Britain nears abandoning Brexit trade deal hope - The Telegraph

[7by7]

21 hours ago, nauseus said:

I think that your method to calculate sovereignty by legislation by voting is flawed. We don't get a vote on most of the legislation that we have to accept

 Wrong, again.

 

The Commission proposes, but either the democratically elected Parliament or the Council of Ministers approve or reject.

 

This is, of course, only on EU matters. On all others, such as non EEA immigration, defence, foreign policy, etc., each member, as they are sovereign states, make their own decisions.

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 What future agreements? 

 

 With no one queuing up to negotiate agreements, where will your future agreements come from?

 

In 2016 Vote.Leave told us that countries were already falling over themselves to do trade deals with us once we were out of the EU. Four years later, those deals are very few and far between; and we have none with any of our major partners and are nowhere near close to getting any! 

 that was a rather silly and childish response, worthy a barstool brexiteer

 

from now on trade deals will be the subject of continuously ongoing efforts by the pommies some efforts will result in zilch some in little some probably pretty good

 

will take time - its a learning process for UK they haven't done such for ages

[kingdong]

5 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 that was a rather silly and childish response, worthy a barstool brexiteer

 

from now on trade deals will be the subject of continuously ongoing efforts by the pommies some efforts will result in zilch some in little some probably pretty good

 

will take time - its a learning process for UK they haven't done such for ages

least we,ll be able to negotiate and make deals without having to appease 27 other countries all with vested interests,straight bananas? ask the eu they,ve got enough banana  republics in their gang.

[nauseus]

15 hours ago, RayC said:

And again.... You do not directly address my original proposition. No concrete counter-examples, just tangential rhetoric.

 

The absence of referenda for 41 years has meant that new treaties have been passed through by Europhile UK governments with compliant oppositions.

 

(Nothing to do with the issue under discussion. Now you have a problem with UK parliamentary democracy.

 

Treaty law, yes (as above). After we sign them we're screwed.

 

Then don't sign! As I pointed out previously, EU Treaty law/ change requires unanimous support. If the UK was so opposed to a Treaty (change), it had a veto and it could not have become EU law. QED.

 

But EU law is imposed on the UK or any other member state.

 

Tosh (see above and below).

 

What you say is true but directives and regulations can be passed by QMV now - vetoes or noes don't stop them. 

 

And this is 2% where the UK was forced to enact EU law with which it didn't agree. As I said at the outset, all this toil and trouble for 2% greater sovereignty. 

 

Disagree - see above. Certainly not a normal democratic process. 

 

The UK system doesn't fulfill your criteria for a democratic process (see my reply above, point 1). The EU system doesn't meet your requirements. What do you want?

 

Disagree in that a no vote will rarely count and never count if the UK votes no alone - see above.

 

Again. The 2% (see above)

 

Yes, oh the irony! We should have just left 2 years after the A50 trigger.

 

The reason we didn't was a failure on the part of the UK government. However, if we had we would now be trading on WTO rules with most of the world. Do you seriously think that would have been beneficial? 

 

If there is a deal to be had, we won't get a decent one until we are fully out.

 

Really? The EU, having had to put into place measures to deal with the UK leaving (measures that it did not want to have to take), would then be more inclined to look favourably upon the UK? I think not.

 

And finally in this exchange.... To return to the original issue:  Is there any chance of you finding example(s) where EU law has been imposed upon the UK (pre 31/1/20) without the UK firstly having been able to challenge it?

 

All full of new fiddles, riddles and this 2% nonsense but to answer your final point only, of course the UK can challenge new EU laws but most of the time, now, due to QMV, those challenges can be ignored and the UK has to accept that. I am not going through thousands of EU Council and Parliament voting records to sift out those where our UK representatives voted 'no'!  

 

IN 2014, George Osborne talked about the type of problem that I am trying to explain to you:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/extracts-from-the-chancellors-speech-on-europe

 

When he said, quote (extract):

 

'First there is a danger that the euro members could start to use their collective voting weight in the EU to effectively write the rules for the whole EU by Qualified Majority Vote.

 

Under the Lisbon Treaty, from 1 November 2014, the Eurogroup on its own will have sufficient votes to pass any financial services legislation for the whole of the EU.

 

That’s a problem because it could leave us in a position where euro members – including ones with little or no financial services industry – can caucus together to impose financial services legislation on the UK –the world’s leading financial centre.

 

And we’ve already started to see the Eurogroup discussing EU directives privately before involving other member states – like they did over the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive last June. It means there’s a very real risk that badly thought through legislation will be imposed on the UK'.

Edited August 2, 2020 by nauseus

[Airbagwill]

8 hours ago, kingdong said:

least we,ll be able to negotiate and make deals without having to appease 27 other countries all with vested interests,straight bananas? ask the eu they,ve got enough banana  republics in their gang.

QED = banans and sausages - they haven't a clue!

[Airbagwill]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

All full of new fiddles, riddles and this 2% nonsense

QED - "tricky, tricky questions" - don't ask a pigeon for an opinion

[Loiner]

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Blah, blah, blah; again.

 

You give your prejudiced, ignorant opinions, but facts in your post are rarer than hen's teeth.

 

Should I accept that Boris and his minister's performances, as watched live on TV, in Downing Street press conferences, PMQs etc., have been somehow altered before being broadcast live by the left wing press you are so obsessed with?

 

No, I prefer sanity to alt-right nonsense.

 

 

Blah, blah, blah?? Do you have a link to back up your claim? 

 

Yes, I'm allowed to give my opinions because this is a forum you know. Whether you like them or not means naught to me and I don't have to provide anything else to you whether you think I should or not. Actually, just thinking about that, I realise it's not wholly true. I really enjoy that you don't like them at all.

[stevenl]

33 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Blah, blah, blah?? Do you have a link to back up your claim? 

 

Yes, I'm allowed to give my opinions because this is a forum you know. Whether you like them or not means naught to me and I don't have to provide anything else to you whether you think I should or not. Actually, just thinking about that, I realise it's not wholly true. I really enjoy that you don't like them at all.

That's the spirit. Who cares about facts, if they don't suit your opinion you can always ignore them or come with alternative facts.

[Rookiescot]

On 8/1/2020 at 11:39 AM, nauseus said:

That's not what I said and you did know that.

 

But that is exactly what you said.

 

On 8/1/2020 at 1:33 AM, nauseus said:

Your argument is fundamentally flawed - the continental Europeans don't have the same taste for Irish dairy products that the UK has.

 

I'm surprised you didn't know that!

 

You were claiming the Europeans do not like Irish dairy products but like UK dairy products.

But instead of the Irish dairy farmers suffering because of Brexit they are going to see a golden time as they fill the void left by UK dairy farmers.

Oh I might also add that the reason the EU has high tariffs on dairy products is to protect domestic producers. When the UK is trading with the rest of the world on WTO terms the UK dairy farmers will have a hard time competing against far cheaper imports.

Congratulations. You just made their lives a whole lot tougher. They lost their biggest market and now have to try and undercut cheap imports.

Still. You knew what you were voting for right? 

 

Edited August 2, 2020 by Rookiescot
typo

[7by7]

9 hours ago, kingdong said:

<snip>

least we,ll be able to negotiate and make deals without having to appease 27 other countries all with vested interests,

So are you saying that it's far better to be one relatively smallish country negotiating with giants like the USA and China rather than part of a large bloc with the same amount of clout as them?

 

If you are correct then I must tell the owner of my corner shop to forget about joining a cooperative like Budgens because he already has the same negotiating clout with suppliers as Tesco or Sainsbury's!

[7by7]

15 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 that was a rather silly and childish response, worthy a barstool brexiteer

Maybe; but it's true.

[nauseus]

25 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

But that is exactly what you said.

 

 

You were claiming the Europeans do not like Irish dairy products but like UK dairy products.

But instead of the Irish dairy farmers suffering because of Brexit they are going to see a golden time as they fill the void left by UK dairy farmers.

Oh I might also add that the reason the EU has high tariffs on dairy products is to protect domestic producers. When the UK is trading with the rest of the world on WTO terms the UK dairy farmers will have a hard time competing against far cheaper imports.

Congratulations. You just made their lives a whole lot tougher. They lost their biggest market and now have to try and undercut cheap imports.

Still. You knew what you were voting for right? 

 

No I wasn't claiming Europeans do not like Irish dairy products but like UK dairy products. Read it again.

 

This 'void' left by UK dairy farmers is rather small compared to that which may be lost as Irish exports to the UK.

 

When the UK is trading with the rest of the world on WTO terms then there will be room for replacement imports from the NZ  and Oz and I am sure that agreements will be made to make them cheap enough.

 

Of course I know what we were voting for. 

[kingdong]

47 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

But that is exactly what you said.

 

 

You were claiming the Europeans do not like Irish dairy products but like UK dairy products.

But instead of the Irish dairy farmers suffering because of Brexit they are going to see a golden time as they fill the void left by UK dairy farmers.

Oh I might also add that the reason the EU has high tariffs on dairy products is to protect domestic producers. When the UK is trading with the rest of the world on WTO terms the UK dairy farmers will have a hard time competing against far cheaper imports.

Congratulations. You just made their lives a whole lot tougher. They lost their biggest market and now have to try and undercut cheap imports.

Still. You knew what you were voting for right? 

 

britain will be like the cat thats got the cream once we leave the eu.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

<snip>

of course the UK can challenge new EU laws

No, we can't. We could when we were a member, but not anymore. Whilst still subject to EU law and regulation until the end of the transition period, whenever that may be, we no longer have any say on them.

 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

<snip>

IN 2014, George Osborne talked about the type of problem that I am trying to explain to you:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/extracts-from-the-chancellors-speech-on-europe

 

When he said, quote (extract):

 

Interesting, now read EU tax policy: from national veto to Qualified Majority Voting from the HoC in February 2019.

 

Some quotes:

• 4.1 The EU has an extensive body of law relating to taxation, especially on indirect taxes like Value Added Tax and excise duty. It is also legislated—or tried to—in areas like energy taxation, financial transaction taxes and corporate taxation. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, tax policy is one of the few areas of EU competence where the unanimity requirement still applies for the adoption of new policy measures, given its political sensitivity. This means that many proposals by the European Commission to introduce or amend EU tax laws are vetoed in the Council of Ministers and never make it onto the statute book. 
• 4.2 In addition to having withdrawn a number of tax proposals that were vetoed by Member States, the Commission has also recently tabled draft EU legislation in the area of taxation that are currently, by default, subject to the unanimity requirement
• 4.4 The decision to introduce Qualified Majority Voting rules for EU tax law using the passerelle for any of the four areas identified by the Commission would be subject to a triple lock because it can be vetoed by: Any Member State Government in the European Council; Any Member State’s national parliament; and The European Parliament.
• 4.5 The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Rt Hon. Mel Stride MP) submitted an Explanatory Memorandum on the Commission document on 5 February 2019. In it, the Minister explained the Government “is not convinced” by the Commission’s recommendation to introduce QMV for the adoption of EU tax policies, primarily because “unanimous decision making and Member States’ right to veto proposals protects national sovereignty over tax policy and their ability to design their domestic tax regime as they see fit”. He added that, in view of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU, the decision on whether to invoke the passerelle is primarily for the remaining Member States. (The Government is also of the view that “the EU-27 are unlikely to reach agreement quickly, if at all, on a way forward, given that the decision to move from unanimity to QMV must itself be taken unanimously”.)

As can be seen from para 4.5, had the UK remained a member we would have vetoed any and all attempts to move these areas from unanimity to QMV; even in the highly unlikely event of the other 27 unanimously agreeing.

 

It is the same with all areas currently requiring, and requiring before the Lisbon Treaty, unanimity; any and all attempts to move them from unanimity to QMV are all require unanimity and thus subject to veto.

[nauseus]

57 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

No, we can't. We could when we were a member, but not anymore. Whilst still subject to EU law and regulation until the end of the transition period, whenever that may be, we no longer have any say on them.

 

 

Interesting, now read EU tax policy: from national veto to Qualified Majority Voting from the HoC in February 2019.

 

Some quotes:

• 4.1 The EU has an extensive body of law relating to taxation, especially on indirect taxes like Value Added Tax and excise duty. It is also legislated—or tried to—in areas like energy taxation, financial transaction taxes and corporate taxation. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, tax policy is one of the few areas of EU competence where the unanimity requirement still applies for the adoption of new policy measures, given its political sensitivity. This means that many proposals by the European Commission to introduce or amend EU tax laws are vetoed in the Council of Ministers and never make it onto the statute book. 
• 4.2 In addition to having withdrawn a number of tax proposals that were vetoed by Member States, the Commission has also recently tabled draft EU legislation in the area of taxation that are currently, by default, subject to the unanimity requirement
• 4.4 The decision to introduce Qualified Majority Voting rules for EU tax law using the passerelle for any of the four areas identified by the Commission would be subject to a triple lock because it can be vetoed by: Any Member State Government in the European Council; Any Member State’s national parliament; and The European Parliament.
• 4.5 The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Rt Hon. Mel Stride MP) submitted an Explanatory Memorandum on the Commission document on 5 February 2019. In it, the Minister explained the Government “is not convinced” by the Commission’s recommendation to introduce QMV for the adoption of EU tax policies, primarily because “unanimous decision making and Member States’ right to veto proposals protects national sovereignty over tax policy and their ability to design their domestic tax regime as they see fit”. He added that, in view of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU, the decision on whether to invoke the passerelle is primarily for the remaining Member States. (The Government is also of the view that “the EU-27 are unlikely to reach agreement quickly, if at all, on a way forward, given that the decision to move from unanimity to QMV must itself be taken unanimously”.)

As can be seen from para 4.5, had the UK remained a member we would have vetoed any and all attempts to move these areas from unanimity to QMV; even in the highly unlikely event of the other 27 unanimously agreeing.

 

It is the same with all areas currently requiring, and requiring before the Lisbon Treaty, unanimity; any and all attempts to move them from unanimity to QMV are all require unanimity and thus subject to veto.

I've read and suggest you might reread it. Especially the conclusions, which are more interesting. The EU proposal was just that but QMV everything is the EU's preference to speed things up. You might believe the myth that had the UK remained a member we would have vetoed any and all attempts to move to QMV but I don't. All it takes is a weak UK Gov to cave in under pressure - and we've had enough of those.

 

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I've read and suggest you might reread it. Especially the conclusions, which are more interesting. The EU proposal was just that but QMV everything is the EU's preference to speed things up. You might believe the myth that had the UK remained a member we would have vetoed any and all attempts to move to QMV but I don't. All it takes is a weak UK Gov to cave in under pressure - and we've had enough of those.

 

 

Denial isn't just a river in Africa!

 

QMV can only replace unanimity if all member states agree to it. That document says it, every other document says it; apart from those by Vote.Leave and similar who want to hide the truth.

 

I obviously have more faith in UK governments than you. Perhaps you can give an example of a weak UK government which caved in under pressure and didn't use it's veto?

 

 

[Rookiescot]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

No I wasn't claiming Europeans do not like Irish dairy products but like UK dairy products. Read it again.

 

This 'void' left by UK dairy farmers is rather small compared to that which may be lost as Irish exports to the UK.

 

When the UK is trading with the rest of the world on WTO terms then there will be room for replacement imports from the NZ  and Oz and I am sure that agreements will be made to make them cheap enough.

 

Of course I know what we were voting for. 

You are flop flipping again old boy.

I have read it several times and the only conclusion I can come up with is as I have described.

This is an optimistic take on the impact on the dairy industry come Brexit. Even its not good news.

https://www.mintecglobal.com/blog/negotiation-in-food-commodity-procurement-brexit-dairy

 

Your comment about replacement imports is telling though. Even you admit our dairy farmers will be competing with global suppliers who can undercut our domestic ones.

 

As I said. You guys have made our farmers lives a lot tougher. Especially given they will no longer have access to their biggest export market and all those lovely EU subsidies they have been accustomed to receiving. 

 

So you knew all this and went ahead and voted for Brexit anyway.  

[nauseus]

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Denial isn't just a river in Africa!

 

QMV can only replace unanimity if all member states agree to it. That document says it, every other document says it; apart from those by Vote.Leave and similar who want to hide the truth.

 

I obviously have more faith in UK governments than you. Perhaps you can give an example of a weak UK government which caved in under pressure and didn't use it's veto?

 

 

 

Well, as about 80% of all EU legislation is now passed by QMV then maybe even you can see the way things are going? A big maybe, I know. 

 

F1 time.

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

You are flop flipping again old boy.

I have read it several times and the only conclusion I can come up with is as I have described.

This is an optimistic take on the impact on the dairy industry come Brexit. Even its not good news.

https://www.mintecglobal.com/blog/negotiation-in-food-commodity-procurement-brexit-dairy

 

Your comment about replacement imports is telling though. Even you admit our dairy farmers will be competing with global suppliers who can undercut our domestic ones.

 

As I said. You guys have made our farmers lives a lot tougher. Especially given they will no longer have access to their biggest export market and all those lovely EU subsidies they have been accustomed to receiving. 

 

So you knew all this and went ahead and voted for Brexit anyway.  

 

You have misinterpreted my comments again, Right now we are a net importer of farmed food.

 

Those lovely EU subsidies are essentially our monies to start with. 

 

So we knew all this and went ahead and voted for Brexit anyway.  

[Rookiescot]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

You have misinterpreted my comments again, Right now we are a net importer of farmed food.

 

Those lovely EU subsidies are essentially our monies to start with. 

 

So we knew all this and went ahead and voted for Brexit anyway.  

And we will still be a net importer of farmed food after we leave.

I notice you said farmed food and not dairy food. Is this you moving the goalposts again?

The UK's largest market for dairy produce is the EU. A whopping 91% of our export market in fact. Now who are we going to send that to come January?

Has the UK government said it will replace those EU subsidies with our own ones? In their entirety? 

OK you fully understood the damage that would be inflicted but went ahead and voted to leave anyway.

Thats an astonishing admission.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Rookiescot said:

And we will still be a net importer of farmed food after we leave.

I notice you said farmed food and not dairy food. Is this you moving the goalposts again?

The UK's largest market for dairy produce is the EU. A whopping 91% of our export market in fact. Now who are we going to send that to come January?

Has the UK government said it will replace those EU subsidies with our own ones? In their entirety? 

OK you fully understood the damage that would be inflicted but went ahead and voted to leave anyway.

Thats an astonishing admission.

 

I notice you said farmed food and not dairy food. Is this you moving the goalposts again? No just tired of this ping-pong game.

 

The UK's largest market for dairy produce is the EU. A whopping 91% of our export market in fact. Now who are we going to send that to come January? 91% of what?

 

Has the UK government said it will replace those EU subsidies with our own ones? No.

 

OK you fully understood the damage that would be inflicted but went ahead and voted to leave anyway. Words in mouth again - I didn't use the word "damage" - you did. Just another misquote (amongst many) but why am I not surprised?

[RayC]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

All full of new fiddles, riddles and this 2% nonsense but to answer your final point only, of course the UK can challenge new EU laws but most of the time, now, due to QMV, those challenges can be ignored and the UK has to accept that. I am not going through thousands of EU Council and Parliament voting records to sift out those where our UK representatives voted 'no'!  

 

IN 2014, George Osborne talked about the type of problem that I am trying to explain to you:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/extracts-from-the-chancellors-speech-on-europe

 

When he said, quote (extract):

 

'First there is a danger that the euro members could start to use their collective voting weight in the EU to effectively write the rules for the whole EU by Qualified Majority Vote.

 

Under the Lisbon Treaty, from 1 November 2014, the Eurogroup on its own will have sufficient votes to pass any financial services legislation for the whole of the EU.

 

That’s a problem because it could leave us in a position where euro members – including ones with little or no financial services industry – can caucus together to impose financial services legislation on the UK –the world’s leading financial centre.

 

And we’ve already started to see the Eurogroup discussing EU directives privately before involving other member states – like they did over the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive last June. It means there’s a very real risk that badly thought through legislation will be imposed on the UK'.

Now this reply really does take the biscuit!!

 

Let's recap: The 'raison d'etre' for this exchange was that I asserted - with supporting evidence - that only 2% of EU law has been implemented in the UK against the UK's wishes (#404). You opined that this was incorrect (#411). I have repeatedly asked you to supply evidence to support your stance, which you have failed to do.

 

Now, having dug yourself an ever deepening hole, you attempt to distance yourself from your original position by dismissing the matter as "...this 2% nonsense..", and stating that you don't have time to sift through thousands of pages of legislation to find your supporting evidence. Wrt this latter point fair enough, but did it not cross your mind to do a simply Google search along the lines of "EU laws imposed upon the UK"? However, unfortunately for you, doing so will reveal no such laws for the simple reason that these laws do not exist!

 

You now also state that my post (#450) is "... all full of new fiddles and riddles ...". Well, they definitely aren't new as you raised them (!!). I was merely responding to you. No doubt if I hadn't, you would have accused me of avoiding the issue!!

 

Wrt Osbourne's speech: There is no point me repeating @747's excellent rebuttal (#464) of the points you raise. The only point I would add is that the UK's exit from the EU now gives the EU an incentive to promote Amsterdam, Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris as alternative financial centres. The UK is now no longer an internal partner; it is now an external competitor. Irony heaped upon irony!!

 

The truth of the matter is that there is no rational economic argument to support the UK leaving the EU, a fact that you admit (#411). Upon examination, it is also clear that the sovereignty argument for leaving is also wafer-thin.

 

So over to you: Where will our oddessy take us next? I imagine that it can only be a matter of time before bendy bananas and cucumbers make a (re)appearance.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Perhaps you can give an example of a weak UK government which caved in under pressure and didn't use it's veto?

 

 

Good luck with that. There is wishful thinking and there is blind optimism.

[Rookiescot]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I notice you said farmed food and not dairy food. Is this you moving the goalposts again? No just tired of this ping-pong game.

 

The UK's largest market for dairy produce is the EU. A whopping 91% of our export market in fact. Now who are we going to send that to come January? 91% of what?

 

Has the UK government said it will replace those EU subsidies with our own ones? No.

 

OK you fully understood the damage that would be inflicted but went ahead and voted to leave anyway. Words in mouth again - I didn't use the word "damage" - you did. Just another misquote (amongst many) but why am I not surprised?

You know whats tiring? Trying to get you Brexiteers to admit that you dont actually care what happens with people like dairy farmers. All you care about is leaving the EU regardless of the cost.

You do acknowledge that dairy farmers will lose all the EU subsidies and that the UK government is not going to pay an equivalent.

You do acknowledge the UK dairy farmers  are going to lose their biggest export market.

You do acknowledge the UK dairy farmers are going to face stiff competition from foreign producers who can provide the same items cheaper.

But after all that you still quibble over a word like damage?

So how would you describe the problems people like dairy farmers are going to face? Halcyon days? The most wonderful time of their lives?

This is what you facilitated. You voted to leave. So the damage done to people like dairy farmers will be your responsibility.   

[nauseus]

37 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

You know whats tiring? Trying to get you Brexiteers to admit that you dont actually care what happens with people like dairy farmers. All you care about is leaving the EU regardless of the cost.

You do acknowledge that dairy farmers will lose all the EU subsidies and that the UK government is not going to pay an equivalent.

You do acknowledge the UK dairy farmers  are going to lose their biggest export market.

You do acknowledge the UK dairy farmers are going to face stiff competition from foreign producers who can provide the same items cheaper.

But after all that you still quibble over a word like damage?

So how would you describe the problems people like dairy farmers are going to face? Halcyon days? The most wonderful time of their lives?

This is what you facilitated. You voted to leave. So the damage done to people like dairy farmers will be your responsibility.   

You need a new needle.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Now this reply really does take the biscuit!!

 

Let's recap: The 'raison d'etre' for this exchange was that I asserted - with supporting evidence - that only 2% of EU law has been implemented in the UK against the UK's wishes (#404). You opined that this was incorrect (#411). I have repeatedly asked you to supply evidence to support your stance, which you have failed to do.

 

Now, having dug yourself an ever deepening hole, you attempt to distance yourself from your original position by dismissing the matter as "...this 2% nonsense..", and stating that you don't have time to sift through thousands of pages of legislation to find your supporting evidence. Wrt this latter point fair enough, but did it not cross your mind to do a simply Google search along the lines of "EU laws imposed upon the UK"? However, unfortunately for you, doing so will reveal no such laws for the simple reason that these laws do not exist!

 

You now also state that my post (#450) is "... all full of new fiddles and riddles ...". Well, they definitely aren't new as you raised them (!!). I was merely responding to you. No doubt if I hadn't, you would have accused me of avoiding the issue!!

 

Wrt Osbourne's speech: There is no point me repeating @747's excellent rebuttal (#464) of the points you raise. The only point I would add is that the UK's exit from the EU now gives the EU an incentive to promote Amsterdam, Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris as alternative financial centres. The UK is now no longer an internal partner; it is now an external competitor. Irony heaped upon irony!!

 

The truth of the matter is that there is no rational economic argument to support the UK leaving the EU, a fact that you admit (#411). Upon examination, it is also clear that the sovereignty argument for leaving is also wafer-thin.

 

So over to you: Where will our oddessy take us next? I imagine that it can only be a matter of time before bendy bananas and cucumbers make a (re)appearance.

Your introduced this 2% nonsense and you can keep it. Looking above, this has now mutated into 100% nonsense.

 

In 411 I said "there is no doubt that both the UK and the EU will lose economically as a result of Brexit" but you only mention the UK as a potential loser; manipulation and typical bias but who's surprised. Our "odyssey" is coming to an abrupt end. Happily I find myself running out of time to spend on you and your bunch of bananas.

Edited August 2, 2020 by nauseus
added three lines

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You need a new needle.

 

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Your introduced this 2% nonsense and you can keep it. Looking above this has now mutated into 100% nonsense.

And again replies like this to well reasoned posts. You may disagree, but unfortunately basic common decency is lacking.

[nauseus]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 

And again replies like this to well reasoned posts. You may disagree, but unfortunately basic common decency is lacking.

Well reasoned posts? Funny as.

[RayC]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Your introduced this 2% nonsense and you can keep it. Looking above this has now mutated into 100% nonsense.

And again .... How many times now is that you have refused - or more accurately been unable - to directly counter the points that I raise?

 

Anyway, keep digging that hole. Assuming that you started in the UK you must be close to resurfacing in New Zealand by now.

[pixelaoffy]

10 minutes ago, RayC said:

And again .... How many times now is that you have refused - or more accurately been unable - to directly counter the points that I raise?

 

Anyway, keep digging that hole. Assuming that you started in the UK you must be close to resurfacing in New Zealand by now.

Oh dear Europhile Rayc who thinks his 'points' are so indisputable ! The drivel about UK not being the prime financial centre isn't worthy of a reply! EU fanatic koolaid drinker