The K M Links Game - June 2024 Week 2
Quizzes & Puzzles37 mins ago
This Deal Or No Brexit At All
https:/
When was 'No Deal' taken off the table?
https:/
When was 'No Deal' taken off the table?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by -Talbot-. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If this deal is accepted in tonight's vote*, then that will in the long run lead to Brexit of one form or another. If it is rejected**, then all bets are off. At some point the question does become how ideologically pure must the implementation of Brexit be for it to be worth happening at all.
*It clearly won't be accepted, though.
**Which it will certainly be.
*It clearly won't be accepted, though.
**Which it will certainly be.
> Surely the reason for the vote is obvious. But if I need point it out, it's because remainer MPs (which most seem to be) are trying their utmost to thwart Brexit, against the referendum decision.
No, they are trying to thwart a no deal Brexit.
The simple problem that the Commons, and the country, has is that there is not a majority for anything. Perhaps the largest minority (say, 48%) is for No Brexit. To arrogate every single Brexit vote to one version of Brexit, in particular No Deal which is the most damaging version and the one furthest away from the 48% Remainers, would be both political suicide and undemocratic because it is far from what most people want. There cannot be a "default" option, there must be an option that is positively agreed on. Otherwise, there's a fair argument that the default option is remain, because we couldn't agree how to leave.
No, they are trying to thwart a no deal Brexit.
The simple problem that the Commons, and the country, has is that there is not a majority for anything. Perhaps the largest minority (say, 48%) is for No Brexit. To arrogate every single Brexit vote to one version of Brexit, in particular No Deal which is the most damaging version and the one furthest away from the 48% Remainers, would be both political suicide and undemocratic because it is far from what most people want. There cannot be a "default" option, there must be an option that is positively agreed on. Otherwise, there's a fair argument that the default option is remain, because we couldn't agree how to leave.
“Lol ick I know the feeling - but hey there won't be any immigrants on 30 March 2019!!”
“…lets face it most had no idea what they were voting for other than 'immigration' and most of the immigrants don't even come from Europe”
Why do Remainers continually suggest that the only reason people voted to leave was because of immigration? We can leave aside illegal immigration, which will go on whether or not we belong to the EU, the UN, SPECTRE or the MCC. The problem with the EU and immigration is that 500m people have the right to settle here and there is nothing anybody can do about it. What Leavers were concerned about was uncontrolled immigration where we had to admit anybody who turned up. It’s really time this nonsense was put to bed.
“Clover - I don't think they were thinking!”
Oh yes they were (or at least I was, so don’t tar everybody with the same brush). I decided in 1992 that I would rather the UK leave the EU than submit to its “ever closer union” federalism. So I’ve been thinking about it for almost 27 years and nothing I heard in either campaign prior to the referendum changed my mind.
Everybody talks about continuing trade. This agreement is nothing to do with trade – that must be negotiated later. It is to lay out how people, money and goods move around Europe. Any sensible negotiators (and I exclude both the EU and the UK teams from that category) would have concentrated on a pragmatic solution instead of trying to maintain as much of the status quo as possible. But they didn’t.
I knew exactly what I was voting for in 2016 (the clue was on the ballot paper). What I did not vote for was to ditch the Lisbon Treaty only to be tied to a replacement that was arguably worse. It’s always been part of the Remainers case that “it is a bit too difficult to manage so we’d better not do it.” A pathetic philosophy, in my view.
“…lets face it most had no idea what they were voting for other than 'immigration' and most of the immigrants don't even come from Europe”
Why do Remainers continually suggest that the only reason people voted to leave was because of immigration? We can leave aside illegal immigration, which will go on whether or not we belong to the EU, the UN, SPECTRE or the MCC. The problem with the EU and immigration is that 500m people have the right to settle here and there is nothing anybody can do about it. What Leavers were concerned about was uncontrolled immigration where we had to admit anybody who turned up. It’s really time this nonsense was put to bed.
“Clover - I don't think they were thinking!”
Oh yes they were (or at least I was, so don’t tar everybody with the same brush). I decided in 1992 that I would rather the UK leave the EU than submit to its “ever closer union” federalism. So I’ve been thinking about it for almost 27 years and nothing I heard in either campaign prior to the referendum changed my mind.
Everybody talks about continuing trade. This agreement is nothing to do with trade – that must be negotiated later. It is to lay out how people, money and goods move around Europe. Any sensible negotiators (and I exclude both the EU and the UK teams from that category) would have concentrated on a pragmatic solution instead of trying to maintain as much of the status quo as possible. But they didn’t.
I knew exactly what I was voting for in 2016 (the clue was on the ballot paper). What I did not vote for was to ditch the Lisbon Treaty only to be tied to a replacement that was arguably worse. It’s always been part of the Remainers case that “it is a bit too difficult to manage so we’d better not do it.” A pathetic philosophy, in my view.
anotheoldgit
The Labour Party will vote against in their continuous quest to force a General Election.
They are not bothered about democracy, all they think about is playing party politics.
Which way would you like them to vote AOG?
There is a cross-party of MP's that 'are not bothered about democracy'
The Labour Party will vote against in their continuous quest to force a General Election.
They are not bothered about democracy, all they think about is playing party politics.
Which way would you like them to vote AOG?
There is a cross-party of MP's that 'are not bothered about democracy'
> ellipsis @11,22, done the google, answer is 36 trade deals outside the EU.
The answer I last heard is six (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842):
* Israel (signed 18 February)
* Palestinian Authority (18 February)
* Switzerland (11 February)
* The Faroe Islands (1 February)
* Eastern and Southern Africa (31 January)
* Chile (30 January)
There may have been more since Israel. I haven't seen anything on it though.
36 is the number of free trade deals that the EU has, and we can't assume that the UK can simply pick them up by substituting "EU" with "UK" in the agreements. Those deals depend on the EU's regulations (e.g. on vacuum cleaners, about which the since-Singapore-relocating James Dyson was complaining), and one of the reasons we're leaving is that we don't want to stick to those regulations - so new deals are needed.
The answer I last heard is six (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842):
* Israel (signed 18 February)
* Palestinian Authority (18 February)
* Switzerland (11 February)
* The Faroe Islands (1 February)
* Eastern and Southern Africa (31 January)
* Chile (30 January)
There may have been more since Israel. I haven't seen anything on it though.
36 is the number of free trade deals that the EU has, and we can't assume that the UK can simply pick them up by substituting "EU" with "UK" in the agreements. Those deals depend on the EU's regulations (e.g. on vacuum cleaners, about which the since-Singapore-relocating James Dyson was complaining), and one of the reasons we're leaving is that we don't want to stick to those regulations - so new deals are needed.
//Incorrect. Try Googling something like ...
how many trade deals does the UK have
... and see for yourself.//
//ellipsis @11,22, done the google, answer is 36 trade deals outside the EU.//
//The answer I last heard is six (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842):
* Israel (signed 18 February)
* Palestinian Authority (18 February)
* Switzerland (11 February)
* The Faroe Islands (1 February)
* Eastern and Southern Africa (31 January)
* Chile (30 January)//
What is this all about? The UK has no bilateral trade agreements with any other country. Upon joining the Customs Union and Single Market it relinquished the right to hold or negotiate them and any it did have became void. It may have reached an understanding with some countries with a view to signing agreements if and when the EU permits it but if we leave under the deal this will not be until at least the end of 2020 and probably much later than that. “Leaving” is not “leaving” under this deal and it would be better if that was accepted by those who suggest it is. It’s simply remaining but without the voting rights (for all the good they are).
how many trade deals does the UK have
... and see for yourself.//
//ellipsis @11,22, done the google, answer is 36 trade deals outside the EU.//
//The answer I last heard is six (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842):
* Israel (signed 18 February)
* Palestinian Authority (18 February)
* Switzerland (11 February)
* The Faroe Islands (1 February)
* Eastern and Southern Africa (31 January)
* Chile (30 January)//
What is this all about? The UK has no bilateral trade agreements with any other country. Upon joining the Customs Union and Single Market it relinquished the right to hold or negotiate them and any it did have became void. It may have reached an understanding with some countries with a view to signing agreements if and when the EU permits it but if we leave under the deal this will not be until at least the end of 2020 and probably much later than that. “Leaving” is not “leaving” under this deal and it would be better if that was accepted by those who suggest it is. It’s simply remaining but without the voting rights (for all the good they are).
It’s nice to know we’re sorted with the Faroes and the Palestinian Authority :-)
We are headed to a referendum surely?
I could listen to Geoffrey Cox all day. Regardless of what he says, which frankly I don’t mostly understand, but if an expensive bottle of port could talk that is surely what it would sound like :-)
We are headed to a referendum surely?
I could listen to Geoffrey Cox all day. Regardless of what he says, which frankly I don’t mostly understand, but if an expensive bottle of port could talk that is surely what it would sound like :-)
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles39 mins ago
ChatterBank71 mins ago
Business Incurs Penalty Restricting...
Crosswords140 mins ago
Crosswords146 mins ago
ChatterBank147 mins ago
