Theresa May (Vol.2)
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
frisbee said:
I think the word you were actually looking for is competent. The EU haven't been meanies or played games, they've just negotiated competently.
Perhaps that's why people wanted to leave? The EU were competent so the UK stood no chance. It's got the 3 things it's asked for
1) Leave EU
2) resolution of border across Ireland
3) trade deal from day 1
It's becoming less and less clear that theres anything wrong in that, and the EU's ok with it too
jsf said:
Service industries are all about the people (and the ecosystem they exploit). Getting the people to move en masse is the problem for any sizable business.
I suspect you know that I am well aware of how our business operates. Currently 4,500 UK employees.It is not necessary to relocate en masse and if the UK economy suffers that number could reduce by natural wastage year on year whilst growing other markets.
jsf said:
p1stonhead said:
Leicester Loyal said:
p1stonhead said:
We they didn’t vote for that, they just thought they did.
You don’t think there are such stupid people out there? Some are still arguing for crashing out with no deal!
Your original comment was blatantly a lie, or someone is lying to you and you've believed it.You don’t think there are such stupid people out there? Some are still arguing for crashing out with no deal!
Edit - just saw the typo. I meant the EU not the UK of course. They were not THAT stupid
I suppose they sort of we’re voting for it, but thought it could happen on a county basis.
Edited by p1stonhead on Sunday 16th December 16:22
Piha said:
As you state, the vote was to Leave. There was no vote on what that Leave looked like in the referendum. If you disagree then please show us where it is clearly shown in the referendum.
There didn't need to be a vote on how we were leaving. Leaving was walking away. The ballot paper didn't say
"remain" or "leave with a deal of some sort, any sort."
You tell me how it is leaving.
Parts of it are leaving I agree, but it is not truly leaving.
gizlaroc said:
Piha said:
As you state, the vote was to Leave. There was no vote on what that Leave looked like in the referendum. If you disagree then please show us where it is clearly shown in the referendum.
There didn't need to be a vote on how we were leaving. Leaving was walking away. The ballot paper didn't say
"remain" or "leave with a deal of some sort, any sort."
You tell me how it is leaving.
Parts of it are leaving I agree, but it is not truly leaving.
It just shows how many different versions of leave there are
Leave is what's happening on 29th March
If the government feels it needs to sort out other things at the same time in the best interests of the country, it should crack on and do it
Currently thats sort out the border and trade with europe
If it needs to deal with other things in coming months it shoud get on and do that too
Leave isn't about cutting off your nose just for the sake of it
gizlaroc said:
Piha said:
As you state, the vote was to Leave. There was no vote on what that Leave looked like in the referendum. If you disagree then please show us where it is clearly shown in the referendum.
There didn't need to be a vote on how we were leaving. Leaving was walking away. The ballot paper didn't say
"remain" or "leave with a deal of some sort, any sort."
You tell me how it is leaving.
Parts of it are leaving I agree, but it is not truly leaving.
Semantics are fun. It's the sort of thing to while away a few hours in court. However, the only thing that matters if we are going to take the result of the referendum as more than persuasive on the government is what the voters thought leave meant. That includes those who voted stay as well.
You have your interpretation but I assume you haven't the conceit to suggest all voters agree with you.
If a government is to take the referendum as bindingm the first place to look is what the leave campaign suggested, and that wasn't a complete break. Nowhere near.
During the referendum, those campaigning on both sides said that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and customs union.
We then had a general election where the winning party committed to leaving the customs union.
Yet we now have a deal where we are trying to appease those that want to remain by staying in the Customs Union which leaves us completely tied to the EU and their rules and tariffs, if we stay in the customs union we can't reduce those tariffs to markets elsewhere, which is the whole point of being able to create trade deals with the rest of the world. Simply trading on the same terms is not a "deal".
They can argue all they like that we have left the EU, but the reality is our trade policies would still be run by Brussels, therefore we are not leaving.
Any once of control by the EU means saying we are leaving is a lie.
Is that really semantics?
We then had a general election where the winning party committed to leaving the customs union.
Yet we now have a deal where we are trying to appease those that want to remain by staying in the Customs Union which leaves us completely tied to the EU and their rules and tariffs, if we stay in the customs union we can't reduce those tariffs to markets elsewhere, which is the whole point of being able to create trade deals with the rest of the world. Simply trading on the same terms is not a "deal".
They can argue all they like that we have left the EU, but the reality is our trade policies would still be run by Brussels, therefore we are not leaving.
Any once of control by the EU means saying we are leaving is a lie.
Is that really semantics?
gizlaroc said:
During the referendum, those campaigning on both sides said that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and customs union.
We then had a general election where the winning party committed to leaving the customs union.
Yet we now have a deal where we are trying to appease those that want to remain by staying in the Customs Union which leaves us completely tied to the EU and their rules and tariffs, if we stay in the customs union we can't reduce those tariffs to markets elsewhere, which is the whole point of being able to create trade deals with the rest of the world. Simply trading on the same terms is not a "deal".
They can argue all they like that we have left the EU, but the reality is our trade policies would still be run by Brussels, therefore we are not leaving.
Any once of control by the EU means saying we are leaving is a lie.
Is that really semantics?
yes We then had a general election where the winning party committed to leaving the customs union.
Yet we now have a deal where we are trying to appease those that want to remain by staying in the Customs Union which leaves us completely tied to the EU and their rules and tariffs, if we stay in the customs union we can't reduce those tariffs to markets elsewhere, which is the whole point of being able to create trade deals with the rest of the world. Simply trading on the same terms is not a "deal".
They can argue all they like that we have left the EU, but the reality is our trade policies would still be run by Brussels, therefore we are not leaving.
Any once of control by the EU means saying we are leaving is a lie.
Is that really semantics?
What youve done is classic strawman
Youve put something toegther that isnt true, argued against as if it is true, going so far as calling it a lie
Which of course, what youve done would be
Try it again with different semantics
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 16th December 20:43
gizlaroc said:
During the referendum, those campaigning on both sides said that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and customs union.
We then had a general election where the winning party committed to leaving the customs union.
Yet we now have a deal where we are trying to appease those that want to remain by staying in the Customs Union which leaves us completely tied to the EU and their rules and tariffs, if we stay in the customs union we can't reduce those tariffs to markets elsewhere, which is the whole point of being able to create trade deals with the rest of the world. Simply trading on the same terms is not a "deal".
They can argue all they like that we have left the EU, but the reality is our trade policies would still be run by Brussels, therefore we are not leaving.
Any once of control by the EU means saying we are leaving is a lie.
Is that really semantics?
You are suggesting that there's only one meaning for leave in this context. That's wrong.We then had a general election where the winning party committed to leaving the customs union.
Yet we now have a deal where we are trying to appease those that want to remain by staying in the Customs Union which leaves us completely tied to the EU and their rules and tariffs, if we stay in the customs union we can't reduce those tariffs to markets elsewhere, which is the whole point of being able to create trade deals with the rest of the world. Simply trading on the same terms is not a "deal".
They can argue all they like that we have left the EU, but the reality is our trade policies would still be run by Brussels, therefore we are not leaving.
Any once of control by the EU means saying we are leaving is a lie.
Is that really semantics?
You say what the remain campaign suggested leave meant. That is immaterial.
You say that the leave side said leave would mean leaving both the CU and the SM. They may have; they said a lot of things. Johnson and Gove both mentioned the Norwegian and Icelandic options. Davis mentioned the Norwegian option. So your statement is wrong. It was clear, clear to anyone who listened, that there were options on the table.
The EU, after the Norwegian option was mentioned said that the UK would not dictate to the EU any such conditions, especially as they were bespoke. This tended to indicate that we could get one to suit our particular needs.
You suggest that May's plan is to appease those who voted remain. Firstly, they have a voice and should be considered. Secondly, May is doing no such thing. She is trying to appease her party's paymasters. The biggest in value, including the largest single donor, have pushed for remain, or an option such as the one May is proposing.
No one making these decisions cares one iota about what you want or what I want. So the ins and outs of what a particular word means is pointless, only to be indulged in for amusement.
Leave is a Humpty-Dumpty word, and all the more fun for it.
saaby93 said:
gizlaroc said:
During the referendum, those campaigning on both sides said that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and customs union.
We then had a general election where the winning party committed to leaving the customs union.
Yet we now have a deal where we are trying to appease those that want to remain by staying in the Customs Union which leaves us completely tied to the EU and their rules and tariffs, if we stay in the customs union we can't reduce those tariffs to markets elsewhere, which is the whole point of being able to create trade deals with the rest of the world. Simply trading on the same terms is not a "deal".
They can argue all they like that we have left the EU, but the reality is our trade policies would still be run by Brussels, therefore we are not leaving.
Any once of control by the EU means saying we are leaving is a lie.
Is that really semantics?
yes We then had a general election where the winning party committed to leaving the customs union.
Yet we now have a deal where we are trying to appease those that want to remain by staying in the Customs Union which leaves us completely tied to the EU and their rules and tariffs, if we stay in the customs union we can't reduce those tariffs to markets elsewhere, which is the whole point of being able to create trade deals with the rest of the world. Simply trading on the same terms is not a "deal".
They can argue all they like that we have left the EU, but the reality is our trade policies would still be run by Brussels, therefore we are not leaving.
Any once of control by the EU means saying we are leaving is a lie.
Is that really semantics?
What youve done is classic strawman
Youve put something toegther that isnt true, argued against as if it is true, going so far as calling it a lie
Which of course, what youve done would be
Try it again with different semantics
Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 16th December 20:43
I recall clearly the Lancaster House speech being “out of the Single Market, out of the Customs Union”, for example.
EddieSteadyGo said:
I have changed my opinion in one aspect though. Many of the reasons to vote "out" related to risks as to what might happen e.g. Turkey joining, EU Army etc. My answer at the time was that we could vote to leave at some later point if those risks came to pass and it negatively affected our situation.
However, extricating ourselves from a 40+ year marriage has thrown up so many complications as things stand now, that I can see leaving might not be even viable in say another 10 years due to all the further likely integration.
Good morning, Did you sleep well?However, extricating ourselves from a 40+ year marriage has thrown up so many complications as things stand now, that I can see leaving might not be even viable in say another 10 years due to all the further likely integration.
EddieSteadyGo said:
I have changed my opinion in one aspect though. Many of the reasons to vote "out" related to risks as to what might happen e.g. Turkey joining, EU Army etc. My answer at the time was that we could vote to leave at some later point if those risks came to pass and it negatively affected our situation.
However, extricating ourselves from a 40+ year marriage has thrown up so many complications as things stand now, that I can see leaving might not be even viable in say another 10 years due to all the further likely integration.
As I've said before one of mine tooHowever, extricating ourselves from a 40+ year marriage has thrown up so many complications as things stand now, that I can see leaving might not be even viable in say another 10 years due to all the further likely integration.
But I think we underestimated the commitment in the HoC to actually leave so gut feel says we had our chance and blew it - the result will be remain - just not worked out in my head how they are gonna do it
Derek Smith said:
You are suggesting that there's only one meaning for leave in this context. That's wrong.
You say what the remain campaign suggested leave meant. That is immaterial.
You say that the leave side said leave would mean leaving both the CU and the SM. They may have; they said a lot of things. Johnson and Gove both mentioned the Norwegian and Icelandic options. Davis mentioned the Norwegian option. So your statement is wrong. It was clear, clear to anyone who listened, that there were options on the table.
The EU, after the Norwegian option was mentioned said that the UK would not dictate to the EU any such conditions, especially as they were bespoke. This tended to indicate that we could get one to suit our particular needs.
You suggest that May's plan is to appease those who voted remain. Firstly, they have a voice and should be considered. Secondly, May is doing no such thing. She is trying to appease her party's paymasters. The biggest in value, including the largest single donor, have pushed for remain, or an option such as the one May is proposing.
No one making these decisions cares one iota about what you want or what I want. So the ins and outs of what a particular word means is pointless, only to be indulged in for amusement.
Leave is a Humpty-Dumpty word, and all the more fun for it.
What are you going on about? You say what the remain campaign suggested leave meant. That is immaterial.
You say that the leave side said leave would mean leaving both the CU and the SM. They may have; they said a lot of things. Johnson and Gove both mentioned the Norwegian and Icelandic options. Davis mentioned the Norwegian option. So your statement is wrong. It was clear, clear to anyone who listened, that there were options on the table.
The EU, after the Norwegian option was mentioned said that the UK would not dictate to the EU any such conditions, especially as they were bespoke. This tended to indicate that we could get one to suit our particular needs.
You suggest that May's plan is to appease those who voted remain. Firstly, they have a voice and should be considered. Secondly, May is doing no such thing. She is trying to appease her party's paymasters. The biggest in value, including the largest single donor, have pushed for remain, or an option such as the one May is proposing.
No one making these decisions cares one iota about what you want or what I want. So the ins and outs of what a particular word means is pointless, only to be indulged in for amusement.
Leave is a Humpty-Dumpty word, and all the more fun for it.
Even Cameron and Osborne, campaigning to remain, said that if we voted to leave it would be a vote to come out of the single market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PDHnZGFdSs
loafer123 said:
saaby93 said:
gizlaroc said:
During the referendum, those campaigning on both sides said that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and customs union.
We then had a general election where the winning party committed to leaving the customs union.
Yet we now have a deal where we are trying to appease those that want to remain by staying in the Customs Union which leaves us completely tied to the EU and their rules and tariffs, if we stay in the customs union we can't reduce those tariffs to markets elsewhere, which is the whole point of being able to create trade deals with the rest of the world. Simply trading on the same terms is not a "deal".
They can argue all they like that we have left the EU, but the reality is our trade policies would still be run by Brussels, therefore we are not leaving.
Any once of control by the EU means saying we are leaving is a lie.
Is that really semantics?
yes We then had a general election where the winning party committed to leaving the customs union.
Yet we now have a deal where we are trying to appease those that want to remain by staying in the Customs Union which leaves us completely tied to the EU and their rules and tariffs, if we stay in the customs union we can't reduce those tariffs to markets elsewhere, which is the whole point of being able to create trade deals with the rest of the world. Simply trading on the same terms is not a "deal".
They can argue all they like that we have left the EU, but the reality is our trade policies would still be run by Brussels, therefore we are not leaving.
Any once of control by the EU means saying we are leaving is a lie.
Is that really semantics?
What youve done is classic strawman
Youve put something toegther that isnt true, argued against as if it is true, going so far as calling it a lie
Which of course, what youve done would be
Try it again with different semantics
I recall clearly the Lancaster House speech being “out of the Single Market, out of the Customs Union”, for example.
Thats why he's said its a lie
Its like a dog chasing its own tail
As for what youve said
On march 29th we come out of the single market and the customs union
If it helps the semantics the UK and EU could let it rest like that for a few few weeks before agreeing a new trading arrangement but it seems best to let it operate from March 29th too
Discussion of terms here.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cus...
Corbyns speech is pretty much saying the same thing - even if he sounds angry about it - strawman too
saaby93 said:
Everything he's arguing against is untrue
Thats why he's said its a lie
Its like a dog chasing its own tail
As for what youve said
On march 29th we come out of the single market and the customs union
If it helps the semantics the UK and EU could let it rest like that for a few few weeks before agreeing a new trading arrangement but it seems best to let it operate from March 29th too
Discussion of terms here.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cus...
Corbyns speech is pretty much saying the same thing
The article you have linked to is just as confused as your own post.Thats why he's said its a lie
Its like a dog chasing its own tail
As for what youve said
On march 29th we come out of the single market and the customs union
If it helps the semantics the UK and EU could let it rest like that for a few few weeks before agreeing a new trading arrangement but it seems best to let it operate from March 29th too
Discussion of terms here.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cus...
Corbyns speech is pretty much saying the same thing
gizlaroc said:
What are you going on about?
Even Cameron and Osborne, campaigning to remain, said that if we voted to leave it would be a vote to come out of the single market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PDHnZGFdSs
And the message from the leave campaign when they said that was that it was all part of Project Fear and the EU would be falling over itself to continue trading on the same terms.Even Cameron and Osborne, campaigning to remain, said that if we voted to leave it would be a vote to come out of the single market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PDHnZGFdSs
Now that's been shown to be entirely wrong (as remainers warned at the time) it's suddenly somehow the remainers' fault. You won, get over it.
loafer123 said:
The article you have linked to is just as confused as your own post.
Rather than both of those being confused maybe something else is confused 
You said the Lancaster house said we were coming out of the single market and the customs union
Lets assume youre right in what it said
On March 29th, deal or no deal, the UK leaves the single market and the customs union
Why do you want to chase your tail about it?
saaby93 said:
On March 29th, deal or no deal, the UK leaves the single market and the customs union
Why do you want to chase your tail about it?
Under the terms of the deal we don't leave the single market or customs union until the end of the transition period. It's in the preamble.Why do you want to chase your tail about it?
the withdrawal deal said:
CONSIDERING that it is in the interest of both the Union and the United Kingdom to determine a transition or implementation period during which – notwithstanding all consequences of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the Union as regards the United Kingdom's participation in the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, in particular the end, on the date of entry into force of this Agreement, of the mandates of all members of institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union nominated, appointed or elected in relation to the United Kingdom's membership of the Union – Union law , including international agreements, should be applicable to and in the United Kingdom, and, as a general rule, with the same effect as regards the Member States, in order to avoid disruption in the period during which the agreement(s) on the future relationship will be negotiated
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff