Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Paul the Wolf said:
Dominic Raab almost got a question right about geography.
Click to expand...

Knowing what you know about this whole issue and especially the current sticking points between the two sides, can I ask you whether you think that the UK position in terms of its red lines is unreasonable?

I am not talking about the decision to leave the EU. Rather its current standpoint on the free trade negotiations.
Thanks.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Cue Brexiters rushing out to panic buy.

One very weird point - there will be queues and delays at ports temporarily- it's a regular theme from the UK press -they will somehow mysteriously vanish because......
1) Deliveries to or from the UK cease or reduce significantly or 2) They stop checking. 2) isn't happening so....
Click to expand...

There's been queues and delays at ports for the last two months, I see delays for at least 8 weeks into 2021 as they work through the backlog even before they get the customs process of any (if there is one) agreement.
 
From the Guardian:
British holidaymakers will be barred from the European Union from 1 January under current Covid-19 safety restrictions, with the EU commission indicating there will be no exemption for the UK.

Only a handful of countries with low coronavirus rates are exempt from rules that prohibit nonessential visitors from outside the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) – with the UK included only until the end of the Brexit transition period.
Click to expand...
 
There will eventually be a deal, and I don't think the Tories can afford for the public to actually realise the full impact of a cliff edge no deal Brexit.

It's probably best for the EU to hold off and throw us in a no deal scenario on the 1st of January. Let the impact of it dawn fully on the British public for 2-3 months and then take their time to get the deal they want.
 
JPRouve said:
Your attempt at pretending that you are talking about someone else opinion doesn't work. And you also keep ignoring the question about why the press and british politicians lied about these things which is the actual reason behind Brexit, the lying part.
Click to expand...
I am talking about opinion I have come across in my life time.

''Politicians lie'... hold the presses, shock horror,... you have realised that politicians are 'economical with the truth' which is perhaps the right expression, that's because they have an agenda, or just like you perhaps a narrative?

Brwned said:
Yes, but neither are you saying this view was wrong.
Click to expand...
It was a legitimately view held by many people, including many left wing politicians, who continuously warned of the 'Hotel California nature of joining the EEC 'you can check out but you can't leave', which to some extent has come true. My personal view was that once we had voted to leave, it was always going to be on a no 'deal basis', despite what many Brexiteers said, this can only be the logical conclusion.

Fluctuation0161 said:
You honestly still believe this?
Click to expand...
I believe it was a view held by many based on what information was available. I believe remainers hold one view and Brexiteers another. I voted in the 70s to join the EEC, but not the EU. I believe that had a referendum been held over the Maastricht treaty, remain would have won, despite the anti-EU arguments, and that would have been the end of it.
 
Maticmaker said:
I am talking about opinion I have come across in my life time.

''Politicians lie'... hold the presses, shock horror,... you have realised that politicians are 'economical with the truth' which is perhaps the right expression, that's because they have an agenda, or just like you perhaps a narrative?


It was a legitimately view held by many people, including many left wing politicians, who continuously warned of the 'Hotel California nature of joining the EEC 'you can check out but you can't leave', which to some extent has come true. My personal view was that once we had voted to leave, it was always going to be on a no 'deal basis', despite what many Brexiteers said, this can only be the logical conclusion.


I believe it was a view held by many based on what information was available. I believe remainers hold one view and Brexiteers another. I voted in the 70s to join the EEC, but not the EU. I believe that had a referendum been held over the Maastricht treaty, remain would have won, despite the anti-EU arguments, and that would have been the end of it.
Click to expand...

You are not, the answer you gave to the intransigence claim wasn't someone else opinion. And your second sentence show your true colour.
 
Jippy said:
You're forgetting the 'technology solutions which hasn't been invented yet.
Click to expand...

Which need no human input presumably and automatically sorts out and pay all the duties, VAT for a truck that could contain thousands of different items and health certificate requirements etc. Eagerly waiting.

Buster15 said:
Knowing what you know about this whole issue and especially the current sticking points between the two sides, can I ask you whether you think that the UK position in terms of its red lines is unreasonable?

I am not talking about the decision to leave the EU. Rather its current standpoint on the free trade negotiations.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

The problem the UK have is that has insisted to its Brexit voters that it is becoming a sovereign independent nation and nobody is going to tell them what to do. Fine if you completely isolate yourself from the rest of the world but the world doesn't operate like that and they have to adapt to the requirements of other countries and not just the EU, every single country in the world.

If they don't adapt to the EU's requirements they won't get a deal which is the UK's choice.
If they don't agree to the requirements of product 'x' as required by Australian regulations they won't be able to sell product 'x' to Australia.

The government and Brexiters have told so many lies and they know that reality is just around the corner, they know that the EU is not going to make the single market vulnerable and they know that Australia
are not going to change their requirements for product 'x' - so what do they do.

It's why I see no deal and that they'll maintain this stance as they've cornered themselves.


F-Red said:
There's been queues and delays at ports for the last two months, I see delays for at least 8 weeks into 2021 as they work through the backlog even before they get the customs process of any (if there is one) agreement.
Click to expand...

Even with a deal there will still be the custom's process and documentation , certification etc, for me the killer blow for the UK is not whether they get a trade deal or not but whether they've left the custom's union or not and they've left the custom's union. If they get a deal it's just a consolation prize.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
for me the killer blow for the UK is not whether they get a trade deal or not but whether they've left the custom's union or not and they've left the custom's union. If they get a deal it's just a consolation prize.
Click to expand...

Agreed, customs union is causing the biggest headache at work for me right now, combined with port delays and having to reroute sea freights onto road.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes that may well be true, but it doesn't stop Brexiteers arguing the case, as some have been doing lately, that since we are out of the EU we do not need to apply anything, we have our Sovereignty!!
Click to expand...

I think you’ve summed it up beautifully. It’s not about reality, it never has been, it’s about the illusion of sovereignty.
 
Maticmaker said:
I am talking about opinion I have come across in my life time.

''Politicians lie'... hold the presses, shock horror,... you have realised that politicians are 'economical with the truth' which is perhaps the right expression, that's because they have an agenda, or just like you perhaps a narrative?


It was a legitimately view held by many people, including many left wing politicians, who continuously warned of the 'Hotel California nature of joining the EEC 'you can check out but you can't leave', which to some extent has come true. My personal view was that once we had voted to leave, it was always going to be on a no 'deal basis', despite what many Brexiteers said, this can only be the logical conclusion.


I believe it was a view held by many based on what information was available. I believe remainers hold one view and Brexiteers another. I voted in the 70s to join the EEC, but not the EU. I believe that had a referendum been held over the Maastricht treaty, remain would have won, despite the anti-EU arguments, and that would have been the end of it.
Click to expand...

You're picking and choosing the points you want to respond to so much that you're not responding to the points at all. This is what he said.

JPRouve said:
Two things, you keep doing this EU vs UK as if the UK weren't a member of what is called the EU, you need to realize that without the UK you aren't talking about the EU. The second thing is that the UK were one of the main source when it came to lawmaking in the EU, so your impression was wrong.
Click to expand...

It's a set of two objective statements. They are not subjective viewpoints, they aren't related to Hotel California, they don't have anything to do with the Maastricht treaty. By focusing on the first half of the sentence and ignoring the second half, you're turning his point into something he hasn't said to make a point that wasn't argued against, i.e. a strawman argument. When you do it so often it creates the impression that it's not an argument in good faith. Hence why people question the meaning behind the words.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Which need no human input presumably and automatically sorts out and pay all the duties, VAT for a truck that could contain thousands of different items and health certificate requirements etc. Eagerly waiting.



The problem the UK have is that has insisted to its Brexit voters that it is becoming a sovereign independent nation and nobody is going to tell them what to do. Fine if you completely isolate yourself from the rest of the world but the world doesn't operate like that and they have to adapt to the requirements of other countries and not just the EU, every single country in the world.

If they don't adapt to the EU's requirements they won't get a deal which is the UK's choice.
If they don't agree to the requirements of product 'x' as required by Australian regulations they won't be able to sell product 'x' to Australia.

The government and Brexiters have told so many lies and they know that reality is just around the corner, they know that the EU is not going to make the single market vulnerable and they know that Australia
are not going to change their requirements for product 'x' - so what do they do.

It's why I see no deal and that they'll maintain this stance as they've cornered themselves.




Even with a deal there will still be the custom's process and documentation , certification etc, for me the killer blow for the UK is not whether they get a trade deal or not but whether they've left the custom's union or not and they've left the custom's union. If they get a deal it's just a consolation prize.
Click to expand...

Appreciate your response.
If I can maybe re-phrase the question.
Would France or Spain for example conceed the position on fishing were they to leave the EU.
And is it reasonable to expect another country who wanted to agree a free trade agreement with the EU to conceed to the requirement to accept future changes to EU laws to have to be applied to that country even though it has no decision on those laws.
I am not and have not changed my views on Brexit. But I am trying to understand why there is no movement by either side on the contentious issues.
 
Buster15 said:
Appreciate your response.
If I can maybe re-phrase the question.
Would France or Spain for example conceed the position on fishing were they to leave the EU.
And is it reasonable to expect another country who wanted to agree a free trade agreement with the EU to conceed to the requirement to accept future changes to EU laws to have to be applied to that country even though it has no decision on those laws.
I am not and have not changed my views on Brexit. But I am trying to understand why there is no movement by either side on the contentious issues.
Click to expand...
That surely depends how far reaching the requirement is. If the EU updates fire safety requirements on materials, then fair enough if our exporters need to update their practices to meet those requirements.

If it involves say updating laws on working hours or employment rights, then I guess it gets more thorny as that's moved beyond trade into social issues.
I don't know how you demarcate it and how concrete that boundary should be, but the Tories will obviously deem that as contravening our sovereignty.
 
Compare and contrast...

EU makes no-deal transport offer in return for 'level playing field' agreement

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...substantial-shift-for-brexit-talks-to-succeed

TURNING THE SCREW EU piles pressure on Boris Johnson with No Deal demands on flights and fish as clock ticks down to Sunday deadline

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/13435228/britain-eu-restart-brexit-talks-sunday-deadline-boris/

Brexiteers accuse Ursula von der Leyen of 'blackmail' after EU demands to carry on fishing in UK waters for a year even if there is NO DEAL in return for just six months of lorries and air links running freely as talks with PM fail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-no-deal-contingency-plans-crunch-summit.html

No 10 will ‘look closely’ at EU contingency plans but scrutinises no-deal fishing proposal

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...live-deal-boris-johnson-updates-b1769134.html
 
Buster15 said:
Appreciate your response.
If I can maybe re-phrase the question.
Would France or Spain for example conceed the position on fishing were they to leave the EU.
And is it reasonable to expect another country who wanted to agree a free trade agreement with the EU to conceed to the requirement to accept future changes to EU laws to have to be applied to that country even though it has no decision on those laws.
I am not and have not changed my views on Brexit. But I am trying to understand why there is no movement by either side on the contentious issues.
Click to expand...

What do you mean/understand by that?

If France or Spain wanted a deal with the EU, they would have to compromise particularly when Denmark and Netherlands are big players in the north-east Atlantic. On that subject since you are trying to get some insight on that subject, I think that it's important that you know one thing, the strategy to target France is very poor because Denmark are the biggest player in the north-east Atlantic, while France and Netherland are virtually equals. It's one of the reasons why I'm a bit baffled by the idea that people are completely overlooking other member states and think that they only need to convince France. I'm also baffled by the fact that they didn't do the most obvious thing which was to directly talk to the PFA.
 
Buster15 said:
Appreciate your response.
If I can maybe re-phrase the question.
Would France or Spain for example conceed the position on fishing were they to leave the EU.
And is it reasonable to expect another country who wanted to agree a free trade agreement with the EU to conceed to the requirement to accept future changes to EU laws to have to be applied to that country even though it has no decision on those laws.
I am not and have not changed my views on Brexit. But I am trying to understand why there is no movement by either side on the contentious issues.
Click to expand...

I am sure French or Spanish would wish for the same rights. What muddies the waters, as it were, is that quotas of UK waters have been sold off, they can't take them back and the UK need to sell their catch to the EU which means UK boats sailing into EU ports. From an amicable viewpoint it's going to be difficult , from an economic viewpoint it's miniscule and nobody would bother too much. Really a lot of fuss about very little but a matter of principle and don't seeing either side giving in.

As for law or standards changes, if the EU make changes to their standards then they would expect that the UK would do the same to maintain the agreement. But then again I would imagine that this would be the case for agreements between any countries.
For example , say the UK-Japan agreement, I haven't read the details but I would imagine it was based on the EU-Japan agreement which would have been based on the UK maintaining EU standards.

What it boils down to is there has to be a safety mechanism to stop the UK deciding to do anything they like, if they did something to deviate, then there sould be something that triggers a termination of the agreement.

PS: To clarify: when I say standards, I don't just mean standards of products but attitudes towards laws, climate change , social standards, people's rights or anything that keeps the UK going in a similar direction to the EU.
 
Last edited:
Jippy said:
That surely depends how far reaching the requirement is. If the EU updates fire safety requirements on materials, then fair enough if our exporters need to update their practices to meet those requirements.

If it involves say updating laws on working hours or employment rights, then I guess it gets more thorny as that's moved beyond trade into social issues.
I don't know how you demarcate it and how concrete that boundary should be, but the Tories will obviously deem that as contravening our sovereignty.
Click to expand...
And the biggest issue of all, in my view, will not be about evolving standards as they relate to current products, but who gets the power to regulate new sectors. For example, who gets to set the rules and regs for autonomous vehicles seems a far bigger prize than worrying about the precise wattage of a light bulb.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I am sure French or Spanish would wish for the same rights. What muddies the waters, as it were, is that quotas of UK waters have been sold off, they can't take them back and the UK need to sell their catch to the EU which means UK boats sailing into EU ports. From an amicable viewpoint it's going to be difficult , from an economic viewpoint it's miniscule and nobody would bother too much. Really a lot of fuss about very little but a matter of principle and don't seeing either side giving in.

As for law or standards changes, if the EU make changes to their standards then they would expect that the UK would do the same to maintain the agreement. But then again I would imagine that this would be the case for agreements between any countries.
For example , say the UK-Japan agreement, I haven't read the details but I would imagine it was based on the EU-Japan agreement which would have been based on the UK maintaining EU standards.

What it boils down to is there has to be a safety mechanism to stop the UK deciding to do anything they like, if they did something to deviate, then there sould be something that triggers a termination of the agreement.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, the EU-Japan FTA does not contain significant provisions for dynamic alignment. There's a provision for a rather toothless 'joint regulatory body', which is just an advisory group which has no decision making power and seeks to avoid unnecessary regulatory divergence through sharing ideas about good practice.

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/july/tradoc_155720.pdf
 
MikeUpNorth said:
And the biggest issue of all, in my view, will not be about evolving standards as they relate to current products, but who gets the power to regulate new sectors. For example, who gets to set the rules and regs for autonomous vehicles seems a far bigger prize than worrying about the precise wattage of a light bulb.
Click to expand...

I might be being a bit simple so feel free to call me out as such but isn't the obvious answer the market the product is being sold into and then any industry groups on top of that?
 
MikeUpNorth said:
As far as I'm aware, the EU-Japan FTA does not contain significant provisions for dynamic alignment. There's a provision for a rather toothless 'joint regulatory body', which is just an advisory group which has no decision making power and seeks to avoid unnecessary regulatory divergence through sharing ideas about good practice.

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/july/tradoc_155720.pdf
Click to expand...

Cheers but I think that was the pre-amble - I've found the actual agreement below but I have no urge to read through 562 pages:)
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/august/tradoc_157228.pdf
 
MikeUpNorth said:
And the biggest issue of all, in my view, will not be about evolving standards as they relate to current products, but who gets the power to regulate new sectors. For example, who gets to set the rules and regs for autonomous vehicles seems a far bigger prize than worrying about the precise wattage of a light bulb.
Click to expand...
Agreeing on the here and now seems a struggle enough at the moment so there seems little chance of finding common ground on how you regulate future tech advances, which could go in who knows what direction.

It would be interesting to see how often product standards do actually change. We obviously have commonality of standards with the EU currently, but would our regulations become quickly outdated, say within a year or two years, or are they realistically going to be at a same level for 5-10 years. I've no idea how big a deal this is.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Cheers but I think that was the pre-amble - I've found the actual agreement below but I have no urge to read through 562 pages:)
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/august/tradoc_157228.pdf
Click to expand...
Chapter 18 - Good regulatory practices and regulatory cooperation (page 463) should sort you out. Hint:

Nothing in this Section shall affect the right of a Party to define or regulate its own levels of protection in pursuit or furtherance of its public policy objectives in areas such as:
  1. (a) public health;
  2. (b) human, animal and plant life and health;
  3. (c) occupational health and safety;
  4. (d) labour conditions;
  5. (e) the environment including climate change;
  6. (f) consumers;
  7. (g) social protection and social security;
  8. (h) personal data and cybersecurity;
  9. (i) cultural diversity;
  10. (j) financial stability; and
  11. (k) energy security.
Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent a Party from:
(a) adopting, maintaining and applying regulatory measures in accordance with its legal framework, principles and deadlines, in order to achieve its public policy objectives at the level of protection it deems appropriate; and
(b) providing and supporting services of general interest, including those related to water, health, education or social services.

Nothing in this Section shall be construed as obliging the Parties to achieve any particular regulatory outcome.
Click to expand...
 
JPRouve said:
What do you mean/understand by that?

If France or Spain wanted a deal with the EU, they would have to compromise particularly when Denmark and Netherlands are big players in the north-east Atlantic. On that subject since you are trying to get some insight on that subject, I think that it's important that you know one thing, the strategy to target France is very poor because Denmark are the biggest player in the north-east Atlantic, while France and Netherland are virtually equals. It's one of the reasons why I'm a bit baffled by the idea that people are completely overlooking other member states and think that they only need to convince France. I'm also baffled by the fact that they didn't do the most obvious thing which was to directly talk to the PFA.
Click to expand...

Thanks and I had no intention of singling out France. I was using it as an example. But my understanding is that France is a prime mover in the fishing issue.
 
Buster15 said:
Thanks and I had no intention of singling out France. I was using it as an example. But my understanding is that France is a prime mover in the fishing issue.
Click to expand...

I know that it wasn't your intention and regarding the bold part, France are one member of a group of member states, the group is made of Belgium, Denmark, Netherland, Spain and Portugal; the group was "formed" after talks with Van Balsfoort, the president of the PFA.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
I am sure French or Spanish would wish for the same rights. What muddies the waters, as it were, is that quotas of UK waters have been sold off, they can't take them back and the UK need to sell their catch to the EU which means UK boats sailing into EU ports. From an amicable viewpoint it's going to be difficult , from an economic viewpoint it's miniscule and nobody would bother too much. Really a lot of fuss about very little but a matter of principle and don't seeing either side giving in.

As for law or standards changes, if the EU make changes to their standards then they would expect that the UK would do the same to maintain the agreement. But then again I would imagine that this would be the case for agreements between any countries.
For example , say the UK-Japan agreement, I haven't read the details but I would imagine it was based on the EU-Japan agreement which would have been based on the UK maintaining EU standards.

What it boils down to is there has to be a safety mechanism to stop the UK deciding to do anything they like, if they did something to deviate, then there sould be something that triggers a termination of the agreement.

PS: To clarify: when I say standards, I don't just mean standards of products but attitudes towards laws, climate change , social standards, people's rights or anything that keeps the UK going in a similar direction to the EU.
Click to expand...

Understood.
If two parties who both claim to want to do business with eachother but are unable to reach an agreement, there are probably three main reasons.
1. The demands of one side are unreasonable to the other.
2. One side is too inflexible.
3. Both sides are too inflexible.
From my perspective, both UK and EU are taking a philosophical stance.
The UK being it's sovereign nation status.
And the EU wanting to ensure that the UK did not benefit from leaving.
 
Buster15 said:
Understood.
If two parties who both claim to want to do business with eachother but are unable to reach an agreement, there are probably three main reasons.
1. The demands of one side are unreasonable to the other.
2. One side is too inflexible.
3. Both sides are too inflexible.
From my perspective, both UK and EU are taking a philosophical stance.
The UK being it's sovereign nation status.
And the EU wanting to ensure that the UK did not benefit from leaving.
Click to expand...

There is a fourth option that we tend to ignore. Both sides have reasonable but diverging interests.
 
Penna said:
From the Guardian:
Click to expand...

For you and I and other EU residents that means a compulsory 2 week quarantine :mad:


I'm in the UK and keep hearing how the EU needs a deal as much as we do and it's this big moment in European history. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding there. The EU no longer has any need to make any sacrifices. A deal is better than no deal, but newspapers make no mention of it and it's not a vote winner or loser anymore.
 
11101 said:
For you and I and other EU residents that means a compulsory 2 week quarantine :mad:


I'm in the UK and keep hearing how the EU needs a deal as much as we do and it's this big moment in European history. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding there. The EU no longer has any need to make any sacrifices. A deal is better than no deal, but newspapers make no mention of it and it's not a vote winner or loser anymore.
Click to expand...
If Ireland wasn't a thing, I think the EU would have moved ahead with no-deal long ago.
 
11101 said:
For you and I and other EU residents that means a compulsory 2 week quarantine :mad:


I'm in the UK and keep hearing how the EU needs a deal as much as we do and it's this big moment in European history. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding there. The EU no longer has any need to make any sacrifices. A deal is better than no deal, but newspapers make no mention of it and it's not a vote winner or loser anymore.
Click to expand...
That's already the situation isn't it, with the quarantine? I know we got back here in October and not long after the UK brought in quarantine for people from Italy. We can probably cut the quarantine short by having a private Covid test just before we travel.

You're right about it being a "meh" thing now in other countries. They're not bothered, it's a British problem.
golden_blunder said:
:lol: :lol: :lol: I’ve seen loads of people saying that they are booking holidays for January to Canary Islands. Same people voted brexit
Click to expand...
The degree of ignorance is staggering. They just wanted to get rid of the foreigners, but they're happy to go and enjoy foreign winter sunshine. They didn't realise that by leaving Europe, they won't be European any more.
 
Buster15 said:
Understood.
If two parties who both claim to want to do business with eachother but are unable to reach an agreement, there are probably three main reasons.
1. The demands of one side are unreasonable to the other.
2. One side is too inflexible.
3. Both sides are too inflexible.
From my perspective, both UK and EU are taking a philosophical stance.
The UK being it's sovereign nation status.
And the EU wanting to ensure that the UK did not benefit from leaving.
Click to expand...

They will continue to do business with each other, just that everything becomes more complicated and expensive. The Uk will still sell its fish to the EU, the EU will still want the fish in UK's waters.
The UK will still have its sovereignty that it had in 1962 2002 and in 2022.

There have been a couple of classic examples in the last week or so.
The UK claiming it could approve the vaccine quicker because it had left the EU- only in name only they're still following the same EU rules until the end of this year. Latvia could have done the same.

Davis announcing that he could buy NZ wine instead of French when NZ's second biggest export to the UK already is wine and no.1 is lamb while it has been in the EU.
Brexiters have given the impression that the UK don't sell to or buy from other countries outside the EU and suddenly they can, this is one of the biggest lies swallowed by Brexiteers.
Liz Truss announcing she can sell stilton, cornish pasties and haggis to Japan tariff free - whoopee , nobody in Japan wants to buy it.

Very few people in the EU even care about Brexit any more, it's rarely in the news. The only thing about the UK we've seen this week is the old lady who was given the first vaccination.

The EU want to ensure that the UK don't benefit unfairly from leaving.
 
Brwned said:
You're picking and choosing the points you want to respond to so much that you're not responding to the points at all. This is what he said.



It's a set of two objective statements. They are not subjective viewpoints, they aren't related to Hotel California, they don't have anything to do with the Maastricht treaty. By focusing on the first half of the sentence and ignoring the second half, you're turning his point into something he hasn't said to make a point that wasn't argued against, i.e. a strawman argument. When you do it so often it creates the impression that it's not an argument in good faith. Hence why people question the meaning behind the words.
Click to expand...

With due respect I think its you who is picking the points to respond with; the 'EU(formerly EEC) vs UK' situation has for some people in the UK has always been 'the argument' and the warning to others was "don't join because once in you can never leave" (hence the reference to Hotel California lyrics). One of the problems with the whole business is that for the man in the street objectivity goes out the door when people talk about Sovereignty, i.e. the perception of, as opposed to actual 'Sovereignty'. Such matters are made worse by the actions, or pronouncements of politicians (lies if you prefer) also the media and tabloid press in particular, who from General De Gaulle, through Jacques Delor and others up to and including Junker were portrayed as anti-British in their rhetoric by the mass media, in the UK.
As for the UK being involved in law making of course it was, every new rule or regulation that was introduced by the EU had to be adopted into UK law through the UK Parliament, I don't see why or where this is an issue in what I said before?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.