• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Using the N word even if not directed at someone is pathetic and she should be sacked. As it was not directed at anyone i guess it is not criminal but what an idiot.

Also disgusted at the abuse some Labour MPs are getting and the threat of deslection if they do not follow Corbyn. I like Corbyn as a person but with the hatred of the Jews and expelling people who disagree with him, i do not like the path he is on.
 
milo said:
That's not true, the UK government's proposal is significantly less generous than the EU proposal made in April and going back on the promise made by the Leave campaign that EU nationals in the UK would not see their rights downgraded post Brexit.

If all we were disagreeing on was ECJ jurisdiction, we could've accepted the bulk of the EU proposal and just pushed back on judicial oversight. I think that it would be been reasonably easy to get agreement on a new supranational judicial arrangement to cover this.

It is a stupid own goal as well. It is wasting negotiating time that we don't have, creates bad will, extends uncertainty for EU citizens living here and UK nationals living in the EU and we will end up conceding on this.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was downgrading their rights, just giving them British rights, rather than European ones? So the same as the other 57m citizens, but the EU (with typical arrogance) classify that as inferior to their own, so hence 'downgraded'.

The logic of the British position being to protect us from in 5/10/15 years in the future Europeans prosecuting the British government in the ECJ because we aren't adopting new EU labour laws. The whole EU complaint is that there would be “no lifelong protection against future changes of UK law”. I.e stopping our future laws applying to our immigrants.
 
milo said:
These are good primers on it

http://bruegel.org/2017/02/brexit-goes-nuclear-the-consequences-of-leaving-euratom/

https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/opinion-brexit-euratom-and-article-50

We are committed to building new nuclear power stations, it is needed for the treatment of cancer and much of the science community need access to radioactive materials.

Not having something in place in April 2019 is not an option. Setting up parallel organisations and treaties is incredibly inefficient and expensive.
Click to expand...

Medical/scientific use is obviously fine and I support Trident too.

But nuclear power is finished. Hinkley C won't ever be completed because the technology will be obsolete long before it is ready.

Germany, Japan, America, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Austria etc. are all on nuclear phase out plans already. China, Belarus and Turkey are about the only countries still pushing nuclear.

100% renewables by 2050 is achievable. Uruguay is already there (well 95%).
 
Gutter Boy said:
I didn't think it was downgrading their rights, just giving them British rights, rather than European ones? So the same as the other 57m citizens, but the EU (with typical arrogance) classify that as inferior to their own, so hence 'downgraded'.

The logic of the British position being to protect us from in 5/10/15 years in the future Europeans prosecuting the British government in the ECJ because we aren't adopting new EU labour laws. The whole EU complaint is that there would be “no lifelong protection against future changes of UK law”. I.e stopping our future laws applying to our immigrants.
Click to expand...

The UK proposal is offering less than British citizens have. If an EU citizen was granted indefinite leave to remain but then left the country for two years, they would lose that right and have to start again. For people who have made their life here but might have to go home to care for relatives, that is a significant right to lose, especially as they may not have the option of bringing the relative here. If they currently have indefinite right to remain (you have to pay for that, complete an 85 page form and provide evidence that you meet the criteria) that is lost and you will have to reapply after Brexit. You lose the right to vote in local elections. The window to apply is limited and no details of the process have been provided yet and so prolonging the uncertainty of EU citizens here.

The EU proposition froze the rights at Brexit and so we would not be expected to adopt new EU labour laws because of this, although we will end up doing that anyway in order to agree a trade deal or EEA/EFTA membership.
 
Last edited:
Gutter Boy said:
Medical/scientific use is obviously fine and I support Trident too.

But nuclear power is finished. Hinkley C won't ever be completed because the technology will be obsolete long before it is ready.

Germany, Japan, America, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Austria etc. are all on nuclear phase out plans already. China, Belarus and Turkey are about the only countries still pushing nuclear.

100% renewables by 2050 is achievable. Uruguay is already there (well 95%).
Click to expand...

I am looking at what our position is in 18 months not 33 years. We need access to nuclear material after Brexit and the way we have approached this takes up more valuable resource, energy and money that would be better spent elsewhere.
 
milo said:
The UK proposal is offering less than British citizens have. If an EU citizen was granted indefinite leave to remain but then left the country for two years, they would lose that right and have to start again. For people who have made their life here but might have to go home to care for relatives, that is a significant right to lose, especially as they may not have the option of bringing the relative here. If they currently have indefinite right to remain (you have to pay for that, complete an 85 page form and provide evidence that you meet the criteria) that is lost and you will have to reapply after Brexit. You lose the right to vote in local elections. The window to apply is limited and no details of the process have been provided yet and so prolonging the uncertainty of EU citizens here.

The EU proposition froze the rights at Brexit and so we would not be expected to adopt new EU labour laws because of this, although we will end up doing that anyway in order to agree a trade deal or EEA/EFTA membership.
Click to expand...

Ok - I'm fine with all that, and have no problems with ceding over that. Any continuing jurisdiction of the ECJ should be the only red line.

CETA didn't agree to EU labour laws, rather the ILO's (International Labour Organisation; a UN body)
 
Gutter Boy said:
Ok - I'm fine with all that, and have no problems with ceding over that. Any continuing jurisdiction of the ECJ should be the only red line.

CETA didn't agree to EU labour laws, rather the ILO's (International Labour Organisation; a UN body)
Click to expand...

Out of interest, what is the issue with the ECJ and does that objection also extend to the EFTA court or a new supranational court both of which will follow ECJ rulings?

You are aware that No. 10 conceded that we will fall under the ECJ's jurisdiction during transition.
 
milo said:
Out of interest, what is the issue with the ECJ and does that objection also extend to the EFTA court or a new supranational court both of which will follow ECJ rulings?

You are aware that No. 10 conceded that we will fall under the ECJ's jurisdiction during transition.
Click to expand...

It's all about sovereignty and democracy

You can't have an unaccountable foreign court with jurisdiction over your own laws. It's a fundamental matter of principle

Does CETA make Canadians subject to the ECJ?
 
milo said:
Why does the EU need something more than we do?
Click to expand...
Because if we don't come to an agreement over it (and get something in return) we're able to make Calais a very busy place in two years time. It's the nuclear option, but one that we must be willing to threaten with.

milo said:
We will concede on this. There is not parliamentary support for the government's proposal and we do not have time to waste chasing lost causes.
Click to expand...
I hope we do concede on it, but it's a bargaining point and therefor must be used to it's fullest limit - as with any other.

milo said:
We conceded the point on the sequencing of negotiations on the first day, so that one has gone.
Click to expand...
We shouldn't have done so - it doesn't mean we can't change our minds. We can tell the EU that they can have this closed now if they want but the only way to do so will be to accept no rights at all for any EU citizen. Or they can debate it with us later and get a result they're more likely to want.

milo said:
Is see that No. 10 conceded on ECJ oversight during transition today. May's red lines are causing are causing a lot of problems for five minutes of applause at last autumn's party conference.
Click to expand...
I don't even understand why that was a red line in the first place.
 
scaramanga said:
Because if we don't come to an agreement over it (and get something in return) we're able to make Calais a very busy place in two years time. It's the nuclear option, but one that we must be willing to threaten with.


I hope we do concede on it, but it's a bargaining point and therefor must be used to it's fullest limit - as with any other.


We shouldn't have done so - it doesn't mean we can't change our minds. We can tell the EU that they can have this closed now if they want but the only way to do so will be to accept no rights at all for any EU citizen. Or they can debate it with us later and get a result they're more likely to want.


I don't even understand why that was a red line in the first place.
Click to expand...
you seem very confident in all your assertions with negotiating with the EU and as yet most seem to have fallen the EU's way. When you make these statements are you predicting what you think will happen, what you want to happen, what you would do or another?

you would think you would have a little less certainty due to unforeseen events recently.
 
r-u-s-x said:
you seem very confident in all your assertions with negotiating with the EU and as yet most seem to have fallen the EU's way. When you make these statements are you predicting what you think will happen, what you want to happen, what you would do or another?

you would think you would have a little less certainty due to unforeseen events recently.
Click to expand...
They're the things that would happen if I were negotiating on behalf of the UK
 
Gutter Boy said:
It's all about sovereignty and democracy

You can't have an unaccountable foreign court with jurisdiction over your own laws. It's a fundamental matter of principle

Does CETA make Canadians subject to the ECJ?
Click to expand...

Do you have similar objections to the WTO's dispute settlement mechanisms or the International Criminal Court?

The Canadians are not in the EEA or Customs Union. No. 10 confirming that we will continue to fall under the ECJ during transition points to us continuing to keep at least some elements of this after March 2019.

An FTA would not require this but it would offer more limit access and would be unlikely to cover services. We do not have time to agree a comprehensive FTA which is why No. 10 is softening its line.

Continued membership of Euratom would also see us fall under the ECJ.
 
milo said:
That is very funny
Click to expand...
It's not as far-fetched as you might think.

For many of us, most of our daily interactions are negotiations of some sort or another. Whether it's talking to employees, suppliers and customers or the local council/MP/DEFRA representative/HSE clam (or often their legal representation) - it's all negotiation. Even those inane "How's your bricky football team?" or "How are those ugly brats of yours?" conversations are a part of the process, they all play into ensuring that I come away from those conversations with what I want and then fit what the other person wants around that.

If Donald Trump can repeatedly leave negotiations with a win, do you think it's hard for someone with nearing double his IQ to do the same?
 
scaramanga said:
It's not as far-fetched as you might think.

For many of us, most of our daily interactions are negotiations of some sort or another. Whether it's talking to employees, suppliers and customers or the local council/MP/DEFRA representative/HSE clam (or often their legal representation) - it's all negotiation. Even those inane "How's your bricky football team?" or "How are those ugly brats of yours?" conversations are a part of the process, they all play into ensuring that I come away from those conversations with what I want and then fit what the other person wants around that.

If Donald Trump can repeatedly leave negotiations with a win, do you think it's hard for someone with nearing double his IQ to do the same?
Click to expand...

https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

You could be right that if you negotiate we would be in a better position but how likely is it that you are invited on the negotiating team and/or they follow your goals and technique? You write the statements as if this is fact and / or what is going to happen, which is frustrating as it really brings nothing to the discussion unless you think this is what the Brexit team are going to do.
 
r-u-s-x said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

You could be right that if you negotiate we would be in a better position but how likely is it that you are invited on the negotiating team and/or they follow your goals and technique? You write the statements as if this is fact and / or what is going to happen, which is frustrating as it really brings nothing to the discussion unless you think this is what the Brexit team are going to do.
Click to expand...
It brings plenty to the discussion - I'm marking out the optimal position.

When balanced against an opinion I can't distinguish from "let's just give the EU everything they want" I think it's an important counterbalance.

Edit:

And my point about Trump is not that I consider myself particularly intelligent (especially not among my peers), more that if stupid people can do better than our negotiators appear to be doing, then it should be easy for intelligent ones to.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back