Brexit

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.

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.

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.

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.

God this is depressing. Davis basically begging EU leaders to change tact.

Can't even name a single company that agree with his amazing post-Brexit trading Utopia.

Jawa, the point has already been made, but free trade agreements always come with a loss of “sovereignty” because to have free trade you have to agree to certain standards and rules. The reason for that is because to have free trade, you have to have a relatively level playing field.

That isn’t just an EU thing, NAFTA resulted in the USA, Canada and Mexico agreeing to changes in laws and regulations. The EU and Canada deal resulted in changes in laws and regulation.

That leads onto your second point, if we want 100% sovereignty then we cannot have free trade deals.

Sure we can negotiate trade deals with other countries that are not free, but that will take at least a decade (with all the economic hardship that that entails) and will result in tariffs. Which means we will give up membership of the biggest free trade area in the world to maybe get some sort of reduced tariff deal with some hypothetical countries in the future.

A decade of hardship for a worse deal that might not even happen. That isn’t logical.

I don't think Jawa is stupid I just think he's a generally really optimistic guy, which is to be championed. It grates but I'm an old codger.

Photek wrote:I don't think Jawa is stupid I just think he's a generally really optimistic guy, which is to be championed really. It grates but I'm an old codger.

No.

It's got to be ground out of him until we've smashed his spirit so he's a disilusioned and world weary as the rest of us.

Photek wrote:I don't think Jawa is stupid I just think he's a generally really optimistic guy, which is to be championed really. It grates but I'm an old codger.

I don’t think Jawa is stupid and I don’t think anybody has suggested he is (Hexx might have, I only skim his posts ).

Hexx wrote: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

All common sense seems to have flown out the window - why the hell would anyone want to agree to any trade terms with us right now when they know we'll soon be in a much weaker, more desperate negotiating position post-Brexit?

Garth wrote:

Hexx wrote: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

All common sense seems to have flown out the window - why the hell would anyone want to agree to any trade terms with us right now when they know we'll soon be in a much weaker, more desperate negotiating position post-Brexit?

Because the WILL OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE votes for it? How dare they not respect democracy etc etc

This is why a lot of the post referendum talk about people talking down Britain is nonsense, the problem we have is an over-inflated sense of our own worth.

.

God I just want to crush Jawa's spirit...by hugging him so tight.

He's adorable.

Edit

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.

That's pretty much now btw

Possibly, man... but is it better to have little belief in Britain?

Should we let people walk over a cliff because they believe they can fly? (If they're Leave voters...maybe. Jk. Probably)

The problem most Leaver's have is they think they're opinions actually mean something. Some idiot at some point has convinced them that all opinions are equal.

Remain

The vast majority of experts, and experienced individuals say X willm lead to a worse outcome. Here's Evidence A, B and C, along with 2 case studies and worked example.

Leave

Pfft. Stop being so pessimistic. It'll be great.

Remain

Why?

Leave

NO ONE CAN SAY! LET'S HOPE FOR THE BEST! IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN IF YOU SABOTAGE IT.


It's the exact thing Trump/the right did. Facts vs Feelings - present a false equivalency to empower the delusion arrogance your base.

jawafour wrote:FAKE EDIT: Crumbs! Just as I finished this, I saw Rex's point:

Rex Kramer wrote:This is why a lot of the post referendum talk about people talking down Britain is nonsense, the problem we have is an over-inflated sense of our own worth.

Possibly, man... but is it better to have little belief in Britain?

Yes it is, but in the context of Britain's place in the world in the 21st century. Not, as it seems from the majority of Tory eurosceptics, the 1950s.

Moggy wrote:

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.

To be fair - it was a combination of me being slightly annoyed, having no pain meds and having to wait in the rain for an hour for the bus (strawberry floating Tories).

I did think the comment was crass but accept it was part of the banter we have.

I have criticised May on several occasions and it did annoy me but I may have given it more airtime than it needed.

I had also given my reasoning for May not answering. Whilst I accept you lot want answers - I just wanted to say I got why she didn’t.
Maybe sometimes I do feel the need to defend my corner and sometimes do but it is very hard to do that in here.
Given the relentless nature of some in here and the relative slowness or complete lack of progress on Brexit itself - I find thst this leads to arguments often becoming circular and non productive.

I’d wanted to post my opinion and reacted adversely to the suggestion that I just agreed unquestioningly with Tory policy and our glorious leader. Both are untrue and I like to think I’ve represented that in here and the other thread.

Let’s move on, Moggy. I still love you. Even though you’re a Vulgarian and a socialist.

As for misbehaving in a discussion thread. I nearly got broomed from here 3 years ago for being particularly obnoxious and provocative in the Scottish independence thread. Only a rethink and earnest apology saved me on that occasion. As Karl would attest. So, No I have no angelic claims in these sort of threads. Hence my rather handsome and heartfelt post previous.


It only applies to Moggy though.

jawafour wrote:

Errkal wrote:...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...

"We don't participate properly"? Whether we agree or disagree or disagree with the outcome, we're in the position we are now because of democracy. I don't get the argument - it feels equivalent to saying that, if you're - for example - a Liberal Democrats supporter, the Conservative government are "taking the piss" by not spending taxes how you'd like them to.

It isn't the same as that because that is supporting a person that isn't in power and expecting the party that is is in power to do what they said they would.

What I mean by the EU thing is that people say we that "they dictate to us" and that they make the laws and we have to follow, however we do have MEP's in the EU parliament which are meant to represent us, that's the democracy, that's the vote that represents us as a nation and has our say so it isn't dictated we are part of the process.

The issue is people don't know about that much and think we have no say because it isn't very well publicised that that is the case, people don't understand the EU, additionally a bunch of our MEP's are UKIP members who do not want to be part of the EU and as such do not add value to the process and do no champion the UK cause there, thus reducing our say and influence.

If we had people in the EU parliament from proper parties that wanted to be there our influence would be greater because we would MEP's that engage with the EU and don't just act like the kids at the back of the classroom that don't want to be there.

Denster wrote:

Moggy wrote:

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.

To be fair - it was a combination of me being slightly annoyed, having no pain meds and having to wait in the rain for an hour for the bus (strawberry floating Tories).

I did think the comment was crass but accept it was part of the banter we have.

I have criticised May on several occasions and it did annoy me but I may have given it more airtime than it needed.

I had also given my reasoning for May not answering. Whilst I accept you lot want answers - I just wanted to say I got why she didn’t.
Maybe sometimes I do feel the need to defend my corner and sometimes do but it is very hard to do that in here.
Given the relentless nature of some in here and the relative slowness or complete lack of progress on Brexit itself - I find thst this leads to arguments often becoming circular and non productive.

I’d wanted to post my opinion and reacted adversely to the suggestion that I just agreed unquestioningly with Tory policy and our glorious leader. Both are untrue and I like to think I’ve represented that in here and the other thread.

Let’s move on, Moggy. I still love you. Even though you’re a Vulgarian and a socialist.

I really just want to reply with “strawberry float off cuntflaps” but am worried you’re still off your meds and will take it as a serious discussion of the state of your genitalia.

Winky face here to show non-serious nature of post -

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