among the best returns at the moment, averaging 9%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
Witton Park in support for former Revolutionary Communist shocker
a bit of thread hopping there DT :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
But it shouldn't be a shock.
I've long held the view that traditional left and right is no longer relevant and the Brexit debate is evidence of that.
It is now a libertarianism against stateism.
I would renationalise the Royal Mail.
I'm also open to letting two or three rail franchises run down and bringing them back in to public ownership to see if the service can be improved without hitting the public purse.
I'm for enhancing the working time directive to address some of the anomalies in it that drive the volume of part-time contracts, short shifts and erratic shift patterns making a home life and financial security out oft he reach of many.
They would be perceived as leftish policies, but I see them as libertarian policies that can be embraced by left and right.
I found the link to this on a professor's twitter feed.
I was more surprised to see a prof putting this sort of info out there. He must be a crank :D
and even more surprised to see it in the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ithin-20-years
"Majority of Europeans 'expect end of EU within 20 years"
the prof states "as Aristotle said, someone who actually lives in a house can know more about it than those who designed and built it."
I am an I.T professional so I know something about this. Let me expain PCs were never the issue with the Millenium Bug. Devices with issues included small devices (hand helds, etc) that contained internal clocks and were optimized as much as possible (due to power/memory constraints) and could not support a four digit year and very old devices, namely old Unix servers running COBOL/DB2 and other old languages. All of these retired COBOL programmers were rehired by the banks to update their ancient programs to support four digit years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
My own company at the time spent a fortune testing and working with manufactures to fix issue with the vibration monitors that were key to our business.
The media were so smarmy with their "there never was a problem" There was not a problem becasue of millions of hours of work by I.T professionals.
Dr Patrick Barry beat me to it!! Millennium bug was sorted by alot of programming by alot of people hence no issue!!
That's the problem with fixing things. People then say "you see, it wasn't a problem after all". Hopefully we'll get to this with climate change, but I doubt it.
So: we have another vote on the EU Withdrawal Agreement in the week beginning 3rd June. Theresa May will resign when (not if) she loses the vote. Donald Trump arrives on 4th June; so Mrs May will have a cast-iron excuse for not meeting him: "I've resigned, I am not in a position to meet a visiting President." The woman's a genius!
not until we can develop a thermostat for the Sun, control the earth's tectonic plates, divert the Jet Stream and control the flow of ocean currents.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
But never mind, according to Rebecca Long-Bailey nationalising National Grid will help to save the planet and the new York City Council Coalition have appointed a Director for Climate Change.
[QUOTE=DrPatrickBarry;650373] Devices with issues included small devices (hand helds, etc) that contained internal clocks and were optimized as much as possible (due to power/memory constraints) and could not support a four digit year and very old devices, namely old Unix servers running COBOL/DB2 and other old languages. All of these retired COBOL programmers were rehired by the banks to update their ancient programs to support four digit years.
How come 1999 was not a four digit year?