Article 50 Discussion

[fletch70]

Looks like a lot of cutting and pasting. Can you reference any of those?

 

You have given a long list of what YOU don’t like but not one hard fact about how things will be better.

 

You rant about EU law being above UK law but it is clear you do not understand how these laws are made. 
 

By the way about other trading blocks in the world, the Southern Pacific one, the YSA, Canada and Mexico, China in its entirety. You seem very ill informed and just opinionated. 

[fletch70]

Without wishing to be rude, you are either not very bright or you are trying to mislead people with manipulated data and facts.

 

Just a couple or three points

 

Jean Monnet died long before the EU was born, he was one of the founding fathers of the European Coal and Steel Community. 

 

You talk about GDP growth from 1985 onwards,  of course what is now the EU has expanded since then but also weathered the fall of the iron curtain and the reunification of Germany. As Germany has such a large economy, its faltering of the early 1990's will have had a disproportionate effect on European GDP. 

 

You go on about how the CAP takes 40% of the EU budget, actually that was a bit of a round up now wasn't it. Yes but it is of the budget which is not directly related to GDP. 

 

The report about minimum alcohol pricing comes from 2015 yet in 2017 the UK supreme court said it was OK and it has been rolled out

 

Those comments made by you took me all of 5 minutes to debunk so I will let others decide on your motives.

[Maharg1]

I'm aware of Monnet, he was a very clever man and foresaw the real meaning and what would happen in the eu, he was correct.

 

You have still not come up with anything good about remaining

[tobyjugg2]

Well @marharg1

 

You are posting already disproven brown nuggets as usual

 

 

three simple facts

 

1. The default current position : The UK is currently in the EU and benefits from access to its markets

 

2, The default next 12 months : as long as we abide by the rules, During any transition we retain those benefits

- apart from not having a say in its future ... unless the rest allow it

 

 

3. The default future position : Unless any deal or deal are agreed, we become an external country to the EU and trade on WTO trade arrangements, which is little more than nothing.

 

So that is the default positions. Anything else needs to be agreed and actioned by both sides.                            

So demonstrate anything beyond the default position and we can show what will be lost in that default postion.

 

[London1971]

40 minutes ago, Maharg1 said:

You have still not come up with anything good about remaining

 

Polls Closed for the EU Referendum 1289 days, 19 Hours and 8 minutes ago.  Since then I have not heard one solid , good reason for leaving.  That's because it's the most stupid idea ever!

[honeybee13]

Michael Bloomberg would agree with you, London.

[London1971]

Yup and I'm still waiting for a solid reason from somebody lol

 

'We can do trade deals around the world' isn't one. That's just a vague assertion.!

[honeybee13]

We might have one with Fiji and Papua New Guinea for a bit under £400 million a year, covering fish and sugar.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/14/uk-signs-post-brexit-trade-deal-with-fiji-and-papua-new-guinea

[fletch70]

Just to show how maybe some people are conspiracy nuts  

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/eufundedproeutroll.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/european-union-what-did-monnet-say-about-europes-nations-and-the-superstate/amp/

 

Looks like Monnet was seriously misquoted. 
was it a letter?

Was it a speech?

Was it to the UN?

Was it to some journalists? 

 

 

[fletch70]

https://fullfact.org/europe/jean-monnet-quote/
 

A bit more 

[Jase1982]

14 minutes ago, London1971 said:

Yup and I'm still waiting for a solid reason from somebody lol

 

'We can do trade deals around the world' isn't one. That's just a vague assertion.!

 

Add to that the actual fact that these aren't trade deals because the UK government only agrees the terms and conditions under which uk businesses trade... they have minimal influence over where businesses trade.  Side from the fact increased costs will make it more expensive to export.

[hightail]

14 minutes ago, London1971 said:

We can do trade deals around the world' isn't one. That's just a vague assertion.!

And there's no saying how good they can be in comparison with what we have now.  People seem eager to discuss vague concepts but it's how it affects ordinary people day to day which will hit home.  I'm old enough to remember life before we were in the EU and there's no going back there, we live in a different world with different values now.  For example, there's no way nowadays I could in all conscience buy butter which has been transported from New Zealand whereas we didn't even think about such things 'back in the day'.  We can't turn the clock back and nobody is prepared to itemise the supposed advantages moving forward.

[tobyjugg2]

10 Facts about EU trade deals.pdf

[Maharg1]

Yep, ok all gang up on me - but I will always be one up because we are leaving so no matter what you say, we are out.

A deal!  Maybe not, they have to agree a trade deal as well, it's not all on the UK to come up with the details.

And if they cannot come up with anything then we leave with no deal.

 

So you will just have to lump it and enjoy Bojo for 5 glorious years

 

Why are trade deals around the world just an assertion ?

Edited January 4, 2020 by Maharg1

[tobyjugg2]

2 hours ago, Maharg1 said:

 

Why are trade deals around the world just an assertion ?

 

Because there aren't any of note and nothing worth mentioning - as you well know as I've repeatedly asked you to detail some worthwhile ones

... and you can't

 

LOL

 

Surprised you aren't squealing another favourite Brexiter lie - 'but we cant until we've left'

.. When we have actually confirmed a few piddling ones ready to go worth a percent or two of what we have as a major partner in and with the EU

Damn all worthy of mention and which just actually confirm how bad the Brexit trade deal situation really is.

 

[fletch70]

If we do leave without a deal how will it affect you @Maharg1. Do you have enough money or secure enough employment to ride out the storm? 

[London1971]

20 hours ago, Maharg1 said:

Yep, ok all gang up on me - but I will always be one up because we are leaving so no matter what you say, we are out.

 

 

I want to see good solid arguments as to why Brexit is not a steaming dog turd on a cold morning.  Not kids playground stuff as above.  

 

 

[Maharg1]

On 04/01/2020 at 18:05, tobyjugg2 said:

10 Facts about EU trade deals.pdf 231.05 kB · 3 downloads

That is rubbish written up in 2013 and is not fact as the document itself say " the facts suggest" - see that 'suggest'

 

quote London 1971 - Polls Closed for the EU Referendum 1289 days, 19 Hours and 8 minutes ago.  Since then I have not heard one solid , good reason for leaving.  unquote

 

You've heard non-stop whinging though from those remoaners, especially those on here, who don't like the legitimate result and are anti democratic.

 

Why don't you start a movement to try and overturn the result of the general election.

[buckthorn]

You keep on accusing Maharg1 of not answering questions???

so I thought I would give you “10 reasons for leaving the EU “ for a start.

 

 1.a hush up     Cabinet papers pre-1970 show the Heath government to have had full knowledge of the EEC being along term plan for a unitary European State with its own currency; but the facts were supressed by this and succeeding governments with the deliberate intention of keeping the nation in the dark. In other words the people of the UK never knew at that time what they were voting for, it was a con;

2.”surrender of sovereignty”    On the 14^th December 1960 the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, Britain’s senior legal officer, warned Heath of the implications of signing the Treaty of Rome: “To  satisfy the requirements of the treaty, parliament could enact legislation which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations made by … the Community … It is clear that the Council of Ministers could eventually make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes… This is the first step on the road to a federal state … I must state that in my view the surrender of our sovereignty is extremely, why would I or anybody wish to be governed by a foreign unelected click.

3.”end of Britain”     The consequence of joining the EU have now been realised by most clear thinking people, it was also realised in 1962 in Westminster by Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the Labour Party, who identified “the desire of those, who created the European Community, for a political federation. “That is what they meant, that was what they were after” he added that this would bring about “the end of Britain as an independent European State…and that means a thousand years of our history up the creek without a paddle.

4.”now we come to the big lie”     Edward Heath’s 1971 White Paper on joining the EEC deceived Parliament, and the people with a false statement that “there is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty”, and that Britain’s sovereignty would somehow be “enlarged” by “sharing” in my opinion that makes the whole thing a down right lie and illegal.

 

 5.”ministry of propaganda”  Between 1970 and 1972 the Heath government directed a secret propaganda offensive, known as the Connaught Breakfast, in which Cabinet ministers, Foreign Office heads of Departments, civil servants, media managers and journalists, in conjunction with the European Movement, carried on a TV, radio and newspaper campaign to swing round strongly opposed public opinion to accept the EEC, to finance this they used  public money, in other words tax payers money for propaganda, may as well have been living in a Communist state, theft of our tax money.

 

 6.unconstitutional…1  The 1072 Act which took Britain into the EEC was in breach of the Constitution, in that the government allowed no prior consultation, of the electorate by a special  General Election or Referendum , as is  required under the Constitution for Parliament measures involving constitutional change, the president being those of 1831/2 & 1910.

 7.unconstitutional..2   By passing the 1972 European Communities Act, Parliament unconstitutionally attempted to renounce its legal sovereignty, so as to make the British people subject to enactment of outside agencies, and ending its own ability to put into effect the expressed wishes of the electorate.

 

 8.unconstitutional…3     In doing so, it deliberately and wrongfully denied the ultimate sovereignty of the people, of which Parliament is constitutionally both servant and defender, and which at the end of each Parliament’s term is returned to its possessors. Us the people.

 

9.unconstitutional…4  It is a cornerstone of the Constitution that no Parliament is or can be bound by enactment of its predecessors; but the Act of 1972 unconstitutionally purported (section 2.4) to be mandatory upon all succeeding Parliaments. that is to my mind a crime against the people of this country, and the people responsible should have been jailed.

 

 10.unconstitutional.. 5   What I am saying is that the Act of 1972 was completely unconstitutional in wider respect that falsehood and deception was employed to secure its enactment, contrary not only to the spirit of the Constitution, but all legislative procedures whatsoever.

 

 In other words our joining the EU was big con; and the sooner we are out, and can become a sovereign independent country again the sooner the better. by the way I voted not to join the common market.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

Stepping over the poop on the floor,

 

With HS2 hitting the news again and expecting to overrun and cost over half as much as the last (under) estimate for the replacement of our nuclear submarine fleet

 

Given that Corbyn apparently not only supported HS2 - he wanted to expand it to go up to Scotland ..

 

Anyone aware of the stance on HS2 of the various candidates?

[brassnecked]

Is HS2 too far down the line (oops) to be cancelled?  Mind you they thought that about TSR2 and Wilson's government killed it off in favour of buying  the  allegedly inferior US F1-11a swing wing airccraft, the tech for which was designed by UK designer Barnes Wallis yes he of the Dambuster's bomb.

[tobyjugg2]

1 minute ago, brassnecked said:

Is HS2 too far down the line (oops) to be cancelled? 

 

LOL -

I never saw any real benefit to be had from it when it was half the current price

 

[brassnecked]

3 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

LOL -

I never saw any real benefit to be had from it when it was half the current price

 

Me neither, money would be better spent upgrading existing infrastructure. But then BR was half arsed about stuff also.  The APT was an example, developed a little further, it was a winner, 155 mph on existing tracks, but it needed more development.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Passenger_Train

[tobyjugg2]

If they need fast contact, theres telephones or skype conferencing

A bit faster than even the 200kph it would never reliably reach, especially on cheap cost cut at twice the price tracks.

[brassnecked]

More use of tech like Skype is a good option if we are supposed to be reducing carbon Miles. Kilometres to our EU , Australian, and Japanese.friends,