Quizzes & Puzzles5 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 recall reading somewhere, fairly sure it was the BBC site, that the wording of the Good Friday Agreement wasn't as explicit as promising no border. I can't recall the exact words mentioned but it's meaning was along the lines of trying to avoid as best as possible having one. But there again we aren't planning to put one there anyway.
As you say, we've been over this. The EU/RoI can make up their minds whether random checks at the destination, and normal policework chasing down lawbreakers, are ok, or whether they wish to expose the lie that the EU keeps the peace by insisting on an unnecessary border post in order to ensure goods are to standard. I feel we all must realise that the demand of border checks are just an unhelpful demand.
The new technology isn't even needed but I'm sure both governments would find it useful. And what is it that doesn't exist ? CCTV maybe ? Video storage ? Numberplate recognition ?
The Backstop is claimed to be a guarantee that, if another solution isn't found during the transition period, the Border won't need to be disrupted. But since it doesn't need to be interrupted at the border anyway, it loses credibility as an argument; and seen as the excuse it is to try to force the UK to remain, as the EU would prefer.
As you say, we've been over this. The EU/RoI can make up their minds whether random checks at the destination, and normal policework chasing down lawbreakers, are ok, or whether they wish to expose the lie that the EU keeps the peace by insisting on an unnecessary border post in order to ensure goods are to standard. I feel we all must realise that the demand of border checks are just an unhelpful demand.
The new technology isn't even needed but I'm sure both governments would find it useful. And what is it that doesn't exist ? CCTV maybe ? Video storage ? Numberplate recognition ?
The Backstop is claimed to be a guarantee that, if another solution isn't found during the transition period, the Border won't need to be disrupted. But since it doesn't need to be interrupted at the border anyway, it loses credibility as an argument; and seen as the excuse it is to try to force the UK to remain, as the EU would prefer.
OG at 19:11, haven't you misinterpreted Andy's post? As a committed Brexit supporter, I'm sure he wasn't arguing that the Referendum result would or should have been different...
For your second: the Backstop only came into the picture when Theresa May decided that we had to leave the Customs Union *now*. It wasn't an imposition of the EU, therefore, but a response, and a logical one at that, to the British negotiating position.
For your second: the Backstop only came into the picture when Theresa May decided that we had to leave the Customs Union *now*. It wasn't an imposition of the EU, therefore, but a response, and a logical one at that, to the British negotiating position.
The Backstop was Theresa May modified capitulation to the EU demand. They wanted to divide our nation and have a border between one part of it and the rest. Clearly unacceptable as the EU elite would have known before suggesting it. That TM tried to pacify them by effectively agreeing whilst removing the internal border dumping us all in the EU, thus pleasing no one, was an error on her part. But as it was a modified version of the original EU suggestion, it was and is very much their imposition.
Are we suggesting that the EUSSR is going to encourage the IRA into resuming it's murderous, cowardly behaviour? The scheme that has decided that Nations are defunct is encouraging a splinter Republican group to carry out terrorist acts from bases within the EUSSR.... really? With the support it would appear of the British Remainiacs themselves as well?
Jim 19:24, yes, it absolutely means it has been ignored. How can anyone have a valid view about it until Brexit has actually been achieved and we know what is what? If people change their minds after and vote a different way- that is democracy. Not carrying out a decision, and re-asking, isn't. You are not that daft. Don't pretend to be xx
Asking the question a second time, some years later, when the decision has not even attempted to be implemented, let alone allowed to settle down so it may be judged properly, is very much the same as wanting/hoping the result is ignored. Believing that it's a complete misrepresentation of the Remainers' position sounds like being in denial to me. One doesn't want to think of oneself as unaccepting of the majority decision and wanting one's own way, so one refuses to accept that it is so.
so the eu will shut down trade, or one its illegal and two, the german and french car and wine manufacturers wont be happy.
https:/
Another threat from the little Napoleon.
https:/
They also need to read article 8 paragraph 1 of the Lisbon treaty.
https:/
Another threat from the little Napoleon.
https:/
They also need to read article 8 paragraph 1 of the Lisbon treaty.
OG - // "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. //
I am unsure what point you are making here.
The vote and the negotiations are entirely separate - the second would not have existed without a wish to leave expressed as a result of the former.
You cannot negotiate to leave until the country have voted that as its wish, so any negotiations, by definition, are only ever going to concern the details of leaving, not whether or not we leave, that was decided in the referendum.
Sadly, a number of MP's whose egos have got the better of them, seem to feel that their aversion to a deal, or no deal, trumps the democratic will of the people of this country - it does not.
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. //
I am unsure what point you are making here.
The vote and the negotiations are entirely separate - the second would not have existed without a wish to leave expressed as a result of the former.
You cannot negotiate to leave until the country have voted that as its wish, so any negotiations, by definition, are only ever going to concern the details of leaving, not whether or not we leave, that was decided in the referendum.
Sadly, a number of MP's whose egos have got the better of them, seem to feel that their aversion to a deal, or no deal, trumps the democratic will of the people of this country - it does not.
webbo - // the german and french car and wine manufacturers wont be happy. //
I refer you back to my lace seller - the manufacturers can curse us in French or German from now until Doomsday, but it won't stop them trading.
In the real world - as opposed to the rarified nonsense that is our negotiations team, people don't have to like a deal to go along with it. Not liking it usually means that the terms are not as favourable as the cursee would like, but that doesn't mean they have the option to take their trade elsewhere.
Like the lace seller, curse they might, but sell they will - that is how trade works, not on bluffs and threats, egos and posturing, a but simple market forces
I refer you back to my lace seller - the manufacturers can curse us in French or German from now until Doomsday, but it won't stop them trading.
In the real world - as opposed to the rarified nonsense that is our negotiations team, people don't have to like a deal to go along with it. Not liking it usually means that the terms are not as favourable as the cursee would like, but that doesn't mean they have the option to take their trade elsewhere.
Like the lace seller, curse they might, but sell they will - that is how trade works, not on bluffs and threats, egos and posturing, a but simple market forces
I agree with og actually. Once the results of the referendum were known, the MPs should have Don's everything within their power to carry it out. They didn't. They saw it as a damage limitation exercise, to leave as little as possible " so they incredibly weakened our hand, and did not (as far as I know) give directions to companies and individuals to make arrangements for a no deal exit. They were determined that it just shouldn't happen. So, instead of preparation, everything has been stalled as much as possible, so that nobody is actually ready. They have been kept as uncertain as humanly possible.
Instead of spending the last 3 years making proper preparations, companies have not been sure what will really happen, putting them at a huge, deliberate, disadvantage. We need someone with a bit of determination and character, which sadly, we didn't have at first,to give Britain the very best chance of success.
Instead of spending the last 3 years making proper preparations, companies have not been sure what will really happen, putting them at a huge, deliberate, disadvantage. We need someone with a bit of determination and character, which sadly, we didn't have at first,to give Britain the very best chance of success.
To me, opposition to leaving the EU is simply going against the democratic wishes of the electorate and I cannot see anyone being able to justify that position for one minute.
The imagined complexities of the deal / no deal scenarios are merely fog to stop Parliament from proceeding as directed - and I believe 'directed' is the correct term - they serve us, not the other way around.
The imagined complexities of the deal / no deal scenarios are merely fog to stop Parliament from proceeding as directed - and I believe 'directed' is the correct term - they serve us, not the other way around.
//To me, opposition to leaving the EU is simply going against the democratic wishes of the electorate and I cannot see anyone being able to justify that position for one minute. //
People do try, Andy, believe me. Their views are so much more important and correct than anyone else's...
But yes, in the real world, businesses trade with whatever they think will make them money. They don't refuse profits on principle.
People do try, Andy, believe me. Their views are so much more important and correct than anyone else's...
But yes, in the real world, businesses trade with whatever they think will make them money. They don't refuse profits on principle.
I'm neither daft nor even pretending to be, but thanks all the same for the backhanded compliment, Pixie :P
As soon as Article 50 notification was given, the referendum result could never be ignored. Ignoring it would mean not having passed the necessary legislation, not giving notice, and not even bothering to enter into a period of negotiations. As to the claim that we must leave before deciding whether or not it's a good idea... it rather depends on your perspective of the available evidence, but there are certainly plenty of sound reasons to take seriously the idea that, in particular, a No Deal Brexit would be far more damaging than I am sure the country was hoping for. It doesn't make any sense to me to drive off the cliff and then decide if it was a good idea or not after you've crashed. I accept that you don't agree with this, because you don't accept that there's a cliff edge to start with, but it is completely mistaken to pretend that there's not even a case for seriously believing in one -- and as soon as you accept even the theoretical existence of such risks it becomes completely legitimate to argue in favour having a second referendum, or some other rethink, *before* leaving.
And, even if not, it is also utter nonsense to pretend that either a General Election leading to a party promising to repeal Article 50, or a further referendum with the same consequence, would be undemocratic. The only way the referendum in 2016 can be "ignored", then, is if the people, one way or another, choose to ignore it. And that is a choice that they are, or ought to be, free to make in a democracy.
As soon as Article 50 notification was given, the referendum result could never be ignored. Ignoring it would mean not having passed the necessary legislation, not giving notice, and not even bothering to enter into a period of negotiations. As to the claim that we must leave before deciding whether or not it's a good idea... it rather depends on your perspective of the available evidence, but there are certainly plenty of sound reasons to take seriously the idea that, in particular, a No Deal Brexit would be far more damaging than I am sure the country was hoping for. It doesn't make any sense to me to drive off the cliff and then decide if it was a good idea or not after you've crashed. I accept that you don't agree with this, because you don't accept that there's a cliff edge to start with, but it is completely mistaken to pretend that there's not even a case for seriously believing in one -- and as soon as you accept even the theoretical existence of such risks it becomes completely legitimate to argue in favour having a second referendum, or some other rethink, *before* leaving.
And, even if not, it is also utter nonsense to pretend that either a General Election leading to a party promising to repeal Article 50, or a further referendum with the same consequence, would be undemocratic. The only way the referendum in 2016 can be "ignored", then, is if the people, one way or another, choose to ignore it. And that is a choice that they are, or ought to be, free to make in a democracy.
jim - // The only way the referendum in 2016 can be "ignored", then, is if the people, one way or another, choose to ignore it. And that is a choice that they are, or ought to be, free to make in a democracy. //
It appears though, that it is not the people who are ignoring the result - it is their supposed representatives in Parliament who are determined that the will of the people be thwarted, and that strikes at the very heart of the democratic process.
Of course, each side can produce yards of evidence to promote its own view, but the fact remains, no-one knows what will happen, but I suspect, as with the Millennium Bog, bird flu, and the death of bees, it is all a lot of alarmist piffle.
It appears though, that it is not the people who are ignoring the result - it is their supposed representatives in Parliament who are determined that the will of the people be thwarted, and that strikes at the very heart of the democratic process.
Of course, each side can produce yards of evidence to promote its own view, but the fact remains, no-one knows what will happen, but I suspect, as with the Millennium Bog, bird flu, and the death of bees, it is all a lot of alarmist piffle.
It wasn't meant to be "backhanded" Jim. But you do choose between scientific/rational or what you would personally prefer... on a regular basis, without any apparent realisation of the hypocrisy involved.
Your personal opinion on how damaging it would be, is irrelevant. This does not count ego sizes, only actual votes and unfortunately, even stupid people have a say and are just as relevant.
Your personal opinion on how damaging it would be, is irrelevant. This does not count ego sizes, only actual votes and unfortunately, even stupid people have a say and are just as relevant.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
ChatterBank49 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles71 mins ago
News79 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.