0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.
Quote from: SydneyRover on September 05, 2021, 03:24:02 pmYou're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.Reading between the lines we finally come to an agreement - I have won this argument hands down. Thank You for chatting.
Quote from: hstripes on September 05, 2021, 03:28:19 pmQuote from: SydneyRover on September 05, 2021, 03:24:02 pmYou're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.Reading between the lines we finally come to an agreement - I have won this argument hands down. Thank You for chatting.Yes you have won you are a right champ.And just for the record I'll put my whole comment upYou're a bit of a johnny-come-lately to want to turn over what has been discussed ad nauseum so I suggest before you make sweeping statements about what both side did, go and read the whole thread and any others where we discussed brexit. Then come back with your thoughts.Added: I suggest if you wants to discuss the benefits on a whole host of stuff, which you didn't want to before then you show proof not just fisheries etc did this or that, show what the results are, show if the fishermen are happy, what the benefits are exactly, how the catch changed, who owns the boats and the licences, this has all been discussed, not just your version, put some proof on the table.
you're David Davis and I demand my £5
Quote from: SydneyRover on September 05, 2021, 04:22:49 pmyou're David Davis and I demand my £5Bugger wish you'd said Jacob Rees-Mogg and I could have replied that I was so shocked by your accusation that my monocle dropped off into my bouillabaisse.
Unfortunately, hstripes, it doesn’t matter how many times you eloquently explain your personal opinion - the remoaners on here think that if you are not a rabid remoaner, then you MUST be a rabid Brexiter. For them, there is simply nothing in between.
Quote from: hstripes on September 05, 2021, 04:26:37 pmQuote from: SydneyRover on September 05, 2021, 04:22:49 pmyou're David Davis and I demand my £5Bugger wish you'd said Jacob Rees-Mogg and I could have replied that I was so shocked by your accusation that my monocle dropped off into my bouillabaisse.For someone that can confuse Rome and a democracy and a fishing agreement and democratic reform, my money is on you being David Davis now pay up.
Quote from: belton rover on September 05, 2021, 05:21:19 pmUnfortunately, hstripes, it doesn’t matter how many times you eloquently explain your personal opinion - the remoaners on here think that if you are not a rabid remoaner, then you MUST be a rabid Brexiter. For them, there is simply nothing in between.And the mad myopic Brexiteers believe that unless you worship at the cradle of Brexit and praise every decision the glorious Johnson has ever made - you are a remoaner.Good luck.
A question for you Hstripes. Give me an example of any major action that a UK Government has ever wanted to take, which it was unable to do so because of the primacy of the EU.
I knew it would happen hstripes, anyone who thinks for themselves are like a new kill for the pack, I can see the next few days being entertaining, your every word will be being checked and dissected as we type all over the world.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 05, 2021, 06:06:11 pmA question for you Hstripes. Give me an example of any major action that a UK Government has ever wanted to take, which it was unable to do so because of the primacy of the EU.Sorry but this is a preposterous question. When and why would a UK government (historically all pro EU) announce things it wanted to do but couldn't because EU law prevented it?I can answer your point another way by stating some of the things I would propose were I a politician. (Like a politician note how I am changing the point of reference of the question to suit myself)1) Pursue an international trade strategy based on liberal free trade and an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs as opposed to a protectionist strategy pursued by the EU for most of its existence2) Pursue free trade deals based solely on British interests i.e. financial services rather than centred on German Engineeing or French and Italian farm produce3) Positively pursue a free trade deal with the US something the EU has spectacularly failed on over 40 years with our closest ally and the biggest economy in the world4) Even more importantly pursue a free trade deal with India in conjunction with encouraging UK firms to have their products manufactured in the Indian democracy where workers van vote to improve their rights as opposed to in a despotic Communist regime in China5) Remove unfair VAT on things such as feminine hygiene products and domestic gas and electric supplies6) Have a wholescale review of which VAT band all products are placed in again for fairness but in relation to food to help encourage a better diet and a reduction to the obesity epidemic that is crippling the NHS7) A worldwide focussed immigration policy that doesn't encourage companies to prioritise workers from the EU on administrative cost grounds and therefore encourages the employments of the best from around the world improving economic outcomes.8) An immigration policy which doesn't incentivise low skilled workers to migrate into areas of relatively low wages and high unemployment such as Doncaster where they are not needed and their presence artificially dampens wages and puts pressure on public services in our poorest areas.9) An agricultural policy better at encouraging farmers to carry out 'good' for the environment from flood protection, maintenance of hedgerows and protection of wildlife habitats - as opposed to one based on grants per acre of land held10) A fisheries policy which better protects our fish stocks for the long term with a ban on 'factory ships' for instance11) Allow the dredging and clearance of riverbeds where it will prevent potential flooding12) Oh and of course saving 1,000s of lives by acting soon as possible in the procurement of vaccines or other drugs during a medical crisis including actively supporting the pharmaceutical industry in both it's development of any medicine and in bolstering its supply chainsAnd that's off the top of my head without doing any deep thinking or external studying.
Glyn see point 1 'an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs'
Quote from: hstripes on September 05, 2021, 08:26:12 pmGlyn see point 1 'an end wherever possible of quotas and tarriffs' I don't know what quotas you're talking about so I can't comment on that.You won't get a blanket removal of tariffs with another country or bloc of countries without being in a Customs Union with them - like the Single Market, for instance. hence the use of the term 'wherever possible'. Many tarriffs are removed in international free trades. PS The Single Market is not a Customs Union. The EU Customs Union and Single Market are separate things - google this if you wishOh, and as for India, as they are a GSP country they already get non-reciprocal import preference. I can't see them throwing that away for the sort of reciprocal trade agreement that you're proposing. India's GSP status was revoked in June 2019. GSP status is hardly a significant barrier to agreeing trade deals regardless
Hstripes.Forgive me if this sounds condescending (I do get accused of that) but I think you are making a fundamental error of definition here.Your long list of what you believe to be benefits of being outside the EU is fine. Folk will have different opinions on them and that also is fine.But in every case, (apart from one or two which are simply wrong) these were policies that we voluntarily agreed to. They were not imposed upon us by an undemocratic behemoth. They were agreements that we made because our Parliament judged that the benefits flowing from the EU more than balanced the costs of collective agreements. These were things our parliament may or may not have agreed with. If they disagreed with then they were signed up to for what they considered 'the greater good'. A judgement with which the people in a democratic vote rejected. So I'll ask again. Has the EU ever imposed a requirement on us either to act or not to act that our Parliament was against? Because if it hasn't, the argument that "we had to leave the EU to restore democracy" looks a bit threadbare.As part of our EU membership we signed up to things that an independent UK with democratic choice would not have done so of course by leaving the EU we are restoring our democratic rights in these areas. Your thought process is exceptionally muddled here I'm afraid
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on September 05, 2021, 08:31:44 pmYou won't get a blanket removal of tariffs with another country or bloc of countries without being in a Customs Union with them - like the Single Market, for instance. hence the use of the term 'wherever possible'. Many tarriffs are removed in international free trades. PS The Single Market is not a Customs Union. The EU Customs Union and Single Market are separate things - google this if you wish
You won't get a blanket removal of tariffs with another country or bloc of countries without being in a Customs Union with them - like the Single Market, for instance. hence the use of the term 'wherever possible'. Many tarriffs are removed in international free trades. PS The Single Market is not a Customs Union. The EU Customs Union and Single Market are separate things - google this if you wish