Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
What's Labour's Answer To The Catastrophe That Is Devolution?
92 Answers
https:/
yep you've guessed it, more devolution. Many many more layers of politicians and officials bloating the public sector, bossing us about at every level. Gawd elp us, that's all we need! As TGL once said, the state should be as small as possible, looks like Steer Calmer has other ideas. Madness?
yep you've guessed it, more devolution. Many many more layers of politicians and officials bloating the public sector, bossing us about at every level. Gawd elp us, that's all we need! As TGL once said, the state should be as small as possible, looks like Steer Calmer has other ideas. Madness?
Answers
untitled, //oh dear one whole paragraph is too long-winded is it? I suggest you read more.// A whole paragraph of obfuscating, insulting rubbish is more than enough. You know what? I'm getting sick of listening to little pip squeaks who neither they or their families have made any contribution to it playing fast & loose with British sovereignty, many of whom...
15:47 Tue 22nd Dec 2020
“ if SKS wants to win he'll have to become the Tories.”
Which is kind of what I said previously. Labour should attack this government’s record on riding roughshod over the law and institutions.
We even had Wellingborough Tories coming out with a newsletter promoting the virtues of Trump-style fake news and expelling a member who complained about it.
15% of people support a no deal Brexit. If Johnson continues to play to such a small gallery he will face trouble
Which is kind of what I said previously. Labour should attack this government’s record on riding roughshod over the law and institutions.
We even had Wellingborough Tories coming out with a newsletter promoting the virtues of Trump-style fake news and expelling a member who complained about it.
15% of people support a no deal Brexit. If Johnson continues to play to such a small gallery he will face trouble
Ha ha yea but that’s my point.
“Bad” is subjective and no one likes or wants “bad”
A substantial portion of the country didn’t want Brexit at all. So it is indeed a small gallery of people who would rejoice in a No Deal tho I agree that Johnson doing it is partly his irritating way of trying to be upbeat all the time
“Bad” is subjective and no one likes or wants “bad”
A substantial portion of the country didn’t want Brexit at all. So it is indeed a small gallery of people who would rejoice in a No Deal tho I agree that Johnson doing it is partly his irritating way of trying to be upbeat all the time
It's a bit of a step back from "er no, no one wants no deal" to "I don't believe the preferred position for anyone is no deal", though.
In any case, it's also demonstrably false. John Redwood is one MP trumpeting loudly about how brilliant a "no deal" exit is. Judging from the comments, he isn't even alone.
https:/
In any case, it's also demonstrably false. John Redwood is one MP trumpeting loudly about how brilliant a "no deal" exit is. Judging from the comments, he isn't even alone.
https:/
"sovereignty is something that cannot be negotiated, one can't be semi-sovereign. "
That is the point of view of the fundamentalist playing with words if you don't mind me saying so. For what it is worth, manifestly of course you can.
"Sovereignty" itself is an emotive, absolutist term and not particularly helpful. Very few if any countries in the world are entirely "sovereign" and if you look around they tend to be the ones which no one else wants to touch :-)
That is the point of view of the fundamentalist playing with words if you don't mind me saying so. For what it is worth, manifestly of course you can.
"Sovereignty" itself is an emotive, absolutist term and not particularly helpful. Very few if any countries in the world are entirely "sovereign" and if you look around they tend to be the ones which no one else wants to touch :-)
ich: "Trade deals involve losing control of something in return for something." - don't be ridiculous, Trade deals involve agreeing a structure such that both sides are happy with the lack of import duty amon other things. It should be simple but the EUSSR want to attach unacceptable strings like, for example, we must match all their future labour laws, things that no country could accept.
Trade deals also include an agreement to collaborate on standards, etc. This is why a US deal is so controversial, because they want to sell us food that is not made to our high standards. This leaves three options:
1. The US agrees to match our welfare standards in food production, and therefore agrees to change their law in order to sell to our market -- and, moreover, to preserve that change in future;
2. The UK agrees to relax its standards, and to preserve this change in future;
3. There is no agreement, and both sides keep their laws exactly how they want.
In scenarios (1) and (2), one nation or the other (or more likely both) agree in effect to change their laws to satisfy the demands of the other. That has a material impact at least on absolute sovereignty, in the term it's usually used when talking about our relationship with the EU: we agree to change our laws in order to relate with other nations.
The thing is, though: so what? The principle of absolute sovereignty appears to mean that we should never do this, but we are not being forced into anything. In any case, the nature of a trade deal is that we also end up exerting influence on the laws of other nations too. Does this destroy their sovereignty? No. They agreed to it.
1. The US agrees to match our welfare standards in food production, and therefore agrees to change their law in order to sell to our market -- and, moreover, to preserve that change in future;
2. The UK agrees to relax its standards, and to preserve this change in future;
3. There is no agreement, and both sides keep their laws exactly how they want.
In scenarios (1) and (2), one nation or the other (or more likely both) agree in effect to change their laws to satisfy the demands of the other. That has a material impact at least on absolute sovereignty, in the term it's usually used when talking about our relationship with the EU: we agree to change our laws in order to relate with other nations.
The thing is, though: so what? The principle of absolute sovereignty appears to mean that we should never do this, but we are not being forced into anything. In any case, the nature of a trade deal is that we also end up exerting influence on the laws of other nations too. Does this destroy their sovereignty? No. They agreed to it.
What a spiteful and nasty question khandro what does anyone's family have to do with it?
Sovereignty in the real world is much more complicated than a simple dictionary definition too... you can be legally sovereign but under the domination of another power which is the fate that awaits us if we want a trade deal with the usa or china.
Sovereignty in the real world is much more complicated than a simple dictionary definition too... you can be legally sovereign but under the domination of another power which is the fate that awaits us if we want a trade deal with the usa or china.
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.