stephenterry

43 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Remember that for the EU all 28 (including the UK) members have to agree.

 

When the UK wants a trade deal with another country there are onlu 2 players in the game.

It would still take at least 3 years to implement an agreed deal. Try that on with S Korea, and we could be waiting many more years. 

45 minutes ago, billd766 said:

So what would YOU do?

Hold a GE. Let the parties state their positions and let the country vote.

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Well the EU has been negotiating with Brazil and Mercosur for some 20 years though at this point I cannot find the link. I'm sorry.

Well if that anything to set your stall out on, I guess the UK has a long wait ahead before striking any new deals.

4 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I have no idea what his plans are, other than to get the UK out of the EU on 31st October.

My Buddha - that's a plan? Never would have thought of that being so simple.  But it does beg the question; What then?

Hold a GE?

or something else nobody's thought of? All I see is a government pledge to mitigate the adverse effects of a No-deal. And I thought it was going to benefit Britain...

3 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Except for the fact that the wonderfully unified and cohesive British parliament have already had the best part of the previous 3 years to prevent no-deal.

 

Enough is enough and as much as I despise BoJo and the shamelessly duplicitous Tories, just DO IT. If it's a bad deal they wanted, then MP's should have gotten behind Theresa May when they had the chance. She did graciously grant them three attempts to do this. Conflating the now very real prospect of no-deal as some validation for a second referendum is where the opposition aka remainers lost the collective plot, went totally off-plan and bogged down any chance of the UK leaving with a better deal earlier.

 

As pointed out in an earlier post, if a no-deal Brexit needed so much additional debate, why didn't our elected parliamentarians and that gobby House Speaker not raise the prospect of FORGOING the summer recess to get this sorted?

 

3/10

 

Must try harder!

Apart from the deleted part, I agree. As for the 'Just Do it' - that applies to both the government and parliament. One way or another let's get clarity before the pound drops to zero.

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You mean he has plans but he's just not sharing them with anybody? Why not?

Perhaps he hasn't got that far yet.

4 hours ago, shaurene said:

No no he is not, it was already running into the ground. He is doing what the people voted for. The EU will screw UK into the ground as punishment. We do not need a deal. Many countries have already confirmed they will and want a free trade deal with UK. 

USA, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, SOUTH AFRICA AND A NUMBER OF ASIA COUNTRIES. 

Within a year of leaving UK will be booming. 

We will. Have our old fishing areas back.

you all thinking negatively. 

Perhaps you should take some time off and address parliament. Let them know what benefits would accrue and would be best for Britain, because for the life of me I can't see any.

As for free trade deals, you do realise it takes about one year to even reach agreement, let alone another two years to implement it. (Time scale quoted from US trade deal stats.) 

As for the EU, it's the UK that is negotiating to leave, not them.

Another media headline - and forums such as this one post Brexit topics ad nauseum, knowing that their marketing income would continue with a 'ready-made' ex-pat audience.

It's all about money...

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It was perfectly constitutional. Proroguing Parliament happens every year or two and was long overdue since the current session has gone on for 3 years already. If Parliamentarians were that worried about losing time they could have cancelled their multiple week recess that they are currently enjoying, but they probably had nice holidays booked. Now they're wining like babies about losing 4 days (once you allow for the conference recess). 

 

 

Agreed, and I have no issue in principle; however the timing of such an action, IMO, is evidence that Johnson is riding roughshod over parliament by curtailing the time for parliament to prevent a no-deal. 

What I find more galling is that his 'backers' and 'far-right-wingers' are hell bent on seeing off Corbyn's social democracy party even if it means breaking up Britain to achieve it. 

12 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

 

The issue is here is not "rights", but morality - clearlly a concept YOU don't understand.

Go and complain to your MP, then. Nothing to do with me. I'm not able to make a decision on what's best for Britain, I can only lobby against a no-deal.

58 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

1. I don't see any mistake. The mistake was staying this long, we're getting out just in time.

2. We are Leaving not quitting.

3. The fact that the EU is trying to extort 39 Billion from us because we are leaving is not a failing of the UK but an increasing typical vindictive reaction from a failing protectionist racket that is becoming desperate for cash to fill the gap that UK contributions will leave.

 

They don't decide how much we pay them any more than a husband decides how much his wife needs to pay him before she can leave the family home. If an agreement cannot be reached between BOTH parties then the courts can settle it. I'm happy with that.

Get real. Read the facts before commenting rubbish.

2 hours ago, Forethat said:

I think it's a perfectly valid analogy as the proposed withdrawal agreement has a clause where the matter is covered:

EU reserve the right to hold the UK financially liable for expenses they might accrue AFTER the UK have left the EU. They have even given us the annual date when they'll send us the bar bill.  (Article 144 Paragraph 2):

The withdrawal agreement states in clear text that the UK are financially liable for financial operations approved AFTER we've left.

 

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Cute.

 

One thing I agree with, as I have already posted the facts. Still need your acceptance that the UK is a sovereign nation - something that you refuse to admit. Which probably doesn't add to your credibility or your posts on this forum.   

4 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Agreed. By the same token, if Parliament had a shred of morality, it would not be seeking to overturn Cameron's self-declared "binding" agreement to leave the EU.

 

(Now wait for all the Remainers to pile in with their lame excuses why this is not happening).

it's their democratic right - something you don't understand or accept.

1 hour ago, mania said:

Well actually the things I am buying are high end cycling wheels & made in Italy so yeah there is the point that

I am making & it is about shipping costs which I was replying to

 

I have no horse in this hole Brexit or not deal....I was only replying to that post that shipping to US would kill

Yeah, you have a point, and I'm sure wherever you are there would be dearer and cheaper goods on offer than you could get at home. It also makes sense that the majority of goods shipped to the US would incur greater transportation costs than those sent to the EU.  

So be it. Higher costs all round.

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Since this is your area I would refer you to Lord Denning statement 1979

 

He stated that if Parliament expressly declared its intention to contradict a treaty or provision of such treaty . Then it would be the duty to uphold Parliaments intention.

I would also add:

Apart from EU immigration, the British government still determines the vast majority of policy over every issue of greatest concern to British voters – including health, education, pensions, welfare, monetary policy, defence and border security. The arguments for leaving also ignore the fact that the UK controls more than 98 % of its public expenditure.

15 minutes ago, Forethat said:

We've never lost our sovereignty? Wow, are you in for a rude wakeup to reality. The highest juridical instance in the UK is the European Court of Justice.

 

You were saying?

Britain is a sovereign state Full Stop. Parliament can make their own laws, albeit owing to the EU treaties, Britain has accommodated the ECJ - and that's beneficial IMO in that we're unlikely to enter into an undemocratic state that the right-wingers strive to achieve. 

You were saying ?

If it's been rejected by the body, any water soluble nutrients in the urine is just not needed - at that point in time.  However, urine drinking, provided no alcohol has been consumed, has found devotees because the urine could contain dissolved vitamins e.g. B12 etc that the body could need at a future point. 

In some ways, good nutrition points to a regime that needs to be as varied as possible, so that the body, through a complex maze of absorption, takes what it needs to function properly. 

So an every day diet of cornflakes and milk at breakfast, a BLT and yogurt at lunch, and meat and two veg at dinner could mean an overdose of nutrition that would be rejected, and a lack of nutrients otherwise needed. 

Apart from the fact that the above example is not the healthiest.