0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on December 05, 2018, 03:39:02 pmI thought we could leave without conditions. I thought the whole reason for leaving was to rid ourselves of conditions. Surely I wasn't alone in thinking this?You are right BB. Everrone I know who voted Leave voted to do just that. Leave without all this negotiation. A clean break.Now that some of them have realised that this would be a disaster they have changed their minds.Only a second vote will sort this out.
I thought we could leave without conditions. I thought the whole reason for leaving was to rid ourselves of conditions. Surely I wasn't alone in thinking this?
If it's made clear prior to the vote that this one is final and binding on this issue then hopefully it will concentrate people's minds and at least we'll get the result from an informed position, whatever the outcome.
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on December 05, 2018, 03:39:02 pmI thought we could leave without conditions. I thought the whole reason for leaving was to rid ourselves of conditions. Surely I wasn't alone in thinking this?EXACTLY! It's not hard to understand is it?
Quote from: IDM on December 05, 2018, 12:40:49 pmIt would have been ideal to have been able to vote for a clearly defined Brexit, don’t you think, regardless of whether you vote leave or stay.?We will end up with a situation which satisfies no one..Great idea it was to vote for a massive change when no one knew what it meant in reality, with no chance to reverse or reinforce the original outcome.. where’s the democracy in that.?My argument isn’t about leave or remain, it’s about having clarity.. a vote on the deal or a 2nd referendum may give a larger leave majority but at least that would be on the grounds of more realistic information..As far as I remember the referendum was clear enough, leave or remain?Definition of leave:A1 [ I or T ] to go away from someone or something, for a short time or permanently: I'll be leaving at five o'clock tomorrow.He left the house by the back door.She left the group of people she was with and came over to speak to us.The bus leaves in five minutes.
It would have been ideal to have been able to vote for a clearly defined Brexit, don’t you think, regardless of whether you vote leave or stay.?We will end up with a situation which satisfies no one..Great idea it was to vote for a massive change when no one knew what it meant in reality, with no chance to reverse or reinforce the original outcome.. where’s the democracy in that.?My argument isn’t about leave or remain, it’s about having clarity.. a vote on the deal or a 2nd referendum may give a larger leave majority but at least that would be on the grounds of more realistic information..
You can't leave a f**king phone contract without lengthy negotiations and a fee to pay.
I am saying that I think other EU countries would love to trade with us after we leave if they were allowed to.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on December 05, 2018, 02:56:57 pmALAs numerous people have noted, that was the problem with the Referendum in 2016..Leave was a single, well defined outcome. Leave was an umbrella term that covered dozens of potential outcomes. There was never and there still isn't anything remotely close to a majority for a No Deal Brexit. That was barely even discussed in 2016 and it certainly wasn't advocated by the Leave campaign. Leaving on those terms would be the ultimate perversion of the Referendum result.No need to worry though agent May has done a cracking job of creating such a rotten deal that we will probably end up staying in, either officially or by any other name. More decades of misery and serfdom to come...
ALAs numerous people have noted, that was the problem with the Referendum in 2016..Leave was a single, well defined outcome. Leave was an umbrella term that covered dozens of potential outcomes. There was never and there still isn't anything remotely close to a majority for a No Deal Brexit. That was barely even discussed in 2016 and it certainly wasn't advocated by the Leave campaign. Leaving on those terms would be the ultimate perversion of the Referendum result.
HAThe benefit is that we have unfettered access to the biggest and richest economic market in world history. That's how things work. You choose ceding a certain amount of choice for the economic benefits. And that's before you factor in what a right-wing Govt would do in this country if it was entirely free to make its own political decisions. On stuff like working conditions. Holiday pay. Maternity leave. Environmental regulations. Etc etc.
HA. On the same topic, I think you've got a bit of a misunderstanding going on when you say "...immediately after the result was announced, the EU forbid any other member state to begin trade talks with the UK, despite a number of countries wanting to begin their own trade negotiations immediately."Countries that are members of the CU and SM could not unilaterally have trade negotiations with us. That's the whole point of the CU and SM. You cede your power to make individual deals with third countries and in return you get the huge benefit of unrestricted trade with 450million of the wealthiest people who have ever lived, right on your doorstep.If France, say, decided that they wanted to do an individual deal with Brazil, say, on terms that were not the same as the agreement that the EU has with Brazil, that would bring the whole CU and SM down. Because then France would be an entrepot for goods that weren't SM compliant, and France would be unilaterally making deals that gave them preferential terms on things like tarrifs, compared with how the rest of the EU could trade with Brazil.So, if you are in a CU and SM, you CANNOT make trade deals with other countries.So, there was never any question of EU countries INDIVIDUALLY making deals with the UK, wanting to do so or being stopped from doing so.The thing you are talking about was something different. The UK negotiators, led by Davies, wanted to have individual discussions with the Govts of the EU countries on what the terms of the deal between the UK and the EU should be. There's a phrase for that. It's called "divide and rule". offer each country something in order for them to push behind the scenes to get the EU negotiators to give us a deal where we got all the benefits but none of the constraints of membership of the CU and SM.But is WE got that, then, understandably, every other country would want that deal.But if EVERY country got that deal, then the SM and CU and all their benefits would cease to exist. So ALL the EU countries agreed that they would not have unilateral discussions with us. because they saw where it would lead. They agreed that the negotiations would be between the UK and the EU countries COLLECTIVELY represented by EU negotiators.I'm genuinely baffled why you think that is some sort of nefarious action.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on December 04, 2018, 05:05:28 pmHAThe benefit is that we have unfettered access to the biggest and richest economic market in world history. That's how things work. You choose ceding a certain amount of choice for the economic benefits. And that's before you factor in what a right-wing Govt would do in this country if it was entirely free to make its own political decisions. On stuff like working conditions. Holiday pay. Maternity leave. Environmental regulations. Etc etc.Billy, So you’re saying that the UK doesn’t benefit from political interference from the EU, however it’s the price we pay for economic trade?
Quote from: Axholme Lion on December 05, 2018, 04:08:39 pmQuote from: Bentley Bullet on December 05, 2018, 03:39:02 pmI thought we could leave without conditions. I thought the whole reason for leaving was to rid ourselves of conditions. Surely I wasn't alone in thinking this?EXACTLY! It's not hard to understand is it?And that I am afraid is where you bought the lie. When/if we leave the EU we dont actually leave one thing. What we actually will do is break 759 international treaties that we have negotiated as an EU member and we will not now be a party to as an non-EU member. Unless and until we re-negotiate them as an individual member. I posted a link on the other thread to a fascinating talk I attended recently about this.These treaties cover vast swathes of our life on topics such as:aircraft movementuse of the channel tunnelmovement of radioactive material (x-ray plates and power station fuel)movement of medicinesmovement of animalsaccess to fishing groundslanding of fishrecognition of driving licencesaccess to criminal databasesLeaving the EU without a deal doesn't mean trading on WTO terms, it means normal life will stop.https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e
HA.No it did NOT stop us from conducting trade negotiations with countries outside the EU. What do you think Liam Foz has been jetting off round the world doing for the past 30 months?What it stopped us from doing was SIGNING trade deals with other countries, whilever we were still members of the SM and CU. Just as it prevents every other EU country from doing.