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
207
79%
Leave the European Union
54
21%
 
Total votes: 261
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Hexx » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:43 pm

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.

User avatar
Squinty
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Norn Oirland

PostRe: Brexit
by Squinty » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:46 pm

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


:slol:

User avatar
Schiess dem Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Schiess dem Denster » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:00 pm

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

User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Hexx » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:05 pm

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

User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:08 pm

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


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

Image
User avatar
lex-man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Brexit
by lex-man » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:31 pm

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.

User avatar
Schiess dem Denster
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Schiess dem Denster » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:58 pm

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?

User avatar
jawafour
Member
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: Brexit
by jawafour » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:59 pm

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.

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 3:10 pm

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.

User avatar
Tell Karl his brother is dead
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Brexit
by Tell Karl his brother is dead » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:35 pm

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?

User avatar
Lastpostamorph
Member ♥
Joined in 2010

PostRe: Brexit
by Lastpostamorph » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:38 pm

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.

Lagamorph's Underwater Photography Thread
Zellery wrote:Good post Lagamorph.
Turboman wrote:Lagomorph..... Is ..... Right
User avatar
jawafour
Member
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: Brexit
by jawafour » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:43 pm

lex-man wrote:(Capability to create law and cut trade agreements)

You have given me a thought, lex-man. If we were back when Margaret Thatcher formalised the UK’s economic and political union with the EU, I wonder if the same fears and thinking would arise at the thought of joining the EU? Would we have been concerned at the law changes and trading rules that the EU could impose?

Returning back to possible trade deals with other countries, it feels that better negotiating conditions could take place when the UK is joining discussions on the basis of creating trade agreements rather than political integration.

Image <<< Thanks to Hyperion for my ace Christmas sig :wub: Image > Enter Mastaba
User avatar
jawafour
Member
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: Brexit
by jawafour » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:46 pm

Lagamorph wrote: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.

Laga, we were in a position where reasonable discussions were taking place. It’d be a shame to tarnish that by putting such provocative words into mouths... especially when the chat has not mentioned anything of that type.

Image <<< Thanks to Hyperion for my ace Christmas sig :wub: Image > Enter Mastaba
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:49 pm

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”.

Image
User avatar
Hyperion
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: Brexit
by Hyperion » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:56 pm

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

Last edited by Hyperion on Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image Image Image
User avatar
jawafour
Member
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: Brexit
by jawafour » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:56 pm

Moggy wrote:...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”.

True, and I accept that some of the bodies you mention are critical for helping to maintain cohesion amongst countries.

But, yes, I would prefer the UK to have as much responsibility and accountability as possible for law, rather than defer aspects of it to another body.

Image <<< Thanks to Hyperion for my ace Christmas sig :wub: Image > Enter Mastaba
User avatar
Partridge Iciclebubbles
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Brexit
by Partridge Iciclebubbles » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:04 pm

jawafour wrote:
Moggy wrote:...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”.

True, and I accept that some of the bodies you mention are critical for helping to maintain cohesion amongst countries.

But, yes, I would prefer the UK to have as much responsibility and accountability as possible for law, rather than defer aspects of it to another body.


Then I say again, where do you draw the line?

Scottish independence?

Cornish independence?

London independence?

A small village getting independence?

One house?

Why is the UK being subject to laws (while being a full decision maker) in the EU any different to Westminster making laws over the whole of Britain? Why should representatives from Birmingham, Bolton and Bodmin have an equal say over laws that have an impact on the people of Bristol?

Image
User avatar
Tell Karl his brother is dead
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Brexit
by Tell Karl his brother is dead » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:07 pm

Trade agreements are a form of political integration, no two large economies are ever going to say "let's open up our market to each other" without a long list of demands. Remember when the US used NAFTA to push Hollywood-designed IP laws on its neighbours? (I was only a year and a bit old at the time but Jawa might!) The TPP included provisions designed to help Malaysia improve its human rights record. TTIP contains clauses so controversial we aren't allowed to read the negotiating drafts, probably including mechanisms for the US to undermine socialist healthcare in Europe. ACTA encroaches on our right to privacy and criminalises generic medicine. Not all of these things are bad (I am happy that Malaysia cracked down on human trafficking!) but many of them are -- we deal with it because at the end of the day trade and growth are important.

By contrast, at least the EU gives the average person a little say in which laws are created (via MEPs) and has demonstrated flexibility towards us in the past (the US definitely won't be as accommodating!).

User avatar
jawafour
Member
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: Brexit
by jawafour » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:13 pm

Hyperion wrote:...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...

Would the EU be that shining beacon for UK citizens? Don’t get me wrong; I do like some of the laws delivered through the EU i.e. maximum working hours and working rights. Even so, it feels like a reasonable position to choose that the government is the centre of law for the UK rather than through a wider political body.

Moggy, I need to run out the door now so forgive me for not fully quoting - but the “line” that I draw for UK law is the UK borders. Some folk may not agree with that (i.e. folk who want, say, Scottish or Cornwall independence) but personally I am comfortable with the UK government devising and administering law for countries in the UK.

Image <<< Thanks to Hyperion for my ace Christmas sig :wub: Image > Enter Mastaba
User avatar
Tell Karl his brother is dead
Daiakuma
Daiakuma
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Brexit
by Tell Karl his brother is dead » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:17 pm

I don't really understand what you mean by 'the centre of law', I don't want to offend you but it seems like a phrase that doesn't actually mean anything. The UK government is and has always been and will continue to be the ultimate arbiter of whether we accept into our laws any agreement struck or proposed by any international organisation. We could reject directives from the EU, from NATO, from the WTO, from the UN (and so on) if we wanted to. No-one is going to come and arrest the Prime Minister if we withdraw from those agreements because we don't like something they proposed. (But we would lose all the benefits of being in those organisations.)

I don't think we should pre-emptively withdraw from all those obligations just in case they might do something later on which might cause us to have to withdraw from them. That seems like a tortuous chain of logic and not particularly rational to me, and I think you'll see that if you think about the UN, so I don't see why the EU is a special case.


Return to “Stuff”