Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
So It's Confirmed We Are Ready For No Deal, Even The Cbi Think We Are Not....
161 Answers
https:/
on the basis that the CBI thinks the opposite of reality is there no better indicator that we are ready?
on the basis that the CBI thinks the opposite of reality is there no better indicator that we are ready?
Answers
Ellipsis - // In the lace seller scenario, no deal means keep the status quo i.e. remain. // No, it does not mean that. What it means is, there are plenty more lace sellers in the town, and plenty more customers, and on this occasion, we are not going to deal together, maybe tomorrow we will, tomorrow is another day, but for now, I am going to look elsewhere, and so is...
16:55 Mon 29th Jul 2019
// I think it's the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 that specifies the date of departure, rather than the 2017 ACt, which authorised giving notification.//
and we may never know as there is some idiot lawyer - Jonathan Sumption ( ex Law Lord actually) going around saying there is far too much lawyering about Brexit as it is....
clearly has the hots for Geena Miller dirty boy !
yes a law lord saying - "oo I dont fink we should be getting into that" Lord love us
and we may never know as there is some idiot lawyer - Jonathan Sumption ( ex Law Lord actually) going around saying there is far too much lawyering about Brexit as it is....
clearly has the hots for Geena Miller dirty boy !
yes a law lord saying - "oo I dont fink we should be getting into that" Lord love us
// Yeah, sod democracy.//
foo !
didnt st boris turn over in ( his tax payers) bed and comment - frack British industry
so by and large we are covering large swathes of business to be done
yeah foo agaim Next week - Boris denies he will sell large parts of the NHS off to Donald Trump
fwubbles his lovely tow hair and quips
that is completely untrue, a lie and a mis--fact - - - - I am going to sell ALL of it !
ter daah !
foo !
didnt st boris turn over in ( his tax payers) bed and comment - frack British industry
so by and large we are covering large swathes of business to be done
yeah foo agaim Next week - Boris denies he will sell large parts of the NHS off to Donald Trump
fwubbles his lovely tow hair and quips
that is completely untrue, a lie and a mis--fact - - - - I am going to sell ALL of it !
ter daah !
calicogirl; Whenever any one dismisses the source of the information rather than the information itself with an explanation, (known as the old, 'shoot-the-messenger' routine) I ask them to give, what they consider to be the news source which they use & recommend for complete probity & you know what? I haven't yet had an answer.
If we had entered negotiations on Day One with the proviso that we would walk away with No Deal if it came to it, we would not be in this mess now!
When I walk up to a lady in a Spanish market selling lace, we are going to bargain, and one of two things is going to happen - either we are going to agree a price, and she will curse me under her breath in Spanish from now until the morning, but STLL make the sale because she is still making a profit, just not the massive one from the gullible gringo she was hoping for …
or
she or I are going to walk away with no deal done, because neither of us is willing to compromise on what the other wants from the deal.
What is not going to happen is that we are going to stand there for three years debating it, because that is not how negotiation works, we have a deal, or we don't have a deal, it's that simple - and one of us can call a halt at any time and try elsewhere.
The only difference between me and the lace seller, and the UK and the EU, is scale - the fundamental principles of negotiation are exactly the same.
When I walk up to a lady in a Spanish market selling lace, we are going to bargain, and one of two things is going to happen - either we are going to agree a price, and she will curse me under her breath in Spanish from now until the morning, but STLL make the sale because she is still making a profit, just not the massive one from the gullible gringo she was hoping for …
or
she or I are going to walk away with no deal done, because neither of us is willing to compromise on what the other wants from the deal.
What is not going to happen is that we are going to stand there for three years debating it, because that is not how negotiation works, we have a deal, or we don't have a deal, it's that simple - and one of us can call a halt at any time and try elsewhere.
The only difference between me and the lace seller, and the UK and the EU, is scale - the fundamental principles of negotiation are exactly the same.
//In the lace seller scenario, no deal means keep the status quo i.e. remain.//
If you believe that Remaining in the EU is to preserve the "status quo" (i.e. the existing state of affairs) then you are mistaken. The EU does not do the status quo. It is evolving into a single federal state and the only question is whether it will collapse before that is achieved or afterwards. The changes that the newly appointed Euromaniacs have in mind demonstrate that if you want to retain the status quo you do not remain a member of the EU.
If you believe that Remaining in the EU is to preserve the "status quo" (i.e. the existing state of affairs) then you are mistaken. The EU does not do the status quo. It is evolving into a single federal state and the only question is whether it will collapse before that is achieved or afterwards. The changes that the newly appointed Euromaniacs have in mind demonstrate that if you want to retain the status quo you do not remain a member of the EU.
I don't think that "status quo" has ever meant that things stay literally the same. Remaining in the EU would merely mean that we would be heading in the same direction as before, maintain the same trading relations, etc etc. Of course the EU will continue to evolve, but can only reach "ever closer Union" with unanimous consent.
Also, OG, thanks for the reply. I completely sympathise with your choice of not reading the deal in full. But there are some aspects of it that, in spirit at least, would need to be addressed in any future arrangements independent of trade deals.
As to the Northern Island issue, we've been over this: it's a result of the contradictions between the Good Friday Agreement, which demands a transparent border, and the necessities of diverging customs arrangements, which demands the exact opposite. Despite claims to the contrary, the technology required to make these two fit together does not exist yet, and certainly won't be ready any time soon. Ergo the border on Ireland very much *is an issue*. The Backstop is meant to be a guarantee that, if another solution isn't found during the transition period, the Border won't need to be disrupted. Why it became an issue is, I suspect, rather more about the Brexiters' own agenda than any material concerns, since it wouldn't kick in if a future trading arrangement can be reached.
As to the Northern Island issue, we've been over this: it's a result of the contradictions between the Good Friday Agreement, which demands a transparent border, and the necessities of diverging customs arrangements, which demands the exact opposite. Despite claims to the contrary, the technology required to make these two fit together does not exist yet, and certainly won't be ready any time soon. Ergo the border on Ireland very much *is an issue*. The Backstop is meant to be a guarantee that, if another solution isn't found during the transition period, the Border won't need to be disrupted. Why it became an issue is, I suspect, rather more about the Brexiters' own agenda than any material concerns, since it wouldn't kick in if a future trading arrangement can be reached.
Ellipsis - // In the lace seller scenario, no deal means keep the status quo i.e. remain. //
No, it does not mean that.
What it means is, there are plenty more lace sellers in the town, and plenty more customers, and on this occasion, we are not going to deal together, maybe tomorrow we will, tomorrow is another day, but for now, I am going to look elsewhere, and so is the lace seller, because we are not bound to do a deal and cannot stop until we get one – that is not how negotiations, or trade, works.
If, and it is still if, we leave without a deal, let’s not pretend that the EU will simply pull up its drawbridge, and sit behind it huffing and puffing. They need our trade far more than we need theirs, their traders will be desperately aligning their regulations so that trade can continue with the UK.
We could have entered negotiations from a position of considerable strength – EU, we would like to deal, but we will walk away if we don’t compromise fairly on what is good for both of us in the long term.
That stance would have concentrated EU minds far more, and history will show that that is exactly what the EU teams thought they would have to fight through. What they got was a whipped dog that lay down, rolled over and whimpered and pleaded. The EU, not being able to believe its fortune, laughed and humiliated us every day from then until now, and we took it, because we never hinted at simply walking away and leaving them without the markets to trade, not just us.
That would be in no-one’s interest, which is what PM Johnson knows, and he knows that – better late than never – he can still force a deal because the EU needs a deal, they are bluffing, that’s negotiation.
To return to the lace seller – she may well walk away muttering, bit if she is close to a deal, she can, and will, walk back.
That is the analogy.
No, it does not mean that.
What it means is, there are plenty more lace sellers in the town, and plenty more customers, and on this occasion, we are not going to deal together, maybe tomorrow we will, tomorrow is another day, but for now, I am going to look elsewhere, and so is the lace seller, because we are not bound to do a deal and cannot stop until we get one – that is not how negotiations, or trade, works.
If, and it is still if, we leave without a deal, let’s not pretend that the EU will simply pull up its drawbridge, and sit behind it huffing and puffing. They need our trade far more than we need theirs, their traders will be desperately aligning their regulations so that trade can continue with the UK.
We could have entered negotiations from a position of considerable strength – EU, we would like to deal, but we will walk away if we don’t compromise fairly on what is good for both of us in the long term.
That stance would have concentrated EU minds far more, and history will show that that is exactly what the EU teams thought they would have to fight through. What they got was a whipped dog that lay down, rolled over and whimpered and pleaded. The EU, not being able to believe its fortune, laughed and humiliated us every day from then until now, and we took it, because we never hinted at simply walking away and leaving them without the markets to trade, not just us.
That would be in no-one’s interest, which is what PM Johnson knows, and he knows that – better late than never – he can still force a deal because the EU needs a deal, they are bluffing, that’s negotiation.
To return to the lace seller – she may well walk away muttering, bit if she is close to a deal, she can, and will, walk back.
That is the analogy.
//...but can only reach "ever closer Union" with unanimous consent.//
There were lots of matters EU that could only be achieved with unanimous consent. Slowly but surely, as part of its "evolution" the numbers of such matters have been reduced. Each new treaty shaves a little more off the matters over which individual countries can exercise what limited control they have. The Lisbon Treaty introduced "Qualified Majority Voting" to no less than 45 areas of policy which previously required unanimity. Among these was Immigration, Asylum and Border Checks.
The reason for this is that as the EU has grown it became increasingly difficult to enact policy to the satisfaction of an ever increasing number of members. That had to be overcome, hence the removal of the requirement for unanimity. The next treaty will no doubt continue down that path and the statement that something today requires unanimity is not worth the paper it's written on.
There were lots of matters EU that could only be achieved with unanimous consent. Slowly but surely, as part of its "evolution" the numbers of such matters have been reduced. Each new treaty shaves a little more off the matters over which individual countries can exercise what limited control they have. The Lisbon Treaty introduced "Qualified Majority Voting" to no less than 45 areas of policy which previously required unanimity. Among these was Immigration, Asylum and Border Checks.
The reason for this is that as the EU has grown it became increasingly difficult to enact policy to the satisfaction of an ever increasing number of members. That had to be overcome, hence the removal of the requirement for unanimity. The next treaty will no doubt continue down that path and the statement that something today requires unanimity is not worth the paper it's written on.
Even then, treaties require unanimity, do they not? A treaty is only enacted once all parties sign it. Granted, this isn't always a guarantee that the treaty will be favourable to all parties -- history is littered with examples when one side or another was bullied into signing -- but nevertheless the principle remains that unanimity exists as a requirement until all parties agree that it doesn't.
Remaining in the EU only preserves the status quo in that our name is included in the list of members. People who voted to remain because they wanted to retain the status quo are deluded. They are seeking continued membership of an organisation over which they have virtually no control in any number of important matters. "Ever Closer Union" is not a single entity. It is a progressive progress which, in typical EU style, is achieved in tiny steps, each being "not that much different to what went before". Anybody looking at the EU today and the EC of thirty years ago would say that the EU has already achieved its Ever Closer Union. It has its own currency, its own diplomatic network and the majority of its members have no hard borders between them. The members that have "opt outs" from these and other features of Union only have them today. The next treaty might well include a passage that commits all members to the euro or to Schengen. The opt outs only last for so long as the Euromaniacs kindly grant their dispensation.
It's done by stealth not step change and it will continue to do so. The only way to avoid being part of its ultimate federal goal is to leave.
It's done by stealth not step change and it will continue to do so. The only way to avoid being part of its ultimate federal goal is to leave.
"If we had entered negotiations on Day One with the proviso that we would walk away with No Deal if it came to it, we would not be in this mess now!"
No so IMO. There'd be no reason to think the result of the vote would have been different as it was clear the question was about leaving regadless. And no reason to believe those unable to accept that the decision went against them would have behaved instead of trying to frighten the less courageous into switching from supporting the right thing.
No so IMO. There'd be no reason to think the result of the vote would have been different as it was clear the question was about leaving regadless. And no reason to believe those unable to accept that the decision went against them would have behaved instead of trying to frighten the less courageous into switching from supporting the right thing.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles56 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles67 mins ago
ChatterBank320 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles342 mins ago
News350 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.