Brexit

Oh just shag and get it over with. Although given it's Denster I assume that'd be like Moggy throwing a sausage down a hallway

Oh Jawa, reading your post was (again), RAGE inducing.

The UK is (was?) the worlds 5th largest Economy, that is correct.

The European Union is the worlds second largest economy.. Taking out the UK, the EU is still roughly 5 times the size of the UK's economy.

Also, this feeds into the line that 'both sides will lose out economically', again correct but if both sides take the same hit, the UK will be hit harder, using, like....logic and stuff.

Hexx wrote:Oh just shag and get it over with. Although given it's Denster I assume that'd be like Moggy throwing a sausage down a hallway

He's had the op now, it will be tighter than a nun in a convent, Moggy will have a great time.

Errkal wrote:

Hexx wrote:Oh just shag and get it over with. Although given it's Denster I assume that'd be like Moggy throwing a sausage down a hallway

He's had the op now, it will be tighter than a nun in a convent, Moggy will have a great time.

Why are you both assuming that we haven’t already had sexual intercourse*?

*please don’t use crass words like “shag” in here, won’t ANYONE think of the Jawa?

Moggy wrote:

Errkal wrote:

Hexx wrote:Oh just shag and get it over with. Although given it's Denster I assume that'd be like Moggy throwing a sausage down a hallway

He's had the op now, it will be tighter than a nun in a convent, Moggy will have a great time.

Why are you both assuming that we haven’t already had sexual intercourse*?

*please don’t use crass words like “shag” in here, won’t ANYONE think of the Jawa?

because both of you are far too highly strung to have got your end wet recently.

Edit! Sorry!

And Jawa is precious and must remain unspoiled.

Denster wrote:I was gonna sign off with ‘snivelling wankpig’ but I thought it would detract from the dignity and solemnity of my post.

Pfft. Moggy doesn’t even want a hard Brexit!

I'm sure he'd be up for a hard Denter.

Hexx wrote:I'm sure he'd be up for a hard Denter.

Errkal can’t spell but at least he’s funny.

jawafour wrote:

lex-man wrote: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.

I don't see the reasoning behind linking trade agreements with the ability to define and administer law. Any country (or block) in the world that creates laws may need to amend them... and, yes, in some case that may be done to support a trade agreement. But the desire for a country to be able to define it's own laws would seem - to me - reasonable. Any such country would have 100% control over law... but with the understanding that some aspects may be modified in order to negotiate agreements (on trade, weapons, movement or anythuing else) with others.

But that is essentially the deal we have with the EU now. The UK parliament can change any law it likes without asking the EUs permission. Although if we change anything that is mandated by the EU we'd be thrown out. If we got a free trade deal with the US we'd have to change our laws to match the US's and we'd be free to change those laws, but changing them would end the trade deal.

It's also perfectly possible that the US would want us to change laws unrelated to trade. They might ask for an end of mandatory holiday for British workers for example or changes to extradition to the US, so we have to send prisoners who may face the death penalty.

Hexx wrote:I'm sure he'd be up for a hard Denter.

Sadly for Moggy and unlike May - I’m selective who I get into bed with.

DUP what I did there?

.

jawafour wrote:

lex-man wrote:...The UK parliament can change any law it likes without asking the EUs permission. Although if we change anything that is mandated by the EU we'd be thrown out...

Exactly. At present, the UK doesn't hold full management of law. Personally, I like the idea of the UK being able to devise and administer its own law.

lex-man wrote:...If we got a free trade deal with the US we'd have to change our laws to match the US's and we'd be free to change those laws, but changing them would end the trade deal...

There may be elements that the UK could decide to amend as part of negotiations. I think it unlikely that the UK would decide to amend too many laws so that they match those of the USA, though.

lex-man wrote:...It's also perfectly possible that the US would want us to change laws unrelated to trade. They might ask for an end of mandatory holiday for British workers for example or changes to extradition to the US, so we have to send prisoners who may face the death penalty.

I guess it's a possibilty but, I'd suggest, somewhat remote. Would the USA really say that a trade deal could only be agreed if the UK amended workers' holiday entitlement? I am not overly familiar with the process for holding trading negotiations between countries but I would be surprised if changes to prisoner extradition were to form part of those talks.

It's conceivable possible as it would benefit US companies who would be able to try and push it as part of any agreement, they'd also push to have the NHS privatized as it would be view as a monopoly stopping trade. To do a free trade deal with the US we'd have to change most of our food, manufacturing and medical laws at a minimum. It's possible that we would have to change other areas of our laws as well.

The point is there is no real difference between any free trade agreement and EU membership both put limitations on the countries involved abilities to make new laws.

The thing that upsets me about the "they made our laws!" argument was that we could have just left in the future if it had ever become a problem.

International communities (the EU, NATO, the WTO, the UN...) all come with obligations and expectations, and there is always the option to leave those organisations if we no longer wish to fulfil them. To give an oversimplified example, if Trump said "OK boys, we're invading China!" we could say "no, that's stupid" at the cost of our NATO membership.

We could have left the EU at any time if they had pushed through a law that was a deal-breaker. Or, more likely, we could have negotiated an exemption, just like we were exempt from Schengen and the Eurozone. So I'm wondering which particular laws you feel were worth the cost of leaving now? The negatives are relatively strong - huge economic damage, diminished international power and standing, the stripping of EU citizenship from millions of people who relied on it - so wouldn't it have been better to wait and see?

But Karl you don't understand. The EU won't let us stop all the foreigners coming here and taking all the jobs and houses and benefits and stopping proper British people getting them because every foreigner is a queue jumping asylum seeker. And then they stop us arbitrarily sending people back to countries where they'll be tortured and killed.

.

.

jawafour wrote:Exactly. At present, the UK doesn't hold full management of law. Personally, I like the idea of the UK being able to devise and administer its own law.

We won’t have any that in the future either.

WTO
NATO
UN

You know what, it’s easier to put a link to Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor ... ed_Kingdom

We no longer live in the 1800s. The world is bound up in countless treaties, organisations and agreements that stop any nation having “full management of law”.

The laws thing only makes sense if you can name some EU laws that you would like to get rid of or that we couldn't opt out of. Or, alternatively, if you believe that the UK government is going to become a shining beacon of the creation of laws for the benefit of the majority of its citizens. Plus we already make our own laws and have to abide by various others from various other international institutions

The trade deals thing, yes, great to negotiate our own. But we don't have any experienced negotiators, and you're extremely unlikely to get a better deal than you would as part of the EU. It's akin to a cornershop trying to get a better deal from a supplier than Tesco

.