The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (102 Viewers)

[martcov]

The vote is pretty meaningless other than showing how out of touch the lords are with the rest of the country, oh and going above their remit of not interfering in party manifestos.

Oh and while I’m at it they won’t tell you about how a lot of the lords get eu pensions that are very favorable shall we say. Ex eu commissioners such as mandelson as a great example.

The Lords may be out of touch with you and your ilk, but not with the majority who are beginning to regret the vote or who voted remain. The whole point of a revising chamber is to scrutinise legislation and point out things which are wrong legally or are a disadvantage to the country. They can delay governments bulldozing through disadvantageous legislation.

E.g.:
Labour’s Lord Alli, moving the amendment, said: “It is the EEA that deals with services, services like retail, tourism, transport, communications, financial services and aerospace where we have a £14bn trade surplus in these services.

Your latest claim is that the EU is the CU and SM. If so, why didn’t it just say „leave the CU and SM“ on the ballot form? Then everyone else would have known what they voted for.

You previously said people voted for sovereignty, control etc. Now you don’t like our sovereign parliament doing its job according to our law and in accordance with our parliamentary sovereignty.

You claim that the peers are paid pensions by the EU. How many out of the circa 700 receive EU pensions? What influence does that have on them? Do they lose any benefits if they don’t vote pro Brexit? Your mate Farage will get an EU pension, will that mean he becomes pro EU?

No mate, Brexit is a farce. The will of the people is not at all clear. If it were, we would have a negotiating position. We don’t. We have a Tory civil war and labour without an alternative to the chaos.

Whilst this disaster is unfolding, the related immigration problems such as Windrush are coming out and violent crime is on the up. I believe the leave campaign and resulting anti migrant sentiment have allowed base instincts to gain prominence in society. Or, there is a big coincidence in the timing.

A strange fact is that in Germany, which is apparently overrun by marauding refugees, the crime statistics show a drop of 9,6 % last year. The biggest drop in 30 years.

Why do you think that is?

 

---

[martcov]

I fully accept leaving the EU doesn’t benefit the lords or rich elistist business in general but their vote is meaningless as even arch remained lord Adonis admitted yesterday.

Leaving the EU benefits the rich and elitists... especially the ones who like offshore accounts for avoiding or evading tax. Why do you think UKIP never voted for EU legislation to do with tax havens? Why is Rees Mogg pro Brexit do you think? Because he is interested in you and people like you? Or because he likes money? Do you see BoJo as elitist ( Eton and Oxford give you a clue )? What does Mr May do for a living? Why were Aaron Banks and Farage pictured in a gold plated lift with the head of a dodgy real estate family? So stop the BS about the elite not profiting from leaving an organisation which guarantees worker’s rights.

The wealthy tax exiles who own a large part of our press haven’t been ramming Brexit propaganda down your throat for your benefit.

It is against EU law for the EU to take rights from it’s citizens. That goes out the window for the UK after Brexit.

 

[clint van damme]

Lords are a revising chamber and in the general election both Labour and Tory clearly stated to leave SM and CU. The lords are not permitted to go against party manifestos.

The lords are full of ex EU payroll and pension benficaries though they never tell you that. Also works nicely for them to have cheap Labour at will from the EU for cheaper nannies and drivers and cleaners. They sadly don’t have the problem of lack of housing and gp appointments and school places. Wage compression. Etc.

I fully accept leaving the EU doesn’t benefit the lords or rich elistist business in general but their vote is meaningless as even arch remained lord Adonis admitted yesterday.

you may consider it meaningless and you may be correct, but it's significant in what it could do to party politics particularly for Labour.

 

[skybluetony176]

The EU is the single market. How do you believe staying in the single market is leaving the EU?

It really isn’t. You don’t have to be an EU member to be in the single market. Norway for example.

 

[Kingokings204]

It really isn’t. You don’t have to be an EU member to be in the single market. Norway for example.

Wasn’t it arch remainers who said before the referendum the Norway deal is a bad deal because they accept the single market rules but can’t change any of the laws within it not being part of the EU. Why would we want that? We therefore become a vassal state.

On a side note Norway aren’t in the CU.

 

[Kingokings204]

you may consider it meaningless and you may be correct, but it's significant in what it could do to party politics particularly for Labour.

I only say meaningless becausewhen it comes back to Commons they can vote it through again.

But yes both parties are majorly split. Commons and lords.

 

[martcov]

Wasn’t it arch remainers who said before the referendum the Norway deal is a bad deal because they accept the single market rules but can’t change any of the laws within it not being part of the EU. Why would we want that? We therefore become a vassal state.

On a side note Norway aren’t in the CU.

Before the referendum that was a bad option. Now compared with crashing the country it is not as bad as that.

Still not as good an option as staying in the EU.

"Norway is part of the EU’s single market (it is a member of the European Economic Area), but it is not part of the customs union. So it sets its own tariffs on goods imported from outside the single market. But Norwegian goods (with exceptions for farm produce and fish) are imported tariff-free into the EU. This creates problems for Norway because Norwegian exporters have to show that their goods qualify as having originated in Norway (through so called rules of origin) and are therefore eligible for tariff-free entry to EU countries."

 

[Kingokings204]

Before the referendum that was a bad option. Now compared with crashing the country it is not as bad as that.

Still not as good an option as staying in the EU.

"Norway is part of the EU’s single market (it is a member of the European Economic Area), but it is not part of the customs union. So it sets its own tariffs on goods imported from outside the single market. But Norwegian goods (with exceptions for farm produce and fish) are imported tariff-free into the EU. This creates problems for Norway because Norwegian exporters have to show that their goods qualify as having originated in Norway (through so called rules of origin) and are therefore eligible for tariff-free entry to EU countries."

Why do you want to stay in the single market so bad? Many other successful countries aren’t in it.

 

[clint van damme]

Why do you want to stay in the single market so bad? Many other successful countries aren’t in it.

because it allows us tariff free access to our biggest trading partner, the EU.

 

[skybluetony176]

Wasn’t it arch remainers who said before the referendum the Norway deal is a bad deal because they accept the single market rules but can’t change any of the laws within it not being part of the EU. Why would we want that? We therefore become a vassal state.

On a side note Norway aren’t in the CU.

They did argue that. Same as many leavers argued it would be a good deal. The same leavers are now arguing that it would be a bad deal and wasn’t what was voted for despite having previously used it as a pro leave argument. Which proves several things. Out doesn’t mean out. Leave campaigners either lied about what voting leave meant or have allowed the leave vote to mean out means out as they’re trying to court what they believe to be a populist idea or in Boris’ case he’s courting the Tories back benches ahead of his next leadership bid. We never voted for the terms of leaving the EU and there’s the problem.

 

[clint van damme]

They did argue that. Same as many leavers argued it would be a good deal. The same leavers are now arguing that it would be a bad deal and wasn’t what was voted for despite having previously used it as a pro leave argument. Which proves several things. Out doesn’t mean out. Leave campaigners either lied about what voting leave meant or have allowed the leave vote to mean out means out as they’re trying to court what they believe to be a populist idea or in Boris’ case he’s courting the Tories back benches ahead of his next leadership bid. We never voted for the terms of leaving the EU and there’s the problem.

I've said this many times, if leave meant one thing there wouldn't have been so many different groups pushing the leave vote. Read the different agendas of the various groups, leave didn't mean one thing.
Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage, George Galloway, Kate Hoey and Boris Johnson did not have a shared vision of Brexit.

 

[skybluetony176]

I only say meaningless becausewhen it comes back to Commons they can vote it through again.

Which seems equally unlikely. Lib Dem’s aren’t going to vote for it at any stage, SNP are unlikely to vote for it, Blairites are pro EU so are unlikely to vote for it, Labours official brexit policy is now opposite to the governments in that Labour want a customs union so a few rebels aside Labour are likely to vote against it and then you have to throw all the pro EU Tory rebels into the equation. Brexit in it’s current guise looks to be dead in the water with or without the House of Lords.

 

[Grendel]

Which seems equally unlikely. Lib Dem’s aren’t going to vote for it at any stage, SNP are unlikely to vote for it, Blairites are pro EU so are unlikely to vote for it, Labours official brexit policy is now opposite to the governments in that Labour want a customs union so a few rebels aside Labour are likely to vote against it and then you have to throw all the pro EU Tory rebels into the equation. Brexit in it’s current guise looks to be dead in the water with or without the House of Lords.

It’s irrelevant what parliament think the bill will become law anyway unless the government decide to scrap the agreement and leave with no deal

 

[skybluetony176]

It’s irrelevant what parliament think the bill will become law anyway unless the government decide to scrap the agreement and leave with no deal

There will be amendments first. There has to be now. The Lords won’t back it in it’s current guise and there’s a divide in the commons on backing it and that divide doesn’t look to favour it in it’s current guise. Then there’s also the chance of it being challenged through the courts by way of judicial review(s) again. Without a change of attitude from the government no deal looks more and more likely. Which will probably suit Boris as it will undoubtedly bring the PM down if not the government.

 

[Grendel]

There will be amendments first. There has to be now. The Lords won’t back it in it’s current guise and there’s a divide in the commons on backing it and that divide doesn’t look to favour it in it’s current guise. Then there’s also the chance of it being challenged through the courts by way of judicial review(s) again. Without a change of attitude from the government no deal looks more and more likely. Which will probably suit Boris as it will undoubtedly bring the PM down if not the government.

You miss my point. Lords is irrelevant anyway and governments invoke the parliament act.

The bigger point is the legislation can actually be passed without parliamentary approval. Otherwise it will have to go back to Europe and say it cannot agree any deal and we leave without a deal at all.

 

[Kingokings204]

Which seems equally unlikely. Lib Dem’s aren’t going to vote for it at any stage, SNP are unlikely to vote for it, Blairites are pro EU so are unlikely to vote for it, Labours official brexit policy is now opposite to the governments in that Labour want a customs union so a few rebels aside Labour are likely to vote against it and then you have to throw all the pro EU Tory rebels into the equation. Brexit in it’s current guise looks to be dead in the water with or without the House of Lords.

You forgot all the leavers voting against it also.

 

[Kingokings204]

because it allows us tariff free access to our biggest trading partner, the EU.

We pay net 10b a year to be part of the EU. I wouldn’t call that tariff free access myself. And we buy a lot more from them than we sell to them. We effectively therefore pay them to buy their products. Go figure.

 

[clint van damme]

We pay net 10b a year to be part of the EU. I wouldn’t call that tariff free access myself. And we buy a lot more from them than we sell to them. We effectively therefore pay them to buy their products. Go figure.

we're going round in circles. Let's see if Liam Fox signs all of these trade deals he said he would. He said they'd be agreed in principle and signed the day after we leave, let's see.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

because it allows us tariff free access to our biggest trading partner, the EU.

And them free access to trade here. Brexit forces us to broaden our horizons. Some trade deals we will gain from & some we will not. That's life!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[skybluetony176]

You miss my point. Lords is irrelevant anyway and governments invoke the parliament act.

The bigger point is the legislation can actually be passed without parliamentary approval. Otherwise it will have to go back to Europe and say it cannot agree any deal and we leave without a deal at all.

I really didn’t although you seemed to have missed the point I was replying to in the first place. You need to read that for context and when/if you do you will see that the only person who missed the point was you. Unless of course you’re deliberately trying to deflect the point. Either is possible where you’re concerned.

If the government invoke the parliament act I believe that the Lords can still block it for a year. In which case we better prepare to leave with no deal.

Like I said. That’s assuming that the government doesn’t change tact to a position where Brexit is acceptable by a Lords majority, a commons majority and won’t be challenged by a JR. There’s a lot of mileage in this yet before we get to a no deal situation and that’s going to take compromise, by all.

 

[skybluetony176]

You forgot all the leavers voting against it also.

Not sure in the slightest what that’s supposed to mean.

 

[Grendel]

I really didn’t although you seemed to have missed the point I was replying to in the first place. You need to read that for context and when/if you do you will see that the only person who missed the point was you. Unless of course you’re deliberately trying to deflect the point. Either is possible where you’re concerned.

If the government invoke the parliament act I believe that the Lords can still block it for a year. In which case we better prepare to leave with no deal.

Like I said. That’s assuming that the government doesn’t change tact to a position where Brexit is acceptable by a Lords majority, a commons majority and won’t be challenged by a JR. There’s a lot of mileage in this yet before we get to a no deal situation and that’s going to take compromise, by all.

Again the government doesn’t have to go anything.

The act is a constitutional reform and governance act. This doesn’t have to be ratified by the lords or parliament - the government can send the bill through if it wants to.

You see you fail to understand that this is an article from the Eu and bound by Eu law. If the government said because of lords and parliament it won’t go with the arrangement then the Eu can impose a no deal Brexit.

A JR? Well thought through Tony. How will that work when the Eu can impose the settlement date by which time a JR will not have been heard?

 

[clint van damme]

And them free access to trade here. Brexit forces us to broaden our horizons. Some trade deals we will gain from & some we will not. That's life!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

we'll see.

 

[skybluetony176]

Again the government doesn’t have to go anything.

The act is a constitutional reform and governance act. This doesn’t have to be ratified by the lords or parliament - the government can send the bill through if it wants to.

You see you fail to understand that this is an article from the Eu and bound by Eu law. If the government said because of lords and parliament it won’t go with the arrangement then the Eu can impose a no deal Brexit.

A JR? Well thought through Tony. How will that work when the Eu can impose the settlement date by which time a JR will not have been heard?

I never said it did have to be ratified by the Lords. I said that they can oppose it for a year after the Parliament act has been invoked meaning that we’ll have to leave with no deal.

Again I never said that the EU can’t force us to leave with no deal.

What I’ve said (numerous times now) is that the government can’t force it through before we leave without ratification and debate from both houses which unless the government compromises will force us to leave with no deal. Neither house has a majority appetite to accept the current brexit proposal so unless the government is willing to take us out without a deal they will have to compromise. Simple enough for even you to understand I would think.

A JR if one was to happen will be on the final Brexit deal and holding the government to account that they’re carrying that process out within the law of the land and indeed the parliamentary sovereignty in tact.

 

[martcov]

And them free access to trade here. Brexit forces us to broaden our horizons. Some trade deals we will gain from & some we will not. That's life!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

We may lose the passport for financial services- which is what we are best at. Manufacturing is not our biggest plus.

You see it as we may win some, lose some.

Even if, a big if, we end up about the same on trade deals, we have gained absolutely nothing by leaving. We have split the country, increased bureaucracy and probably lost a lot of gdp potential because of years of uncertainty and the transition period- which could last years if we cannot agree with ourselves what our final position will be.

What a waste of time and money.

 

[Astute]

With all these votes I see masses of people taking to twitter to claim the will of the people is being ignored or that they voted to leave the single market, no deal etc. Their voting slip must have had a lot more options than mine did.

The will of the people is being ignored by many. Nearly 2m more voted to leave.

I wonder how many who want to remain in the EU have signed this petition?

Petition: Give the electorate a referendum on the abolition of the House of Lords

Am I allowed to mention Corbyn? He wants to get rid of the house of lords......

They are unelected rich people mainly. They are mainly given the position by the PM at the time.

 

[Astute]

because it allows us tariff free access to our biggest trading partner, the EU.

Which stops us from making deals with the rest of the world. And we sell more to the rest of the world without trade deals as it is.

 

[Astute]

I've said this many times, if leave meant one thing there wouldn't have been so many different groups pushing the leave vote. Read the different agendas of the various groups, leave didn't mean one thing.
Aaron Banks, Nigel Farage, George Galloway, Kate Hoey and Boris Johnson did not have a shared vision of Brexit.

Everyone voting leave wanted out of the EU.

Millions that voted remain wanted reforms to be made. Juncker said that no reforms would be made in our favour. That doesn't mean that their remain vote shouldn't stand because they disagreed with the others that voted remain.

 

[clint van damme]

Everyone voting leave wanted out of the EU.

Millions that voted remain wanted reforms to be made. Juncker said that no reforms would be made in our favour. That doesn't mean that their remain vote shouldn't stand because they disagreed with the others that voted remain.

There are key points which are still been debated with regard to Brexit, membership of the customs union, the single market, freedom of movement. There was no common standpoint on these issues prior to the referendum nor since.
People who voted for Brexit sticking together even though they may disagree on certain issues is fine. People making out every one is and has been on the same page from the start is bollocks.

 

[clint van damme]

Which stops us from making deals with the rest of the world. And we sell more to the rest of the world without trade deals as it is.

we export 50 billion pound more to the rest of the world than to the EU but that is split between several countries which all require new deals negotiating.

 

[wingy]

We may lose the passport for financial services- which is what we are best at. Manufacturing is not our biggest plus.

You see it as we may win some, lose some.

Even if, a big if, we end up about the same on trade deals, we have gained absolutely nothing by leaving. We have split the country, increased bureaucracy and probably lost a lot of gdp potential because of years of uncertainty and the transition period- which could last years if we cannot agree with ourselves what our final position will be.

What a waste of time and money.

I was reading something last week regarding our GDP per capita.
In the early 70's Ireland lagged way behind us, they're now double ours at over 60K dollars.

 

[fernandopartridge]

we export 50 billion pound more to the rest of the world than to the EU but that is split between several countries which all require new deals negotiating.

Not necessarily, it assumes all of those countries already have a FTA with the EU which isn't true. Our biggest non EU export market is the USA, they do not have an FTA with the EU (so none with the UK either). The US has a slight trade surplus with the UK currently but nowhere near the level of the EU-UK surplus.

 

[Astute]

There are key points which are still been debated with regard to Brexit, membership of the customs union, the single market, freedom of movement. There was no common standpoint on these issues prior to the referendum nor since.
People who voted for Brexit sticking together even though they may disagree on certain issues is fine. People making out every one is and has been on the same page from the start is bollocks.

And just the same for those of us who voted remain. I didn't know how bad those running the EU are. We have since learned that they don't put EU citizens first. It is what is best for them.

 

[clint van damme]

Not necessarily, it assumes all of those countries already have a FTA with the EU which isn't true. Our biggest non EU export market is the USA, they do not have an FTA with the EU (so none with the UK either). The US has a slight trade surplus with the UK currently but nowhere near the level of the EU-UK surplus.

is there a trade surplus with the US? I've read there is a bit of ambiguity over this with both reporting trade surpluses with each other at the end of last year.
Obama said a trade deal with the UK would take 10 years, Trump maybe more accommodating, special relationship and all that but he is a bit of a loose cannon to pin our hopes on.

 

[clint van damme]

And just the same for those of us who voted remain. I didn't know how bad those running the EU are. We have since learned that they don't put EU citizens first. It is what is best for them.

there isn't really a comparison with those voting remain because people were basically voting for the status quo. There would have been no process to go through if remain won as there is with exiting so the two aren't really the same.