Brexit

Fed up talking videogames? Why?

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union
208
79%
Leave the European Union
54
21%
 
Total votes: 262
User avatar
Tell Karl his brother is dead
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Brexit
by Tell Karl his brother is dead » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:25 pm

The UK was already a sovereign country with ultimate say over its own laws. If there were some regulation that the EU came up with that we really hated, we could already refuse to implement it (at the cost of our EU membership being suspended). Wouldn't it have been better to do that then instead of pre-emptively?

The EU already approaches countries all over the world for trade deals (aren't Canada, Japan, and the USA all getting trade deals with the EU pretty soon?). It will take us decades to work out deals like that and the terms will be worse because we will have less leverage in the negotiations. Everyone knows we need these deals more than the rest of the world does.

User avatar
Pancake
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Pancake » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:07 am

If the whole point of your post is to say that 'this is not a discussion thread' then you are contributing to the fact that this is not a discussion thread.

If the whole point of your post is to point out that people who post to say that 'this is not a discussion thread' are contributing to the fact that this is not a discussion thread then you are contributing to the fact that this is not a discussion thread.

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:49 am

Denster wrote:I was insulted by the assumption that I just accept anything May does. This is demonstrably wrong. This is a discussion thread and should be above petty insults. The fact that it was me saying it - I thought would hit home how crass it was.


You are really setting yourself up to have this thrown back in your face later on. Are you suggesting that in a “discussion” thread that you have never used crass language, insulted anybody or insinuated anything about anybody that isn’t 100% true? Are you sure that you will never do any of those things again?

If it really offended you that much, then I apologise for making any suggestion that you would applaud Theresa May for shitting in your mouth. I realise that you would not actually applaud her for doing that and that you don’t support every single act that she may or may not carry out either in the past, present or future.

However, if this was actually just a way to avoid answering difficult questions by jumping on and making a fuss about an obviously silly comment, then I take back that apology and tut loudly at you because you should be better than that.

Image
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Hexx » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:44 am

jawafour wrote:
1) I prefer the idea of the UK being in a position to devise and administer laws independent of outside influence.

2) I like the notion of the UK being able to approach countries worldwide and agree trading processes independent of outside influence..


1) [Edit Ignoring the vast overplayed nature of our "loss of sovereignty" that KP explained above!] Then there's a dozen and one other international bodies you'll have to leave, and also you won't ever be able to trade with anyone (unless you think that other countries in the world will magically bend to our standards, regulation and arbitration. Which admittedly most Leave voters seem stupid enough to believe)

2) "I want the UK to leave the biggest free trade area in the world with access to dozens of international trade deals with the largest economies in the world. We can then start with 0 trade deals and a desperately weak negation hand." Do I ever need to say anything?

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Hexx » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:55 am



(Amusingly - Jeramiah was right)

Key Narrative Points:

> Brexit Negotiations are a battle. We will "beat" Junker, we will not "surrender". Gotta play to the broken little egos of Brexiteers. They're gonna be winners.
> Brexit is being sabotaged/undermined by Remainers. Not the UK's disasterous approach to "negioation" by Brexiteers Davis and Johnson (and stooge May). If not Winners, it'll be because nasty people stole it from you. Not your idiotic choices

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:01 am

Hexx wrote:


“white flag”, “treachery”, “Jeremiah next door”.

I’m guessing that the Daily Mail are not a fan of the Chancellor?

By that I mean Chancellor of the Exchequer, we all know the Daily Mail were big fans of a certain German Chancellor in the 30s....

Image
User avatar
DML
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by DML » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:03 am

If Hammond goes and Johnson stays, I'm not sure what that says about this government.

Image
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:07 am

DML wrote:If Hammond goes and Johnson stays, I'm not sure what that says about this government.


I think we do know what it says. :lol:

Image
User avatar
Rocksleddy
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Rocksleddy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:12 am

For the love of god please don't sack Hammond. He's the only person in a prominent cabinet position with a modicum of common sense.

Image
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Hexx » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:13 am

Rocsteady wrote:For the love of god please don't sack Hammond. He's the only person in a prominent cabinet position with a modicum of common sense.


I'm willing to bet you a shiney new £1 coin that he'll be gone soon.

Either solo, or with Johnson as a May tries to appear "fair to both sides".

Anyone catch Liam Fox this morning? Christ....

User avatar
Rex Kramer
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Rex Kramer » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:26 am

Liam Fox is proof positive that there really is no price for failure in modern politics.

Image
Current castaway: Rax can be found here. All the previous contributors can be found here.
Tackling the pile of shame part 2 - http://grview.grcade.co.uk/articles/the-7-commandments-of-tackling-the-pile-of-shame/
User avatar
Rocksleddy
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Rocksleddy » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:38 am

Hexx wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:For the love of god please don't sack Hammond. He's the only person in a prominent cabinet position with a modicum of common sense.


I'm willing to bet you a shiney new £1 coin that he'll be gone soon.

Either solo, or with Johnson as a May tries to appear "fair to both sides".

Anyone catch Liam Fox this morning? Christ....

Until the Mail started their hack job in earnest I wouldn't have agreed with you. Sadly now I think you're right - I could see them both gone in the reshuffle.

Image
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:41 am

Rocsteady wrote:
Hexx wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:For the love of god please don't sack Hammond. He's the only person in a prominent cabinet position with a modicum of common sense.


I'm willing to bet you a shiney new £1 coin that he'll be gone soon.

Either solo, or with Johnson as a May tries to appear "fair to both sides".

Anyone catch Liam Fox this morning? Christ....

Until the Mail started their hack job in earnest I wouldn't have agreed with you. Sadly now I think you're right - I could see them both gone in the reshuffle.


Boris is too much of a danger to May to be outright sacked.

Hammond can be disposed of to the backbenches easily. To try and play both sides she’ll probably demote Boris from FS, but still give him a cabinet post.

Image
User avatar
Garth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Norn Iron

PostRe: Brexit
by Garth » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:45 am

Getting rid of Hammond seems like a pretty stupid move to me, so I guess it's going to happen.

Image
1784-9768-8381
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Hexx » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:51 am

God this press conference is grim

Barnier: "No profess towards moving past the mutually agreed 1st stage"
Davis: "We've got to talk about stage 2. Why won't you walk about Stage 2? I'm sure you'll agree to stage 2 next week"


On the plus side both making positive noises about Irish border.

User avatar
jawafour
Member
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: Brexit
by jawafour » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:57 am

Hexx wrote:
jawafour wrote:
1) I prefer the idea of the UK being in a position to devise and administer laws independent of outside influence.

2) I like the notion of the UK being able to approach countries worldwide and agree trading processes independent of outside influence..


1) [Edit Ignoring the vast overplayed nature of our "loss of sovereignty" that KP explained above!] Then there's a dozen and one other international bodies you'll have to leave, and also you won't ever be able to trade with anyone (unless you think that other countries in the world will magically bend to our standards, regulation and arbitration. Which admittedly most Leave voters seem stupid enough to believe)

2) "I want the UK to leave the biggest free trade area in the world with access to dozens of international trade deals with the largest economies in the world. We can then start with 0 trade deals and a desperately weak negation hand." Do I ever need to say anything?

I don’t get the suggestion that the UK being able to create and administer law would impact trade negotiations. The UK would be daft to create laws that would deter other countries from wanting to trade.

For the second point, I feel that the UK is capable of striking trade deals worldwide. Sure, I’d prefer the UK and European countries to strike a trade agreement, though, and I feel it may economically damage both parties if a deal wasn’t struck.

Image <<< Thanks to Hyperion for my ace Christmas sig :wub: Image > Enter Mastaba
User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Brexit
by lex-man » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:10 pm

jawafour wrote:
Hexx wrote:
jawafour wrote:
1) I prefer the idea of the UK being in a position to devise and administer laws independent of outside influence.

2) I like the notion of the UK being able to approach countries worldwide and agree trading processes independent of outside influence..


1) [Edit Ignoring the vast overplayed nature of our "loss of sovereignty" that KP explained above!] Then there's a dozen and one other international bodies you'll have to leave, and also you won't ever be able to trade with anyone (unless you think that other countries in the world will magically bend to our standards, regulation and arbitration. Which admittedly most Leave voters seem stupid enough to believe)

2) "I want the UK to leave the biggest free trade area in the world with access to dozens of international trade deals with the largest economies in the world. We can then start with 0 trade deals and a desperately weak negation hand." Do I ever need to say anything?

I don’t get the suggestion that the UK being able to create and administer law would impact trade negotiations. The UK would be daft to create laws that would deter other countries from wanting to trade.

For the second point, I feel that the UK is capable of striking trade deals worldwide. Sure, I’d prefer the UK and European countries to strike a trade agreement, though, and I feel it may economically damage both parties if a deal wasn’t struck.



The point of number 1 is that in order to create trade deals both countries would have to change their laws. If we sign a trade deal with the US we'd have to agree to legalise chlorinated chicken for example. So parliament wouldn't have the level of control over UK law that Brexiters say they want.

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Hexx » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:16 pm

jawafour wrote:
Hexx wrote:
jawafour wrote:
1) I prefer the idea of the UK being in a position to devise and administer laws independent of outside influence.

2) I like the notion of the UK being able to approach countries worldwide and agree trading processes independent of outside influence..


1) [Edit Ignoring the vast overplayed nature of our "loss of sovereignty" that KP explained above!] Then there's a dozen and one other international bodies you'll have to leave, and also you won't ever be able to trade with anyone (unless you think that other countries in the world will magically bend to our standards, regulation and arbitration. Which admittedly most Leave voters seem stupid enough to believe)

2) "I want the UK to leave the biggest free trade area in the world with access to dozens of international trade deals with the largest economies in the world. We can then start with 0 trade deals and a desperately weak negation hand." Do I ever need to say anything?

I don’t get the suggestion that the UK being able to create and administer law would impact trade negotiations. The UK would be daft to create laws that would deter other countries from wanting to trade.

For the second point, I feel that the UK is capable of striking trade deals worldwide. Sure, I’d prefer the UK and European countries to strike a trade agreement, though, and I feel it may economically damage both parties if a deal wasn’t struck.


The key words were "regulations and standards" (ignoring other areas). The UK can make and administer it's laws - but it will likely be subjective to massive outside influence as it does so - as trading parties will demand good etc of certain nature/standards. It's a nonsense point.

Where has anyone said the UK isn't capable of striking trade deals worldwide? Just that it's hard to see it beating free trade with the largest zone in the world + associated deals. And then that it will somehow broker better deals with trading partners from a weaker position? (Read abotu TRQ right now to see how predatory our "allies" are being) Fox's department is currently rushing round the world to say "You know the deal you have with the EU? We can just copy/paste that right?" and getting laughed out of the room


What you're effectively arguing is "I want the UK to have much worse trading conditionsd" and then being confused why people laugh

Also - it will be worse for the UK even if the UK/EU reach a trade deal. The EU (and many others) have explained this repeatedly. You HAVE to understand this point - we are not going to get all the perks of membership just because we want them.

Last edited by Hexx on Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Christmas CrackErrkal
Social Sec.
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: Brexit
by Christmas CrackErrkal » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:17 pm

jawafour wrote:
Hexx wrote:
jawafour wrote:
1) I prefer the idea of the UK being in a position to devise and administer laws independent of outside influence.

2) I like the notion of the UK being able to approach countries worldwide and agree trading processes independent of outside influence..


1) [Edit Ignoring the vast overplayed nature of our "loss of sovereignty" that KP explained above!] Then there's a dozen and one other international bodies you'll have to leave, and also you won't ever be able to trade with anyone (unless you think that other countries in the world will magically bend to our standards, regulation and arbitration. Which admittedly most Leave voters seem stupid enough to believe)

2) "I want the UK to leave the biggest free trade area in the world with access to dozens of international trade deals with the largest economies in the world. We can then start with 0 trade deals and a desperately weak negation hand." Do I ever need to say anything?

I don’t get the suggestion that the UK being able to create and administer law would impact trade negotiations. The UK would be daft to create laws that would deter other countries from wanting to trade.

For the second point, I feel that the UK is capable of striking trade deals worldwide. Sure, I’d prefer the UK and European countries to strike a trade agreement, though, and I feel it may economically damage both parties if a deal wasn’t struck.


point 1: it isn't so much we would put in law that would impact trade, but that when you do a deal you have to conform to the other parties laws and standards, which means conforming to laws you have no say or influence on. With the EU however we do have say in them as we have MEP's part of the issue is they are seen as not doing anything etc. which is partly that the stuff the EU does to our benefit is now never ever made obvious, and a bunch of our MEP's are UKIP members who don't want us there and so are effectively taking the piss by taking money from the EU in pay and doing strawberry float all for us. Which then gives us less say and influence purely because we don't participate properly not because we can't or the EU in undemocratic.

point 2: yeah in theory this is great but you have to consider what we can actually offer. as the EU a trade deal is attractive as you get "stuff" from all the member states, as the UK we have far far far less to actually offer and so have less leverage to get a "good" deal, now over time this may change and we may start making or doing more I doubt it. It isn't just about being able to make deals it is being able to actually offer something in a deal that people want.

bear
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by bear » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:23 pm

So in the last week or so:


Increased chance of Boris as PM- Sterling goes down

May suggests she might sack Boris- Sterling goes up

Hammond's job under thread- Sterling goes down



Obviously there's more going on than just that but this sort of thing needs to be highlighted.


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bunni, Dowbocop, FatDaz, Frank, Mistletooth, Moz, OldSoulCyborg, PuppetBoy, smurphy, Tragic Magic, TV Dinner, zXe and 57 guests