How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
There is a bigger problem with the ECJ in this context. It simply does too much - it is the proverbial hammer used where every problem appears to be a nail.
In any other scenario regarding two parties creating a bipartite agreement, the normal recourse for an oversight body is to create one, made up of equal proportions of the constituent signatories. This is the approach applied to pretty much every single global agreement.
Having a partisan organisation overseeing bipartite agreements is daft. Insisting on it is even drafter.
In any other scenario regarding two parties creating a bipartite agreement, the normal recourse for an oversight body is to create one, made up of equal proportions of the constituent signatories. This is the approach applied to pretty much every single global agreement.
Having a partisan organisation overseeing bipartite agreements is daft. Insisting on it is even drafter.
Breadvan72 said:
Bulldog was, er irony. See also comedy Yorkshireman - that's a stereotype too. There can be cultural characteristics, but nationality is not innate, and broad national characteristics skew quickly into stereotyping. All French people are lazy and drink at lunchtime, and so on. All Germans are humourless and efficient, etc. A Spanish person, or whatever, is no more predetermined to behave in a certain way than, say, a black person or a Jewish person. Replace [nationality] with [colour or ethnicity] and things may feel a tad uncomfortable.
Of course, irony etc. How's it go, ah yes, it may be hard to face up to it blah, blah, blah.Sway said:
There is a bigger problem with the ECJ in this context. It simply does too much - it is the proverbial hammer used where every problem appears to be a nail.
In any other scenario regarding two parties creating a bipartite agreement, the normal recourse for an oversight body is to create one, made up of equal proportions of the constituent signatories. This is the approach applied to pretty much every single global agreement.
Having a partisan organisation overseeing bipartite agreements is daft. Insisting on it is even drafter.
The Court hears cases referred to it by national courts, and has some limited original jurisdiction. It doesn't regulate activities on a daily basis. It's the ultimate interpreter of what EU law means. In any other scenario regarding two parties creating a bipartite agreement, the normal recourse for an oversight body is to create one, made up of equal proportions of the constituent signatories. This is the approach applied to pretty much every single global agreement.
Having a partisan organisation overseeing bipartite agreements is daft. Insisting on it is even drafter.
How is the Court partisan? It is in a broad sense a political entity, but it isn't partisan.
B'stard Child said:
sidicks said:
///ajd said:
There have been some good points on here, I think it is better when all refrain from “all remoaners/brexiteers think this”.
Finally something we can agree on.ORD said:
What evidence of medium term disbenefits would you need? Consensus between pretty much everyone who earns money from projecting economic conditions isn't enough? The implied projections based on the devaluation of the pound?
Looks like you are trying to turn the rhetoric up to 11!Your claims are farcical and you are confusing projections with predictions.
ORD said:
If the answer is 'I'll believe it when it happens', that's an argument for absolute recklessness.
I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.
My whole point is that you’ve not looked very closely if you believe that, or at least not understood the assumptions being made.I don't think the typical Leave voter was motivated by economic reasons, no. My whole point is that the economic argument does not even begin to stack up, which is indirect evidence that other factors must have been at play. As the polling shows, those other factors mostly relate directly or indirectly to immigration. A sad state of affairs. But that's what the evidence shows.
Breadvan72 said:
Sway said:
There is a bigger problem with the ECJ in this context. It simply does too much - it is the proverbial hammer used where every problem appears to be a nail.
In any other scenario regarding two parties creating a bipartite agreement, the normal recourse for an oversight body is to create one, made up of equal proportions of the constituent signatories. This is the approach applied to pretty much every single global agreement.
Having a partisan organisation overseeing bipartite agreements is daft. Insisting on it is even drafter.
The Court hears cases referred to it by national courts, and has some limited original jurisdiction. It doesn't regulate activities on a daily basis. It's the ultimate interpreter of what EU law means. In any other scenario regarding two parties creating a bipartite agreement, the normal recourse for an oversight body is to create one, made up of equal proportions of the constituent signatories. This is the approach applied to pretty much every single global agreement.
Having a partisan organisation overseeing bipartite agreements is daft. Insisting on it is even drafter.
How is the Court partisan? It is in a broad sense a political entity, but it isn't partisan.
A bipartite agreement with a nation outside of the EU has (in my understanding) effectively it's own legislature, which is an amalgam to fit both party's legislatures. So the ECJ can rule whether the EU entering an agreement is legal in EU law, but is seriously limited in being able to accommodate the laws relating to the agreement.
Not having any representation of the other party to the agreement by default makes it partisan - it's difficult to argue (especially in the case of the ECJ, which does seemingly love getting all political) that the other nation's interests are going to be considered fairly.
By that token is the UK Supreme Court partisan if it rules on a case in which one of the parties is a non UK entity or even a non UK Government? You appear to misunderstand the role of the EU Court. It interprets EU law, just as the UKSC interprets UK law. The CJEU would only have jurisdiction on a matter of EU law. It would only have a role in a post Brexit situation if the UK agrees that some aspects of EU law apply to, for example, free movement of persons.
jsf said:
The old, the people are too thick for their own good anti democracy speech.
Your comment re GP teams, what do you think they do at the moment? It's a world championship, they are currently in the USA as we speak.
You think GP teams currently only employ people from the EU?
Just think about how ridiculous your comments are.
haha - interesting you fail to comment on my friend though Your comment re GP teams, what do you think they do at the moment? It's a world championship, they are currently in the USA as we speak.
You think GP teams currently only employ people from the EU?
Just think about how ridiculous your comments are.
i was considering things and the GP was on... go figure haha
yes they are in the USA and they will have to have got US working visas.
so many of the brexit folk want no EU workers or minimal amounts in the UK.... so how does it work?
how can it be that i know i don't know or have enough political, economical, sociological, legal knowledge.
its the don't know what they don't know types that have created a potentially dangerous situation for us as an economy. if this happens as many want, my children will not be able to apply and work in the technical jobs across the EU. People from france can still work in any of the 28 EU states but UK people can't - talk about cutting our noses off to spite our face.
guess we need to blame all those "foreigners" coming over here taking our jobs.... oh i mean applying from them and beating UK people to jobs in a competitive interview in their 2nd language haha!! yup - their fault
JJ
problemchild1976 said:
haha - interesting you fail to comment on my friend though
i was considering things and the GP was on... go figure haha
yes they are in the USA and they will have to have got US working visas.
so many of the brexit folk want no EU workers or minimal amounts in the UK.... so how does it work?
No they don't.i was considering things and the GP was on... go figure haha
yes they are in the USA and they will have to have got US working visas.
so many of the brexit folk want no EU workers or minimal amounts in the UK.... so how does it work?
problemchild1976 said:
how can it be that i know i don't know or have enough political, economical, sociological, legal knowledge.
its the don't know what they don't know types that have created a potentially dangerous situation for us as an economy. if this happens as many want, my children will not be able to apply and work in the technical jobs across the EU. People from france can still work in any of the 28 EU states but UK people can't - talk about cutting our noses off to spite our face.
Total nonsense.its the don't know what they don't know types that have created a potentially dangerous situation for us as an economy. if this happens as many want, my children will not be able to apply and work in the technical jobs across the EU. People from france can still work in any of the 28 EU states but UK people can't - talk about cutting our noses off to spite our face.
problemchild1976 said:
guess we need to blame all those "foreigners" coming over here taking our jobs.... oh i mean applying from them and beating UK people to jobs in a competitive interview in their 2nd language haha!! yup - their fault
And again.Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 24th October 20:41
sidicks said:
problemchild1976 said:
haha - interesting you fail to comment on my friend though
i was considering things and the GP was on... go figure haha
yes they are in the USA and they will have to have got US working visas.
so many of the brexit folk want no EU workers or minimal amounts in the UK.... so how does it work?
No they don't.i was considering things and the GP was on... go figure haha
yes they are in the USA and they will have to have got US working visas.
so many of the brexit folk want no EU workers or minimal amounts in the UK.... so how does it work?
problemchild1976 said:
how can it be that i know i don't know or have enough political, economical, sociological, legal knowledge.
its the don't know what they don't know types that have created a potentially dangerous situation for us as an economy. if this happens as many want, my children will not be able to apply and work in the technical jobs across the EU. People from france can still work in any of the 28 EU states but UK people can't - talk about cutting our noses off to spite our face.
Total nonsense.its the don't know what they don't know types that have created a potentially dangerous situation for us as an economy. if this happens as many want, my children will not be able to apply and work in the technical jobs across the EU. People from france can still work in any of the 28 EU states but UK people can't - talk about cutting our noses off to spite our face.
problemchild1976 said:
guess we need to blame all those "foreigners" coming over here taking our jobs.... oh i mean applying from them and beating UK people to jobs in a competitive interview in their 2nd language haha!! yup - their fault
And again.JJ
problemchild1976 said:
explain - why is what i say nonsense. i hear it. i see it.
JJ
1. How many people have you actually spoken to?JJ
2. Do you understand the difference between having some control over immigration and wanted to stop immigration?
3. Who told you that your children wouldn't be able to work in the EU?
sidicks said:
1. How many people have you actually spoken to?
2. Do you understand the difference between having some control over immigration and wanted to stop immigration?
3. Who told you that your children wouldn't be able to work in the EU?
1. many - everyone i've spoken to (apart from my step mum) has said they wanted to stop foreign people coming to the UK, taking jobs, using "our" NHS, filling up our waiting rooms and sending all the money they earn back home.2. Do you understand the difference between having some control over immigration and wanted to stop immigration?
3. Who told you that your children wouldn't be able to work in the EU?
2. yes. totally. so who do we stop? isn't the limit based on the number of jobs being advertised? if there is a requirement for workers then thats what sets the influx (if you disagree with point 1 that is)
3. The UK will limit those coming here yet we expect we can go work without issue within the EU like we do now?
what you seem to be referring to is what we had before no?
if someone doesn't succeed in an interview its because they are not the best candidate. suck it up and try harder not moan that the successful candidate doesn't even come from your town!!
JJ
problemchild1976 said:
1. many - everyone i've spoken to (apart from my step mum) has said they wanted to stop foreign people coming to the UK, taking jobs, using "our" NHS, filling up our waiting rooms and sending all the money they earn back home.
You probably want to find some more educated friends...problemchild1976 said:
2. yes. totally. so who do we stop? isn't the limit based on the number of jobs being advertised? if there is a requirement for workers then thats what sets the influx (if you disagree with point 1 that is)
Post Brexit we can decide who we want and adapt to changing requirements.problemchild1976 said:
3. The UK will limit those coming here yet we expect we can go work without issue within the EU like we do now?
what you seem to be referring to is what we had before no?
if someone doesn't succeed in an interview its because they are not the best candidate. suck it up and try harder not moan that the successful candidate doesn't even come from your town!!
JJ
If they are needed there will be jobs for them.what you seem to be referring to is what we had before no?
if someone doesn't succeed in an interview its because they are not the best candidate. suck it up and try harder not moan that the successful candidate doesn't even come from your town!!
JJ
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 24th October 21:19
Sway said:
There is a bigger problem with the ECJ in this context. It simply does too much - it is the proverbial hammer used where every problem appears to be a nail.
In any other scenario regarding two parties creating a bipartite agreement, the normal recourse for an oversight body is to create one, made up of equal proportions of the constituent signatories. This is the approach applied to pretty much every single global agreement.
Having a partisan organisation overseeing bipartite agreements is daft. Insisting on it is even drafter.
Do you think though that the problems with the ECJ justify the governments severing of ties with everything that it presides over in such short order?In any other scenario regarding two parties creating a bipartite agreement, the normal recourse for an oversight body is to create one, made up of equal proportions of the constituent signatories. This is the approach applied to pretty much every single global agreement.
Having a partisan organisation overseeing bipartite agreements is daft. Insisting on it is even drafter.
I think there is an issue with the way government is approaching the negotiations with the withdrawal of everything ECJ with no exceptions regardless of effects. It gives us a mountain to climb in terms of the amount of negotiation to be done, puts us at greater risk, lowers our bargaining power and, as far as I can tell for little benefit at the moment.
problemchild1976 said:
1. many - everyone i've spoken to (apart from my step mum) has said they wanted to stop foreign people coming to the UK, taking jobs, using "our" NHS, filling up our waiting rooms and sending all the money they earn back home.
2. yes. totally. so who do we stop? isn't the limit based on the number of jobs being advertised? if there is a requirement for workers then thats what sets the influx (if you disagree with point 1 that is)
3. The UK will limit those coming here yet we expect we can go work without issue within the EU like we do now?
what you seem to be referring to is what we had before no?
if someone doesn't succeed in an interview its because they are not the best candidate. suck it up and try harder not moan that the successful candidate doesn't even come from your town!!
JJ
So why limit immigration to just people of the EU?2. yes. totally. so who do we stop? isn't the limit based on the number of jobs being advertised? if there is a requirement for workers then thats what sets the influx (if you disagree with point 1 that is)
3. The UK will limit those coming here yet we expect we can go work without issue within the EU like we do now?
what you seem to be referring to is what we had before no?
if someone doesn't succeed in an interview its because they are not the best candidate. suck it up and try harder not moan that the successful candidate doesn't even come from your town!!
JJ
Wouldn't it be nice to allow all 7 billion of our planet to come over here freely?
Are you in favour?
sidicks said:
His arguments aren't 'simplistic', they are just wrong.
What, so no EU person has ever taken a job that a UK person could have had? EU migrants dont live in houses? They never get ill?I dont agree he is right on balance, but the argument cannot be totally wrong. My point was that your personal view depends on your circumstance.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff