Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[Murph7355]

don'tbesilly said:

You need to go back in the thread quite some way to see where the origins started.

It won't surprise you that someone (not me) brought up the 57% rise in hate crime since Brexit theme, it supports their theory that most leavers are racist, this theory crops up repeatedly.

Oh.

Forgive me but I won't bother going back in the thread. There really is no point

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

You need to go back in the thread quite some way to see where the origins started.

It won't surprise you that someone (not me) brought up the 57% rise in hate crime since Brexit theme, it supports their theory that most leavers are racist, this theory crops up repeatedly.

Err, I think you'll find you just brought it up a page ago to try and debunk it.

It hasn't been mentioned by anyone else for ages.

[sidicks]

///ajd said:

Err, I think you'll find you just brought it up a page ago to try and debunk it.

It hasn't been mentioned by anyone else for ages.

Except of course you frequently play the 'racism' card in this thread...

[Stickyfinger]

///ajd said:

any of the posts

trash trolling

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

Some insight here from Hannah White.

She is pretty dismissive of hard brexit as overly simplistic - looks like a more gradual approach is being planned.

She also seems to confirm the opinion here (from Derek I recall?) that our WTO position is not a trivial matter to clarify.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...

The problem with Hannah White's suggestion of a gradual approach is that according to the EU, negotiations on any future trade deals with the UK WON'T happen until the UK invokes A50.

According to most reports I've read the EU are going to play hard ball, some will say "what did the UK expect, which is fair enough, but any softly softly tactics by the UK will be seen as weakness, hence the talk of a hard Brexit.

To me it's no different to a pair of heavy weight boxers giving it large at the Press conference prior to getting in the ring.

The UK needs to get in the ring after some careful coaching, once in we'll give a good account and after 5/6 rounds we'll take it on points or a technicality.

The glass is always half full, especially between rounds.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

You need to go back in the thread quite some way to see where the origins started.

It won't surprise you that someone (not me) brought up the 57% rise in hate crime since Brexit theme, it supports their theory that most leavers are racist, this theory crops up repeatedly.

Err, I think you'll find you just brought it up a page ago to try and debunk it.

It hasn't been mentioned by anyone else for ages.

Apart from you on the 11th September, 14 days ago.

///ajd said:

Denial of facts is common at the moment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=205&t=1603730&i=4600

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

old quote from weeks ago

Yes, ages ago.

I posted it as Hannan seemed to be trying to deny any rise completely - I still think that's not a helpful thing to be saying.

Public figures should be thinking/talking about fixing the issue, not ignoring it and trying to make a case for it not existing at all.

[Murph7355]

///ajd said:

Yes, ages ago.

I posted it as Hannan seemed to be trying to deny any rise completely - I still think that's not a helpful thing to be saying.

Public figures should be thinking/talking about fixing the issue, not ignoring it and trying to make a case for it not existing at all.

I'd rather the people in authority on such matters avoided politicising issues and ensured there was an issue in the first place before spunking money on it. I suspect a lot that is currently wrong with things like our education and health systems (for example) is the incessant meddling by people with an agenda (and equally poor grasp of statistics).

I wonder whether the likes of Hannan are really "denying" there's been a rise, or whether they are

- denying it is the cause of Brexit (looking at timing and the other factors at play I would think it harder to prove it was Brexit related!)
- wanting to confirm if other factors were the cause (the way things are logged for example)
- something else entirely

Either way, attempting to link this to Brexit in any way seems a tad daft.

[andyps]

davepoth said:

andyps said:

Having earlier this year had a tour of a large M&S non-fresh food (I think they called it "ambient") distribution centre and been shown the different things that have to be done when sending certain goods to other European countries it is clearly not correct to say there are no non-tariff barriers within the EU as you describe it. They do exist currently due to legislation/requirements specific to certain member states. Lets face it, European car manufacturers could consider our penchant for driving right hand drive cars as something of a non-tariff barrier, but of course, it applies both ways!

The things that need to be done to move foods from the UK to France are to all intents and purposes identical to those for moving them to another part of the UK - the EU framework insists that if food is OK to sell in the UK it is by extension also OK to sell in any other EU country. There are lots of hurdles but they don't take account of national borders.

Any movement restrictions (there are a couple; Potatoes from Poland springs to mind) should come from the EU, so any unilateral action (Hungary is good at unilateral stuff, as I'm sure anyone who is dealing with EKAER will confirm) is illegal under EU rules.

I can't remember specific details as the tour was back in February, but it involved labelling changes (and not just for language) for countries which I am pretty sure included the Netherlands. The product didn't change, but labelling requirements were different and they have a section of the warehouse which makes changes to accommodate this.

As an aside, one oddity, non-EU was a country that did not allow the word "digestive" to be used for digestive biscuits.

[don4l]

andyps said:

///ajd said:

Meanwhile, the universities are all looking at setting up facilities in the EU to keep their funding access. Brain drain!

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/22/...

Please can you post the correct link, I've just read that relatively uniformed and article in the Guardian and it neither says that all universities are looking at setting up facilities in the EU not that there would be a brain drain.

I have a very simple rule.

If somebody doesn't post anything sensible for six months, then I stop reading their posts.

I know that some people would like an "ignore" button. however, we do have free will, and we can exercise it.

[don4l]

Derek Smith said:

My history books tell a different story.

The 20thC was nothing more than a series of wars and 'incidents' where weapons were used. It went on on a daily basis. It would be simplistic, and completely wrong, to suggest that an assassination started WWI. The Balkans were in a state of constant intrigue and, with various factions battling for supremacy.

WWII was nothing more than a continuation of WWI, and one could go back further to battles and wars between European nations. Much of it became more comfortable for Europeans when the fighting was in foreign countries and only different coloured people were killed. Pax Britania is a very pleasant thought, but that's all it every was, a thought.

Have you ever done a "Battlefield Tour"?

I think that you would appreciate it.

I came back today from 4 days in the Somme and Ypres.


In some ways it feels absolutely bloodu awful.

However, we owe it to them to go and see what they endured.

[b2hbm]

confused_buyer said:

Yes, until we actually Leave we have full rights (and obligations). We are obviously not included in meetings to discuss the EU's negotiating position and neither are they included in ours. Other than that we are full members. We could just veto and block everything but to what end I'm not sure and is not likely to foster a very positive atmosphere!

I'm not 100% but I think UK MEPs even get to vote on the deal.

The Treaty actually says:

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

So the only discussions we are excluded from are those in Paragraphs 2 & 3. The day-to-day working of the EU goes on as normal.

Edited by confused_buyer on Sunday 25th September 18:04

Thanks to yourself & JSF for the explanation.

That lines up with my original impression, but after reading the link I was wondering if it was true. I can see the logic in not voting on the final deal, but being a loose cannon around other EU meetings does seem a bit odd. I'm a bit surprised they allowed that, perhaps the negotiations will be friendly after all !

[FiF]

b2hbm said:

confused_buyer said:

Yes, until we actually Leave we have full rights (and obligations). We are obviously not included in meetings to discuss the EU's negotiating position and neither are they included in ours. Other than that we are full members. We could just veto and block everything but to what end I'm not sure and is not likely to foster a very positive atmosphere!

I'm not 100% but I think UK MEPs even get to vote on the deal.

The Treaty actually says:

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

So the only discussions we are excluded from are those in Paragraphs 2 & 3. The day-to-day working of the EU goes on as normal.

Edited by confused_buyer on Sunday 25th September 18:04

Thanks to yourself & JSF for the explanation.

That lines up with my original impression, but after reading the link I was wondering if it was true. I can see the logic in not voting on the final deal, but being a loose cannon around other EU meetings does seem a bit odd. I'm a bit surprised they allowed that, perhaps the negotiations will be friendly after all !

To be fair the confusion is understandable since prior to the referendum it was an argument frequently bandied around by the press and Remainers who didn't understand the wording of the Treaty. Maybe it was ignorance, maybe it was deliberately done, who knows, who cares, but say it often enough and a misdirection can become the truth.

I think it's fair to accept that there could be some things which the UK might choose not to get involved with, even though technically still permitted to do so. Personally don't have an issue with that.

[don'tbesilly]

FiF said:

b2hbm said:

confused_buyer said:

Yes, until we actually Leave we have full rights (and obligations). We are obviously not included in meetings to discuss the EU's negotiating position and neither are they included in ours. Other than that we are full members. We could just veto and block everything but to what end I'm not sure and is not likely to foster a very positive atmosphere!

I'm not 100% but I think UK MEPs even get to vote on the deal.

The Treaty actually says:

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

So the only discussions we are excluded from are those in Paragraphs 2 & 3. The day-to-day working of the EU goes on as normal.

Edited by confused_buyer on Sunday 25th September 18:04

Thanks to yourself & JSF for the explanation.

That lines up with my original impression, but after reading the link I was wondering if it was true. I can see the logic in not voting on the final deal, but being a loose cannon around other EU meetings does seem a bit odd. I'm a bit surprised they allowed that, perhaps the negotiations will be friendly after all !

To be fair the confusion is understandable since prior to the referendum it was an argument frequently bandied around by the press and Remainers who didn't understand the wording of the Treaty. Maybe it was ignorance, maybe it was deliberately done, who knows, who cares, but say it often enough and a misdirection can become the truth.

I think it's fair to accept that there could be some things which the UK might choose not to get involved with, even though technically still permitted to do so. Personally don't have an issue with that.

There are of course certain things that the UK would choose, and rightfully so, to get involved with, and still have a veto over, such as the forming of an European Armed force.
Of course all the talk of veto's and how the UK can veto this,veto that are all well and good, but in reality talk is cheap, and guess what...............

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/714225/Martin-...

[anonymous-user]

Anyone here still really think we're going to see a u-turn?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/n...

[Strocky]

|http://thumbsnap.com/xq2a1zyd[/url]

[All that jazz]

bmw535i said:

Anyone here still really think we're going to see a u-turn?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/n...

Onwards and upwards.

[Stickyfinger]

Strocky said:

|http://thumbsnap.com/xq2a1zyd[/url]

I do wonder about the quality of the EU officials, have they understood zero about the British after all these years

[craigjm]

bmw535i said:

Anyone here still really think we're going to see a u-turn?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/n...

Problem is, this is not Theresa May saying this. She has already publically slapped Johnson down for some of his comments. Before anyone gets excited that there is a timetable and a plan it really needs to come out of the mouth of the one person who is actually able to push the button.

[alock]

Strocky said:

|http://thumbsnap.com/xq2a1zyd[/url]

That just sounds like someone showing their negotiating hand too early. It seem like a very odd way to try and protect German industry.