Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Why Are These Three Going On About Extending A50?
50 Answers
https:/
It's not up to us is it?
It's not up to us is it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
Why indeed. Only in the hope of never reaching a result and extending indefinitely, I suspect. All seem to agree it's the lack of clarity that is an issue, and these are trying to extend the period if indecision in order for the EU to refuse to change their mind in any reasonable manner for longer. They need to find another occupation where thinking isn't such a factor.
No one stays with WTO rules only until the end of time. It's fine until something better is agreed; not that a petulant EU is interested yet, they're too intent on causing issues to leavers even if it's against remaining members' interests. To imply it's either be in the EU or it's permanent WTO, defies explanation. Were that so the EU membership would be the whole world.
I'm sure there's a middle ground on trade between EU membership and WTO rules, but I don't know what it is, and clearly neither does anyone else. But the point is that No Deal, WTO trading, does the UK no favours, especially when compared with what we have now.
It's amazing what people are prepared to throw away, and, at the same time, it's completely reasonable for people to ask for a sanity check as the deadline approaches.
It's amazing what people are prepared to throw away, and, at the same time, it's completely reasonable for people to ask for a sanity check as the deadline approaches.
I think you’re suffering a fundamental misunderstanding, Jim.
The leaving “agreement” has nothing to do with future trading arrangements. That comes later. I’m not suggesting that WTO terms are the ideal long term solution. Far from it. The leaving agreement determines how the UK and the EU27 get on together immediately upon our departure until more formal arrangements can be made between us. But the EU sees it as far more than that. It sees it as a way to compel the UK to remain – arguably indefinitely – subject to EU legislation and control. That’s not what “leaving” entails. The terms of that agreement should clearly be seen as totally unacceptable to the UK and our politicians should accept that the EU will not agree to anything else. With that in mind, the only option we have (short of remaining) is to decline the EU’s generous offer and depart unilaterally. It is nobody’s interest for such a situation to prevail longer than necessary and, as I have said previously, the existence of such circumstances will concentrate the minds of those whose job it is to improve them, to get the circumstances bettered.
The leaving “agreement” has nothing to do with future trading arrangements. That comes later. I’m not suggesting that WTO terms are the ideal long term solution. Far from it. The leaving agreement determines how the UK and the EU27 get on together immediately upon our departure until more formal arrangements can be made between us. But the EU sees it as far more than that. It sees it as a way to compel the UK to remain – arguably indefinitely – subject to EU legislation and control. That’s not what “leaving” entails. The terms of that agreement should clearly be seen as totally unacceptable to the UK and our politicians should accept that the EU will not agree to anything else. With that in mind, the only option we have (short of remaining) is to decline the EU’s generous offer and depart unilaterally. It is nobody’s interest for such a situation to prevail longer than necessary and, as I have said previously, the existence of such circumstances will concentrate the minds of those whose job it is to improve them, to get the circumstances bettered.
Nobody claims that WTO rules apply indefinitely but they DO apply until trade deals are struck and that can take years in some cases. And are likely to see the UK coming badly in some cases as we no longer have the heft of being in a larger trading bloc. As explained in a previous post. I’d have thought the interim time limit for negotiations with the EU was optimistic for a start.
All this was gone over during the referendum campaign and dismissed casually as part of “project fear”.
I heard Andrew Bridgen on earlier: his view seems typical of many: the EU will cave in at the last minute and everything will be alright. I’m not sure he actually believes that. But whether he does or not it’s a staggering attitude to be taking.
All this was gone over during the referendum campaign and dismissed casually as part of “project fear”.
I heard Andrew Bridgen on earlier: his view seems typical of many: the EU will cave in at the last minute and everything will be alright. I’m not sure he actually believes that. But whether he does or not it’s a staggering attitude to be taking.
You're quite correct ikky.
The description should be "leave, and trade on WTO terms until a bilateral trade agreement is concluded". There is far, far more to our membership (and our departure) than trade and far too much emphasis is placed upon it. Meanwhile sensible arrangements should be put in place to continue to allow continued interaction between the UK and the EU27 in matters other than trade, in the same way that other non-EU countries manage to deal with the EU.
The description should be "leave, and trade on WTO terms until a bilateral trade agreement is concluded". There is far, far more to our membership (and our departure) than trade and far too much emphasis is placed upon it. Meanwhile sensible arrangements should be put in place to continue to allow continued interaction between the UK and the EU27 in matters other than trade, in the same way that other non-EU countries manage to deal with the EU.
We're agreed that a "No Deal" Brexit is far worse than a mutually beneficial free trade arrangement of some kind. But the panic the possibility engenders in the young is proof (if any more is needed) of the morally debilitating effect of modern education.
The Shirley Williams educational "reforms" had the effect of extending adolescence and dependency while at the same time increasing a sense of personal entitlement and importance. So at the same time as the voting age was reduced to eighteen (at that time 75% of all kids had been working for a living for at least two years) any moral responsibility (to yourself as well as to society) for standing on your own feet was deferred. At the time first to raise the school-leaving limit to sixteen, subsequently eighteen, and now you can be a child forever if you know the use the system.
Funnily enough (and Jim may know this), the first famous democracy with its many imperfections granted the franchise to all free men aged eighteen or over. That's Solon's constitition 6th century BC if my memory serves me well. But 6th (and a lot earlier) century eighteen year olds weren't the tiresome prigs produced by state education today. Most will have been working usefully for eight years in daddy's olive grove or whatever. Some would have inherited land and be husbands and fathers. And thousands of those who didn't would have been stuck on boats and told to get out there and make there own way in life. Hence Syracuse, Neapolis and Massilia as just a few examples.
If we do "crash out" it will concentrate all minds with the exception of some snowflakes.
The Shirley Williams educational "reforms" had the effect of extending adolescence and dependency while at the same time increasing a sense of personal entitlement and importance. So at the same time as the voting age was reduced to eighteen (at that time 75% of all kids had been working for a living for at least two years) any moral responsibility (to yourself as well as to society) for standing on your own feet was deferred. At the time first to raise the school-leaving limit to sixteen, subsequently eighteen, and now you can be a child forever if you know the use the system.
Funnily enough (and Jim may know this), the first famous democracy with its many imperfections granted the franchise to all free men aged eighteen or over. That's Solon's constitition 6th century BC if my memory serves me well. But 6th (and a lot earlier) century eighteen year olds weren't the tiresome prigs produced by state education today. Most will have been working usefully for eight years in daddy's olive grove or whatever. Some would have inherited land and be husbands and fathers. And thousands of those who didn't would have been stuck on boats and told to get out there and make there own way in life. Hence Syracuse, Neapolis and Massilia as just a few examples.
If we do "crash out" it will concentrate all minds with the exception of some snowflakes.
Grow up and provide for yourself before you dictate to your elders (however stupid they might be).
Very big difference between VE at sixteen - CND badge, labour supporter, Tony Benn "white heat of technology" - and the VE who was working for himself and newly married at twenty-one.
"Power without responsibility... prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.".
Very big difference between VE at sixteen - CND badge, labour supporter, Tony Benn "white heat of technology" - and the VE who was working for himself and newly married at twenty-one.
"Power without responsibility... prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.".
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
ChatterBank189 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News264 mins ago
Film, Media & TV278 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.