That’s it then. No Deal

Same_as_before said:
No I have debated for too long. I have many times listed a number of benefits, the answer is always the same, I am an ignorant racist.
Click to expand...
Actually that wasn't that answer, you benefits were questioned are analysed. And you got into a huff when that happens. Thats what happens when you make a decision based on emotion and not rationale thought. Any attempt at justification doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

We still don't know what you feel about the cost of brexit offsetting the savings, still have had no explanation as to what the vw thing actually meant. Haven't had your proof that we are going to increase sales tax on Irish based technology services. Havent had an answer as to why another level of courts to uphold the law is a bad thing
 
SmallTown said:
Actually that wasn't that answer, you benefits were questioned are analysed. And you got into a huff when that happens. Thats what happens when you make a decision based on emotion and not rationale thought. Any attempt at justification doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

We still don't know what you feel about the cost of brexit offsetting the savings, still have had no explanation as to what the vw thing actually meant. Haven't had your proof that we are going to increase sales tax on Irish based technology services. Havent had an answer as to why another level of courts to uphold the law is a bad thing
Click to expand...
I will start again to help you get your facts right;

1/ the saving on the annual payment circa £30b after rebates. Notice I have adjusted the original £36b I did not check to see if the rebate is £6b I will take your word for it.
2/ I said we Can add a sales tax was without having to get permission. The above annual payment is dependent upon it. That includes companies registered in Ireland as a tax haven.
3/ I do not see the need for an extra level of legal standards above our Supreme Court. The EC decided not to follow up with VW in the same way the US did, it opens up that avenue.
4/ our environment and agricultural standards are well above the EC I do not see why we should reduce them.
 
Same_as_before said:
Responsibility for what? For having an opinion? For wanting something different? Maybe they noticed the deliberate destruction of major industry in the major cities and thought what is the common thread.
You are by a long stretch the most articulate pro Remain activist on here, you remind me of RR but I am not sure if he backed Corbyn and that the EU is a dangerous place.
Click to expand...

When you are party to a decision that has a negative effect on other people you share some responsibility for it. The amount of responsibility depends.

Laughing said:
I think the interim agreement that the EU are offering is a poison chalice for Johnson for the reasons I gave previously. He just doesn't have the political capitol to agree to that. He may ask for a like for like agreement ie 12 months both ways and try and dress it up. I suspect he will assume the EU are bluffing about airport rights and call their bluff. I have no idea whether they are bluffing or not but it certainly cuts noses to spite faces.

On the holding people to account for their vote lefty I don't agree with this in any way shape or form. The democratic process is secret for a very good reason and no one should be lambasted for exercising that right, even though I have done the self same thing to tory voters, it simply is not right.
Click to expand...

The EU is a rule book. They aren't bluffing. Without a legal agreement between us all their other rules automatically come in to force. They have no choice, it is automatic. This is the rule book all 28 members signed up to and there is a Court to enforce it. What is more, every other international agreement they have is also bound to it. If they had wanted to be pernicious they could have done so on 29 March 2019 by not agreeing to a Withdrawal Agreement and further extensions. Just imagine how effed we'd have been preparations wise if this had happened one year and nine months ago as many Brexiters wanted. Madness.

As for the vote, I didn't say they should be lambasted, but nor should stupidity, laziness, bad practice or negligence be given a free pass. We all make mistakes and bad choices, but a subsequent refusal to understand why doesn't earn someone a pat on the back from me. This is even more true when your mistake affects me and everyone I know and when it could have been rectified before the repercussions kicked in, but a refusal to even be open to new information, well, frankly that is disgraceful.
 
Same_as_before said:
Responsibility for what? For having an opinion? For wanting something different? Maybe they noticed the deliberate destruction of major industry in the major cities and thought what is the common thread.
You are by a long stretch the most articulate pro Remain activist on here, you remind me of RR but I am not sure if he backed Corbyn and that the EU is a dangerous place.
Click to expand...

You flatter me way too much. What I take many lengthy rambling posts to say, Red_Rebel would encapsulate in one eloquent paragraph.

I wonder what his position would have/has been. I suspect he would not have been a fan of the EU, but he might have been a 'hold your nose' Remainer. I just can't see him lining up alongside Boris, Nigel, Jacob and co. like Galloway did. The EU is a different beast from the 1970's, which is why the Tories who used to all want in, now largely want out, while Labour have switched from split to largely wanting in.
 
Last edited:
Same_as_before said:
I will start again to help you get your facts right;

1/ the saving on the annual payment circa £30b after rebates. Notice I have adjusted the original £36b I did not check to see if the rebate is £6b I will take your word for it.
2/ I said we Can add a sales tax was without having to get permission. The above annual payment is dependent upon it. That includes countries registered in Ireland as a tax haven.
3/ I do not see the need for an extra level of legal standards above our Supreme Court. The EC decided not to follow up with VW in the same way the US did, it opens up that avenue.
4/ our environment and agricultural standards are well above the EC I do not see why we should reduce them.
Click to expand...
1. What about the money we are spending on Brexit? Currently at £200bn?
2. Will we though? Where has that been given as a benefit?
3.the way the government is running roughshod over our judicial system at the moment I would disagree with this.
4. We can still apply higher standards than the EU, surely? To British companies? Its only be a problem if we wished to lower standards
 
Lefty said:
When you are party to a decision that has a negative effect on other people you share some responsibility for it. The amount of responsibility depends.



The EU is a rule book. They aren't bluffing. Without a legal agreement between us all their other rules automatically come in to force. They have no choice, it is automatic. This is the rule book all 28 members signed up to and there is a Court to enforce it. What is more, every other international agreement they have is also bound to it. If they had wanted to be pernicious they could have done so on 29 March 2019 by not agreeing to a Withdrawal Agreement and further extensions. Just imagine how effed we'd have been preparations wise if this had happened one year and nine months ago as many Brexiters wanted. Madness.

As for the vote, I didn't say they should be lambasted, but nor should stupidity, laziness, bad practice or negligence be given a free pass. We all make mistakes and bad choices, but a subsequent refusal to understand why doesn't earn someone a pat on the back from me. This is even more true when your mistake affects me and everyone I know and when it could have been rectified before the repercussions kicked in, but a refusal to even be open to new information, well, frankly that is disgraceful.
Click to expand...
But it is only a negative effect in your view. I and many millions think it's benifcial . You and others highlight any issues straight off the press if it matches your agenda. During the period of our tenure within the EC the industrial heritage has been destroyed, you put that down to coincidence. The EC has allowed a country like Ireland to become a tax avoidance scheme within its own borders.
 
Same_as_before said:
2/ I said we Can add a sales tax was without having to get permission. The above annual payment is dependent upon it. That includes companies registered in Ireland as a tax haven.
Click to expand...
Oh and don't worry, the hypocrisy hasn't gone unnoticed. When I made predictions on the economy you sarcastically rebuffed them. In your usual nasty, provocative way. Yet you used a prediction yourself in your list of precieved benefits. Typical behaviour of people like you
 
Same_as_before said:
1/ the saving on the annual payment circa £30b after rebates. Notice I have adjusted the original £36b I did not check to see if the rebate is £6b I will take your word for it.
Click to expand...
not buying something is only advantages if the value of the thing is less than the cost spent. The reality is that many many studies in to the economic value of membership shows it to be a net benefit. In fact our best economic period of growth has occurred while we were paying membership

Same_as_before said:
2/ I said we Can add a sales tax was without having to get permission. The above annual payment is dependent upon it. That includes companies registered in Ireland as a tax haven.
Click to expand...
so what benefit is adding sales tax and are there not alternatives to that 'benefit'?

Same_as_before said:
3/ I do not see the need for an extra level of legal standards above our Supreme Court. The EC decided not to follow up with VW in the same way the US did, it opens up that avenue.
Click to expand...
That's an opinion, but is not a provable benefit.

Same_as_before said:
4/ our environment and agricultural standards are well above the EC I do not see why we should reduce them.
Click to expand...
Aligning with EU standards does not preclude a country from going further with such standards. They are a minimum standard to meet. Standards are important, they allow the transfer of goods and services with a know minimal quality. So again, this is the current world we live in dressed as a benefit. If anything this is a negative.
 
Lefty said:
When you are party to a decision that has a negative effect on other people you share some responsibility for it. The amount of responsibility depends.



The EU is a rule book. They aren't bluffing. Without a legal agreement between us all their other rules automatically come in to force. They have no choice, it is automatic. This is the rule book all 28 members signed up to and there is a Court to enforce it. What is more, every other international agreement they have is also bound to it. If they had wanted to be pernicious they could have done so on 29 March 2019 by not agreeing to a Withdrawal Agreement and further extensions. Just imagine how effed we'd have been preparations wise if this had happened one year and nine months ago as many Brexiters wanted. Madness.

As for the vote, I didn't say they should be lambasted, but nor should stupidity, laziness, bad practice or negligence be given a free pass. We all make mistakes and bad choices, but a subsequent refusal to understand why doesn't earn someone a pat on the back from me. This is even more true when your mistake affects me and everyone I know and when it could have been rectified before the repercussions kicked in, but a refusal to even be open to new information, well, frankly that is disgraceful.
Click to expand...
I would agree with the no bluff thing except for one passage in the 12 page document, Lefty. They ask that member states do not enter into a unilateral agreement with the UK. It's not that they are asking that of member states, it's that it is in the document handed to the UK. That sounds like a bluff to me.

My understanding is that any member state can accept UK inbound flights and ignore the EU directive also.

Finally, this would really decimate the economy in parts of europe, Krakow, for example would be decimated over night about 99 out of every 100 tourists are brits for some unknown reason.

It may not be a bluff, I don't know.
 
SmallTown said:
1. What about the money we are spending on Brexit? Currently at £200bn?
2. Will we though? Where has that been given as a benefit?
3.the way the government is running roughshod over our judicial system at the moment I would disagree with this.
4. We can still apply higher standards than the EU, surely? To British companies? Its only be a problem if we wished to lower standards
Click to expand...
Prove the £200 billion.
Yes we may do, it's one hell of a weapon against Google. Et Al
The government breaking the law is a disgrace and nothing to do with Brexit.
You are wrong, the want us to accept their lower standards.
 
SmallTown said:
Oh and don't worry, the hypocrisy hasn't gone unnoticed. When I made predictions on the economy you sarcastically rebuffed them. In your usual nasty, provocative way. Yet you used a prediction yourself in your list of precieved benefits. Typical behaviour of people like you
Click to expand...
You really have a difficulty with this. Read my point again, I did not say we will , I said we can even may.

Will someone help him out. I tried and obviously failed.
 
Laughing said:
I would agree with the no bluff thing except for one passage in the 12 page document, Lefty. They ask that member states do not enter into a unilateral agreement with the UK. It's not that they are asking that of member states, it's that it is in the document handed to the UK. That sounds like a bluff to me.

My understanding is that any member state can accept UK inbound flights and ignore the EU directive also.

Finally, this would really decimate the economy in parts of europe, Krakow, for example would be decimated over night about 99 out of every 100 tourists are brits for some unknown reason.

It may not be a bluff, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Which passage? Is it only referring to airlines?

There is a problem with anything that might impinge on Trade, because no individual EU member country can negotiate a unilateral Trade Deal. That is one of the reasons we wanted to leave, then David Davis found it surprising that we couldn't negotiate a Trade Deal with Germany. Honestly, I'd be embarrassed to think I listened to these dickwads.
 
Same_as_before said:
You really have a difficulty with this. Read my point again, I did not say we will , I said we can even may.

Will someone help him out. I tried and obviously failed.
Click to expand...

That's what is good about complete Sovereignty, there are lots of theoretical possibilities. It's even possible the people bringing you Brexit care about the NHS.
 
Brexit.png


EU anti-dumping rules on cheap Chinese bikes to stay post-Brexit after government U-turn ​


Bicycle Association welcomes “certainty” given by continuing EU measures aimed at preventing market being flooded with cheap imports
by Simon_MacMichael
Wed, Dec 09, 2020 20:39 24
Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU may be up in the air with just three weeks of the transition period remaining – but there is now clarity on one issue vital to the country’s cycling industry, with the government today performing a U-turn over scrapping anti-dumping measures on bicycles and e-bikes made in China.
Previously, the Department for International Trade (DIT) had indicated that it would do away with the trade defence measures, implemented by the EU in 1993 and extended a number of times since then (link is external) to currently expire at the end of 2024.
They are designed to prevent China flooding the EU market with cheap bicycles, forcing local manufacturers out of business and costing jobs, and also raising safety concerns.
The rules also apply to several other Far Eastern countries which Chinese manufacturers have tried to use to circumvent the measures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top