.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
welovesundaysatspace
-
Posts
4,069 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by welovesundaysatspace
-
-
12 hours ago, nauseus said:
Big business is pro EU and not concerned about people.
Brexiteers are not only wise, they have the John Smith's too!
Until “big business” has moved all the jobs away from those people they’re “not concerned about”.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Reigntax said:
They decided. It's over.
The minority didn't win. The majority won.
The minority are upset they lost. Same with every vote.
It's over.
You better find a majority in parliament for that.
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, vogie said:Brexit is not like a box of chocolates, where we can say I'll have the one with a nut in, the EU have said there is one deal, Mays Deal, it will not be altered or opened.
You could be fair to the people and ask them if they want to have the box of shxt that you sold them pretending it would be nice Belgian Pralinés, rather than telling them they have to accept everything that’s a little brown pile. Now as it’s clear what your box of chocolates may include (and what not) that’d be the only sensible thing to do, and the only thing to not do so is that you know that many people would rather not take that box knowing it’ll be shxt inside the one way or the other.
-
2
-
1
-
- Popular Post
3 hours ago, jesimps said:They've already asked the electorate and remainers refuse to accept the democratic result.
Not true.
3 hours ago, jesimps said:Also if Brexit were binned, that would be the end of democracy in the UK as we know it.
Not true.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:"Asking the electorate will be the only way out of the impasse."
At this point, I'm inclined to agree - as long as the options asked are:-
1) Accept the boris/hunt (whoever is elected as PM) 'deal'
2) Leave without the eu 'deal'
That doesn’t sound fair to all the people who believed by voting for Brexit they would get the cake and eat it, and who rather would want to remain than leaving being worse off. Those two options would only lead to the next biased result. Make it three options, ranked by priority, and you know once and for all know what people want when being faced with realistic options.
-
2
-
2
-
- Popular Post
Asking the electorate will be the only way out of the impasse. And it is the most sensible thing to do. The second most sensible thing. The most sensible thing would be to bin Brexit altogether (which will happen eventually anyway).
-
8
-
1
-
4
-
21 hours ago, vogie said:
Don't be so defensive all the time when somebody critisizes the mghty EU. From the FT.
"Tusk says ‘special place in hell’ for Brexit campaigners"
https://www.ft.com/video/80bd4ec7-50d3-4ccf-8a5f-ba34a2257297
Again, that’s not true. You apparently don’t know what quotation marks mean or how to use them.
-
- Popular Post
38 minutes ago, vogie said:Don't take things too literally, remember Donald Tusk telling us "there is a special place in hell for Brexit campaigners" Well if I can just emphasize, we, our country have no intention of going there.
He never said that. Don’t spread lies.
-
1
-
2
-
9 minutes ago, aright said:
I voted for my MP in the knowledge that if his/her party were in the majority the head of that party would be PM. Both sides of the Brexit argument were represented on the ballot paper, manifestos, for what they are worth, were diverse leading to plenty of choice and I was happy with that. In short I knew that whatever party I voted for their leader would be the next PM if a majority vote was obtained. I had no such feelings in the EU elections about any political party. Did you?
You seem to be suggesting their should be national elections to decide who the leader of each political party should be. Good luck with that.
We were talking about the most powerful person. When did you vote for your head of state and commander-in-chief; the person who has authority over your government and appoints your prime minister?
-
1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:
I must be missing something here?
Precisely who are you referring to as "the most powerful person in the UK"?
Edit - My mistake - belatedly realised you probably meant the queen ????.
Exactly. Your own head of state and commander-in-chief, who has authority over your government and appoints the prime minister, is unelected. You’re the last to call anyone unelected.
-
1
-
-
On 7/4/2019 at 6:08 AM, aright said:
The EU Commissioner is the most powerful person in the EU (with the possible exception of Merkel)…..to suggest he or she doesn't affect the daily life of EU citizens is naïve.
I voted in the last UK General Election, comprising many choices, knowing that if my Party won their leader would be the next Prime Minister...…….I was happy with that.
What vote did I or the MEP's get in the appointment of the EU Commissioner comprising one choice. Of what value is that to the EU Parliament or EU citizens or democracy?
Oh! I have just had a thought as to who might benefit...……………….
And when did you vote for the most powerful person in the UK? A choice of 1, who is never elected by anyone.
-
1
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, nauseus said:
Not fake news. See (EC) No. 2257/94 (abnormal curvature).
Fake news. Did you actually bother to read the regulation? EC No. 2257/94, apart from being a repealed regulation anyway, did not include anything that would ban bent bananas.
-
7 minutes ago, evadgib said:
Confirmed by Tilbrook himself here:
What a big surprise that it was rejected. Not that everyone hasn’t told you so. Only armchair lawyers with a bachelor in nothing and a master in dreaming could believe a UK court could rule an agreement in international law to be terminated; but you were expecting the press would join you making a fool of yourself?
-
1
-
-
Think it’s a bad choice. Didn’t run the German Ministry of Defense well.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, vogie said:a Federal nation with it's own national anthem and flag, without consulting anyone.
Like the UK you mean?
-
1
-
3
-
13 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:
quote from nigel farage ..today
Heard some say that Brexit MEPs were “disrespectful” today.
I’ll tell you what is disrespectful — taking the ancient nation states of Europe and turning it into one country with its own anthem and flag, without ever asking for permission!Ok, he’s crazy now.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, vogie said:
The EU might think it's a country with it's own anthem, they need reminding, they are not.
Who needs a country with an own anthem when you can have a bloc of countries with an own anthem?
-
2
-
-
35 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:
How to explain......
The individual (exporting) countries and businesses involved will be very worried.
The eu as an entity - doesn't work for those exporting to the uk - as they are understandably far more concerned about their own exports.
Like I wrote above, even the individual countries do only rely on the UK market for 8-9% of their exports at most if I’m not mistaken. That means, even in case of a complete breakdown of all trade, the EU countries hurt most would still have 90+% of their exports not affected, as compared to half of all U.K. exports.
Then, of course you will find single businesses who rely more on the UK market than others. You might even find businesses that completely rely on the UK market and could be severely affected. But then, again, as such single business only accounts for 0.x% or less of the country’s whole exports, and even less of the whole EU’s exports, how could any such business make a case for a trade deal? On the other hand, since half of the UK’s exports rely on the EU, you’ll have more UK businesses pressing for good future trade relationships.
So, even if you try to find single countries or single businesses that might rely more on the U.K., it doesn’t change that the EU has 93% of its exports safe, whereas 50% of the UK’s exports would be at stake.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Dene16 said:
I would not argue against your statement but it could be put in another way
The 7% of EU exports to the UK is far greater than the UK percentage(50%) exports to the EU
In essence the same statement
What’s your point? It doesn’t matter whether your put it in percentages or absolute values; it doesn’t change the fact that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK is about to put at risk half of its market, the EU only about 7% of its market.
9 hours ago, Dene16 said:EU exports are country driven and will have a much larger effect upon individual countries within the EU, If we source products from countries outside the EU
What countries are you referring to? If I’m not mistaken, even the biggest exporters to the UK export only 8-9% to the UK. I.e., there is no country in the EU that relies so heavily on the UK that it would try to convince the other members of anything.
9 hours ago, Dene16 said:Suddenly the onus changes on who relies on who
Statistical information can always be twisted to support one way or the other
Please elaborate. I can’t see how that’s the case.
-
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, potless said:if a country wants to buy something from the U.K. or wants to sell something to the U.K., why would they not?
I didn’t say they would not want to trade with the UK under an FTA. What I said is that it’s unlikely that anyone would just copy over the existing EU FTA.
Under the existing EU FTA, a country gets access to the whole single market. That is obviously more attractive than only getting access to the UK market. So a country might want to renegotiate the terms to reflect what it gets out of such FTA with the UK. Similarly, the UK’s market might be less interesting in some and more interesting in other sectors, as it is structured differently than the single market. A country might want to renegotiate terms to extract concessions in particular sectors.
Another issue is “rules of origin”. All FTA have rules under which a certain percentage of a product must be produced domestically in order to qualify for free trade, typically around 40%. As an EU-member, a UK producer can source 40% from the UK, France, or Germany; it all counts as domestic parts so the product would qualify for free trade. After Brexit, the same producer would have to source those 40% parts from the UK market alone in order to qualify for free trade, otherwise his products would be subject to import tariffs in the respective country.
Then, FTA even more so also cover complying with standards, rules, and regulations. Existing EU FTA have endless lists and clauses of what and how EU regulations and procedures must be met. You can’t just copy/paste them; they would have to be replaced with UK equivalents. Similar issues arise from governance definitions, such as committees and arbitration procedures. Those have to be setup, and the partner needs to agree to it.
How about specific thresholds, such as opening a certain sector for access only if x% of y are met? Will those x and y be the same for the UK? Or would it have to be reassessed and renegotiated? When the EU and a country agreed that a certain quantity per year only shall be permitted to enter free of customs duty, say 1,000 tons of beef, would copy-paste really work, I.e. that country would allow 2,000 tons of beef to enter free of customs duty? Or would it want to sit down with the UK and the EU and somehow split that amount?
Have a look at some of those FTA; they are online. Hundreds of pages with definitions tailored to an integrated market of 28 different economies, rather than an isolated market of only one. Replacing every “EU” with “UK” will never work.
QuoteWhy cant the existing agreements just be replicated?
See above.
-
4
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, bluesofa said:Have I got it wrong, but I thought Ko Phang Nga had declared UDI from the rest of Thailand and could do whatever they liked. Or is that only regarding murdering foreigners?
There is no Ko Phang Nga. There is Phang Nga and there is Koh Phangan.
-
11
-
2
-
30 minutes ago, potless said:
is there any reason why they could not just be copied chapter and verse, signed and then carry on as normal?
Why would anyone do that? The UK has much less and different things to offer than the EU; why would anyone give the UK the same conditions?
30 minutes ago, potless said:Would a signatory to these E.U. deals say to the U.K. that they would no longer trade under existing arrangements after brexit, purely because the U.K. was no longer a member of the E.U.?
Existing arrangements are with EU, of which the UK won’t be a member anymore. So, of course, those existing agreements would no longer apply to the trade with the UK.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:
The poll shows that only 43% want to remain in the EU. And 57% want to LEAVE the EU.
That’s not what the poll says. The answering options are not “remain” or “leave” as you’re trying to suggest. For what the poll really shows please refer to the image posted, everything else is (again) intentional misinterpretation.
You don’t know how people would respond to such poll (or a referendum) if the question was: “Would you rather remain or leave without a deal if a soft Brexit or May’s deal is being rejected”. Polls like this are pretty useless because both sides, if they want to misinterpret the poll for their cause, can equally claim that those who favor May’s deal or a soft Brexit would rather pick their side than the other in the case May’s deal or a soft Brexit is being ruled out.
-
1
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
2 minutes ago, vogie said:I think you are 'over egging the pudding' on the definition of leave.
Leave means: "If you leave an institution, group, or job, you permanently stopattending that institution, being a member of that group, or doing that job."
It doesn't say you permanently leave but go back in on a Saturday morning to make the tea.
May’s deal or customs union are delivering that. Yet Brexiteers are stopping it. Why are Brexiteers trying to overturn the Democratic will of the people who want to leave?
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
UK firms cut investment plans as Brexit alarm hits new high - survey
in World News
Posted
I believe there are still many thousands of jobs that “big business” provides to the people.