Trump for President?

Got anything else on your mind that isn't about the Warriors? If you do, this is the place to post.
DaveO
Posts: 15880
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Trump for President?

Post by DaveO »

fozzieskem wrote:I can,Like yourself only speak as I find I too hope they stay Scotland is a wonderful place but the facts are simple the SNP obliterated labour and the lib dems last time out,So someone and in great numbers are voting for the party and what it represents,Yes wee Nicola is somehow worse than Salmond.
The SNP doesn't have an overall majority in the Scottish parliament. They had to rely on the Green party to get the vote for a IndyRef2 through the Scottish parliament. The fact it obliterated labour and the lib dems in the general election has at least something to do with the first past the post voting system.
Ironically I feel May,if she has any chance of saving the union she should say yes and let them vote now she may pull off a narrow victory but to make them wait is far more dangerous as the SNP can whip up more support than they have now.
You may be right. A lot depends on what sort of deal May concocts with the EU and whether not despite voting 62% remain in the EU referendum that translates into a Yes vote to leave the UK if the EU deal is seen as bad.
fozzieskem
Posts: 6494
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 10:54 am

Re: Trump for President?

Post by fozzieskem »

It's by the by Dave what voting system is in place they have in fell swoop mortally wounded Labour and it's awful captain Corbyn to the point I doubt Labour will make a comeback up there in my lifetime.
pedro
Posts: 5293
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 9:37 pm

Re: Trump for President?

Post by pedro »

SNP have killed labour their once given stronghold has gone
morley pie eater
Posts: 3219
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 2:01 pm

Re: Trump for President?

Post by morley pie eater »

"A week is a long time in politics."

Is Labour dead? Picture this: Sajid Khan and Andy Burnham build their profiles and experience outside of parliament. Labour lose in 2020 and one of them replaces Corbyn.

Meanwhile the reality of Brexit and the Tories' cuts to NHS and education make them deeply unpopular. 2025 (or sooner) and Labour win or draw in England and Wales, do a deal with SNP and Bingo! we have a Labour PM.

I'm not saying this WILL happen, but a 4th Tory government in 2025 is at least as unlikely.
. . . . . . ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
DaveO
Posts: 15880
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002 5:32 pm

Re: Trump for President?

Post by DaveO »

fozzieskem wrote:It's by the by Dave what voting system is in place they have in fell swoop mortally wounded Labour and it's awful captain Corbyn to the point I doubt Labour will make a comeback up there in my lifetime.
Scottish politics isn't about Corbyn. Labour lost up there before Corbyn came along (it was Miliband who saw Labour lose 40 seats, not Corbyn) as the party imploded under its previous Scottish Labour leader.

I was commenting on the fact you said they must have voted in "great numbers" for the SNP because they obliterated Labour. They got just less than 50% of the vote. So like nearly every election we have ever had under FPTP it distorts the results because that gave them 56 seats to Labour's 11 who got just under half their vote on 24%.

The relevance is to any future referendum. There isn't an overwhelming majority who vote for the SNP in Scotland which is why they don't have similar majority in the Scottish parliament and even of those who do vote SNP, plenty will be pro-Brexit. So while Sturgeon thinks this is an opportunity to win IndyRef2 it isn't a forgone conclusion. Whether May behaves like an idiot and drives more towards "Yes" vote remains to be seen.

I also meant to add as far the SNP go, it is not a forgone conclusion they will govern forever in Scotland or be the majority party. Which is why voting to leave the UK to put an end to Tory rule in Scotland was always a poor reason to do it. Scotland has returned plenty of Tory MP's in the past.





i'm spartacus
Posts: 534
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:51 pm

Re: Trump for President?

Post by i'm spartacus »

DaveO wrote:
i'm spartacus wrote: But still you fail to check the veracity of the stories once you've read the papers. What you said was the EU Parliament voted to veto; that was in fact completely incorrect. Not withstanding that, the notion of a EU Parliamentary veto at all is something of a misnomer. What you have done is likened the EU Parliament to the UK Parliament which is the supreme body in the UK. The EU Parliament on the other hand is a debating chamber more akin to the House of Lords - ie lots of people with no real power, containing and dominated by a preponderance of members from the large influential countries.
How can you suggest someone "check the veracity of the stories" and then go on to post such complete and utter bollocks about what the EU parliament does?
The word ‘bollocks’ doesn’t add to your argument, and only serves to make everything else that follows it less.
The EU works like this.

The European Commission operates as a cabinet government just like our system, with 28 members of the Commission making it up. There is one member per member state and the commission is answerable to the EU parliament just as our government is answerable to our parliament. The EU parliament can force the commission to resign if needs be.

The job of the Commission is the draft legislation at the behest of the Council of mInisters and the EU parliament.

They then go through "ordinary legislative procedure" which provides an equal footing between Parliament and Council. In particular, under the procedure, the Commission presents a proposal to Parliament and the Council which can only become law if both agree on a text, which they do (or not) through successive readings up to a maximum of three. In its first reading, Parliament may send amendments to the Council which can either adopt the text with those amendments or send back a "common position". That position may either be approved by Parliament, or it may reject the text by an absolute majority, causing it to fail, or it may adopt further amendments, also by an absolute majority.
To say the EU parliament is like the House of Lords with no real power shows a basic lack of understanding of what does and what its powers are.
UK normal legislative process = The Houses of Parliament consider proposals, called bills, most of which are introduced by the government. To become law, a bill must be approved by both MPs in the House of Commons and peers in the House of Lords. Bills go through a very similar process in both Houses.

Spot the difference?

Notwithstanding that, we are not actually talking about legislative processes; we are talking about the process of agreeing a trade deal. What you show is a basic lack of understanding of the issue in question

I've asked many times and have yet to get an answer, but why would an organisation, predicated on free trade and the removal of trade barriers, want to create and put up barriers with its largest single export market?
Because it isn't predicated on free trade. It's predicated on free trade within the EU. Outside of it, it acts as a trading bloc and as is allowed under WTO rules to impose tariff and non-tariff barriers on trade with other countries on a country by country basis (something a single country can't do).
That could not be any wider of the mark. The original premise of the then Common Market was to create free trade and co-operation between the countries of western Europe to reduce the risk of those countries engaging in armed conflict. Its current number one policy is to create a global system for fair and open trade.
When we leave they aren't going to allow us to trade with them tariff free without a free trade agreement and even with one they will not agree to remove some tariff non-tariif barriers to some trade because it simply isn't in their interest to do so. They are not a charity.
I agree in part, but the UK has the option to impose reciprocal tariffs. It doesn’t make economic sense to impose a tariff on someone who sells to you, when you sell them more than they sell to you.
Why would the EU, who has free trade deals with countries and blocks of countries all over the globe, want to put up barriers to having a free trade deal with its largest single export market, when there is absolutely no regulatory divergence between us and them.
The reasons are obvious. The fact we tell 'em we have adopted the same laws and "there is absolutely no regulatory divergence between us" doesn't mean there isn't any or that over time there won't be deliverance. From the second we leave our word that there isn't divergence isn't good enough.
I agree that there may be some divergence over time, but this is not outside the scope of negotiations on future relations. It is something that could be easily resolved
For there not to be divergence and there has to be an agreement that lays down who is the arbiter of standards in the UK that the EU accepts as ensuring the relevant EU standards are maintained. There isn't one nor is there a body set up to ensure compliance.
The Government is planning to incorporate a large majority of EU regulations into UK law and to prune the legislation it doesn’t want or need. Eighty percent of the standards governing manufactured goods in the single market are voluntary, and these have been progressively harmonised across Europe. European product standards are normally voluntary and agreed outside any EU framework and led by industry in order to promote competition. It is trading standards officials in the various countries who check for EU conformity at the point of sale.

There also has to be an agreement as to who settles trade disputes between us and the EU. The EU will want that to be the ECJ, something "taking back control" is supposed to remove us from.
The reliance on the EU legislation and the ECJ is also why we can't simply cut & paste trade agreements written between the EU and other countries to create our own (as suggested by the dimwitted Peter Lilley MP). These agreements are written from front to back referencing EU rules, regulations and EU law. Again all of which we want to distance ourselves from supposedly.

But we are not distancing ourselves from EU legislation and the decisions of the ECJ - we have cut and pasted it into UK law. The main point is that we can ignore the past judgments of the ECJ or EU law where it doesn’t relate to our dealings with the rest of the world, or internally.

For example, and to show the point, and drawing on an issue that everyone will have heard of - although it seems frivolous today.
Some years ago, the EU issued a directive insisting that everything is displayed and sold in metric weights and measurements which effectively forced the UK to comply. This led to;
Traders being ordered to pay costs for selling Brussels sprouts by the pound, and another was given a 12-month conditional discharge for pricing pumpkins and other vegetables by the pound.

We will be in a position to remove ourselves from the supremacy of directives which have no effect on our internal market, but of course we would have to comply with the rules of the EU market to trade with the EU market.

User avatar
Wormburner
Posts: 514
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:33 pm

Re: Trump for President?

Post by Wormburner »

Oh Deary me Ted, looks like you where right again, not :exc:

https://www.choosecumbria.co.uk/news/jo ... -in-barrow
Let's is a contraction of “let us.” You use it to make suggestions about what you and someone else should do. Let's is NOT a promise
pedro
Posts: 5293
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 9:37 pm

Re: Trump for President?

Post by pedro »

i'm spartacus wrote:
DaveO wrote:
i'm spartacus wrote: But still you fail to check the veracity of the stories once you've read the papers. What you said was the EU Parliament voted to veto; that was in fact completely incorrect. Not withstanding that, the notion of a EU Parliamentary veto at all is something of a misnomer. What you have done is likened the EU Parliament to the UK Parliament which is the supreme body in the UK. The EU Parliament on the other hand is a debating chamber more akin to the House of Lords - ie lots of people with no real power, containing and dominated by a preponderance of members from the large influential countries.
How can you suggest someone "check the veracity of the stories" and then go on to post such complete and utter bollocks about what the EU parliament does?
The word ‘bollocks’ doesn’t add to your argument, and only serves to make everything else that follows it less.
The EU works like this.

The European Commission operates as a cabinet government just like our system, with 28 members of the Commission making it up. There is one member per member state and the commission is answerable to the EU parliament just as our government is answerable to our parliament. The EU parliament can force the commission to resign if needs be.

The job of the Commission is the draft legislation at the behest of the Council of mInisters and the EU parliament.

They then go through "ordinary legislative procedure" which provides an equal footing between Parliament and Council. In particular, under the procedure, the Commission presents a proposal to Parliament and the Council which can only become law if both agree on a text, which they do (or not) through successive readings up to a maximum of three. In its first reading, Parliament may send amendments to the Council which can either adopt the text with those amendments or send back a "common position". That position may either be approved by Parliament, or it may reject the text by an absolute majority, causing it to fail, or it may adopt further amendments, also by an absolute majority.
To say the EU parliament is like the House of Lords with no real power shows a basic lack of understanding of what does and what its powers are.
UK normal legislative process = The Houses of Parliament consider proposals, called bills, most of which are introduced by the government. To become law, a bill must be approved by both MPs in the House of Commons and peers in the House of Lords. Bills go through a very similar process in both Houses.

Spot the difference?

Notwithstanding that, we are not actually talking about legislative processes; we are talking about the process of agreeing a trade deal. What you show is a basic lack of understanding of the issue in question

I've asked many times and have yet to get an answer, but why would an organisation, predicated on free trade and the removal of trade barriers, want to create and put up barriers with its largest single export market?
Because it isn't predicated on free trade. It's predicated on free trade within the EU. Outside of it, it acts as a trading bloc and as is allowed under WTO rules to impose tariff and non-tariff barriers on trade with other countries on a country by country basis (something a single country can't do).
That could not be any wider of the mark. The original premise of the then Common Market was to create free trade and co-operation between the countries of western Europe to reduce the risk of those countries engaging in armed conflict. Its current number one policy is to create a global system for fair and open trade.
When we leave they aren't going to allow us to trade with them tariff free without a free trade agreement and even with one they will not agree to remove some tariff non-tariif barriers to some trade because it simply isn't in their interest to do so. They are not a charity.
I agree in part, but the UK has the option to impose reciprocal tariffs. It doesn’t make economic sense to impose a tariff on someone who sells to you, when you sell them more than they sell to you.
Why would the EU, who has free trade deals with countries and blocks of countries all over the globe, want to put up barriers to having a free trade deal with its largest single export market, when there is absolutely no regulatory divergence between us and them.
The reasons are obvious. The fact we tell 'em we have adopted the same laws and "there is absolutely no regulatory divergence between us" doesn't mean there isn't any or that over time there won't be deliverance. From the second we leave our word that there isn't divergence isn't good enough.
I agree that there may be some divergence over time, but this is not outside the scope of negotiations on future relations. It is something that could be easily resolved
For there not to be divergence and there has to be an agreement that lays down who is the arbiter of standards in the UK that the EU accepts as ensuring the relevant EU standards are maintained. There isn't one nor is there a body set up to ensure compliance.
The Government is planning to incorporate a large majority of EU regulations into UK law and to prune the legislation it doesn’t want or need. Eighty percent of the standards governing manufactured goods in the single market are voluntary, and these have been progressively harmonised across Europe. European product standards are normally voluntary and agreed outside any EU framework and led by industry in order to promote competition. It is trading standards officials in the various countries who check for EU conformity at the point of sale.

There also has to be an agreement as to who settles trade disputes between us and the EU. The EU will want that to be the ECJ, something "taking back control" is supposed to remove us from.
The reliance on the EU legislation and the ECJ is also why we can't simply cut & paste trade agreements written between the EU and other countries to create our own (as suggested by the dimwitted Peter Lilley MP). These agreements are written from front to back referencing EU rules, regulations and EU law. Again all of which we want to distance ourselves from supposedly.

But we are not distancing ourselves from EU legislation and the decisions of the ECJ - we have cut and pasted it into UK law. The main point is that we can ignore the past judgments of the ECJ or EU law where it doesn’t relate to our dealings with the rest of the world, or internally.

For example, and to show the point, and drawing on an issue that everyone will have heard of - although it seems frivolous today.
Some years ago, the EU issued a directive insisting that everything is displayed and sold in metric weights and measurements which effectively forced the UK to comply. This led to;
Traders being ordered to pay costs for selling Brussels sprouts by the pound, and another was given a 12-month conditional discharge for pricing pumpkins and other vegetables by the pound.

We will be in a position to remove ourselves from the supremacy of directives which have no effect on our internal market, but of course we would have to comply with the rules of the EU market to trade with the EU market.
:eusa2: :eusa2: :eusa2: :eusa2:
BriH
Posts: 2513
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:12 am
Location: Prudhoe

Re: Trump for President?

Post by BriH »

Back to Trump again!!!

Did the right thing IMO and took action against the murdering Syrian Dictator.
I liked President Obama, but he didn't follow through with his "crossing the red line" statement he made in August 2012.

Dictators have to be stopped.

thegimble
Posts: 5892
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:09 am

Re: Trump for President?

Post by thegimble »

BriH wrote:Back to Trump again!!!

Did the right thing IMO and took action against the murdering Syrian Dictator.
I liked President Obama, but he didn't follow through with his "crossing the red line" statement he made in August 2012.

Dictators have to be stopped.
Who do you replace them with. Was Iraq safer under Saddam or as it is now. Libya the same. Same thing will happen in Syria unless there is a plan agreed by all UN security Council nations on this. Should we remove all dictators none are as bad as Saudi Arabia they are killing their own people arming groups in Yemen and most of the scumbags on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians. What about removing Mugabe or the other 48 dictators I the world who brutalises their own people.

Its easy for people to get all emotional on seeing the images from Syria but 1 question remains unanswered as the fast answer came from the same group of people who fed us the Saddam had weapons of mass destruction line.

Biggest question on Assad is did he drop the bombs on his own people or was there chemical weapons held by the rebels he hit. Assad had nothing to gain from this the was in Syria was all but done for then this happens. If he did then he and Putin should be on the same court in Hague on War Crimes along with Bush, Cheney, Blair and Mendelson.

Instead of getting your news from the media who in general have backed all wars in the middle east only 1 or 2 publications questioned the dodgy dossier look into it further. To attack Assad that quickly without forensic examination by independent and I mean by China not the UN or NATO only real independent country on this could be China then questions still need addressing.

Response on this was way too fast and has done little or no damage to Syria's ability to carry out attacks. I am not saying this was in any way a fake story but this could be one or 2 things.

1. Assad did tell his tropps to drop the chemical weapons
2. ISIS or Rebels hid Chemicals in neighbourhoods and knew there was a chance they would get exploded and use that to drag us into supporting them. Which is what we did.

Dictoators are bad but we need to be careful we have 2-3 nations now in a bloddy revolution due to out interference. You need to ask is what we did better than what was before.
Locked