| Sign it... on 22:42 - Mar 27 with 2262 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Sign it... on 21:11 - Mar 27 by D_Alien |
Regulatory alignment - rather than institutional alignment?
As steofthedale so eloquently pointed out, once Parliament has enacted the necessary legislation to complete the Article 50 process, current EU regulations become part of our laws unless we choose to diverge from them. Should we do that, it'd presumably be to enable competitive advantage without taking a step that would put our trading partners in a position they felt would require retaliatory action. I'm under the distinct impression that the principles of free trade are something the current government are keen to uphold
Any actions which the EU (or any other future trading partner) might take with the specific intention of disadvantaging the UK (and only the UK) would be seen for they would be - pure vindictiveness
[Post edited 27 Mar 2019 21:14]
|
There is a false dichotomy between regulation and free trade. If we trade with any nation we’re not going want to want to import products, for example, that are made by slaves/children or that are poisonous/carcinogenic or that have poor health and safety etc.. Nor, for that matter, is any developed nation/region going to want to import any similar products from us. It requires mutually agreed rules, standards and laws etc. You also need a myriad of other structures that ensure that if George doesn’t pay then Pedro has recourse and vice-versus etc. Regulation and institutions facilitate free trade. They create a level playing field. Like I’ve said before you pretty much have effortless free trade between EU nations, really you do. Level playing fields are created (rules, laws and institutions) they don’t happen in a vacuum of mythical free trade.
You can’t have the benefit of ‘that’ and not want ‘that’. You really can’t have your cake and eat it. And I notice that these myths, such as they need us more than we need them, have ceased doing the rounds. It’s interesting to have these eloquent debates on the purity of the referendum vote but history is unfolding. This really is fooking complicated, far more complicated than most leavers ever thought.
[Post edited 27 Mar 2019 23:09]
|  |
|  |
| Sign it... on 23:16 - Mar 27 with 2223 views | rochdale_ranger |
| Sign it... on 22:42 - Mar 27 by BigDaveMyCock |
There is a false dichotomy between regulation and free trade. If we trade with any nation we’re not going want to want to import products, for example, that are made by slaves/children or that are poisonous/carcinogenic or that have poor health and safety etc.. Nor, for that matter, is any developed nation/region going to want to import any similar products from us. It requires mutually agreed rules, standards and laws etc. You also need a myriad of other structures that ensure that if George doesn’t pay then Pedro has recourse and vice-versus etc. Regulation and institutions facilitate free trade. They create a level playing field. Like I’ve said before you pretty much have effortless free trade between EU nations, really you do. Level playing fields are created (rules, laws and institutions) they don’t happen in a vacuum of mythical free trade.
You can’t have the benefit of ‘that’ and not want ‘that’. You really can’t have your cake and eat it. And I notice that these myths, such as they need us more than we need them, have ceased doing the rounds. It’s interesting to have these eloquent debates on the purity of the referendum vote but history is unfolding. This really is fooking complicated, far more complicated than most leavers ever thought.
[Post edited 27 Mar 2019 23:09]
|
There’s an awful lot of swearing goin on. |  | | |
| Sign it... on 23:48 - Mar 27 with 2202 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Sign it... on 23:16 - Mar 27 by rochdale_ranger |
There’s an awful lot of swearing goin on. |
God bless ya, you’re desperate for a bit of attention aren’t you? Can’t be fooking ar$ed with you tbh. | |
| |
| Sign it... on 23:54 - Mar 27 with 2198 views | rochdale_ranger |
| Sign it... on 23:48 - Mar 27 by BigDaveMyCock |
God bless ya, you’re desperate for a bit of attention aren’t you? Can’t be fooking ar$ed with you tbh. |
I miss our chats. | | | |
| Sign it... on 00:07 - Mar 28 with 2182 views | D_Alien |
| Sign it... on 22:42 - Mar 27 by BigDaveMyCock |
There is a false dichotomy between regulation and free trade. If we trade with any nation we’re not going want to want to import products, for example, that are made by slaves/children or that are poisonous/carcinogenic or that have poor health and safety etc.. Nor, for that matter, is any developed nation/region going to want to import any similar products from us. It requires mutually agreed rules, standards and laws etc. You also need a myriad of other structures that ensure that if George doesn’t pay then Pedro has recourse and vice-versus etc. Regulation and institutions facilitate free trade. They create a level playing field. Like I’ve said before you pretty much have effortless free trade between EU nations, really you do. Level playing fields are created (rules, laws and institutions) they don’t happen in a vacuum of mythical free trade.
You can’t have the benefit of ‘that’ and not want ‘that’. You really can’t have your cake and eat it. And I notice that these myths, such as they need us more than we need them, have ceased doing the rounds. It’s interesting to have these eloquent debates on the purity of the referendum vote but history is unfolding. This really is fooking complicated, far more complicated than most leavers ever thought.
[Post edited 27 Mar 2019 23:09]
|
I wouldn't disagree with any of that. However, two things:
Something being complicated, even being very very complicated, doesn't mean it's not worthwhile pursuing
And I've previously stated that while our future trading relationship is naturally very important, it's not everything, or even the most important thing
Let's see what history unfolds for us over the next few days |  |
| |
| Sign it... on 00:37 - Mar 28 with 2164 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sign it... on 22:25 - Mar 27 by pioneer |
Wrong, we entered the EEC as it was then called under ted heath in Jan 73 ...there was no vote. Harold Wilson promosed a referendum on whether we should stay in. That was in June 1975. The result was stay in. It is a myth perpetrated by politicians and some journalists (including David Dimbleby on the night of the most recent referendum) that the british people voted to join the EEC.
What I find interesting is that the 75 referendum was similalry a yes , no question without any ifs or buts or consequences and those who voted leave, as I did, just had to suck it up and accept it as the democratic wish of the majority of those casting a ballot. Nothing about well we didnt know the full consequences, we were lied to by the remainers etc etc.
How times change, or is it that the establishment didnt get the result they wanted this time so we now play to different ‘rules’? |
Historically accurate (it was a 'Consultative' Referendum) and I also voted to leave. 63% voted to stay in.
To be fair Heath had included joining the Common Market (EC) in the 1970 Tory manifesto on which he became PM so the people did vote for it. As we had only joined 2 years before the referendum there was little institutional or regulatory alignment to evidence as negative and the leave campaign based on (then) only philosophical arguments about potential loss of Sovereignty, was decried as 'loony Marxist'. Margaret Thatcher (then Tory Leader) supported staying in.
Whilst it's true we had to accept the result, there were other opportunities to vote to leave - The Labour Party campaigned in the 1983 general election on a commitment to withdraw from the EC without a referendum but the voters chose not to elect them. | |
| |
| Sign it... on 04:46 - Mar 28 with 2140 views | kiwidale |
| Sign it... on 00:37 - Mar 28 by tony_roch975 |
Historically accurate (it was a 'Consultative' Referendum) and I also voted to leave. 63% voted to stay in.
To be fair Heath had included joining the Common Market (EC) in the 1970 Tory manifesto on which he became PM so the people did vote for it. As we had only joined 2 years before the referendum there was little institutional or regulatory alignment to evidence as negative and the leave campaign based on (then) only philosophical arguments about potential loss of Sovereignty, was decried as 'loony Marxist'. Margaret Thatcher (then Tory Leader) supported staying in.
Whilst it's true we had to accept the result, there were other opportunities to vote to leave - The Labour Party campaigned in the 1983 general election on a commitment to withdraw from the EC without a referendum but the voters chose not to elect them. |
Ted Heath was too busy Knobing little boys to be taken seriously, Fact. [Post edited 28 Mar 2019 4:49]
| |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Sign it... on 05:19 - Mar 28 with 2131 views | James1980 |
| Sign it... on 00:37 - Mar 28 by tony_roch975 |
Historically accurate (it was a 'Consultative' Referendum) and I also voted to leave. 63% voted to stay in.
To be fair Heath had included joining the Common Market (EC) in the 1970 Tory manifesto on which he became PM so the people did vote for it. As we had only joined 2 years before the referendum there was little institutional or regulatory alignment to evidence as negative and the leave campaign based on (then) only philosophical arguments about potential loss of Sovereignty, was decried as 'loony Marxist'. Margaret Thatcher (then Tory Leader) supported staying in.
Whilst it's true we had to accept the result, there were other opportunities to vote to leave - The Labour Party campaigned in the 1983 general election on a commitment to withdraw from the EC without a referendum but the voters chose not to elect them. |
Don't forget William Hague during the 2001 election campaign he was saying. In Europe not run by Europe. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Sign it... on 08:23 - Mar 28 with 2060 views | frenzied |
ok guys..i don't understand the ins and outs of this debacle
But..correct me if im wrong..over the last 24 hrs have certain MPS ie Boris , Mogg etc now AGREED to back the deal that May brought back when previously they opposed it purely because she has agreed to move on and they have the chance to be Prime Minister?
Boris would be awful ,hes the only Foreign Secretary I can recall going to Iran to negotiate the release of a British female prisoner accused of spying only to get her sentence increased by opening his mouth inappropriately!!
I hope im wrong...I can see his ending with civil disobedience and riots... | | | |
| Sign it... on 11:09 - Mar 28 with 2010 views | tony_roch975 |
Latest suggestion for resolving the impasse on Radio 4 this morning - "The only way that I see out is we come out on May's terms, we then pledge in five years' time to have a referendum: Do we like May's terms? Do we want to come out altogether? Or do we want to go back in, on the best terms that can be negotiated?"
Does that have any support (assuming there was a detailed prospectus for each option) or will we simply spend the next 5 years on skirmishes for a new remain/leave/return battle ?
ps - the speaker also said "This is the biggest political, constitutional, economic and social crisis in 300 years; we're going to need a political re-alignment and a new constitutional settlement because the one which has worked since C17th is broken". | |
| |
| Sign it... on 11:34 - Mar 28 with 2003 views | aleanddale |
with the DUP not backing May Deal and the labour party not wanting to give TM an easy ride I just cant see Brexit happening.
A very long ( expensive ) drawn out process at best.
Revoking article 50 completely more likely THEN a general election.
How about revoking article 50 - having 12 months to lick wounds and have a brand new government elected after a general election. We can then dust ourselves down and have a second referendum in 2021/22 should the country have the appetite for another one.
This Brexit just isn't happening and the quicker that's communicated to the people of Great Britain the better.
We deserve much better than this! and the whole process is now to complicated to unravel IMO. | | | |
| Sign it... on 13:59 - Mar 28 with 1951 views | steofthedale |
If the intention is to try and honour the "leave" vote, there are 3 options only:
1. May's agreement. (Can only succeed if MPs from other parties are willing to support it in sufficient numbers.)
2. No deal ( Might convince some labour MPs to accept May's deal if they actually believed no deal would happen)
3. No backstop. (Would need the EU to be fearful of, and wish to prevent option 2 and make legally binding changes to May's agreement. That would allow Tory and DUP to vote for the agreement. )
All other options will merely continue the chaos and uncertainty. [Post edited 28 Mar 2019 14:02]
| |
| |
| Sign it... on 14:39 - Mar 28 with 1925 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sign it... on 13:59 - Mar 28 by steofthedale |
If the intention is to try and honour the "leave" vote, there are 3 options only:
1. May's agreement. (Can only succeed if MPs from other parties are willing to support it in sufficient numbers.)
2. No deal ( Might convince some labour MPs to accept May's deal if they actually believed no deal would happen)
3. No backstop. (Would need the EU to be fearful of, and wish to prevent option 2 and make legally binding changes to May's agreement. That would allow Tory and DUP to vote for the agreement. )
All other options will merely continue the chaos and uncertainty. [Post edited 28 Mar 2019 14:02]
|
Fair analysis:-
re 3) EU can never agree to what would be seen as 'selling Ireland down the river' (it's the mirror image of the DUP's 'principle') so it's 1) or 2).
The HoC opposition to No deal is consistently high so it must be May's deal - as a firm leaver would you be willing to vote for it?
ps - looks like Govt trying to put half a May deal to vote tomorrow - Withdrawal Agreement bit without Political Declaration [Post edited 28 Mar 2019 15:07]
| |
| |
| Sign it... on 14:59 - Mar 28 with 1912 views | 49thseason |
"the speaker also said "This is the biggest political, constitutional, economic and social crisis in 300 years; we're going to need a political re-alignment and a new constitutional settlement because the one which has worked since C17th is broken".
Hmm, apart from WW1, WW2, the great depression, the General Strike, The Napoleonic wars, the Suez crisis, the Cuban Crisis, and probably 100s of other minor problems many of which involved men having to fight and die for pompous nincompoops like Mr Squeaker.
The problem is a simple one. We had a vote and the losers didn't like it, the reverse decision was taken in 1975 and I don't recall anyone openly contesting the result, many of us didn't like it but it was democracy and we accepted it. Now it appears that democracy only counts if you claim to be intellectually superior and worth more financially. If you happen to be relatively poor, speak with a funny northern accent and think that Farcebook and Twitter are ridiculous ways to judge public opinion you are clearly ignorant and don't know what you voted for.
Now that is a political and democratic crisis. |  | | |
| Sign it... on 15:19 - Mar 28 with 1900 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sign it... on 14:59 - Mar 28 by 49thseason |
"the speaker also said "This is the biggest political, constitutional, economic and social crisis in 300 years; we're going to need a political re-alignment and a new constitutional settlement because the one which has worked since C17th is broken".
Hmm, apart from WW1, WW2, the great depression, the General Strike, The Napoleonic wars, the Suez crisis, the Cuban Crisis, and probably 100s of other minor problems many of which involved men having to fight and die for pompous nincompoops like Mr Squeaker.
The problem is a simple one. We had a vote and the losers didn't like it, the reverse decision was taken in 1975 and I don't recall anyone openly contesting the result, many of us didn't like it but it was democracy and we accepted it. Now it appears that democracy only counts if you claim to be intellectually superior and worth more financially. If you happen to be relatively poor, speak with a funny northern accent and think that Farcebook and Twitter are ridiculous ways to judge public opinion you are clearly ignorant and don't know what you voted for.
Now that is a political and democratic crisis. |
men and women died?
I think the point being made was that despite the depth of crisis in all those historical moments, as you rightly say, the UK democratic system managed to keep working throughout but now it isn't - that's why it's the biggest crisis since we replaced one monarch with another in 1688 underlining Parliament's sovereignty.
I agree that the 2016 decision should be honoured (however wrong it was) and that the angry disrespect and belittling (on both sides) for those who voted differently has been both unacceptable and self-defeating. | |
| |
| Sign it... on 16:38 - Mar 28 with 1850 views | aleanddale |
3rd vote tomorrow??
I thought the speaker ruled this out unless there was "substantial" changes to the deal? | | | |
| Sign it... on 18:36 - Mar 28 with 1799 views | MoonyDale |
| Sign it... on 16:38 - Mar 28 by aleanddale |
3rd vote tomorrow??
I thought the speaker ruled this out unless there was "substantial" changes to the deal? |
There will be some underhand jiggery-pokery going on to get a third (yes a third) vote to take place, you know this completely undemocratic carry on voting to get what you want scenario that May is so fond of trawling out until it suits her purpose. The only leader ever to fall on her sword......And miss. |  |
| |
| Sign it... on 22:09 - Mar 28 with 1744 views | steofthedale |
| Sign it... on 14:39 - Mar 28 by tony_roch975 |
Fair analysis:-
re 3) EU can never agree to what would be seen as 'selling Ireland down the river' (it's the mirror image of the DUP's 'principle') so it's 1) or 2).
The HoC opposition to No deal is consistently high so it must be May's deal - as a firm leaver would you be willing to vote for it?
ps - looks like Govt trying to put half a May deal to vote tomorrow - Withdrawal Agreement bit without Political Declaration [Post edited 28 Mar 2019 15:07]
|
Re 3 .... A consequence of supporting the Irish Republic and the integrity of the EU by means of a non-negotiable "backstop" is less likelihood of an acceptance of the withdrawal agreement.
Were Parliament to honour their decision on article 50 then a "no deal" Brexit would result in the very situation against which the "backstop" was designed to protect. In these circumstances it seems a flawed strategy and an unnecessary gamble by Europe.
Since "no deal" may prove challenging to both the UK and the EU, concessions on the "backstop" could provide a degree of border certainty for an appropriate period and also facilitate an orderly exit mechanism to the benefit of all parties.
The EU, quite reasonably, have concluded that "no deal" is little more than an idle threat. However, with MPs rejecting every "leave" proposal, an inadvertent "no deal" exit is still a possibility as the clock runs down. The extension is contingent on Mrs May's agreement succeeding at MV3 which is far from guaranteed. To not apply some pressure to the EU along these lines may be another missed opportunity.
Regarding the withdrawal agreement......to accept it as it currently stands would be an enormous error.
No-one has any intention of constructing border posts and Eire's "no deal" planning does avoid border checks. Therefore the "backstop" must exist and remain non-negotiable for entirely other reasons. These surely include strengthening the EU's future negotiating position relative to the UK.
"No deal" need hold few fears since the starting point is of alignment across borders. Only if vindictiveness is allowed to triumph over mutual benefit would there be any likelihood of difficulties. Any organisation that was motivated by such petty small mindedness would be one from which the UK would be well rid. [Post edited 28 Mar 2019 22:11]
| |
| |
| Sign it... on 13:59 - Mar 29 with 1540 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sign it... on 22:09 - Mar 28 by steofthedale |
Re 3 .... A consequence of supporting the Irish Republic and the integrity of the EU by means of a non-negotiable "backstop" is less likelihood of an acceptance of the withdrawal agreement.
Were Parliament to honour their decision on article 50 then a "no deal" Brexit would result in the very situation against which the "backstop" was designed to protect. In these circumstances it seems a flawed strategy and an unnecessary gamble by Europe.
Since "no deal" may prove challenging to both the UK and the EU, concessions on the "backstop" could provide a degree of border certainty for an appropriate period and also facilitate an orderly exit mechanism to the benefit of all parties.
The EU, quite reasonably, have concluded that "no deal" is little more than an idle threat. However, with MPs rejecting every "leave" proposal, an inadvertent "no deal" exit is still a possibility as the clock runs down. The extension is contingent on Mrs May's agreement succeeding at MV3 which is far from guaranteed. To not apply some pressure to the EU along these lines may be another missed opportunity.
Regarding the withdrawal agreement......to accept it as it currently stands would be an enormous error.
No-one has any intention of constructing border posts and Eire's "no deal" planning does avoid border checks. Therefore the "backstop" must exist and remain non-negotiable for entirely other reasons. These surely include strengthening the EU's future negotiating position relative to the UK.
"No deal" need hold few fears since the starting point is of alignment across borders. Only if vindictiveness is allowed to triumph over mutual benefit would there be any likelihood of difficulties. Any organisation that was motivated by such petty small mindedness would be one from which the UK would be well rid. [Post edited 28 Mar 2019 22:11]
|
Have I understood you correctly - you prefer No Deal over the current WA and believe that any resulting economic damage and likelihood of Irish border imposition has been overstated. You believe the EU's negotiating position is largely bluster and that they will agree to give us largely the same economic benefits after we've left as before but if they don't that will further prove we were right to have left?
If there were to be serious economic, political or social damage would you still argue it would have been worth it to regain our sense of identity and sovereignty? | |
| |
| Sign it... on 16:36 - Mar 29 with 1496 views | steofthedale |
| Sign it... on 13:59 - Mar 29 by tony_roch975 |
Have I understood you correctly - you prefer No Deal over the current WA and believe that any resulting economic damage and likelihood of Irish border imposition has been overstated. You believe the EU's negotiating position is largely bluster and that they will agree to give us largely the same economic benefits after we've left as before but if they don't that will further prove we were right to have left?
If there were to be serious economic, political or social damage would you still argue it would have been worth it to regain our sense of identity and sovereignty? |
From the outset it was a mistake to separate negotiations on withdrawal from the future relationship with the EU.
The WA has acquiesced to all that was demanded with little in return. It succeeds in maintaining the status quo for the transition period whilst the real negotiations are undertaken. However its obvious weakness is that the UK is left with little else with which to bargain.
As no-one intends that the "backstop" should be utilised, its only value appears to be as additional pressure should there be disagreement on eg "fishing rights" etc.
I do believe the economic harm and Irish border question have been massively overstated. I do not consider that the Economic benefits would necessarily be unchanged after negotiation. But growth in the EU is stalling and being able to independently trade world wide should prove advantageous overall.
Chaos need only result if deliberated and wilfully contrived with those who would prefer the UK to "remain".
So, "yes", a starting point of "no deal" would allow for honest and fair discussion on the future arrangements. There need be no chaos as both are in full alignment and problems need only be addressed when and if there is divergence. There would probably be some mutually acceptable financial payment due.
Many who voted "leave" appear to have done so in no small measure due to their many years experience of serious economic, political and social damage, in part attributed to UK membership of the EU. Not all have "enjoyed" the "benefits" of ever more closer union and I have sympathy with them and the reasons behind their decision.
I am less influenced by the concerns of those motivated by corporate greed.
Restoring sovereignty and accountability are the main reasons why I still wish to "leave".
Whatever the future holds I would rather we took charge of our own destiny and decisions and accepted responsibility for the consequences whether good or ill. | |
| |
| Sign it... on 17:17 - Mar 29 with 1472 views | tony_roch975 |
| Sign it... on 16:36 - Mar 29 by steofthedale |
From the outset it was a mistake to separate negotiations on withdrawal from the future relationship with the EU.
The WA has acquiesced to all that was demanded with little in return. It succeeds in maintaining the status quo for the transition period whilst the real negotiations are undertaken. However its obvious weakness is that the UK is left with little else with which to bargain.
As no-one intends that the "backstop" should be utilised, its only value appears to be as additional pressure should there be disagreement on eg "fishing rights" etc.
I do believe the economic harm and Irish border question have been massively overstated. I do not consider that the Economic benefits would necessarily be unchanged after negotiation. But growth in the EU is stalling and being able to independently trade world wide should prove advantageous overall.
Chaos need only result if deliberated and wilfully contrived with those who would prefer the UK to "remain".
So, "yes", a starting point of "no deal" would allow for honest and fair discussion on the future arrangements. There need be no chaos as both are in full alignment and problems need only be addressed when and if there is divergence. There would probably be some mutually acceptable financial payment due.
Many who voted "leave" appear to have done so in no small measure due to their many years experience of serious economic, political and social damage, in part attributed to UK membership of the EU. Not all have "enjoyed" the "benefits" of ever more closer union and I have sympathy with them and the reasons behind their decision.
I am less influenced by the concerns of those motivated by corporate greed.
Restoring sovereignty and accountability are the main reasons why I still wish to "leave".
Whatever the future holds I would rather we took charge of our own destiny and decisions and accepted responsibility for the consequences whether good or ill. |
Thanks steofthedale for that clear, calm and well-argued case for leave. I too have sympathy with those reasons.
I think your 6th para is key & agree entirely that it is the lack of economic, political and social benefit experienced by millions of UK citizens (especially those who depended on selling their once highly-valued manual labour) over the last 40 years that helped drive the 'leave' vote. But I think that lack of benefit has been wrongly attributed to the EU, it's more the result of our own Governments' decisions to move from the post- war consensus of social democracy to the neo-liberalism begun under Thatcher.
I do think 'accepting responsibility' in the event of no deal is a courageous and honourable position but I'm not sure all of your fellow leavers would join you at the barricades.
Think we're the last 2 still posting on this thread so it’s probably had its day - but whatever happens I'm anxious that my new grandson will still be dealing with the fall-out at the end of his life.
Up the Dale. | |
| |
| Sign it... on 17:18 - Mar 29 with 1472 views | rochdale_ranger |
Did anyone have gdp in mind when they voted out or in. You lot are talking into a black hole. People voted out for political and cultural reasons. The economy is the economy recessions can come or go whether your in the EU or you aren’t. | | | |
| Sign it... on 19:16 - Mar 29 with 1390 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Sign it... on 17:18 - Mar 29 by rochdale_ranger |
Did anyone have gdp in mind when they voted out or in. You lot are talking into a black hole. People voted out for political and cultural reasons. The economy is the economy recessions can come or go whether your in the EU or you aren’t. |
What a ridiculous statement. Of course people voted for economic reasons. | |
| |
| Sign it... on 20:57 - Mar 29 with 1353 views | kiwidale |
| Sign it... on 19:16 - Mar 29 by BigDaveMyCock |
What a ridiculous statement. Of course people voted for economic reasons. |
nonsense | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
- who knows how it all will end! 