we have that every 5 yearsOriginally Posted by DrPatrickBarry
we have that every 5 years
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
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.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
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.
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.
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 ECJ
There are trade deals all over the world.
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?
Last edited by Oracle; 15-05-2019 at 04:53 AM.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote