Democracy under threat.

Talk about anything you want in here.

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

User avatar
OHDFC
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:22 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by OHDFC » Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:59 pm

I'm surprised that you weren't stopped, especially as vans are almost always stopped. When we moved here from Munich with a Munich registered car, we seemed to be stopped 50% of the time. When we re-registered the car locally we were stopped less than 1% of the time - in fact I can't remember the last time we were stopped. So I'd expect a foreign registered van mto be checked.
As for the motorway, there's usually a reason why the Kent motorway becomes a car park - French strikes, weather stopping ferries etc. In Thayngen it seems to happen every week without any external influence.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


User avatar
OHDFC
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:22 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by OHDFC » Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:21 pm

But the point is
Lots of people - not only you - quote Switzerland as an example of a successful country outside the EU. They are, but they have agreements with the EU. They are in the EFTA,, they are in Schengen but they are not in the customs union. Therefore I can travel into Switzerland without hindrance but I have limits on what I can take with me (2kg meat for example) and if I'm stopped at the border and have exceeded my limits; I have to pay a tarif or, the goods will be confiscated. That's a hard border

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


EDJOHNS
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by EDJOHNS » Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:33 am

OHDFC wrote:
Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:21 pm
But the point is
Lots of people - not only you - quote Switzerland as an example of a successful country outside the EU. They are, but they have agreements with the EU. They are in the EFTA,, they are in Schengen but they are not in the customs union. Therefore I can travel into Switzerland without hindrance but I have limits on what I can take with me (2kg meat for example) and if I'm stopped at the border and have exceeded my limits; I have to pay a tarif or, the goods will be confiscated. That's a hard border

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Accepted, and accept my beliefs came partly from reading others comments as well as the fact I was rarely stopped but I can only back down from what I said when corrected not for everyone else, and to save copying 2 comments I know the motorways in Kent normally block because of the French farmers. I got your point it was simply what you said about weekends over there and it sounded as if it does not happen elsewhere when I have passed some real horror shows in Kent. Just the sense of humour that Gramps thinks I don't have !!!!

None of that changes my hope that our MP's say no to the "deal" and the EU then say no further extension. Junker was quite firm yesterday morning in an interview I saw, but apparently,(second hand from a good friend who also has a lot of interest), he had somewhat backed off later in the day.
1 thing that does surprise me is how seemingly lacking in knowledge some of our MP's are to the basic knowledge that having invoked article 50 the bottom line is that our staying in is not in their hands but those of the EU.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:49 am

Should also point out that any extension is nothing to do with Jean Claude Juncker.

An extension would have to be agreed by EU Council members. Some of them, like Denmark, have said they’d be open to an extension, but others have said they’d prefer not, like France.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

EDJOHNS
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by EDJOHNS » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:52 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:49 am
Should also point out that any extension is nothing to do with Jean Claude Juncker.

An extension would have to be agreed by EU Council members. Some of them, like Denmark, have said they’d be open to an extension, but others have said they’d prefer not, like France.
Junker being 1 of the more forceful voices

EDJOHNS
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by EDJOHNS » Sat Oct 19, 2019 1:53 pm

Been sat all day listening to the house.

So after all that no vote on the deal.

Shocking, but they had their chance.

Go Boris get us out on 31st

Darlogramps
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:57 pm

EDJOHNS wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:49 am
Should also point out that any extension is nothing to do with Jean Claude Juncker.

An extension would have to be agreed by EU Council members. Some of them, like Denmark, have said they’d be open to an extension, but others have said they’d prefer not, like France.
Junker being 1 of the more forceful voices
He can say what he likes. It’s not in his gift to grant an extension. That comes from member states of the EU Council.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

EDJOHNS
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by EDJOHNS » Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:27 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:57 pm
EDJOHNS wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:49 am
Should also point out that any extension is nothing to do with Jean Claude Juncker.

An extension would have to be agreed by EU Council members. Some of them, like Denmark, have said they’d be open to an extension, but others have said they’d prefer not, like France.
Junker being 1 of the more forceful voices
He can say what he likes. It’s not in his gift to grant an extension. That comes from member states of the EU Council.
A large % of which he and his cohorts hold sway over.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:59 pm

They don’t, but if believing it keeps you happy, go ahead. You were wrong on the Swiss border issue (and I’m not sure you fully grasp what the backstop was all about), and you’re wrong again on this.

EU Council grants this extension, not the Commission, which is what Juncker is the head of. And as I’ve said, EU Council is to some extent split on whether to grant an extension.

Given the economic impact of no deal, I don’t see the EU Council rejecting an extension request, so I don’t think no deal will happen.

Anyhow, today’s Letwin amendment feels like a final throw of the dice from Remainers. One last chance to amend the deal and throw a spanner in the works. There’s a clear move towards a deal in Parliament now and the numbers are much closer than for May’s deal.

Out of interest EDJOHNS,you’ve not said what it is you dislike about the new deal. I say this in the spirit of genuine debate by the way.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:01 pm

The new deal is a minor improvement on May's deal but most of it is pretty much the same. Some of the worst points:

1) It restricts our military action.
2) It restricts our foreign policy.
2) They have access to our waters during the transition period, and any future FTA is dependent on this continuing.
3) The "level playing field" affects our trade deals with other countries.
4) It requires us to pay them a huge sum of money, continue to pay them monthly whilst in the transition period (which could extend to 2022), and be liable for any future issues within the eurozone (whilst having no rights to any profits). This could all add up to 100s of billions of pounds for something we're supposed to be leaving.
5) Any future relationship is dependent on us having a level playing field on things like state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters (I lifted the sections in italics directly from section 77 of the new political agreement). So we're restricted from becoming too competitive and prosperous compared to the EU, and we'd also be restricted from making our own laws/decisions in certain areas.
6) Number 5 similarly means that we will be prevented from having an independent tax policy and state aid policy.
7) We can't take disputes about the treaty to international courts, but instead be at the mercy of the ECJ, so no independent arbitration. And the ECJ also govern the entire treaty, with EU law taking precedence over UK law (with regards to the treaty).
8) Freedom of movement has been replaced with vague terms such as "mobility" and "non-discrimination".

It's my opinion that "No Deal" is definitely preferable to this (despite the changes), and that was my initial reaction when May first presented it. Whoever originally agreed to most of the above should be ashamed of themselves, and reading certain sections of it makes me want to leave the EU even more.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:27 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:59 pm
They don’t, but if believing it keeps you happy, go ahead. You were wrong on the Swiss border issue (and I’m not sure you fully grasp what the backstop was all about), and you’re wrong again on this.

EU Council grants this extension, not the Commission, which is what Juncker is the head of. And as I’ve said, EU Council is to some extent split on whether to grant an extension.

Given the economic impact of no deal, I don’t see the EU Council rejecting an extension request, so I don’t think no deal will happen.

Anyhow, today’s Letwin amendment feels like a final throw of the dice from Remainers. One last chance to amend the deal and throw a spanner in the works. There’s a clear move towards a deal in Parliament now and the numbers are much closer than for May’s deal.

Out of interest EDJOHNS,you’ve not said what it is you dislike about the new deal. I say this in the spirit of genuine debate by the way.

If you want to believe that Junker and his mob don't hold sway over the power you must be just about the only 1. Sorry but I can't be arsed to go and sit on You tube getting the proof for you. Do it yourself. I noticed a massive silence to the video's I did post.

Having sat all day yesterday listening to the debate there are lots of things I heard that worried me such as in Mays deal when there were financial aims they included words such as "We want to get as close as possible to" These have now all been removed even though the rest is still the same wordage on the same subjects.

What really worries me is that Northern Ireland were promised it was all out together. This new deal is clearly not all out together. NI can't even try to do anything about it for 4 years.
Listening yesterday I couldn't help but feel that, yet again, the nation as a whole would be better served if this was a free vote dependant on each MP's constituencies wishes and not based on party ideology..

Bottom line, I happen to believe there is better to be had in the way of deals once we are not held over a barrel.
Neither you, nor anyone else, has come back with a good reason for hampering the negotiations by taking "No deal" off the table in the way it was done, but then, as usual, you like to ask the questions so you can try to take the answers to pieces rather than put your own head on the block by answering other people's questions of you.

Last thought, even if I was a remainder, the attitude of the Scottish nationalists would greatly move me in the other direction. The way their leader spoke yesterday was a disgrace and full of threats. Scotland may not have voted to leave in the main, but the entire UK as a whole DID. For him to repeat so many times that if we leave it is the end of the UK was nothing short of bullying bluster with little to back it up.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Democracy under threat.

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:32 am

EDJOHNS wrote: If you want to believe that Junker and his mob don't hold sway over the power you must be just about the only 1. Sorry but I can't be arsed to go and sit on You tube getting the proof for you. Do it yourself. I noticed a massive silence to the video's I did post.
Which ones? The ones of Verhoftstadt? I’m confused, why did I need to respond to the Verhoftstadt videos?

Again, Juncker has no sway over the decision to hold an extension. It’s literally nothing to do with him. Look who Johnson has sent his three letters to last night. It’s Donald Tusk, head of the EU Council. It’s on every news website this morning.

For some reason you’ve shifted to talking about whether Juncker holds sway generally. I’m not taking about generally. I’m talking about the decision to grant an extension which lies with the EU Council.

That’s a fact and something else you’ve got wrong after the Swiss border issue. Maybe stop looking at videos on YouTube (which by definition are self-selected as you’re choosing what you want to see) I would recommend start doing some actual research into the institutions of the EU.
EDJOHNS wrote: Bottom line, I happen to believe there is better to be had in the way of deals once we are not held over a barrel.
Neither you, nor anyone else, has come back with a good reason for hampering the negotiations by taking "No deal" off the table in the way it was done, but then, as usual, you like to ask the questions so you can try to take the answers to pieces rather than put your own head on the block by answering other people's questions of you. .
As much as I voted to Leave, I don’t believe No Deal is a good option for our country. From the Government’s own economic assessments, it would be massively damaging to our economy. By definition, trading on WTO terms is the worst case scenario, the least desirable outcome.

It doesn’t resolve anything either. On Day 1, you still have to have an agreement over the Ireland border issue. How do you resolve that one?

To me wanting to have the no deal option is like saying “If you don’t give us a good deal, we’re going to shoot ourselves in the legs.” It’s not much a strategy to threaten to massive economic damage to yourself in protest at not getting the deal you want.

That’s why I’m relaxed about no deal not happening. A deal has to be preferential. No deal to me is the lazy, emotional option.

Final point - you said in a previous post you wanted to stop mud-slinging and have proper debates. I’m more than happy to do that but it does require you to put your hands up and admit when you’re wrong, like on the issue of Juncker and the extension.
Notice I’ve tried to keep it reasonable in my reply here. Politely, I’m going to ask you lay-off the passive aggressive digs towards me and focus on the actual arguments.

I can understand your concerns about Northern Ireland in this deal, and to some extent I actually agree.

But I’m struggling to see an alternative that doesn’t require a hard border. And given the historical problems of Ireland, and the threats given just this week by Irish dissidents to target any new border infrastructure, it is essential that issue, for instance is resolved properly.

If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:24 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:32 am
To me wanting to have the no deal option is like saying “If you don’t give us a good deal, we’re going to shoot ourselves in the legs.” It’s not much a strategy to threaten to massive economic damage to yourself in protest at not getting the deal you want.

That’s why I’m relaxed about no deal not happening. A deal has to be preferential. No deal to me is the lazy, emotional option.
You always have to be willing to walk away in negotiations. If not, and the other person knows that, then they'll take advantage of that fact.

And it will affect them as well: not just the EU as a whole but the individual EU countries themselves. That's why your argument above is a bit of a strawman: the threat is against them, not us.

To lessen the effect, you prepare properly, which is what both sides have been doing just in case. This also shows the other side that walking away isn't an issue for you, that you have other options.

We shouldn't therefore just accept any old deal, and we should never take no deal off the table, ever.

Of course a deal is the preferred option but not at any cost. As in any negotiation, if the deal isn't good enough, you walk away.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:25 am

Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:32 am
EDJOHNS wrote:
As much as I voted to Leave, I don’t believe No Deal is a good option for our country. From the Government’s own economic assessments, it would be massively damaging to our economy. By definition, trading on WTO terms is the worst case scenario, the least desirable outcome.

It doesn’t resolve anything either. On Day 1, you still have to have an agreement over the Ireland border issue. How do you resolve that one?

To me wanting to have the no deal option is like saying “If you don’t give us a good deal, we’re going to shoot ourselves in the legs.” It’s not much a strategy to threaten to massive economic damage to yourself in protest at not getting the deal you want.

That’s why I’m relaxed about no deal not happening. A deal has to be preferential. No deal to me is the lazy, emotional option.

Yet again, I have said far more than once, I did not believe no deal was the way to go. What I have said repeatedly is that once it was off the table the EU,(in general), could sit tight and say "Take this deal as we will not discuss any other deal" Had they believed that we may leave without a deal they may have been more open to the idea of talking longer and harder and just perhaps, giving a little. With no deal not an option there was no reason whatever for them to keep negotiating. Again, I don't see how that is hard to understand.



Final point - you said in a previous post you wanted to stop mud-slinging and have proper debates. I’m more than happy to do that but it does require you to put your hands up and admit when you’re wrong, like on the issue of Juncker and the extension.
Notice I’ve tried to keep it reasonable in my reply here. Politely, I’m going to ask you lay-off the passive aggressive digs towards me and focus on the actual arguments.

I will stop the digs when you drop the superior attitude. There is a lot I could, and want to say. To do so however would mean me giving out to much personal information, and that I am not willing to do.

I want rid of the EU. I want rid of the Euro. Some say the 2 are not linked, but in fact they are totally linked. I am going to keep this next comment very general and I will not be drawn on it.
Many years ago I was managing an English tea rooms for a friend in Bruges on a 3 year contract. I got involved in helping tourists with problems of all sorts.I found I enjoyed this, and it led me into a totally different area of work that I had never envisaged. Long story much shortened, I eventually, some years later, wound up investing in a couple of countries in the EU which are in the Euro.
Though I am now 7 years retired my family, who do not really want to be involved, are being forced to keep part of the business going because I am not allowed to remove the investment I put in because of the financial situation. We are not talking making a profit on my investment here, we are talking My own money, spent on office/living premises in Athens. I have 2 options, keep it going or walk away and leave them to rot. and yes, it is basically Germany who are stopping me from getting out, as we are limited to how much we are allowed to remove from Greek banks.


I can understand your concerns about Northern Ireland in this deal, and to some extent I actually agree
But I’m struggling to see an alternative that doesn’t require a hard border. And given the historical problems of Ireland, and the threats given just this week by Irish dissidents to target any new border infrastructure, it is essential that issue, for instance is resolved properly.
How can it be "resolved" with this deal? I see this going right back to the worst days of the 70's as it is the perfect excuse for those who want the troubles to resume, and there are those about.

EDJOHNS
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:26 am

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:24 am
Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:32 am
To me wanting to have the no deal option is like saying “If you don’t give us a good deal, we’re going to shoot ourselves in the legs.” It’s not much a strategy to threaten to massive economic damage to yourself in protest at not getting the deal you want.

That’s why I’m relaxed about no deal not happening. A deal has to be preferential. No deal to me is the lazy, emotional option.
You always have to be willing to walk away in negotiations. If not, and the other person knows that, then they'll take advantage of that fact.

And it will affect them as well: not just the EU as a whole but the individual EU countries themselves. That's why your argument above is a bit of a strawman: the threat is against them, not us.

To lessen the effect, you prepare properly, which is what both sides have been doing just in case. This also shows the other side that walking away isn't an issue for you, that you have other options.

We shouldn't therefore just accept any old deal, and we should never take no deal off the table, ever.

Of course a deal is the preferred option but not at any cost. As in any negotiation, if the deal isn't good enough, you walk away.
Gramps, DOTU just said it far more eloquently that I can, but makes my point perfectly for me.

User avatar
OHDFC
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:22 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by OHDFC » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:50 am

And why do you think Ian Blackford is a disgrace? He's doing exactly what his electorate mandated.
He is the leader of the SNP in Westminster. Ian Blackford won his seat on the SNP manifesto for an independent Scotland (i.e. not governed from London)
Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU.
England voted narrowly to leave but due to the voting population of England being ca 10 times that of Scotland the UK wide result was leave.
So the leave vote is essentially an English vote - exactly why the SNP want an independent Scotland.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


EDJOHNS
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:56 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by EDJOHNS » Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:07 pm

OHDFC wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:50 am
And why do you think Ian Blackford is a disgrace? He's doing exactly what his electorate mandated.
He is the leader of the SNP in Westminster. Ian Blackford won his seat on the SNP manifesto for an independent Scotland (i.e. not governed from London)
Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU.
England voted narrowly to leave but due to the voting population of England being ca 10 times that of Scotland the UK wide result was leave.
So the leave vote is essentially an English vote - exactly why the SNP want an independent Scotland.

Not hard to answer. The way he spoke and the way he was smirking while throwing threats.
Sturgeon passes much the same message, but without the histrionics. No problem whatever with her.

As I have said before, I would not have any major problem with the breakup of the union.



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by QuakerPete » Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:22 pm

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:01 pm
The new deal is a minor improvement on May's deal but most of it is pretty much the same. Some of the worst points:

1) It restricts our military action.
2) It restricts our foreign policy.
2) They have access to our waters during the transition period, and any future FTA is dependent on this continuing.
3) The "level playing field" affects our trade deals with other countries.
4) It requires us to pay them a huge sum of money, continue to pay them monthly whilst in the transition period (which could extend to 2022), and be liable for any future issues within the eurozone (whilst having no rights to any profits). This could all add up to 100s of billions of pounds for something we're supposed to be leaving.
5) Any future relationship is dependent on us having a level playing field on things like state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change, and relevant tax matters (I lifted the sections in italics directly from section 77 of the new political agreement). So we're restricted from becoming too competitive and prosperous compared to the EU, and we'd also be restricted from making our own laws/decisions in certain areas.
6) Number 5 similarly means that we will be prevented from having an independent tax policy and state aid policy.
7) We can't take disputes about the treaty to international courts, but instead be at the mercy of the ECJ, so no independent arbitration. And the ECJ also govern the entire treaty, with EU law taking precedence over UK law (with regards to the treaty).
8) Freedom of movement has been replaced with vague terms such as "mobility" and "non-discrimination".

It's my opinion that "No Deal" is definitely preferable to this (despite the changes), and that was my initial reaction when May first presented it. Whoever originally agreed to most of the above should be ashamed of themselves, and reading certain sections of it makes me want to leave the EU even more.
Anything in the Political Declaration isn't legally binding and is a series of issues up for discussion which may or may not be fruitful / beneficial to one side or another or both, whereas the content of the Legal Text is binding within the agreement. Hence why such things as Workers' Rights and Environmental have been moved by Johnson from the latter to the former. If he planned to maintain or exceed these standards there would be no need to do this. So, welcome to lower employment rights and environmental standards, for example, in order to achieve his low wage, de-regulated economy. Wonder which foreign country that's promising the UK "a great deal" (where have we heard that before?) would benefit from those changes?
EDIT: Of course, if the Withdrawal Agreement is passed, all Johnson has to do is sit on his arse for 14 months and we'll still be out on No Deal

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sun Oct 20, 2019 3:25 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:22 pm
Anything in the Political Declaration isn't legally binding and is a series of issues up for discussion which may or may not be fruitful / beneficial to one side or another or both, whereas the content of the Legal Text is binding within the agreement.

Well yeah you're right, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding the withdrawal agreement is just for the transition period, after which we'll be out completely based on the upcoming trade negotiations, and that includes a possible No Deal as you said. This is the only thing making me think that this treaty passing wouldn't be the end of the world. A general election will be called shortly after 31 October I imagine during which each party can put forward their vision for these negotiations.
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:22 pm
Hence why such things as Workers' Rights and Environmental have been moved by Johnson from the latter to the former. If he planned to maintain or exceed these standards there would be no need to do this. So, welcome to lower employment rights and environmental standards, for example, in order to achieve his low wage, de-regulated economy. Wonder which foreign country that's promising the UK "a great deal" (where have we heard that before?) would benefit from those changes?
Now who's the conspiracy theorist? The Conservative party are answerable to the electorate so issues like these can be sorted out internally. We certainly don't need the EU dictating how we should act, in any matter.

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by QuakerPete » Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:14 pm

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:22 pm
Anything in the Political Declaration isn't legally binding and is a series of issues up for discussion which may or may not be fruitful / beneficial to one side or another or both, whereas the content of the Legal Text is binding within the agreement.

Well yeah you're right, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding the withdrawal agreement is just for the transition period, after which we'll be out completely based on the upcoming trade negotiations, and that includes a possible No Deal as you said. This is the only thing making me think that this treaty passing wouldn't be the end of the world. A general election will be called shortly after 31 October I imagine during which each party can put forward their vision for these negotiations.
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 1:22 pm
Hence why such things as Workers' Rights and Environmental have been moved by Johnson from the latter to the former. If he planned to maintain or exceed these standards there would be no need to do this. So, welcome to lower employment rights and environmental standards, for example, in order to achieve his low wage, de-regulated economy. Wonder which foreign country that's promising the UK "a great deal" (where have we heard that before?) would benefit from those changes?
Now who's the conspiracy theorist? The Conservative party are answerable to the electorate so issues like these can be sorted out internally. We certainly don't need the EU dictating how we should act, in any matter.
On the subject of employment and environmental standards (or, indeed, any current EU standards) they are ALL minimum standards - there is no ceiling. And with the way the EU is set up those minimum standards are difficult to reduce.

The deliberate removal by Johnson of the two mentioned above from the legal text is not required if there are to be no reductions in those standards. Those standards now become amendable. Johnson, Raab (British workers are amongst the most lazy), Truss, Duncan-Smith to name but a few who want changes to standards - their “good deal” with the USA depends on it. Just ask their farmers:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-49353220


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:26 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:14 pm
On the subject of employment and environmental standards (or, indeed, any current EU standards) they are ALL minimum standards - there is no ceiling. And with the way the EU is set up those minimum standards are difficult to reduce.

The deliberate removal by Johnson of the two mentioned above from the legal text is not required if there are to be no reductions in those standards. Those standards now become amendable. Johnson, Raab (British workers are amongst the most lazy), Truss, Duncan-Smith to name but a few who want changes to standards - their “good deal” with the USA depends on it. Just ask their farmers:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-49353220


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair enough, I'm not a die-hard Conservative or Boris Johnson fan, I'm just a Brexiteer. I'm also not a fan of this deal, as already stated.

As I said though, they're answerable to the electorate, and we can create our own laws, rules, and regulations. I don't agree with the EU having ANY say over our country.

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by QuakerPete » Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:38 pm

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:14 pm

Fair enough, I'm not a die-hard Conservative or Boris Johnson fan, I'm just a Brexiteer. I'm also not a fan of this deal, as already stated.

As I said though, they're answerable to the electorate, and we can create our own laws, rules, and regulations. I don't agree with the EU having ANY say over our country.
At the risk of re-opening old arguments, those are EU laws, which we participated in fully when drawn up and agreed, are also U.K. laws.
More pertinently, the bottom line is why would anyone want to have less safeguards and standards and yet 306 MPs voted for just that (amongst other things) yesterday. And by design make this country and its citizens personally poorer:

https://twitter.com/ridgeonsunday/statu ... 66912?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6119
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by loan_star » Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:04 pm

Some workers rights......

UK sick pay - 28 weeks
EU sick pay - none set
UK paid holiday - 5-6 weeks
EU paid holiday - 4 weeks
UK maternity pay - 52 weeks
EU maternity pay - 14 weeks
UK minimum wage - £7.05
EU minimum wage - none set

So you want us to align to every workers rights the EU set? :think:

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by QuakerPete » Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:46 pm

loan_star wrote:Some workers rights......

UK sick pay - 28 weeks
EU sick pay - none set
UK paid holiday - 5-6 weeks
EU paid holiday - 4 weeks
UK maternity pay - 52 weeks
EU maternity pay - 14 weeks
UK minimum wage - £7.05
EU minimum wage - none set

So you want us to align to every workers rights the EU set? :think:
As I’ve already said several times above, the EU standards are a minimum not a ceiling. Countries can and do exceed these in their own systems. My concern, and the concern of many people, is that what Johnson is doing is paving the way to reduce the UK’s standards in order to satisfy the demands of the USA and its agricultural and manufacturing sectors - his actions already discussed would indicate this as they don’t make sense otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:00 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:46 pm
loan_star wrote:Some workers rights......

UK sick pay - 28 weeks
EU sick pay - none set
UK paid holiday - 5-6 weeks
EU paid holiday - 4 weeks
UK maternity pay - 52 weeks
EU maternity pay - 14 weeks
UK minimum wage - £7.05
EU minimum wage - none set

So you want us to align to every workers rights the EU set? :think:
As I’ve already said several times above, the EU standards are a minimum not a ceiling. Countries can and do exceed these in their own systems. My concern, and the concern of many people, is that what Johnson is doing is paving the way to reduce the UK’s standards in order to satisfy the demands of the USA and its agricultural and manufacturing sectors - his actions already discussed would indicate this as they don’t make sense otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't want the EU to act as a check on our own government thank you very much. As I said, our government is answerable to the electorate, and we can set our own laws, rules, and regulations.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6119
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by loan_star » Sun Oct 20, 2019 6:29 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:46 pm
loan_star wrote:Some workers rights......

UK sick pay - 28 weeks
EU sick pay - none set
UK paid holiday - 5-6 weeks
EU paid holiday - 4 weeks
UK maternity pay - 52 weeks
EU maternity pay - 14 weeks
UK minimum wage - £7.05
EU minimum wage - none set

So you want us to align to every workers rights the EU set? :think:
As I’ve already said several times above, the EU standards are a minimum not a ceiling. Countries can and do exceed these in their own systems. My concern, and the concern of many people, is that what Johnson is doing is paving the way to reduce the UK’s standards in order to satisfy the demands of the USA and its agricultural and manufacturing sectors - his actions already discussed would indicate this as they don’t make sense otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you do admit that not everything the EU does is the best for this country and its citizens then?

User avatar
QuakerPete
Posts: 1169
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by QuakerPete » Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:45 pm

loan_star wrote:
QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:46 pm
loan_star wrote:Some workers rights......

UK sick pay - 28 weeks
EU sick pay - none set
UK paid holiday - 5-6 weeks
EU paid holiday - 4 weeks
UK maternity pay - 52 weeks
EU maternity pay - 14 weeks
UK minimum wage - £7.05
EU minimum wage - none set

So you want us to align to every workers rights the EU set? :think:
As I’ve already said several times above, the EU standards are a minimum not a ceiling. Countries can and do exceed these in their own systems. My concern, and the concern of many people, is that what Johnson is doing is paving the way to reduce the UK’s standards in order to satisfy the demands of the USA and its agricultural and manufacturing sectors - his actions already discussed would indicate this as they don’t make sense otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you do admit that not everything the EU does is the best for this country and its citizens then?
Well, if I’d ever said that the EU’s standards are better than its member countries, you’d have a point. But as the EU sets *minimum* standards to ensure harmonisation for ease of trade, how can they be better than those of its member countries? Think about it.

These minimum standards allow those trading countries to confidently trade with each other without the need to constantly check for compliance. It makes trade so much easier

User avatar
DarloOnTheUp
Posts: 6338
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:35 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Democracy under threat.

Post by DarloOnTheUp » Sun Oct 20, 2019 8:25 pm

QuakerPete wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 7:45 pm
Well, if I’d ever said that the EU’s standards are better than its member countries, you’d have a point. But as the EU sets *minimum* standards to ensure harmonisation for ease of trade, how can they be better than those of its member countries? Think about it.

These minimum standards allow those trading countries to confidently trade with each other without the need to constantly check for compliance. It makes trade so much easier
I'm confused, what exactly is your issue here? Now you're mentioning ease of trade? :crazy:

The EU tends to act with a one size fits all mentality for numerous countries each with their own needs. I prefer our country setting standards that suit our country, and our country alone. If ease of trade is the biggest issue then that's something I can live with.

Darlogramps
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Democracy under threat.

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:12 pm

EDJOHNS wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:32 am
EDJOHNS wrote:
As much as I voted to Leave, I don’t believe No Deal is a good option for our country. From the Government’s own economic assessments, it would be massively damaging to our economy. By definition, trading on WTO terms is the worst case scenario, the least desirable outcome.

It doesn’t resolve anything either. On Day 1, you still have to have an agreement over the Ireland border issue. How do you resolve that one?

To me wanting to have the no deal option is like saying “If you don’t give us a good deal, we’re going to shoot ourselves in the legs.” It’s not much a strategy to threaten to massive economic damage to yourself in protest at not getting the deal you want.

That’s why I’m relaxed about no deal not happening. A deal has to be preferential. No deal to me is the lazy, emotional option.

Yet again, I have said far more than once, I did not believe no deal was the way to go. What I have said repeatedly is that once it was off the table the EU,(in general), could sit tight and say "Take this deal as we will not discuss any other deal" Had they believed that we may leave without a deal they may have been more open to the idea of talking longer and harder and just perhaps, giving a little. With no deal not an option there was no reason whatever for them to keep negotiating. Again, I don't see how that is hard to understand.



Final point - you said in a previous post you wanted to stop mud-slinging and have proper debates. I’m more than happy to do that but it does require you to put your hands up and admit when you’re wrong, like on the issue of Juncker and the extension.
Notice I’ve tried to keep it reasonable in my reply here. Politely, I’m going to ask you lay-off the passive aggressive digs towards me and focus on the actual arguments.

I will stop the digs when you drop the superior attitude. There is a lot I could, and want to say. To do so however would mean me giving out to much personal information, and that I am not willing to do.

I want rid of the EU. I want rid of the Euro. Some say the 2 are not linked, but in fact they are totally linked. I am going to keep this next comment very general and I will not be drawn on it.
Many years ago I was managing an English tea rooms for a friend in Bruges on a 3 year contract. I got involved in helping tourists with problems of all sorts.I found I enjoyed this, and it led me into a totally different area of work that I had never envisaged. Long story much shortened, I eventually, some years later, wound up investing in a couple of countries in the EU which are in the Euro.
Though I am now 7 years retired my family, who do not really want to be involved, are being forced to keep part of the business going because I am not allowed to remove the investment I put in because of the financial situation. We are not talking making a profit on my investment here, we are talking My own money, spent on office/living premises in Athens. I have 2 options, keep it going or walk away and leave them to rot. and yes, it is basically Germany who are stopping me from getting out, as we are limited to how much we are allowed to remove from Greek banks.


I can understand your concerns about Northern Ireland in this deal, and to some extent I actually agree
But I’m struggling to see an alternative that doesn’t require a hard border. And given the historical problems of Ireland, and the threats given just this week by Irish dissidents to target any new border infrastructure, it is essential that issue, for instance is resolved properly.
How can it be "resolved" with this deal? I see this going right back to the worst days of the 70's as it is the perfect excuse for those who want the troubles to resume, and there are those about.
I’d suggest reading the text of the deal, which you clearly haven’t done, and you’ll understand why it resolves the Irish border issue. It’s not perfect, but it is a solution.

As for going back to the days of the Troubles, that’s what we risk with no deal. If we exit with no deal, there is a probability of needing to install hard border infrastructure on both sides of the Irish Border. This is because, well, you haven’t got an alternative to avoid the necessary checks if the UK and the EU haven’t reached agreement on managing their different customs arrangements, to avoid illegal smuggling and so on.

But you don’t need me to know why that, because of historical reasons, is majorly problematic in Ireland. Indeed, just this week, Irish dissident terrorists said any new hard border infrastructure would be “a legitimate target” for attacks.

This is why your insistence the backstop was “a smokescreen” (your words) demonstrates ignorance. The backstop, in Theresa May’s deal, prevented this hard border scenario by keeping Northern Ireland in regulatory alignment with the EU, thus preventing the need for checks (I.E no hard border infrastructure).

Let’s be clear, the Irish border issue is a major sticking point that has to be resolved. And all you no-dealers haven’t the faintest clue how to solve it. So actually, the most likely way to return to the worst days of the Troubles is actually via no-deal, and not the Boris deal which actually avoids customs checks on the Irish land border(by shifting them to the Irish Sea). Again, not perfect but infinitely better than the no-deal alternative.
Last edited by Darlogramps on Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Darlogramps
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Democracy under threat.

Post by Darlogramps » Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:35 pm

DarloOnTheUp wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:32 am
To me wanting to have the no deal option is like saying “If you don’t give us a good deal, we’re going to shoot ourselves in the legs.” It’s not much a strategy to threaten to massive economic damage to yourself in protest at not getting the deal you want.

That’s why I’m relaxed about no deal not happening. A deal has to be preferential. No deal to me is the lazy, emotional option.
You always have to be willing to walk away in negotiations. If not, and the other person knows that, then they'll take advantage of that fact.

And it will affect them as well: not just the EU as a whole but the individual EU countries themselves. That's why your argument above is a bit of a strawman: the threat is against them, not us.

To lessen the effect, you prepare properly, which is what both sides have been doing just in case. This also shows the other side that walking away isn't an issue for you, that you have other options.

We shouldn't therefore just accept any old deal, and we should never take no deal off the table, ever.

Of course a deal is the preferred option but not at any cost. As in any negotiation, if the deal isn't good enough, you walk away.
Oh I fully understand the logic of keeping no deal on the table. But it is monumentally stupid logic.

Firstly, stop pretending this is some kind of ordinary negotiation. It isn’t. It is about how our country functions post-Brexit. It is about the economy, security, trade and so on.
You’re going on like it’s some kind of business deal. It’s not. These are people’s lives and jobs you’d be messing with.

Your argument that it is a threat to other nations’ economies is beyond idiotic. Because if it’s a threat to other nations’ economies, then it damages our own substantially. If the threat is against them, it is also against us. To say otherwise is incorrect. And we know No Deal is damaging to the UK economy because of the impact assessments published by the UK Government.

And what a negotiating tactic you’re advocating: “Give me what I want or I’ll kneecap myself.” There is no sanity in that position at all.

You can prepare all you like, it’s still not going to prevent economic damage. By definition, exiting on a no deal basis and presumably WTO terms, is the least desirable and least preferential outcome. Nor does it resolve the issues around the Irish border, EU citizen’s rights (remember the principle of ‘Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’), trade terms, movement of people and so on.

There is no point keeping no deal on the table if you don’t want it to happen. And if you want no deal to happen, then I’d recommend reading the Government’s impact assessments. You’ll rapidly change your mind.

The biggest issue is the entire sequencing of the talks. Theresa May caved into the EU’s demands of notification before negotiations (I.E. triggering Article 50 before beginning Withdrawal Agreement negotiations with the EU). This had the effect of putting the UK against the clock, particularly as it hadn’t established what exactly it wanted, or established what Leave looked like.

This was compounded by agreeing to take the Withdrawal negotiations first, followed by the Future Relationship talks. Had these run concurrently, it would have reduced issues around the Irish Border, for example as it wouldn’t have required a backstop, because that issue would be sorted by deciding your permanent trading relationship (remember, the backstop and interim customs arrangements were/are only there in case an permanent agreement couldn’t be made). Make the agreement and the issue is no longer a major one.

Hindsight is wonderful, but the failure to decide what Leave meant and provide a mandate for that, is what’s led to this mess. Having secured an exit vote in 2016, the next step should have been to secure a mandate on the terms of departure, either through a referendum or General Election.


If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Post Reply