UK ready to quit EU on 'Australia terms' if no Brexit deal, Johnson says

[CorpusChristie]

4 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Do you think it will be more or less expensive compared to one which was moved by trucks?

I have no idea .

What would be cheaper ; Spanish oranges or Mexican oranges is the question .

You would have to factor in source costs , transport and tariffs and maybe a few other costs .

 

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I don't really care. Fruit can be successfully chilled and shipped. Germany and France already import a lot of Brazilian oranges, so what's the problem?

So countries in the EU can already get oranges from Brazil but the benefit for us of leaving the EU is we can now get Brazilian oranges?

Brexiteer logic right there.

[luckyluke]

32 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

But when I read how much the pension is in the U.K., we in Belgium haven't to complain at all.

 

Nauseus, You really consider it funny that retirees in the U.K. have a small pension?

[CorpusChristie]

4 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So countries in the EU can already get oranges from Brazil but the benefit for us of leaving the EU is we can now get Brazilian oranges?

Brexiteer logic right there.

No, the suggestion was that the UK may not be able to get food supplies from the EU and the reply to that was the rest of the world has adequate food supplies to replace those foods from the EU .

  It was the solution to a hypothetical problem, rather than being a "benefit"

[transam]

7 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

So countries in the EU can already get oranges from Brazil but the benefit for us of leaving the EU is we can now get Brazilian oranges?

Brexiteer logic right there.

Have you a fixation with oranges....?  I hope you never watched "that" film....

Now getting back to cabbages, how will our EU exit affect them...?

[CorpusChristie]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

.

What will be the ONLY benefit of Brexit will be the break up of the UK. Scottish independence and a united Ireland.

Oh and a welcome back to the EU for Scotland within a year of independence being gained.

Why arent you out celebrating ?

  

[Pattaya46]

4 hours ago, Moo 2 said:

Brexit had a bad start, thanks to Sister Theresa and Boris the Clown, four years to get out and still in!

Funny how so many Britishs are still not aware that UK is no more in EU !

Nobody in UK to tell them that Brexit is done already? 

 

Google:

When did the UK leave the EU?

January 31, 2020, 3:00 PM PST

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

Funny how so many Britishs are still not aware that UK is no more in EU !

Nobody in UK to tell them that Brexit is done already? 

 

Google:

When did the UK leave the EU?

January 31, 2020, 3:00 PM PST

It's ok he was corrected by a brexiteer.

[Nigel Garvie]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Rubbish.

Just writing "Rubbish", illustrates to everyone that you can't answer the post with a reasoned coherent argument.

[evadgib]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Let me help you here mate. After 5 years we still can not get any answers from Brexiteers. The slogans dont work any more. The EU has not capitulated. The Empire has still not reappeared. The easiest deal in history is still MIA.

What will be the ONLY benefit of Brexit will be the break up of the UK. Scottish independence and a united Ireland.

Oh and a welcome back to the EU for Scotland within a year of independence being gained.

Your final point has to be the most ridiculously optimistic twaddle ever to have left your keyboard (& that's saying something!) ????????????

[Loiner]

15 minutes ago, transam said:

Have you a fixation with oranges....?  I hope you never watched "that" film....

Now getting back to cabbages, how will our EU exit affect them...?

I set them off with oranges as they are still seen as the litmus test of post Brexit tariff negotiations. There's absolutely no reason why we should pay the same tariffs on imports from third countries, other than to support the EU coffers and their peasant farmer economies. Of course it caused a deluge of Remainer and European BS about them - all of it rubbish. (Added a pinch of Israeli Jaffa too for good measure.)

In the end, the man to Del Monte, he say "No more thanks old chap." 

[Logosone]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

I disagree, of course, but I suppose the argument would be w.r.t the definition of "sovereignty" (or more precisely full sovereignty). When the UK joined the EEC it immediately surrendered elements of national sovereignty via the Treaty of Rome (these elements were described by the liar, Edward Heath as being not "essential"). Through successive EU treaties the UK lost more and more elements of national sovereignty, especially after Thatcher, so that by 2016 most UK laws were not made in our Parliament but by the EU Commission (to be passed by the EU Council and Parliament) but, fortunately, the UK was still at least able to declare and hold its own referendum on EU membership. I believe that, by 2016, enough people had recognised the single-state ambition of the EU and decided that they would prefer to withdraw to preserve their nation state rather than risk it from becoming the provincial NW Frontier of the EU. 

 

I can only agree that the UK never lost full sovereignty but I would say that people who voted out could see that day coming.  

Of course it is true that the UK delegated some of its decision making power to EU institutions, however, that was done voluntarily and ratified by the UK Houses of Parliament. So you can't really argue that the UK lost sovereignty, whatever sovereignty it ceded was ceded voluntarily. More importantly, as Brexit has shown this delegation of sovereignty could be revoked at any time.

 

So Brexit is the ultimate proof that the narrative which led to Brexit is wrong, that Britain was supposedly not a sovereign nation, the UK Houses of Parliament took back whatever delegation it made to EU institutions.  How would that be possible if the UK Houses of Parliament were no longer the ultimate instance of sovereignty?

 

 

[bannork]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

My post 856 is a lie, thanks for clearing that up.

No problem, just don't go claiming that the majority of the electorate voted for Brexit. You know perfectly well they didn't.

[herfiehandbag]

2 hours ago, bannork said:

You know perfectly well it was only 37% of the electorate who voted to leave, a minority.

 

2 hours ago, bannork said:

Yes, I don'ct like to repeat myself but when posters claim, as one did just now, that the majority of the electorate voted for Brexit, I feel obliged to correct their cow manure.

Well. If we are in the game of not repeating ourselves, and settling arguments once and for all...

 

There have been four exercises in democracy which have considered the Brexit matter, either specifically (the referendum and the last general election) or by implication, (the previous general election and the last set of Euro elections). They variously used a simple binary question with a yes/no vote producing a simple majority verdict, a form of proportional representation and the UK's first past the post constituency system. In each case, the results reflected the wish of the electorate to leave.

 

Now it is true that not all of the electorate voted in each exercise. They either deliberately chose not to or could not be bothered. However, as they didn't vote their wishes went unrecorded and cannot be known, or used to reinterpret the results. You simply cannot claim a democratic mandate on the basis of your assumed interpretation of the views of those who did not vote.

 

The matter has been put to the vote four times now. It is, unquestionably, the settled wish of the electorate. It is as simple as that. To deny or seek to frustrate that wish is to ignore all four exercises in democracy. Do so by all means, but don't claim a democratic mandate which simply does not exist. Your suggestions will always be trumped by the clear and unalterable verdict of those four ballots.

[CorpusChristie]

3 minutes ago, bannork said:

No problem, just don't go claiming that the majority of the electorate voted for Brexit. You know perfectly well they didn't.

Quite obviously  he meant the majority of voters , rather than adding all the non voters into the tally

We have been stuck on this point for four years now .

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

So countries in the EU can already get oranges from Brazil but the benefit for us of leaving the EU is we can now get Brazilian oranges?

Brexiteer logic right there.

Twisting again. You wanted to talk oranges. I didn't.

[vogie]

9 minutes ago, bannork said:

No problem, just don't go claiming that the majority of the electorate voted for Brexit. You know perfectly well they didn't.

I was being sarcastic, if you want to twist numbers that is entirely up to you, best to keep it simple 52% voted out 48% voted in, you lose, see how simple that is. 

[bannork]

8 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Quite obviously  he meant the majority of voters , rather than adding all the non voters into the tally

We have been stuck on this point for four years now .

Well he should have said that then!

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, luckyluke said:

Nauseus, You really consider it funny that retirees in the U.K. have a small pension?

No Lucky, I consider it funny that you always bring up you glorious Belgian pension when it has nothing to do with the running topic.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Pattaya46 said:

Funny how so many Britishs are still not aware that UK is no more in EU !

Nobody in UK to tell them that Brexit is done already? 

 

Google:

When did the UK leave the EU?

January 31, 2020, 3:00 PM PST

You're a bit late with that one.

[bannork]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

I was being sarcastic, if you want to twist numbers that is entirely up to you, best to keep it simple 52% voted out 48% voted in, you lose, see how simple that is. 

No, you were implying the majority of the electorate voted to leave, especially with your aside about only 34% voting to remain. You should also have mentioned that only 37% voted to leave.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Just writing "Rubbish", illustrates to everyone that you can't answer the post with a reasoned coherent argument.

Only reasoned coherent arguments deserve reasoned coherent replies.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, bannork said:

No, you were implying the majority of the electorate voted to leave, especially with your aside about only 34% voting to remain. You should also have mentioned that only 37% voted to leave.

I wasn't implying anything, remember if we say 48% remain and 52% leave it is as clear as a whistle, but when you you try to be disingenuous and try and twist numbers to suit your narrative it becomes tediously boring. Why should I have mentioned only 37% voted to leave when you come out with your favourite slogan of "only 37% voted to leave, but you never ever mention that only 34% voted to remain. Why are you so bothered when you have hardly set foot in the UK for 35 years.

 

[luckyluke]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

No Lucky, I consider it funny that you always bring up you glorious Belgian pension when it has nothing to do with the running topic.

I think on the contrary it is relevant.

It shows that every member of the E.U. has a free choice of govern, and what their priorities are.

The Belgian government decided to give a decent  pension to their elderly, this include the veterans.

What is decent for us, is glorious for you.

 I can understand your feeling, when I read here the amounts, and how some veterans are treated.

I only conclude from this  that the U.K. has other priorities.

But in no way they were/are dictated by the E.U..

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Of course it is true that the UK delegated some of its decision making power to EU institutions, however, that was done voluntarily and ratified by the UK Houses of Parliament. So you can't really argue that the UK lost sovereignty, whatever sovereignty it ceded was ceded voluntarily. More importantly, as Brexit has shown this delegation of sovereignty could be revoked at any time.

 

So Brexit is the ultimate proof that the narrative which led to Brexit is wrong, that Britain was supposedly not a sovereign nation, the UK Houses of Parliament took back whatever delegation it made to EU institutions.  How would that be possible if the UK Houses of Parliament were no longer the ultimate instance of sovereignty?

 

 

Well you correctly have described how the UK delegated some of its decision making power to EU institutions. SInce joining, the next huge step was the Maastricht Treaty, which, as you say, was ratified by Parliament. But I can and will argue that the UK did lose sovereignty over time, even though this loss was ratified (very close votes) by Parliament. However, these losses occurred when further referenda should have been held in the UK, as they were in some other european countries. I believe that the EU idea would have been firmly rejected by a UK referendum in 1992.

 

Yes, importantly, as Brexit has shown this delegation of sovereignty was able to be stopped/revoked. But how long would the ability to actually have national referendums have existed for had we stayed in? It would have been far better to have had the referendum in 1992, then we could have been out before the creation of this overtly political EU, rather than the economic bloc that most thought we were joining in 1972 and 1975. The narrative that Britain was no longer a sovereign nation was true, if you consider sovereignty in its complete and full sense.

Edited July 6, 2020 by nauseus

[CorpusChristie]

31 minutes ago, bannork said:

No, you were implying the majority of the electorate voted to leave, especially with your aside about only 34% voting to remain. You should also have mentioned that only 37% voted to leave.

The UK voted to leave .

37 % voted to leave 

34 % voted to remain 

29 % didnt bother to vote 

We all know that .

Four years since then.....................time to move on and to stop the repetitiveness

(Yes, I KNOW he said "Electorate" and I will ask him NOT to say that word again, OK ?)

 

  *Please use the word *Voters* instead of "Electorate" in future* 

 

  Happy now ?

 

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I think on the contrary it is relevant.

It shows that every member of the E.U. has a free choice of govern, and what their priorities are.

The Belgian government decided to give a decent  pension to their elderly, this include the veterans.

What is decent for us, is glorious for you.

 I can understand your feeling, when I read here the amounts, and how some veterans are treated.

I only conclude from this  that the U.K. has other priorities.

But in no way they were/are dictated by the E.U..

All it shows is that state pensions are not yet under EU control. Every EU member state is losing more sovereign control but you won't see that.

 

 

[bannork]

20 minutes ago, vogie said:

I wasn't implying anything, remember if we say 48% remain and 52% leave it is as clear as a whistle, but when you you try to be disingenuous and try and twist numbers to suit your narrative it becomes tediously boring. Why should I have mentioned only 37% voted to leave when you come out with your favourite slogan of "only 37% voted to leave, but you never ever mention that only 34% voted to remain. Why are you so bothered when you have hardly set foot in the UK for 35 years.

 

Your words:  The remainers were so selfish that they ignored what the majority of the electorate voted for, remember only 34% of our population wanted to remain in the EU, now they are nursing their wounds and thinking of what could have been.'

So you say the majority of the electorate, implying over 50% of those who voted, as you know not true, it was only 37%, and then you throw in the 34% of the total voters who chose remain.

37% to 34%, it's not a lot of difference on such an important issue.

I reckon we'll be clamouring to rejoin once no deal kicks in.

 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, bannork said:

Your words:  The remainers were so selfish that they ignored what the majority of the electorate voted for, remember only 34% of our population wanted to remain in the EU, now they are nursing their wounds and thinking of what could have been.'

So you say the majority of the electorate, implying over 50% of those who voted, as you know not true, it was only 37%, and then you throw in the 34% of the total voters who chose remain.

37% to 34%, it's not a lot of difference on such an important issue.

I reckon we'll be clamouring to rejoin once no deal kicks in.

 

You reckon what you want, this is the last time I will say this as you seem to be hankering for an argument. 52% voted out, 48% voted to remain, you lost, move on with your life, your constant sloganeering will not change anything.

[Logosone]

28 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well you correctly have described how the UK delegated some of its decision making power to EU institutions. SInce joining, the next huge step was the Maastricht Treaty, which, as you say, was ratified by Parliament. But I can and will argue that the UK did lose sovereignty over time, even though this loss was ratified (very close votes) by Parliament. However, these losses occurred when further referenda should have been held in the UK, as they were in some other european countries. I believe that the EU idea would have been firmly rejected by a UK referendum in 1992.

 

Yes, importantly, as Brexit has shown this delegation of sovereignty was able to be stopped/revoked. But how long would the ability to actually have national referendums have existed for had we stayed in? It would have been far better to have had the referendum in 1992, then we could have been out before the creation of this overtly political EU, rather than the economic bloc that most thought we were joining in 1972 and 1975. The narrative that Britain was no longer a sovereign nation was true, if you consider sovereignty in its complete and full sense.

The EU is an evolving beast, and certainly when the UK joined most constitutional lawyers did not appreciate the full extent of the delegation of sovereignty to EU institutions. Let alone politicians or anyone else. It took case law to establish the full extent of the transfer of sovereignty. It's true obviously the EU started out as an economic enterprise and became a political one.

 

The UK delegated decision making power, sovereignty if you will, okay, but the fact that it could so easily reclaim it would surely indicate that this sovereignty was not "lost" only temporarily ceded? Moreover it was the Houses of Parliament that approved Brexit and the reclaiming of sovereignty, so where is the loss?

 

Yes, for some time Britain voluntarily ceded some sovereignty. But it got it all back!

 

And at the time, manner and choosing of Britain's parliament, which ratified a UK referendum. So again, where is the loss?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by Logosone