Trump for President?

[Wormburner]

Was thinking more along the lines of Sir Alan Whicker myself ike

[Wiganer Ted]

In reply to Sparky,

What the journos wrote was that the veto had taken place. That was written as fact not an opinion.
The "believe" May could be conciliatory was followed by me posting that the papers were "Suggesting" I was stating that was obviously an opinion not a fact.

The mention of a veto the day prior to A50 being invoked I thought quite funny. When the French vetoed us joining in 1963 it was after negotiations had concluded. There are a number of states who have already said they will veto any trade deal with us if they can't get what they want to suit their particular country's requirements.


I don't read papers owned by the Barclay Bros, Desmond or Murdoch.

[Wandering Warrior]

The Met Office has issued a flood warning for this forum due to the overflow of incontinence pads due to the excitement of Brexit being triggered!

[i'm spartacus]

In reply to Sparky,

What the journos wrote was that the veto had taken place. That was written as fact not an opinion.
The "believe" May could be conciliatory was followed by me posting that the papers were "Suggesting" I was stating that was obviously an opinion not a fact.

The mention of a veto the day prior to A50 being invoked I thought quite funny. When the French vetoed us joining in 1963 it was after negotiations had concluded. There are a number of states who have already said they will veto any trade deal with us if they can't get what they want to suit their particular country's requirements.


I don't read papers owned by the Barclay Bros, Desmond or Murdoch.

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.

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?

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.

[SJ]

I'll answer that "S". Why? Because the EU wants Political power. It's not economics that floats their boat. However when the business people take a grip on these "tin pot" Eu politicians and see the reality of what Brexit means to their exports they'll put pressure on the politicians and force them to acknowledge its the UK who holds the Ace'snot them as our media tries to suggest the opposite
I would go into the negotiation with a take it or leave it attitude ;they have more to lose than us.

As for Scotland give them there 2nd Ref. They will lose it and it will be bye bye Salmond,Robertson and Sturgeon . and the SNP. The Scots are not that gullible or so I believe

[fozzieskem]

Don't think even if the scots vote stay again,which gut instinct tells me they'll vote to go,the SNP will go anywhere fast given they obliterated Labour last time out.

[SJ]

Don't think even if the scots vote stay again,which gut instinct tells me they'll vote to go,the SNP will go anywhere fast given they obliterated Labour last time out.

The Scots in my extended family will vote for the time and tested Union. In fact some ,who have businesses have relocated to dear old England. Even they can't stand the Sturgeon squark.

I have faith in the Scots but having said that If I were them,and really wanted to leave the Union I would extend the voting rights to the English and they would be assured of a vote to leave
Seriously tho' If you watch the antics of the SNP in Westminster they are an embarrassment to Scotland a truly honourable country.

[fozzieskem]

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.

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.

[Wandering Warrior]

Not least by effectively saying the English are treating us like ...........
The voter is always a sucker for a few lies.

[DaveO]

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 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

The bottom line is the EU will be quite happy not to put up some barriers provided we comply with its rules, regulations and laws and submit to ECJ rulings. It would, because we already do, be easy to comply with them though less easy to prove we do. The trouble is these rules, regulations and laws are made by the EU and once we leave we have no input to any of them. Let the Fax diplomacy begin.