The lisbon treaty - a poll

Here you can comment on political news, create threads for open discussion.

Moderators: PoshinDevon, Soner, Dragon

Does the Lisbon treaty say the UK has already agreed that the UK must join the Euro by 2022

No I do not believe this
28
78%
Yes I do believe this
2
6%
I care but am not sure if it says this or not
1
3%
I do not care
5
14%
 
Total votes: 36

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 51 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Did the referendum not basically ask whether you were happy with the EU or not and the way it had developed under the treaties we had already had?
Look all this stuff about 'future' change came as a response to YOUR argument that we must leave now because if we do not in the future x will be forced on us against our will. I find it pretty disingenuous of you to now make out that I am arguing that the referendum result was about future changes and not the state as it is now.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 52 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
No what happened was they had a referendum at a time that made sense and not one timed by the petty needs and miscalculations of a single party. The people were asked. They said no. Changes were made and the people were asked again and in light of those changes they said yes. It was the PEOPLE who said yes the second time after the changes.

You can not have it both ways, either asking the people on such issues is valid or it is not. So will you claim that the people of Ireland , when asked if the changes made in response to their first rejection were enough to gain their support in the second referendum, were too stupid or weak or lazy or influenced by demagogues and politicians that they were not capable of making a valid judgement in the second referendum ?

Ok what were those game changing changes made?


So to clarify the people were too stupid or weak or lazy or influenced by demagogues and politicians that they were not capable of making a valid judgement in the first referendum ?

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 53 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
Look all this stuff about 'future' change came as a response to YOUR argument that we must leave now because if we do not in the future x will be forced on us against our will. I find it pretty disingenuous of you to now make out that I am arguing that the referendum result was about future changes and not the state as it is now.
No the referendum was do you want to leave or remain. Couldn't have been simpler. That's why us simpletons could understand it.

turtle
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 865
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012 10:44 am

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 54 of 148 in Discussion

Post by turtle »

I think there is a lot of truth in what has been said about the people mistrust in our MPs and Parliament in general but to suggest we don't leave the EU and first sort that problem out sounds to me like a bit of desperation to stay, For me people and commentators seem to think that all this started in 2016 after the vote when really the problems of anti EU feeling has been festering since 1975.
Every treaty we have signed has been sold to us as something completely different to how they have turned out over time from the earliest "Common Market" stitch up to the more recent very mistrusted Lisbon Treaty, Every single treaty has turned out to be very different to what we were lead to believe and when that treaty has "ran it's course" another one is trotted out with more far ranging changes to the way we live our lives and to me that is why millions of people simply do not trust the EU as to the content of a treaty and what the final outcome will be before the next one appears in a few years time.
You only have to watch the rantings of that mad man Guy Verhorshit as to where these unelected people want to take the EU.
I don't trust the Lisbon Treaty and I wouldn't trust the EU if they told me Today was Sunday...

Chriswright03
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed 21 Mar 2018 10:22 am

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 55 of 148 in Discussion

Post by Chriswright03 »

erol wrote:
Chriswright03 wrote:I thought this was supposed to be a poll not a discussion!
Is there some reason that I have failed to see or understand that means it has to be one or the other and can not be both ?

Not at all Erol but generally a poll is there to get an impression of how people fee l and is different from a discussion. At least in forums I have had experience of in the past. This is more of an excuse to carry on a discussion from a previous locked thread. Let's be honest here this is, if not the most certainly one of the most likely to divide opinion and no matter how much each side puts their rightly held view the sides will never get any closer so the divide will always remain as big. So it just begs the question what is the point?

I understand that you have strong views on the subject and you are rightly entitled to as are others be it agreeing or not. Surely it must be obvious to you as an educated person they will not change so surely a poll would have done more than another argument (discussion). Just my view of course.

User avatar
waz-24-7
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 917
Joined: Sun 24 Aug 2014 2:37 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 56 of 148 in Discussion

Post by waz-24-7 »

reverting to the heading on this topic,

I would have no issue to enter into the Euro.
As the business world becomes smaller in logistical and communication terms. It is only a few currencies that essentially run the world of finance.
Sterling is losing its influence and BREXIT will only isolate it more. The need to convert and lose on transaction delays and costs provides no advantage to UK trade. £ sterling has a limited life span as the UK declines from influence.

Furthermore,
There appears a clear discontent with politics. Earlier BREXIT threads have been very critical on the European parliament and its functionality.
Now it is clear that the UK parliament in full of incompetence. Win back control they say!! What a joke.
The whole BREXIT mess is not what people voted for. The people are far better informed about the risk and turmoil involved. I honestly think the majority were hoodwinked into believing it would be so so easy.
3 years on with no deal. No wonder the people are sounding out for a say. A proper informed say on the county's future relationship with our largest trading partner.

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 57 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Ok what were those game changing changes made?
It does not matter in the sense that the people are always 'right' by definition. Any claim that they were wrong, for whatever reason, they were hoodwinked, they did not know what they were voting for, they did were too stupid to understand etc etc etc are the kind of arguments that are used re the UK referendum. You either believe in the people to make these decisions or you do not. They were right when they rejected the first proposal and they were right when they accepted the second, even if there were no changes between the first and the second (though actually there were).
The first referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 12 June 2008 was rejected by the Irish electorate, by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%, with a turnout of 53%.[5]

The second referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon held on 2 October 2009 and the proposal was approved by 67.1% to 32.9%, with a turnout of 59%.[6]

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 58 of 148 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

EU Trade......I will leave this here.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

https://researchbriefings.files.parliam ... P-7593.pdf

Yes EU trade is important but it is not as straightforward nor as clear cut as some would want you to believe.

For those that may have forgotten.......

Leave 51.9%. 17,410,742

Remain 48.1%. 16,141,241

Turnout 72.2%

The arguments to remain or leave have been debated ad nauseum on this forum but what I always maintain is that the turnout was unprecedented. Now put aside the lies, deceit, project fear or whatever that was pushed prior to the referendum (and is still being pushed) by both sides, the choice on the ballot paper could not have been simpler. Now if the voter had any doubts about leaving the EU then the default position would be to vote remain (Better the devil you know and all that). However; the surprise and something not anticipated was that the majority of those who voted decided that on balance they wished to to leave the EU. The result was certainly unexpected but that was the result.

For me almost 3 years on, I still want the U.K. to leave the EU that has not changed. I am sat watching, reading and digesting every argument from all sides and like millions feel badly let down by the infighting between political parties and MPs. I have also been less than impressed by senior politicians and negotiators on the EU side as frankly some of their comments have been at best unhelpful and at worst have inflamed the situation.

Whatever the deal or indeed no deal we should leave and start the serious discussions as to the future. Bored with the white noise.
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 59 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: No the referendum was do you want to leave or remain. Couldn't have been simpler. That's why us simpletons could understand it.
OK I think you are missing my point here. This thread started we me setting up a poll that was about one aspect of the 'bullet points' that had been posted else where. I was genuinely interested to try and get some idea as to if anyone actually believed the stuff in those bullet points. I chose the one about the euro as an example, where the bullet point said the UK had already agreed and accepted in the lisbon treaty, that was signed in 2009, that by or in 2022 the UK must adopt the Euro (something that is totally not true).

The 'conversation' then moved to, to para phrase, 'ok it has not already been agreed, but that is what will happen in the future'. To which I pointed out, that can only happen with the UK's consent. Without it, it can not happen. Then it moved , how could Cameron have tried to recognise the strength of feeling, that had been ignored by politicians for decades, if not to offer an immediate referendum , despite it being a stupid time to have such. To which I suggested that he could have offered such a referendum at the next earliest time that it made any sort of sense (next round of treaty change).

This then is when you point out the referendum we did have was about 'are you happy with remaining in the EU as it exists today'. I found that 'disingenuous' not because I do not agree that it was about that but because the conversation to that point was about the future, about if we would, if we stayed in, be forced to adopt the euro against our will and the suggestion by me, in response to you asking what could cameron have done differently in the face of strong feeling and loosing seats to ukip, that the referendum could have been set for a sensible future date.

For you to then shift the entire thing to was the referendum we did have about 'are you happy with the EU or not and the way it had developed under the treaties we had already had? ', as if I had some how argued anywhere that it was anything else - that is what I found 'disingenuous'.

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 60 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

Chriswright03 wrote: Not at all Erol but generally a poll is there to get an impression of how people fee l and is different from a discussion. At least in forums I have had experience of in the past. This is more of an excuse to carry on a discussion from a previous locked thread.
OK I get where you are coming from now much better and thanks for explaining it to me. I did not start the poll with some kind of subversive attempt to start up and continue a conversation, that Soner had already shut down in a previous thread. I started the poll, because I was just curious as to if there were people who believed that the Lisbon treaty, singed and agreed by the UK in 2009, stipulated in it that all EU members, UK included, had to join the Euro in or by 2022. When that led to the conservation in the thread that Soner closed starting up again , I did (and am) continuing to participate in that. I am doing so, not thinking that Soner wanted this discussion to stop but that I will ignore that. I am doing so thinking that Soner shut the thread because the original poster had asked him to and that he did not want it to continue there in that thread. Now I might be wrong about my 'guesses; about Soner's wishes and intent but I have met Soner and I have 'interacted' with him as a 'mod' so my guesses are not totally uniformed. If I have got it wrong and that in fact Soner would prefer that the discussion just stop anywhere on the forum I would like to think he knows me well enough that all he needs to do would be message me and ask me to stop and that I would have no problem or issue complying with that, there would be no protestations from me about my 'rights' and 'free speech' or the like. So it is on that basis that I continue to discuss here.
Chriswright03 wrote:Let's be honest here this is, if not the most certainly one of the most likely to divide opinion and no matter how much each side puts their rightly held view the sides will never get any closer so the divide will always remain as big. So it just begs the question what is the point?

I understand that you have strong views on the subject and you are rightly entitled to as are others be it agreeing or not. Surely it must be obvious to you as an educated person they will not change so surely a poll would have done more than another argument (discussion). Just my view of course.
As to 'what is the point' - for me the 'point', the reason why I take the time and trouble to participate in such discussion is nothing to do with wanting to change other peoples minds and opinions. I understand how that statement may look like BS to others. I also understand that I may be lying to myself. However for me the point of such discussions, the 'value' I get in return for the effort I put in is entirely 'internal' and is all about trying to, for myself, to better understand (and review and adjust) what I think and why I think it. The discussion is just a 'process' or 'means' that helps me do that. As long as I feel I get some benefit from a discussion in those terms, then that for me is the 'point' and makes it 'worth the effort' and if I do not feel I am getting any such benefit, I stop. Whether I do or do not influence anyone else in the process is for me entirely irrelevant.

Chriswright03
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 999
Joined: Wed 21 Mar 2018 10:22 am

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 61 of 148 in Discussion

Post by Chriswright03 »

Erol I am certain if Soner wanted the thread to stop he would close it as well. I am sure he trusts you to keep it within acceptable limits and I am not for one minute doubting your reason for starting the poll. My opinion (and that is all it is) is that it is a pointless argument and certainly not one that will be resolved. I just think you must enjoy banging your head against a brick wall.

I am quite happy to just float on by and ignore the thread from here on in and leave you to it but just thought my view was valid. I stress again it is only my view and other views are available.

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 62 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

PoshinDevon wrote:Whatever the deal or indeed no deal we should leave and start the serious discussions as to the future. Bored with the white noise.
Where I am 'at' currently.

I accept that the country voted to leave and that we should leave. I do not accept that because I voted remain, I have forfeited any right to any say or consideration of my view in how we leave.

I reject the notion, be it aimed at me or others, that because I voted to remain, that alone is all the 'evidence and proof' needed to show that any opinion or view I have about how we should leave must be motivated by a desire to 'thwart' the referendum result either directly or 'in name'. Now it could be claimed that because I signed the petition to revoke article 50, that is evidence that my desire right now is to 'overturn' the result of the referendum. I would claim that is not really the case. For me signing that petition was a direct reaction to TM's speech where she claimed to be on the 'side of the people' and the people who were not on the side of the people and were actively blocking and subverting the will of the people were MPs (of which she is also one). That speech left me incensed and signing the petition was a way of registering my anger and sending a 'FO' message back to TM. I can only speak for myself but I think there is clear indications that many many of the 5 million plus who have signed it did so from similar motivations to mine. Before that speech I had not signed that petition nor any other since the referendum that called for revocation of article 50.

I think right now the UK is in a mess and crisis politically the likes of which I have never seen before in my life and every day the current deadlock remains it gets worse. So the first thing I 'want' is some way forward out of the mess we are in. Looking at those possible ways forward.

Just leave with no deal on 29th March or 12 April. The only way I could accept this as a 'way forward' is if the people are asked this question directly via a referendum and the majority says yes. This is the case, not because I harbour a secret desire and ambition to thwart the UK leaving the EU and think by opposing no deal this could lead to that objective. I reject it because to me it is just madness for any country, what ever it is seeking to do or achieve, to chose to terminate 1000s (if not 10,000s) of agreements it has with 100s of other countries all on the same singular day and then seek to put them all back again 'after the fact'. My conviction that this is a bad thing to do is vastly greater than my conviction that on balance the UK is better within the EU than out of it. That is why the only way I could accept a no deal exit is if a majority of the people vote for it explicitly and directly. I am incensed at the idea that there are those who want and have always wanted such an exit and are seeking to exploit and manipulate the process to achieve it without any need to confirm there is majority desire for this.

Leave on the 12th April with May's deal. I think May's deal is one that reflects a 'hard exit' and that has been shaped entirely by Mays perceptions of the needs of the Conservative party and not the country and is just a bad deal in so many ways. I am incensed at TM attempts to 'manipulate the process' to try and force this down the countries throat by wasting time and running down the clock to present it a s a binary choice against either a no deal exit or no brexit result. I am terrified that even now this is all she intends to try and do. Having said all that , should a majority of MP's vote in favour of this I would accept that. The problem being this seems unlikely despite all TM manipulations and shenanigans, so is no way forward in any case.

Leave at some as yet unknown point in the future on a deal based around exiting the the EU whilst continuing in some form of customs union for now. This would be my personal preferred choice as to how we exit the EU. I accept and respect utterly anyone who says for them this would represent Brexit in name only (though I do not agree with that) but I reject and am incensed by anyone who claims that is also the case for everyone who voted to leave / the majority. If such a deal can gain a majority in the commons I would of course accept this. I am incensed that even investigating this as a possible option has been consistently blocked not just by the 'manipulations of the process' by TM but also by the likes of the ERG or parts of it, thinking that by doing so they can achieve a no deal exit without any need to confirm that the people agree with this kind of exit. I do think that without this blocking and manipulation by TM and some in the ERG and elsewhere we would now be set to leave the EU in 4 days time but that is just 'crying over milk already spilt' in terms of the objective of finding a way forward.

Second referendum on the original binary question. I do not accept this. In part because I do have problem's with the 'democratic deficit' it entails but could potentially be persuaded that despite that and given deadlock on any other way forward it is none the less the only was forward if it were not for the fact that if it returns a leave vote again then it does not achieve anything in terms of 'moving forward'.

Second referendum on something other than the original binary question. I have less issues with this as a way forward in terms of 'democratic deficit' than the option above but I am not sure if such can achieve the 'objective' of finding a way forward. I would accept a referendum on the question 'should we leave with no deal', as I said above but again this alone should it return a 'no' also does not achieve the objective of moving us further forward.

A general election Whilst obviously I would not 'reject' a general election I do not see how such will contribute to the objective of 'finding a way forward'.

These then are the current options as I see them that try and address my first and immediate 'want' - finding a way forward from the cesspit we are currently in. I would welcome and consider any and all other proposals that could achieve the objective of 'moving forward' or even have a significant chance of that.

I also have a second 'want' as a result of all of this and in many ways to me it is more 'important' even than the first but it is less pressing. I do want to 'talk about' this here and will when I have time try and do so.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 63 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

We are going around in circles coming up with the same arguments but I will leave you with one thought.
The 52-48% majority to leave is always claimed as too small to be decisive. I think I have proven that actually 52% of a popular vote is as big as any majority we have had in a General Election. Let's say we remain and then vote in a party to re-negotiate or look after our interests in Europe. They will gain a lot less than 52% of the vote.
But here's the thought. Let's say remain had won by 52-48%? Would they have thought, wow that is a massive vote that aren't happy with the EU we had better start to lobby for some changes? Maybe we need a soft remain?
If there is a re-vote the chances are if remain win at best they are going to reverse the leave majority. Then what?
My money is that they will think a majority is a majority and phew we dodged a bullet there.

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 64 of 148 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

My very simplistic view.... and if I am honest I cannot be bothered to go into the nitty gritty of it all because frankly I have said it and heard it all before.

Leave with PMs deal .........not the best deal by a long way but we leave and get on with it. It will not satisfy many leave voters nor remain voters but it’s not the hard Brexit some may fear. Think the date is May for this? My option 1 as it clearly gives a date to leave.

Leave with no deal 12th April......Not good at all and I would still hedge a bet that there would be twitching and turning right up to the last minute to see if anything could be salvaged rather than just leave. My option 2 as it sets a date to leave.

Extend the date to leave......Not in favour of this as it will just drag on and on and throw in more political turmoil and chance for politicians to ramble on. Not in favour at all.

Second referendum......no chance. We voted, the choice was clear as was the result. To have a second referendum would in my opinion be much much more damaging long term.

Election......A chance to turn the focus away from Brexit at completely the wrong time. This would delay things even longer and is no way a guarantee that on the return of MPs and whatever party is in government that we will be able to proceed to a consensus re leaving the EU. Would cause more turmoil when not needed. We should be focusing on leaving the EU.

Simplistic as they are I do believe there are millions of people who just want this finished and we get on with it. This is only the first stage and there is much more to be done negotiating our long term relationship with the EU and forging trade deals with many countries world wide.
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 65 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

The second thing that I 'want', the one that I actually think is more 'important', though less pressing, is that we, all of us, the nation collectively, use this whole experience as an opportunity to take stock and identify what 'went wrong' that we have ended up where we are today and to try and see if we can learn from that and find ways to things better in the future.

My big fear here is that in reality we just do not really care about such things outside of 'specific debates' despite these 'things' being ultimately way more important for the country, the people in and future generations to come. My fear is that much like those who were happy with remaining in the EU were not really concerned with things like EU treaties being ratified by our political system over 40 years even though there might not be popular majority consent for such at the time - until it all blew up in 2016, that so too those who voted leave who now raise and talk and discuss these issues in terms of Brexit will, once we are out of the EU, also not really give much of a toss about them either.

To me this would be a big shame. The whole Berxit thing has imo created a unique opportunity in terms of highlighting what some of the issues are and encouraging people to think and talk about them. It would imo be a shame to not use that to at least try and consider ways to make things better or less bad if you prefer. I think that should we not make use of this opportunity it would be shame is even more true given that when I look back at those aspects of the Brexit debate that have been about 'how we got here' and what 'went wrong' historically with our 'political system' there does seem to me to be widespread majority consensus around a number of core issues. Of course agreeing what the problems are is only the first stage and we may disagree on the ways to address such issues are but it is a start.

For example one of the common themes or 'identified problems' that there would seem to be quite wide agreement over, with leavers and remainers, is this notion that politicians, even though we can vote them out every 5 years, just go around doing things with no regard for if they have popular support or not. If the overwhelming majority of the people in the UK do feels this is it not worth at least expending some effort at considering if there are ways we might be able to reduce this problem ? Now I understand many people , maybe everyone but me, will think I do not carfe - and that is their choice of course. I would however say in response to that , that if we as members of the electorate do not have any interest or desire in putting in any sort of effort in to such debate and discussion, then really we also have little (imo) legitimate right to rail against any failings in our current political system.

So on the off chance that anyone else other than me has any interest in such things (and if they do not then fine and so be it) I will chuck a few suggestions in to the pot.

Look again at proportional representation or some form of it in some levels of government and consider if that might be a way or not of reducing this 'disconnect' between what our politicians actually end up doing in our names and what we actually want them to do.

Another idea , which is something I personally have long liked the idea of, is the idea that all ballots should come with an option of 'none of the above'. I like this idea not because I see that it would clearly make a positive difference. I 'like' it because it would cost nothing to implement, has no downside that I can see and might, by allowing people who feel this but currently have no way of having that view expressed and counted in a ballot, lead to politicians have and behaving with a bit more 'humility'.

The last option, for now, that I will throw out there that I have just had pop in to my head is this one. Whilst general elections can only happen once every 5 years or if 65% of parliament agrees to hold one what about the idea that the electorate in any give constituency can by some mechnism (maybe only once per parliamentary term) themselves call a 'vote of no confidence' in their local MP. Of course for such to require a new By election, it would have to require at least a majority of voters to support such a call and possible more than just 50%. Could some such system along these lines help to reduce the disconnect between people and those they have elected ?

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 66 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I think I have proven that actually 52% of a popular vote is as big as any majority we have had in a General Election. Let's say we remain and then vote in a party to re-negotiate or look after our interests in Europe. They will gain a lot less than 52% of the vote.
With respect, all it 'proves' to me, is that you have an uncanny knack for comparing apples with oranges when it suits

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 67 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

PoshinDevon wrote:My very simplistic view....
Can I ask your view, should it prove that the other options you have listed continue to be impossible to get majority agreement for in the commons, is on leaving with a deal that is leave the EU but maintaining participation in some for of customs union for now ? You seem to have skipped that and as well as that being my preferred option personally, from a pretty unattractive menu, I also think it is realistically a possible outcome. I am not enquiring as to if you like it but could you accept it ?

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 68 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: With respect, all it 'proves' to me, is that you have an uncanny knack for comparing apples with oranges when it suits
If/when there is the have another go second referendum I await you trying to convince us that 53-47% to remain is a landslide with amusement

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 69 of 148 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

Erol.....

See below. To me this is a non starter. How can we have a say on future trade deals when not in the EU.

Labour is proposing a new permanent customs union with the European Union (EU) after Brexit which would allow the UK "a say" in future trade deals.

Reality Check Verdict: EU law currently does not allow non-EU members to have a formal say or veto in its trade talks.

Labour says the EU has shown flexibility in the past and its proposal cannot be ruled out until the party has had a chance to negotiate formally.

Again this just seems a reason to keep us very close to the EU and prolonging the agony further. Plus I am not convinced the UK would then be allowed to negotiate its own favourable trade deals with those outside of the EU. I am not 100% certain but feel sure the EU would block this.
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 70 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
erol wrote: With respect, all it 'proves' to me, is that you have an uncanny knack for comparing apples with oranges when it suits
If/when there is the have another go second referendum I await you trying to convince us that 53-47% to remain is a landslide with amusement
Well firstly let me again be clear that for me personally such a second referendum is not some I support or advocate for. But let's continue with your 'hypothetical' for a bit.

If there was a second referendum and, too everyone's shock, the result came out as 67.1% in favour of remaining ? That number just happens to be the number from the 2nd Irish referendum, that as far as I understand you has in your opinion no legitimacy because it was the 'second asking'. Would the implied accusation of 'hypocrisy' in everyone who voted remain built in to your question still be there if such a result as this was declared a 'landslide' ?

My view is that should such a second referendum occur and should the result be as you suggest 53-47% it would be a form of madness to just then ignore the wishes and concerns of the 52% in the first ref and 47% in the second as if nothing had happened. In such an entirely hypothetical scenario I would be at the front of the queue of those that would argue, given all that we have learnt and been though, that it is vital, imperative, that we do not just say to those who voted leave 'you lost, tough titties, live with it'. I would argue that it is essential in such a scenario that we legislate that any future change to the EU / UK relationship must and can only be agreed to via a referendum. I would support the idea that continued participation should be reviewed and consent given again by the people via ref at set intervals, say every 10 years since the last or since the last treaty change ref should that pass. I would ask any leaver if they had any suggestions from as to if there was any thing that could be done, other than to leave the EU, to make them feel less pissed off and betrayed.

turtle
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 865
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012 10:44 am

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 71 of 148 in Discussion

Post by turtle »

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: No the referendum was do you want to leave or remain. Couldn't have been simpler. That's why us simpletons could understand it.
OK I think you are missing my point here. This thread started we me setting up a poll that was about one aspect of the 'bullet points' that had been posted else where. I was genuinely interested to try and get some idea as to if anyone actually believed the stuff in those bullet points. I chose the one about the euro as an example, where the bullet point said the UK had already agreed and accepted in the lisbon treaty, that was signed in 2009, that by or in 2022 the UK must adopt the Euro (something that is totally not true).

The 'conversation' then moved to, to para phrase, 'ok it has not already been agreed, but that is what will happen in the future'. To which I pointed out, that can only happen with the UK's consent. Without it, it can not happen. Then it moved , how could Cameron have tried to recognise the strength of feeling, that had been ignored by politicians for decades, if not to offer an immediate referendum , despite it being a stupid time to have such. To which I suggested that he could have offered such a referendum at the next earliest time that it made any sort of sense (next round of treaty change).

This then is when you point out the referendum we did have was about 'are you happy with remaining in the EU as it exists today'. I found that 'disingenuous' not because I do not agree that it was about that but because the conversation to that point was about the future, about if we would, if we stayed in, be forced to adopt the euro against our will and the suggestion by me, in response to you asking what could cameron have done differently in the face of strong feeling and loosing seats to ukip, that the referendum could have been set for a sensible future date.

For you to then shift the entire thing to was the referendum we did have about 'are you happy with the EU or not and the way it had developed under the treaties we had already had? ', as if I had some how argued anywhere that it was anything else - that is what I found 'disingenuous'.
Erol Forgive me for being a little pedantic but the bullet point did not say "The UK had already agreed and signed " ... it actually said.... 3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.
A minor point I would agree but important to the debate I think and I know you are a champion of the truth...

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 72 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

PoshinDevon wrote:Erol.....

See below. To me this is a non starter. How can we have a say on future trade deals when not in the EU.

Labour is proposing a new permanent customs union with the European Union (EU) after Brexit which would allow the UK "a say" in future trade deals.

Reality Check Verdict: EU law currently does not allow non-EU members to have a formal say or veto in its trade talks.

Labour says the EU has shown flexibility in the past and its proposal cannot be ruled out until the party has had a chance to negotiate formally.

Again this just seems a reason to keep us very close to the EU and prolonging the agony further. Plus I am not convinced the UK would then be allowed to negotiate its own favourable trade deals with those outside of the EU. I am not 100% certain but feel sure the EU would block this.
I agree that remaining in the or some form of customs union would mean / has to mean that the UK could not make unilateral trade deals and no I do not believe the Labour 'unicorn' that there could be much wiggle room on this nor do I think we have the time to 'find out' even should labour get in to power and the EU were willing to explore it. I think the best we could hope for is some 'concession' that we might be able to have some UK participation in the EU negotiating team (as we have currently as members). On all that we agree.

For me UK's the ability to negotiate unilateral trade deals is not the clear and obvious 'route to future UK prosperity' that some have suggested. I think such deals will long and hard and tortuous to agree in the first place, will involve and require teams of civil servants and cost and will always have some element of 'give and take' in them that will require the UK to swallow things that really it does not like very much.

I have a 'hypotetical' for you, which actually is more about my 'second want' in reality than life after Brexit per se, so if you have any will left to consider it I would welcome your views (if not - totally understand).

Lets say we leave the EU in a way that allows us to negotiate new trade deals. Let's start with the 'big one'. Let say there is a deal on the table but that it requires the UK to not just accept USA chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef but that we can not also mandate that any such has to be clearly labelled as such. Let further say that it is clear that the vast majority of the public - lets say over 65% do not want unlabelled chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef being sold in the shops in the UK. Would you trust our politicians to refuse to sign such a deal on the basis that such would be against the will of the people ? Do do you perhaps think it is not such a big deal if they sign it, on the basis that we can vote them out at the next election and vote in someone who will cancel the trade deal ? Just curious really.

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 73 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

turtle wrote: Erol Forgive me for being a little pedantic but the bullet point did not say "The UK had already agreed and signed " ... it actually said.... 3: All member states must adopt the Euro by 2022 and any new member state must do so within 2 years of joining the EU as laid down in the Lisbon treaty.
A minor point I would agree but important to the debate I think and I know you are a champion of the truth...
Does it say in the Lisbon treaty that all member states must adopt the euro by 2022 or not ? If it does not say that in the Lisbon treaty (and it does not) then how is the claim that it does, that is in the text you copy pasted here, not constitute a lie and a blatant and egregious one at that ?

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 74 of 148 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

erol wrote:
PoshinDevon wrote:Erol.....

See below. To me this is a non starter. How can we have a say on future trade deals when not in the EU.

Labour is proposing a new permanent customs union with the European Union (EU) after Brexit which would allow the UK "a say" in future trade deals.

Reality Check Verdict: EU law currently does not allow non-EU members to have a formal say or veto in its trade talks.

Labour says the EU has shown flexibility in the past and its proposal cannot be ruled out until the party has had a chance to negotiate formally.

Again this just seems a reason to keep us very close to the EU and prolonging the agony further. Plus I am not convinced the UK would then be allowed to negotiate its own favourable trade deals with those outside of the EU. I am not 100% certain but feel sure the EU would block this.
I agree that remaining in the or some form of customs union would mean / has to mean that the UK could not make unilateral trade deals and no I do not believe the Labour 'unicorn' that there could be much wiggle room on this nor do I think we have the time to 'find out' even should labour get in to power and the EU were willing to explore it. I think the best we could hope for is some 'concession' that we might be able to have some UK participation in the EU negotiating team (as we have currently as members). On all that we agree.

For me UK's the ability to negotiate unilateral trade deals is not the clear and obvious 'route to future UK prosperity' that some have suggested. I think such deals will long and hard and tortuous to agree in the first place, will involve and require teams of civil servants and cost and will always have some element of 'give and take' in them that will require the UK to swallow things that really it does not like very much.

I have a 'hypotetical' for you, which actually is more about my 'second want' in reality than life after Brexit per se, so if you have any will left to consider it I would welcome your views (if not - totally understand).

Lets say we leave the EU in a way that allows us to negotiate new trade deals. Let's start with the 'big one'. Let say there is a deal on the table but that it requires the UK to not just accept USA chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef but that we can not also mandate that any such has to be clearly labelled as such. Let further say that it is clear that the vast majority of the public - lets say over 65% do not want unlabelled chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef being sold in the shops in the UK. Would you trust our politicians to refuse to sign such a deal on the basis that such would be against the will of the people ? Do do you perhaps think it is not such a big deal if they sign it, on the basis that we can vote them out at the next election and vote in someone who will cancel the trade deal ? Just curious really.

Firstly I cannot see all member states if the EU allowing us to be part of a customs union when not an EU member.Secondly I would not hold out to much hope that a concession would be made to the U.K. that we might be able to participate and have influence in an EU negotiating team when we are not a member of the club.

Re the U.K. negotiating trade deals, I am convinced if we are tied to a customs union we would have no say in future trade deals negotiated by the EU and also they would in turn block/restrict the U.K. doing our own favourable deals which may well be better than a similar deal negotiated by the EU. So to start to work on our own trade deals we must be free of any lock in or influence by the EU. I agree on the give and take element but that is part of negotiating.....we will not get all we want but to not be given a chance doesn’t seem right to me.

Finally, for me the U.K. public is much more aware and informed and as far as chlorinated chicken/hormone fed beef is concerned. Does the majority of the U.K. population feel that strongly about it......I certainly do and I am sure many are of the same mind. However until it comes to the fore and is presented to us we don’t know how much of a backlash there would be. I would hope that the public would make it known that they did not approve and would be protesting to their MP. If it were ever to come to a vote then the way your MP voted would be known and if the feeling in the constituency were such they could be deselected.....unlikely but one scenario. Of course there is always the option of making the point at a general election.

Time for a cup of tea!
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 75 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

PoshinDevon wrote:Firstly I cannot see all member states if the EU allowing us to be part of a customs union when not an EU member.
You are aware that Turkey is in the customs union I assume ?

(an aside to this is that I recently heard someone here in Cyprus arguing, it will be great once we have left the EU, we will be free to import oranges and hazelnuts from Turkey making them cheaper in the UK and boosting Turkey's exports at the same. I had at the time neither the will or the desire to introduce actual reality to them).

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 76 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
Let's start with the 'big one'. Let say there is a deal on the table but that it requires the UK to not just accept USA chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef but that we can not also mandate that any such has to be clearly labelled as such.
I wondered how long it would take for chlorinated chicken to come clucking into view

OK maybe I'm being naive here but when we sign a trade deal with a country are we then obligated to buy all their wares?
For example when we buy coffee from Columbia are we obligated to buy their tractors?

So if not with the U.S. how about we don't buy their chickens? We surely don't leave all our reasoning and common sense in Brussels when we leave.
Remember we are the customer here.

I might be oversimplifying things but we can also over complicate things too. Hence the EU still hasn't closed their trade deal with the U.S. 30 years later and counting.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 77 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
erol wrote:
Let's start with the 'big one'. Let say there is a deal on the table but that it requires the UK to not just accept USA chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef but that we can not also mandate that any such has to be clearly labelled as such.
I wondered how long it would take for chlorinated chicken to come clucking into view

OK maybe I'm being naive here but when we sign a trade deal with a country are we then obligated to buy all their wares?
For example when we buy coffee from Columbia are we obligated to buy their tractors?

So if not with the U.S. how about we don't buy their chickens? We surely don't leave all our reasoning and common sense in Brussels when we leave.
Remember we are the customer here.

I might be oversimplifying things but we can also over complicate things too. Hence the EU still hasn't closed their trade deal with the U.S. 30 years later and counting.

This kind of reminds me of the usual arguments;

"Do we really have to pass laws on what bins we can use?"
"So you don't believe in law and order and want anarchy?"
"Errr not really I'd just like for us to concentrate on breaking up knife gangs as a priority"
"Yes but that's impossible because it will be racist"
"Why?"
"Because 70% of those charged are black"
"But aren't 70% of those doing the stabbings black"
"But it's not that simple it will cause a lot of ill feeling in the black community"
"But aren't most of the kids getting killed black?"
"It's not that simple. It will need a lot of study. We can implement the bin law now and use that in the crime figures"
"Ok whatever"

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 78 of 148 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

erol wrote:
PoshinDevon wrote:Firstly I cannot see all member states if the EU allowing us to be part of a customs union when not an EU member.
You are aware that Turkey is in the customs union I assume ?

(an aside to this is that I recently heard someone here in Cyprus arguing, it will be great once we have left the EU, we will be free to import oranges and hazelnuts from Turkey making them cheaper in the UK and boosting Turkey's exports at the same. I had at the time neither the will or the desire to introduce actual reality to them).

Erol.....yes aware about Turkey. Turkey has never been a full EU member so I will admit I don’t have an in depth knowledge of what agreement that they have with the EU. The U.K. on the other hand is a member of the EU at present and will be leaving and will no longer be a member. So what agreement we could reach with the EU as regards being in a customs union I would not like to say. I still believe we would not have any say on EU trade deals and may well be blocked on our own deals to a greater or lesser degree. I would rather we never had that restriction hanging over us and cannot see any reason as to why we should put ourselves in this position.

So my original answers to your different scenarios still remain the same.
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 79 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

PoshinDevon wrote:
So what agreement we could reach with the EU as regards being in a customs union I would not like to say.
I'm guessing the usual extras that have zero to do with trade.

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 80 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:OK maybe I'm being naive here
yes you are
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I might be oversimplifying things ...
yes again

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 81 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:OK maybe I'm being naive here
yes you are
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I might be oversimplifying things ...
yes again
So you are saying we have to buy whatever a country wants to sell us? And when we are the bigger dog in the fight another country has to buy at whatever we want to sell them? At whatever price we want to sell it at as well?
Brilliant problem solved, we leave the EU and trade with countries that are smaller than us that we can bully into doing exactly what we want.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 82 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:OK maybe I'm being naive here
yes you are
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I might be oversimplifying things ...
yes again
OK Erol can you explain how we get forced to buy things we don't want?
I can see that the size of the dog in the fight has something to do with it.
So when you do explain also explain why the EU which is a big dog in the fight is under performing. Shouldn't the EU just be demanding that countries buy their member's exports whether they want them or not?

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 83 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

PoshinDevon wrote:I would rather we never had that restriction hanging over us and cannot see any reason as to why we should put ourselves in this position.
In general terms there are various reasons why any given country might choose to enter a customs union. Many countries do enter in to such agreements, by choice. (little map here of various existing customs unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customs_u ... _World.svg )
PoshinDevon wrote:So my original answers to your different scenarios still remain the same.
In terms of the specifics of where the UK is right now and how this might might be a way of moving forward, a deal that keeps up in the customs union for now has , whilst we exit all other aspects of full EU membership has the following potential 'benefits' as I see it.

We do not know for sure yet but it seems like such a deal might be able to secure a majority in parliament. This is a big thing given how many alternate options so far have failed to reach this fundamental requirement without which their can be no 'moving forward'.

The EU has given very strong signals that it would be willing to countenance such a deal and that it would agree to the extension time need to get such sorted (provided there was a majority for it in parliament)

Potentially such a deal could be concluded quickly enough to not mean that the UK would have to enter the up coming European elections though this becomes less likely with every passing day we stay in the current deadlock.

It is a way forward that I certainly could 'accept' without any need to 'go to the people' again, unlike say no deal (for me).

It would allow us to take the 'Irish boarder' issues out of the mix for now and push solving those 'down the road' to a later date whilst we get on with all the other complicated stuff that Brexit requires. So if in the future having got exiting the EU out out of the way we want to leave the customs union, instead of a negotiating position of 'we will find technical means to not require a hard border between NI and Ireland, that do not yet exits and have to date never been implemented any where else in the world' we would have the time to first trial and test and work out the bugs of any such system and then be able to negotiate on the basis of 'we have a solution for the UK leaving the customs union that also does not require a hard boarder between NI and Ireland - here it is, this is how it works, these are the results of our trials'.

It would be a means that to some degree might mollifying the feelings of the over 16 million people who voted to remain in the EU that they and their concerns are not just being met with 'you lost, your concerns do not matter so shut up'.

------------------

In the end depending on what happens it may come down to a binary choice between this form of exit and a no deal exit or even this form of exit and even no exit at all - though who knows. Nothing would surprise me right now.

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 84 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: OK Erol can you explain how we get forced to buy things we don't want?
I think I can but I do feel (and if this is unfair then I apologise but it is how I feel if I am honest) that should I attempt to do so, the degree to which you will seriously look at what I write and consider it fairly will be minuscule, compared to the degree to which you look at it simply as a prompt to come up with some 'playing to the audience' witticism, that seeks to ridicule me as a 'do gooder leftist typical of the kind'

Anyway here goes.

It is all down to labelling. The fight we will have with the US in any trade negotiations will not be just about if US producers can sell in the UK, it will be also be about if the UK can mandate labelling of certain products or not. To imagine otherwise is to the 'naive' part.

When I walk in to my local tescos and buy my chicken vindaloo ready meal, if the trade deal agreed between the UK and the US has stopped the UK from requiring by legislation that any such product that contains chlorinated chicken be clearly labelled as such, then I will have no means of knowing if I am buying chlorinated chicken or not. This is the 'oversimplification' part.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 85 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: OK Erol can you explain how we get forced to buy things we don't want?
I think I can but I do feel (and if this is unfair then I apologise but it is how I feel if I am honest) that should I attempt to do so, the degree to which you will seriously look at what I write and consider it fairly will be minuscule, compared to the degree to which you look at it simply as a prompt to come up with some 'playing to the audience' witticism, that seeks to ridicule me as a 'do gooder leftist typical of the kind'

Anyway here goes.

It is all down to labelling. The fight we will have with the US in any trade negotiations will not be just about if US producers can sell in the UK, it will be also be about if the UK can mandate labelling of certain products or not. To imagine otherwise is to the 'naive' part.

When I walk in to my local tescos and buy my chicken vindaloo ready meal, if the trade deal agreed between the UK and the US has stopped the UK from requiring by legislation that any such product that contains chlorinated chicken be clearly labelled as such, then I will have no means of knowing if I am buying chlorinated chicken or not. This is the 'oversimplification' part.
Totally get that.
We don't want that chicken or certainly not without it being clearly labelled.
The Americans might think we are fussy and their people eat it all the time and we might find it hard to compromise.

So......we don't.
We buy our chicken elsewhere. We can say to the Americans no offence we love your peanut butter etc and will buy as much of that as you will send us but I think we'll give your chicken a miss.
How is that impossible?
I might be over simplifying it but aren't the best solutions generally simple?
Like I said we might buy coffee from Columbia but do we have to buy their tractors as well?

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 86 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:So......we don't.
Assuming of course that our politicians do not go and agree such anyway regardless as to what a majority in the country might want and then try and find some way of obfuscating or hiding that is what they have done.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:We buy our chicken elsewhere. We can say to the Americans no offence we love your peanut butter etc and will buy as much of that as you will send us but I think we'll give your chicken a miss.
How is that impossible?
It is not impossible to say and ask that. It might not be impossible to agree it, but that is far from certain. I do not know. I do not think anyone does until we try. But I think it is naive to imagine getting such agreement with the US will be simple and easy. The US has already sent very clear signals that any trade deal will at all, on anything, will be dependant on us not putting barriers up on things like chlorinated chicken, using the argument, they are good enough for US citizens (without any need for any mandatory labelling) so if we want to have free trade with the US then we have to accept these. That may be bluster and it may turn out that we do do a deal with the US that prohibits things like chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef (and who knows what else where we have a different view on what is acceptable than they do). I would however be willing to take a bet, on anything over evens, that if and when we do conclude a trade deal with the US it will included chlorinated chickens without mandatory labelling of any products using such. If and when we come to start trade deal negotiations with the US, which may be a US with Trump as president, along with all his 'free trade' credentials, we (and especially our untrustworthy politicians) will be under much more pressure than them to get something sign and as you have already noted we are also a smaller fish than them.

Trade deals, if history is any guide, and not just involving the EU are always long and complex and contentious. They are all about minute details down to the level of individual products categories, of which there are 10s if not 100s of thousands all layered with 'politics' as well as just 'commercial sense'. We are already struggling to get agreement with all those that we already have such deals with by dint of EU membership to even confirm that on exit from the EU, we can 'role over' existing agreements under the same existing terms - and that is when all the tedium and time of thrashing out every minutiae of the deal is already in place. To me the notion that we will be able 'easily' conduct and conclude entirely new deals has too me always lack credibility and frankly still does.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 87 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: The US has already sent very clear signals that any trade deal will at all, on anything, will be dependant on us not putting barriers up on things like chlorinated chicken, using the argument, they are good enough for US citizens (without any need for any mandatory labelling) so if we want to have free trade with the US then we have to accept these. That may be bluster and it may turn out that we do do a deal with the US that prohibits things like chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef (and who knows what else where we have a different view on what is acceptable than they do). I would however be willing to take a bet, on anything over evens, that if and when we do conclude a trade deal with the US it will included chlorinated chickens without mandatory labelling of any products using such.
Can see all of that.
So basically the U.S. can play hard ball with labelling their chlorinated chicken but hey let’s not buy it.
The EU loves to regulate, the chlorinated chicken is something that needs regulating but many of their regulations are pointless and petty.
erol wrote: Trade deals, if history is any guide, and not just involving the EU are always long and complex and contentious. They are all about minute details down to the level of individual products categories, of which there are 10s if not 100s of thousands all layered with 'politics' as well as just 'commercial sense'.
But doesn’t 30 odd years seem a trifle excessive to you?
erol wrote: To me the notion that we will be able 'easily' conduct and conclude entirely new deals has too me always lack credibility and frankly still does.
But even without FTAs the EU still trades with the U.S., China, Japan Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico etc. An important point when remainers say the UK haven’t agreed many/any trade deals and puts the “crashing out” with no deal into perspective.

The last place I worked at took the maverick step of not having a Human Resources Department. We hired a consultant to draw up contracts and had the intention of calling on her should we need to.
How could we possibly cope?
Well we took the unusual step of hiring managers who weren’t idiots or bullies. We treated the staff as we would expect to be treated if we were in their position and it worked fine.
We saved a large salary and more importantly saved about 10-15 hours a week each in HR meetings when we would have to role play while an “expert” taught us how to treat staff.

Two morals of the story.
When you hire someone to do regulations because it is important, you will probably tell them to come up with regulations on chlorinated chickens fairly early. When they have finished that together with all the other important ones they won’t have much to do so will come up with regulations on the curvature of a banana etc.
Second moral, you don't have to be an expert to have common sense and do the right thing.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 88 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

waz-24-7 wrote:
I would have no issue to enter into the Euro.
As the business world becomes smaller in logistical and communication terms. It is only a few currencies that essentially run the world of finance.
Sterling is losing its influence and BREXIT will only isolate it more. The need to convert and lose on transaction delays and costs provides no advantage to UK trade. £ sterling has a limited life span as the UK declines from influence.
Hi Waz I was worried that you hadn’t appeared on this thread but I found you.
Let’s be honest here Waz there are no circumstances that you wouldn’t join the EU. Robert Mugabe as President of the UK? No problem as long as it saves me filling in as form and visiting the money bureau.
Re sterling and the euro we have covered this before but I don’t think you grasped it. Size of a country or trading block doesn’t matter to a currency as much as confidence and stability.
Ok lets do a question. I will pay you the equivalent of ten million pounds to build me a house in Turkey. It will take you three years and I will pay you the ten million when you have finished.

So in three years do you want;
73 Million Turkish Lire
13.1 million Swiss Franks
11.665 million Euros.
Turkey is a much bigger country than Switzerland and has a larger GDP and obviously you are building in Turkey so its convenient.
Please put your 1,2,3 preference in order.

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 89 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: Can see all of that.
So basically the U.S. can play hard ball with labelling their chlorinated chicken but hey let’s not buy it.
Trade deals are not a 'purchasing' decision. They are a negotiation, where both sides want something they do not currently have. Every time we deny them something they want they will deny us something we want. From what I can see the biggest fight in any trade negotiations between the Uk and US will be over services. The US has a massive private health care services industry. They want in to the UK market and specifically those parts of health care in the UK dominated by the NHS. They want basically a 'free market' in healthcare in the UK and access to it. If these trade negotiations are conducted under a UK government that has a an ideological desire to increasingly privatise the NHS but knows that politically it can only achieve this by 'stealth', this would provide the perfect opportunity.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: The EU loves to regulate, the chlorinated chicken is something that needs regulating but many of their regulations are pointless and petty.
Care to give an actual example ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: But doesn’t 30 odd years seem a trifle excessive to you?
The 1st round of negotiations: 7–12 July 2013 in Washington DC. So your 'exaggeration' here is 5 times the reality. To put that in perspective if I were to exaggerate to the same degree in the other directs I could claim that EU / US trade negotiations have been going on for a bit over a year.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:But even without FTAs the EU still trades with the U.S., China, Japan Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico etc. An important point when remainers say the UK haven’t agreed many/any trade deals and puts the “crashing out” with no deal into perspective.
Any trade deal (including customs union) that does not lead to increase trade and economic activity between the parties is a failure. There is a reason why countries seek such deals. Of course you can still trade without them but if could trade as 'well' or as 'much' without them then no one would enter in to them. Is that not just 'common sense' that you value so highly ?

But there is another issue here. We were told going in to the referendum that we would , easily, be able to secure 'roll over' agreements with those 100 odd so countries that we have such agreements with via the EU such that they would all be in place before any exit from the EU. This has turned out to just not be true. What does your 'common sense' tell you then about the likelihood that the claims made by these same people about new trade deals, that are not just a rolling over of existing agreements, that are going to be the means to a great and prosperous future once we are out of the EU, also turn out to just not be true ?

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 90 of 148 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

Prime minister to meet 1922 committee tomorrow at 5pm.

Looks likely she will be announcing when she will resign. This is obviously in the hope that more Tory rebels will come in and back her Brexit deal.

Then if deal does get thro a new Prime minister gets selected to lead the Tory party.

On the Politics programme on BBC2 one suggestion is that if her deal does get thro then for the next stage a cross party group plus businessmen/women, academia etc be all bought in to pull together the negotiating team to negotiate the nitty gritty re agreements once we have left.

This to me seems sensible...... if she can swing the numbers behind her deal. She may just do it so the UK can exit the EU and at last start to move forward.
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

turtle
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 865
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2012 10:44 am

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 91 of 148 in Discussion

Post by turtle »

PoshinDevon wrote:Prime minister to meet 1922 committee tomorrow at 5pm.

Looks likely she will be announcing when she will resign. This is obviously in the hope that more Tory rebels will come in and back her Brexit deal.

Then if deal does get thro a new Prime minister gets selected to lead the Tory party.

On the Politics programme on BBC2 one suggestion is that if her deal does get thro then for the next stage a cross party group plus businessmen/women, academia etc be all bought in to pull together the negotiating team to negotiate the nitty gritty re agreements once we have left.

This to me seems sensible...... if she can swing the numbers behind her deal. She may just do it so the UK can exit the EU and at last start to move forward.
Sounds like a good idea... however she will not get the deal through and watching the voting last night in the HoC it now appears to be all about the will of the 600 odd MPs and not the people they serve, what a sad outcome.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 92 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote: Every time we deny them something they want they will deny us something we want. From what I can see the biggest fight in any trade negotiations between the Uk and US will be over services. The US has a massive private health care services industry. They want in to the UK market and specifically those parts of health care in the UK dominated by the NHS. They want basically a 'free market' in healthcare in the UK and access to it. If these trade negotiations are conducted under a UK government that has a an ideological desire to increasingly privatise the NHS but knows that politically it can only achieve this by 'stealth', this would provide the perfect opportunity.
So really there is no proof that we are going to be forced to accept chlorinated chickens then? When we have negotiations with the EU there isn’t horse trading? So it’s just a worry with the evil capitalist USA then? OK got the vibe there.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: The EU loves to regulate, the chlorinated chicken is something that needs regulating but many of their regulations are pointless and petty.
erol wrote:
Care to give an actual example ?
Restrictions on the quality of bananas and other fruit sold within the EU. Under the regulations, Class I bananas can have “slight defects of shape” but Class II bananas are allowed to have “defects of shape”. I think cucumbers could have a curvature of 1/10
Vacuum cleaners, which had motors above the EU limit of 1,600 watts had to go.
The EU now prohibits manufacturers of bottled drinking water to label their product with anything that would suggest consumption would fight dehydration.
EU decided to make clear the differences between a turnip and a swede, however, if swede is contained within a Cornish Pasty then it is perfectly OK to brand it as turnip. In all other cases, turnips are turnips and swedes are swedes.
They are looking to ban sufferers of diabetes from driving.
erol wrote:
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: But doesn’t 30 odd years seem a trifle excessive to you?
The 1st round of negotiations: 7–12 July 2013 in Washington DC. So your 'exaggeration' here is 5 times the reality. To put that in perspective if I were to exaggerate to the same degree in the other directs I could claim that EU / US trade negotiations have been going on for a bit over a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatla ... artnership
Looks like the talks started to get some agreements in place in 1990 so yes I exaggerated it is only 29 years and counting.
erol wrote: Any trade deal (including customs union) that does not lead to increase trade and economic activity between the parties is a failure. There is a reason why countries seek such deals. Of course you can still trade without them but if could trade as 'well' or as 'much' without them then no one would enter in to them. Is that not just 'common sense' that you value so highly ?
I don’t think the powers that be have made any huge efforts to make any plans because their intention is that we remain in the EU and Brexit will be in name only. If you restrict negotiations to trade, signing trade deals needn’t be that diificult or lengthy. If you want to get bogged down with regulations, standards and environmental issues then yes they can take forever. I mean it might mean that we don’t have big government micro managing people’s lives but we silly people can survive.
For example they had Superman cloaks when I was a kid and I don’t recall them having a label saying this cloak doesn’t enable you to fly. I guess the odd kid climbed onto a tower block and had a go at flying with tragic results but that’s Darwinism.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 93 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
waz-24-7 wrote:
I would have no issue to enter into the Euro.
As the business world becomes smaller in logistical and communication terms. It is only a few currencies that essentially run the world of finance.
Sterling is losing its influence and BREXIT will only isolate it more. The need to convert and lose on transaction delays and costs provides no advantage to UK trade. £ sterling has a limited life span as the UK declines from influence.
Hi Waz I was worried that you hadn’t appeared on this thread but I found you.
Let’s be honest here Waz there are no circumstances that you wouldn’t join the EU. Robert Mugabe as President of the UK? No problem as long as it saves me filling in as form and visiting the money bureau.
Re sterling and the euro we have covered this before but I don’t think you grasped it. Size of a country or trading block doesn’t matter to a currency as much as confidence and stability.
Ok lets do a question. I will pay you the equivalent of ten million pounds to build me a house in Turkey. It will take you three years and I will pay you the ten million when you have finished.

So in three years do you want;
73 Million Turkish Lire
13.1 million Swiss Franks
11.665 million Euros.
Turkey is a much bigger country than Switzerland and has a larger GDP and obviously you are building in Turkey so its convenient.
Please put your 1,2,3 preference in order.
BTW Waz if it helps I'm going
1) Swiss Franc
2) Euro
3) Turkish Lire

If you put the big Euro above the little Swiss Franc I'd be very interested in doing a large spread bet with you

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 94 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

turtle wrote: however she will not get the deal through and watching the voting last night in the HoC it now appears to be all about the will of the 600 odd MPs and not the people they serve, what a sad outcome.
Hmm let's see shall we.

Cameron calls a referendum for only one reason - it will, he thinks, benefit him and the Tories. No regard for the interest of the country or the potential dangers to the country for calling it at a time that served his and the Tory parties needs and having no history what so ever of having had any interest in giving the people this choice at any of the sensible times to have done it (all previous treaty change periods).

He loses and Theresa May takes over running the country with the people having no say in this change of who heads THEIR government. She pledges to 'deliver Brexit' and is adamant that there will be no early general election.

Theresa May decides that she alone will chose the form of exit based first and foremost on the needs of the Tory party. No regard for interest of the country.

Theresa May decides to hold a general election and loses her Majority. She remains determined that only she will decide what form of exit can be considered that is based on the needs of the Tory party and not those of the country.

Theresa May with no majority because of the election she said she would not call and did not have to call but chose to call anyway, pays 1 billion pounds of OUR money to the DUP in order to be able to stick with a singular form of exit that meets the needs of the conservative party. No regard for the interest of the country.

Theresa May goes through Brexit minster after Brexit minister and ploughs on regardless. Theresa May appoints Boris Johnson as foreign secretary, a role for which he is uniquely unsuited for, in a bid to help her stick with her sole form of exit that serves the needs of the Tory party. No regard for the interest of the country.

Theresa May concludes the deal with the EU that was designed around the need to stop the Tory party ripping itself apart and not the needs of the country.

Theresa May deal is rejected, principally by the DUP that she had already paid a billion pounds of OUR money too and her own Tory MP's like Mogg et al , that the deal was designed to placate in the first place.

Theresa May trys to blackmail and bully the house commons - the supreme seat of sovereignty in the UK, that during the campaign we were told must have controlled returned to it, by running the clock down and down, blocking any and all attempts for it to seek or have any say as to other ways to exit other than hers.

Theresa May wastes any chance that 'brinkmanship' might have allowed to gain final further concession from the EU after the 'conclusion' of negotiations asking for concessions to something she says will never come in to force anyway (the backstop) and comes back with next to nothing in any case.

Theresa May runs the clock down to within days of a no deal exit, believing and knowing that such would be disastrous for the country but determined to force through her singular form of exit that was designed for the specific purpose of stopping the Tory party tearing itself apart and not the needs of the country and which does not even meet the objective it was designed for.

Theresa May puts her deal before the house and for the second time it is rejected again, again principally by the DUP she paid a billion pounds of our money to and her own MP's in the ERG.

The house of commons blocks a no deal exit and forces TM to go back and ask the EU, cap in hand, to give the UK some more time. The EU grants a short extension.

Theresa May does sweet FA, waiting for the commons to take action in the hope that this will be a big enough threat to the DUP that she already paid a billion pounds of our money too and her own MPs in the ERG so that she can force through her singular form of exit, designed from the beginning to server the needs of the Tory party and not those of the country.

The house of commons obliges.

----------------------

And your 'ire' is with the 600 odd MP's that place their will ahead of serving the people ? appoints BJ as foreign secretary in a bid to help her stick with her singular form of exit that serves the needs of the Tory party. No regard for the interest of the country.

EnjoyingTheSun
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2018 4:46 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 95 of 148 in Discussion

Post by EnjoyingTheSun »

erol wrote:

He loses and Theresa May takes over running the country with the people having no say in this change of who heads THEIR government
To be fair that seems to be common now.
Wilson to Callaghan, Thatcher to Major and Blair to Brown in my lifetime.

Personally for me the most cynical was when Andrew McIntosh was a victim of the Ken Livingstone coup the day after he led Labour to win the GLC.

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 96 of 148 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47704345


Does it matter?

Does anyone care?
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 97 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:So really there is no proof that we are going to be forced to accept chlorinated chickens then? When we have negotiations with the EU there isn’t horse trading? So it’s just a worry with the evil capitalist USA then? OK got the vibe there.
No what you have got there is a bad case of 'staw man itis'. If I had ever said there was proof that we would be forced to accept unlabelled chlorinated chicken in any UK/US trade deal or if that had been the point I was trying to make when I used the example of chlorinated chicken in the first place, then your point above may have had some relevance and force. Given that is not what I have said nor why I used a singular example of chlorinated chicken, your point is, for me, is irrelevant and has no force at all.

What there is, is mountains of evidence, that the claims that after exiting the EU the UK can and will quickly and easily strike bilateral trade deals with the likes of the US, that will bring economic prosperity to the UK and not require us to make any compromises are in reality just yet more 'fantasies' used with the intent of trying to fool and hoodwink people like so much else spouted off during the course of this 'national debate' . That was the point I am making along with, in the original context of when I first mentioned chlorinated chicken and trade, that the problem of governments doing things the people do not want remains unchanged in or out of the EU.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Restrictions on the quality of bananas and other fruit sold within the EU. Under the regulations, Class I bananas can have “slight defects of shape” but Class II bananas are allowed to have “defects of shape”. I think cucumbers could have a curvature of 1/10
Do your homework (or stop lying) - all the stuff you refer to is to do with classification of such products and nothing to with what fruit and veg can be sold within the EU. A banana or cucumber of any shape and any size can be sold in the EU. There is no restriction on what can be sold based on shape defects or curvature abnormalities. Only ones that meet certain criteria can be classed and described as 'Class 1' which is the entire point of having such classification. Now you 'common sense' may tell you that having classifications for things like fruit and veg is 'pointless bureaucracy' but it would be yet another example for me of just how wrong your 'common sense' can be. Outside of the EU, the UK government will still define classifications and classes of such products and such classifications will still not restrict what can be sold in the UK only how it can be classified.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Vacuum cleaners, which had motors above the EU limit of 1,600 watts had to go.
Sure as someone who claims and believes that there is no such phenomenon as climate change and that we should do nothing to reduce our power use and consumption, you may see this rule as 'silly'. You and your common sense are however in a minority of opinion on this certainly amongst the overwhelming majority (shall we go back to how 'impressive a 52% majority is here) of scientist, not just those that 'make money' from climate change but all of them, the majority who do not as well as almost certainly a majority of the public, be that the EU public or the UK public.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:The EU now prohibits manufacturers of bottled drinking water to label their product with anything that would suggest consumption would fight dehydration.
Again either do your homework or stop lying. The original request by the bottled water company to be allowed to make this claim was submitted to the government body that adjudicates claims of medical benefits of foodstuffs and products. In medical terms drinking water does not stop or treat the causes of dehydration - not those of mild dehydration like sweating, breathing out , basically living or those causes of severe dehydration like kidney conditions - for which drinking water can in fact worsen this cause of dehydration. Yes drinking water can rectify the 'state' of being dehydrated (if the cause of it is normal 'living') but it does not treat the cause of getting in to that state. Yes this is a highly technical distinction but you know what, medicine and governance of medicinal claims is a highly technical field and it was the water company itself that had sought this technical medical determination.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:EU decided to make clear the differences between a turnip and a swede, .....
I no longer have any will to bother using reality to counter such scewed and partial and biased descriptions of what it is that the EU has or has not done (that are no different to what any government does) or why it has done them. For me all you are showing here is that, through either intent or ignorance, all you are doing is looking for ways to reinforce what you already want to be true rather than making any real judgement that might require you to have to challenge what you want to be true. We have had a constant 40 years of this kind of 'anti EU' attacks, based on distortion and exaggeration from large sections of the UK media, especially news papers. At least such distortions and exaggerations and taking out of context are 'profitable copy' for those media outlets that have been relentlessly peddling them for 40 years now . What is your excuse ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote:Looks like the talks started to get some agreements in place in 1990 so yes I exaggerated it is only 29 years and counting.
The fact remains that the first round of trade negotiations between the EU and the US aimed at securing a comprehensive trade agreement started on 7th July 2013. That the EU had talked to US about trade and trade related issue and set up various bilateral bodies and agreements that were NOT trade deals does not change this fact. I think a French man in government once talked to a US government functionary in 1847 and the word trade was mentioned. So why not go whole hog and claim after 150 years they US and EU have failed to conclude a trade deal ?
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: If you restrict negotiations to trade, signing trade deals needn’t be that difficult or lengthy. If you want to get bogged down with regulations, standards and environmental issues then yes they can take forever.
At the risk of 'going to far' here and in the hope that having had very genuine pleasure of meeting and chatting with you in person and judging from that, that you 'can take it', all you are displaying to me here is the degree to which you will happily talk about things that you clearly have little understanding or expertise in under the banner of 'common sense'

It is impossible to talk and negotiate about 'trade' without talking about 'regulations' and 'standards'. As the example of chlorinated chicken clearly shows. But if I am wrong then it should be easy to show an example of a bilateral large scale trade deal between any two significant sized economies that has been easy and short to agree because it only concentrated on 'trade' and not 'regulations' and 'standards'. If you can not and all you really have is the 'entire worlds trade negotiators are doing it wrong and if they were to follow your common sense then trade deals would take a year or less to conclude' forgive me if I remain unimpressed.
EnjoyingTheSun wrote: For example they had Superman cloaks when I was a kid and I don’t recall them having a label saying this cloak doesn’t enable you to fly. I guess the odd kid climbed onto a tower block and had a go at flying with tragic results but that’s Darwinism.
Amusing as ever but are you claiming that such superhero outfits TODAY, even after all those years of unnecessary 'big government' anywhere require such labelling by law ?

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 98 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

PoshinDevon wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47704345


Does it matter?

Does anyone care?
Makes sense to me and long overdue. An example of an issue where Turkey 'led' as well. If and when the UK leaves the EU would be very surprised if it did not also follow suit.

User avatar
erol
Kibkommer
Kibkommer
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue 01 May 2012 7:14 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 99 of 148 in Discussion

Post by erol »

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:
erol wrote:

He loses and Theresa May takes over running the country with the people having no say in this change of who heads THEIR government
To be fair that seems to be common now.
Wilson to Callaghan, Thatcher to Major and Blair to Brown in my lifetime.

Personally for me the most cynical was when Andrew McIntosh was a victim of the Ken Livingstone coup the day after he led Labour to win the GLC.
The one I find amusing right now is TM now using the line 'we can not put forward a deal that is different to what was in our manifesto without calling a general election'. Like there is any history or precedent of a government relinquishing power and calling a general election because it wanted to or did implement something that was at odds with what was in their election manifesto. This from the PM that has shown a desire and ability to cling on to power no matter what that has to be head and shoulders top of any league table of such.

User avatar
PoshinDevon
Kibkom Mod
Kibkom Mod
Posts: 2162
Joined: Wed 04 Apr 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The lisbon treaty - a poll

  • Quote
  •   Message 100 of 148 in Discussion

Post by PoshinDevon »

erol wrote:
PoshinDevon wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47704345


Does it matter?

Does anyone care?
Makes sense to me and long overdue. An example of an issue where Turkey 'led' as well. If and when the UK leaves the EU would be very surprised if it did not also follow suit.
Not a problem for me but I think some north of the border may protest loudly.

It’s these little things that we tend to get excited about. Just a little diversion from the frustrations of Brexit.
Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass,it's about learning to dance in the rain

Peterborough Utd -The Posh

Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS - Kibkom North Cyprus Forum”