comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 12 minutes ago
Would it not then be fair to say a 'soft Brexit' would suit better the people?
-------------
I believe the majority of the people are in the middle for most decisions. However I would like you define what 'soft Brexit' means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaving the EU so we have complete control over lawmaking.
Retaining access to the single market with all that comes with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada has access to the single market. So a trading deal similar to theirs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad; I should've said remaining a part of the single market, not having access to it.
I am not sure why people fear that a vote for parliament means that the result of the referendum will be over turned. The Scots and the Northern Irish MPs can somewhat justify voting against. The rest have to follow the will of the people or they will face massive disaffection with politics. Even those who voted remain understand this.
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 12 minutes ago
Would it not then be fair to say a 'soft Brexit' would suit better the people?
-------------
I believe the majority of the people are in the middle for most decisions. However I would like you define what 'soft Brexit' means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaving the EU so we have complete control over lawmaking.
Retaining access to the single market with all that comes with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada has access to the single market. So a trading deal similar to theirs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad; I should've said remaining a part of the single market, not having access to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should Britain give up sovereign rights to be 'part' of a market when they will not be able to influence the change of laws that govern it when they can have full access to it like Canada whilst retaining their sovereign rights?
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
I am not sure why people fear that a vote for parliament means that the result of the referendum will be over turned. The Scots and the Northern Irish MPs can somewhat justify voting against. The rest have to follow the will of the people or they will face massive disaffection with politics. Even those who voted remain understand this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It won't change the result, when viewed as a binary.
It will mean some very difficult political decisions will have to be made by the Government and by Tory MPs in Remain constituencies (of which there are many).
If the Govt gets into a serious Parliamentary debate about the terms of Brexit, laid out in public view; then follows a course of 'hard' Brexit resulting in a medium term downturn in the economy, visa restrictions, devalued pound, etc., the public will look back at those MPs who supported the Govts line, and vote them out of power.
This is why the Tories didn't want the debate. Without one, under a failing 'hard' Brexit scenario the worst that happens is that those agnostic or Remain Tory MPs just say, "Well, the Govt was just acting on the wishes of the British people," and scapegoat May and her administration.
Now they are going to have to put their heads on the blocks.
If the Govt gets into a serious Parliamentary debate about the terms of Brexit, laid out in public view; then follows a course of 'hard' Brexit resulting in a medium term downturn in the economy, visa restrictions, devalued pound, etc., the public will look back at those MPs who supported the Govts line, and vote them out of power.
------------------------------------
Actually the reason why they don't want a secondary vote is because they fear that playing politics will undermine the mandate they have been given by the people which leads to a weaker bargaining position in the negotiation. This stupid posturing by the EU is what caused Brexit in the first place. If EU leaders had given Cameron what he wanted we would not be here. Merkel understood this but leaders of the new accession countries did not. As shown by Belgium's climb down over CETA when push comes to shove they back down. I know what you want is freedom of movement of people. I suspect that was dead as soon CETA was signed. We may get some version of softer work permit but that is completely different to what the tenant of EU of freedom of movement of LABOUR has morphed into.
The Tory whips are going to be busy
It depends on whether you are talking about the Cabinet, the upper echelons of the Conservative Party or the Tory MPs more widely.
The current members of the cabinet have staked their reputations on making a success of Brexit one way or another, and some of them have very clearly formed views on what a successful Brexit should look like.
The Tory benches, in general, will not be nearly as concerned about the nature of the deal with the EU as they will be about retaining their seats in (prospectively) five years' time. Remember that they backed the Remain campaign on balance, and would probably not be remotely upset about a complete reversal of the events of the last few months.
You are right that I have an interest in freedom of movement; I have travelled freely and widely in Europe, and moved to Portugal this year with no concrete employment opportunity. It's the best thing I've ever done, and I think many people across Europe, particularly of the younger generations, very much appreciate this right.
But really, I'm more concerned about geopolitical stability, and strongly believe that a united, closely integrated Europe is very, very important for all of our futures.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 12 minutes ago
Would it not then be fair to say a 'soft Brexit' would suit better the people?
-------------
I believe the majority of the people are in the middle for most decisions. However I would like you define what 'soft Brexit' means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaving the EU so we have complete control over lawmaking.
Retaining access to the single market with all that comes with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada has access to the single market. So a trading deal similar to theirs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad; I should've said remaining a part of the single market, not having access to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should Britain give up sovereign rights to be 'part' of a market when they will not be able to influence the change of laws that govern it when they can have full access to it like Canada whilst retaining their sovereign rights?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way the EU would allow us similar terms to the Canadians. It would be signing it's own death warrant.
This will not make brexit softer or harder.
It will simply delay the process
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way the EU would allow us similar terms to the Canadians. It would be signing it's own death warrant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Has signing the Canadian deal meant its signed its own death warrant?
Whats the difference?
Jenius, are you able to showcase the particulars of the Canadian deal the EU and compare to what current EU members have?
I think it is for those who believe that the EU will not accept a deal like CETA for UK to do that Redinthehead. I believe that EU leaders will accept it or they will be faced with a hard brexit which damages the EU far more. And again it is for those who believe that we must accept some form of freedom of movement of people not labour, and so have deal similar to EAFTA to explain the reasons why to convince the British people. In my opinion the return of sovereign controls including those on immigration is a red line for the British people and why Brexit happened in the first place.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 35 seconds ago
I think it is for those who believe that the EU will not accept a deal like CETA for UK to do that Redinthehead. I believe that EU leaders will accept it or they will be faced with a hard brexit which damages the EU far more. And again it is for those who believe that we must accept some form of freedom of movement of people not labour, and so have deal similar to EAFTA to explain the reasons why to convince the British people. In my opinion the return of sovereign controls including those on immigration is a red line for the British people and why Brexit happened in the first place.
------------
Long winded way for you to say you can't.
Which means your calls for a deal like Canada have are on shaky ground as you don't know what it would entail for us.
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 26 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way the EU would allow us similar terms to the Canadians. It would be signing it's own death warrant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Has signing the Canadian deal meant its signed its own death warrant?
Whats the difference?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, Canada is not a European state. If the EU were to offer us a CETA equivalent, there are several other EU countries that would be interested in the same kind of agreement. It'd be the equivalent of giving one child in the class a sweet despite the fact he hasn't done his homework.
Secondly, Canada under CETA does not have the same privileges and rights EU states enjoy as members of the single market.
One final point: the single market *requires* freedom of movement of people to function efficiently. This is not a quid pro quo situation. The first needs the second to be successful.
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 35 seconds ago
I think it is for those who believe that the EU will not accept a deal like CETA for UK to do that Redinthehead. I believe that EU leaders will accept it or they will be faced with a hard brexit which damages the EU far more. And again it is for those who believe that we must accept some form of freedom of movement of people not labour, and so have deal similar to EAFTA to explain the reasons why to convince the British people. In my opinion the return of sovereign controls including those on immigration is a red line for the British people and why Brexit happened in the first place.
------------
Long winded way for you to say you can't.
Which means your calls for a deal like Canada have are on shaky ground as you don't know what it would entail for us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about. I can explain that CETA allows free trade. Thats what most British business want. Britain is not a part of the Euro. We are not a part of Schengen. You want me to give those arguing that we will want more than CETA, points to argue with. My answer to that is do that yourself.
I explained before Brexit that the Eurozone is a completely different entity to those outside the currency. And what the Eurozone will morph into is anyones guess.
Brexit has happened. Those who think rerunning the same arguments again and again will somehow change the result have a screw loose. Those did not convince the British people. They will not do so again. If you want a more palatable relationship with the EU, its the EU that have to offer something different.
Secondly, Canada under CETA does not have the same privileges and rights EU states enjoy as members of the single market.
----------------------------------------------
Name those that British people want to keep over having an agreement such as CETA.
If the EU were to offer us a CETA equivalent, there are several other EU countries that would be interested in the same kind of agreement.
---------------------
Why is that? Surely all EU countries believe in the EU project as they say in Bussels and Hollande and Merkal? For geo political security and freedom of movement of people? Are you saying what is happening to the EU is not popular?
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 23 minutes ago
Secondly, Canada under CETA does not have the same privileges and rights EU states enjoy as members of the single market.
----------------------------------------------
Name those that British people want to keep over having an agreement such as CETA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British business, in automotive manufacturing and agriculture (completely excluded form CETA) for example, will want a quota-free agreement. CETA is littered with industry and product-related tariffs. These don't exist in the single market.
If you want to see what access to the single market will mean for the UK, look at Swizerland; Canada is a red herring.
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 1 hour ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 23 minutes ago
Secondly, Canada under CETA does not have the same privileges and rights EU states enjoy as members of the single market.
----------------------------------------------
Name those that British people want to keep over having an agreement such as CETA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British business, in automotive manufacturing and agriculture (completely excluded form CETA) for example, will want a quota-free agreement. CETA is littered with industry and product-related tariffs. These don't exist in the single market.
If you want to see what access to the single market will mean for the UK, look at Swizerland; Canada is a red herring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is at all. Every country obviously wants to protect market sectors against Canadian companies undercutting their industry. That is why Ceta is 98% free trade as opposed to 100%. The difference is of course UK companies are already fully integrated in the EU and already operate within those industry sectors. There is no chance of undercutting or any fear of competition. The Swiss model is largely irrelevant because of Ceta and the next even bigger agreement around the corner TTIP.
I understand why you would want EFTA because you want freedom of movement of people. But you have to understand why the British people voted for Brexit. And there is no way the British people will accept it.
This is why it is so difficult for people to understand in the EU. The UK was threatened with all sorts before the referendum and the EU gave nothing to remain camp to sell to the Britsh ppl. As a result Brexit happened. Now you expect the government to sell an agreement like EFTA to the people which means that UK accept all the issues they had with even less power. The British will not accept it. Its like burying your head in the sand in Brussels whilst other countries even France also head for a divorce with the EU. You have to change the relationships to address the problems. CETA gives a chance, a template to build on.
This was the question on the ballot paper:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
For the latter to happen in ANY guise, article 50 needs to be activated. Which is what this decision is about - ratification.
We elected a government in 2015 which promised a referendum.
They were elected by a first past the post system, which we voted by referendum to keep in 2010.
The public then voted to Leave the EU
On what possible democratic grounds could MPs not vote to trigger article 50?
It'd be wrong for them to do so Ledders, I agree. It's incredibly unlikely that'd happen IMO.
I don't think it's unhealthy for us to have an open discussion about exactly what the Govt should pursue on behalf of the nation during negotiations though.
The public really has a right to have their MP engage with the Government in a debate about what the UK's aims should be, and to know what the Government is actually going to seek for the country.
'Brexit means Brexit' really isn't good enough; it doesn't mean anything at all to me.
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
It'd be wrong for them to do so Ledders, I agree. It's incredibly unlikely that'd happen IMO.
I don't think it's unhealthy for us to have an open discussion about exactly what the Govt should pursue on behalf of the nation during negotiations though.
The public really has a right to have their MP engage with the Government in a debate about what the UK's aims should be, and to know what the Government is actually going to seek for the country.
'Brexit means Brexit' really isn't good enough; it doesn't mean anything at all to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, definitely agree. It would be political suicide for many MPs to vote against article 50 depending on how their constituents voted.
The governments argument that they can't provide details on their plans because it would damage their negotiating position has always seemed weak to me, but in fact I actually feel when it comes down to it that transparency and scrutiny are more important than our perceived negotiating position, and full disclosure and the type of running commentary that has been dismissed out of hand would probably be a good thing.
comment by Sömeday_693 - Elneny will be our salvation (U8892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
It'd be wrong for them to do so Ledders, I agree. It's incredibly unlikely that'd happen IMO.
I don't think it's unhealthy for us to have an open discussion about exactly what the Govt should pursue on behalf of the nation during negotiations though.
The public really has a right to have their MP engage with the Government in a debate about what the UK's aims should be, and to know what the Government is actually going to seek for the country.
'Brexit means Brexit' really isn't good enough; it doesn't mean anything at all to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, definitely agree. It would be political suicide for many MPs to vote against article 50 depending on how their constituents voted.
The governments argument that they can't provide details on their plans because it would damage their negotiating position has always seemed weak to me, but in fact I actually feel when it comes down to it that transparency and scrutiny are more important than our perceived negotiating position, and full disclosure and the type of running commentary that has been dismissed out of hand would probably be a good thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, there's no sound basis for the argument about the UK's negotiating position being undermined if the UK population has no idea about what its very few and unrepresentative negotiators are actually trying to achieve.
Name those that British people want to keep over having an agreement such as CETA.
-------
I'll throw this back to you as you seem to have a grasp of CETA.
What would the British people benefit from, that they don't do at the moment if we had a CETA type agreement?
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 13 hours, 33 minutes ago
Name those that British people want to keep over having an agreement such as CETA.
-------
I'll throw this back to you as you seem to have a grasp of CETA.
What would the British people benefit from, that they don't do at the moment if we had a CETA type agreement?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Full control over border controls with free trade.
Sign in if you want to comment
LIVE: Great Britain EU Referendum
Page 387 of 395
388 | 389 | 390 | 391 | 392
posted on 4/11/16
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 12 minutes ago
Would it not then be fair to say a 'soft Brexit' would suit better the people?
-------------
I believe the majority of the people are in the middle for most decisions. However I would like you define what 'soft Brexit' means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaving the EU so we have complete control over lawmaking.
Retaining access to the single market with all that comes with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada has access to the single market. So a trading deal similar to theirs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad; I should've said remaining a part of the single market, not having access to it.
posted on 4/11/16
I am not sure why people fear that a vote for parliament means that the result of the referendum will be over turned. The Scots and the Northern Irish MPs can somewhat justify voting against. The rest have to follow the will of the people or they will face massive disaffection with politics. Even those who voted remain understand this.
posted on 4/11/16
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 12 minutes ago
Would it not then be fair to say a 'soft Brexit' would suit better the people?
-------------
I believe the majority of the people are in the middle for most decisions. However I would like you define what 'soft Brexit' means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaving the EU so we have complete control over lawmaking.
Retaining access to the single market with all that comes with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada has access to the single market. So a trading deal similar to theirs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad; I should've said remaining a part of the single market, not having access to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should Britain give up sovereign rights to be 'part' of a market when they will not be able to influence the change of laws that govern it when they can have full access to it like Canada whilst retaining their sovereign rights?
posted on 4/11/16
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 minute ago
I am not sure why people fear that a vote for parliament means that the result of the referendum will be over turned. The Scots and the Northern Irish MPs can somewhat justify voting against. The rest have to follow the will of the people or they will face massive disaffection with politics. Even those who voted remain understand this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. It won't change the result, when viewed as a binary.
It will mean some very difficult political decisions will have to be made by the Government and by Tory MPs in Remain constituencies (of which there are many).
If the Govt gets into a serious Parliamentary debate about the terms of Brexit, laid out in public view; then follows a course of 'hard' Brexit resulting in a medium term downturn in the economy, visa restrictions, devalued pound, etc., the public will look back at those MPs who supported the Govts line, and vote them out of power.
This is why the Tories didn't want the debate. Without one, under a failing 'hard' Brexit scenario the worst that happens is that those agnostic or Remain Tory MPs just say, "Well, the Govt was just acting on the wishes of the British people," and scapegoat May and her administration.
Now they are going to have to put their heads on the blocks.
posted on 4/11/16
If the Govt gets into a serious Parliamentary debate about the terms of Brexit, laid out in public view; then follows a course of 'hard' Brexit resulting in a medium term downturn in the economy, visa restrictions, devalued pound, etc., the public will look back at those MPs who supported the Govts line, and vote them out of power.
------------------------------------
Actually the reason why they don't want a secondary vote is because they fear that playing politics will undermine the mandate they have been given by the people which leads to a weaker bargaining position in the negotiation. This stupid posturing by the EU is what caused Brexit in the first place. If EU leaders had given Cameron what he wanted we would not be here. Merkel understood this but leaders of the new accession countries did not. As shown by Belgium's climb down over CETA when push comes to shove they back down. I know what you want is freedom of movement of people. I suspect that was dead as soon CETA was signed. We may get some version of softer work permit but that is completely different to what the tenant of EU of freedom of movement of LABOUR has morphed into.
posted on 4/11/16
The Tory whips are going to be busy
posted on 4/11/16
It depends on whether you are talking about the Cabinet, the upper echelons of the Conservative Party or the Tory MPs more widely.
The current members of the cabinet have staked their reputations on making a success of Brexit one way or another, and some of them have very clearly formed views on what a successful Brexit should look like.
The Tory benches, in general, will not be nearly as concerned about the nature of the deal with the EU as they will be about retaining their seats in (prospectively) five years' time. Remember that they backed the Remain campaign on balance, and would probably not be remotely upset about a complete reversal of the events of the last few months.
You are right that I have an interest in freedom of movement; I have travelled freely and widely in Europe, and moved to Portugal this year with no concrete employment opportunity. It's the best thing I've ever done, and I think many people across Europe, particularly of the younger generations, very much appreciate this right.
But really, I'm more concerned about geopolitical stability, and strongly believe that a united, closely integrated Europe is very, very important for all of our futures.
posted on 4/11/16
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 41 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 2 hours, 21 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 12 minutes ago
Would it not then be fair to say a 'soft Brexit' would suit better the people?
-------------
I believe the majority of the people are in the middle for most decisions. However I would like you define what 'soft Brexit' means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leaving the EU so we have complete control over lawmaking.
Retaining access to the single market with all that comes with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada has access to the single market. So a trading deal similar to theirs?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My bad; I should've said remaining a part of the single market, not having access to it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should Britain give up sovereign rights to be 'part' of a market when they will not be able to influence the change of laws that govern it when they can have full access to it like Canada whilst retaining their sovereign rights?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way the EU would allow us similar terms to the Canadians. It would be signing it's own death warrant.
posted on 4/11/16
This will not make brexit softer or harder.
It will simply delay the process
posted on 4/11/16
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way the EU would allow us similar terms to the Canadians. It would be signing it's own death warrant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Has signing the Canadian deal meant its signed its own death warrant?
Whats the difference?
posted on 4/11/16
Jenius, are you able to showcase the particulars of the Canadian deal the EU and compare to what current EU members have?
posted on 4/11/16
I think it is for those who believe that the EU will not accept a deal like CETA for UK to do that Redinthehead. I believe that EU leaders will accept it or they will be faced with a hard brexit which damages the EU far more. And again it is for those who believe that we must accept some form of freedom of movement of people not labour, and so have deal similar to EAFTA to explain the reasons why to convince the British people. In my opinion the return of sovereign controls including those on immigration is a red line for the British people and why Brexit happened in the first place.
posted on 4/11/16
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 35 seconds ago
I think it is for those who believe that the EU will not accept a deal like CETA for UK to do that Redinthehead. I believe that EU leaders will accept it or they will be faced with a hard brexit which damages the EU far more. And again it is for those who believe that we must accept some form of freedom of movement of people not labour, and so have deal similar to EAFTA to explain the reasons why to convince the British people. In my opinion the return of sovereign controls including those on immigration is a red line for the British people and why Brexit happened in the first place.
------------
Long winded way for you to say you can't.
Which means your calls for a deal like Canada have are on shaky ground as you don't know what it would entail for us.
posted on 4/11/16
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 26 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way the EU would allow us similar terms to the Canadians. It would be signing it's own death warrant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Has signing the Canadian deal meant its signed its own death warrant?
Whats the difference?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, Canada is not a European state. If the EU were to offer us a CETA equivalent, there are several other EU countries that would be interested in the same kind of agreement. It'd be the equivalent of giving one child in the class a sweet despite the fact he hasn't done his homework.
Secondly, Canada under CETA does not have the same privileges and rights EU states enjoy as members of the single market.
One final point: the single market *requires* freedom of movement of people to function efficiently. This is not a quid pro quo situation. The first needs the second to be successful.
posted on 4/11/16
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 35 seconds ago
I think it is for those who believe that the EU will not accept a deal like CETA for UK to do that Redinthehead. I believe that EU leaders will accept it or they will be faced with a hard brexit which damages the EU far more. And again it is for those who believe that we must accept some form of freedom of movement of people not labour, and so have deal similar to EAFTA to explain the reasons why to convince the British people. In my opinion the return of sovereign controls including those on immigration is a red line for the British people and why Brexit happened in the first place.
------------
Long winded way for you to say you can't.
Which means your calls for a deal like Canada have are on shaky ground as you don't know what it would entail for us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are you talking about. I can explain that CETA allows free trade. Thats what most British business want. Britain is not a part of the Euro. We are not a part of Schengen. You want me to give those arguing that we will want more than CETA, points to argue with. My answer to that is do that yourself.
I explained before Brexit that the Eurozone is a completely different entity to those outside the currency. And what the Eurozone will morph into is anyones guess.
Brexit has happened. Those who think rerunning the same arguments again and again will somehow change the result have a screw loose. Those did not convince the British people. They will not do so again. If you want a more palatable relationship with the EU, its the EU that have to offer something different.
posted on 4/11/16
Secondly, Canada under CETA does not have the same privileges and rights EU states enjoy as members of the single market.
----------------------------------------------
Name those that British people want to keep over having an agreement such as CETA.
posted on 4/11/16
If the EU were to offer us a CETA equivalent, there are several other EU countries that would be interested in the same kind of agreement.
---------------------
Why is that? Surely all EU countries believe in the EU project as they say in Bussels and Hollande and Merkal? For geo political security and freedom of movement of people? Are you saying what is happening to the EU is not popular?
posted on 4/11/16
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 23 minutes ago
Secondly, Canada under CETA does not have the same privileges and rights EU states enjoy as members of the single market.
----------------------------------------------
Name those that British people want to keep over having an agreement such as CETA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British business, in automotive manufacturing and agriculture (completely excluded form CETA) for example, will want a quota-free agreement. CETA is littered with industry and product-related tariffs. These don't exist in the single market.
If you want to see what access to the single market will mean for the UK, look at Swizerland; Canada is a red herring.
posted on 4/11/16
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 1 hour ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 23 minutes ago
Secondly, Canada under CETA does not have the same privileges and rights EU states enjoy as members of the single market.
----------------------------------------------
Name those that British people want to keep over having an agreement such as CETA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British business, in automotive manufacturing and agriculture (completely excluded form CETA) for example, will want a quota-free agreement. CETA is littered with industry and product-related tariffs. These don't exist in the single market.
If you want to see what access to the single market will mean for the UK, look at Swizerland; Canada is a red herring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it is at all. Every country obviously wants to protect market sectors against Canadian companies undercutting their industry. That is why Ceta is 98% free trade as opposed to 100%. The difference is of course UK companies are already fully integrated in the EU and already operate within those industry sectors. There is no chance of undercutting or any fear of competition. The Swiss model is largely irrelevant because of Ceta and the next even bigger agreement around the corner TTIP.
I understand why you would want EFTA because you want freedom of movement of people. But you have to understand why the British people voted for Brexit. And there is no way the British people will accept it.
This is why it is so difficult for people to understand in the EU. The UK was threatened with all sorts before the referendum and the EU gave nothing to remain camp to sell to the Britsh ppl. As a result Brexit happened. Now you expect the government to sell an agreement like EFTA to the people which means that UK accept all the issues they had with even less power. The British will not accept it. Its like burying your head in the sand in Brussels whilst other countries even France also head for a divorce with the EU. You have to change the relationships to address the problems. CETA gives a chance, a template to build on.
posted on 4/11/16
This was the question on the ballot paper:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
For the latter to happen in ANY guise, article 50 needs to be activated. Which is what this decision is about - ratification.
We elected a government in 2015 which promised a referendum.
They were elected by a first past the post system, which we voted by referendum to keep in 2010.
The public then voted to Leave the EU
On what possible democratic grounds could MPs not vote to trigger article 50?
posted on 4/11/16
It'd be wrong for them to do so Ledders, I agree. It's incredibly unlikely that'd happen IMO.
I don't think it's unhealthy for us to have an open discussion about exactly what the Govt should pursue on behalf of the nation during negotiations though.
The public really has a right to have their MP engage with the Government in a debate about what the UK's aims should be, and to know what the Government is actually going to seek for the country.
'Brexit means Brexit' really isn't good enough; it doesn't mean anything at all to me.
posted on 4/11/16
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
It'd be wrong for them to do so Ledders, I agree. It's incredibly unlikely that'd happen IMO.
I don't think it's unhealthy for us to have an open discussion about exactly what the Govt should pursue on behalf of the nation during negotiations though.
The public really has a right to have their MP engage with the Government in a debate about what the UK's aims should be, and to know what the Government is actually going to seek for the country.
'Brexit means Brexit' really isn't good enough; it doesn't mean anything at all to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, definitely agree. It would be political suicide for many MPs to vote against article 50 depending on how their constituents voted.
The governments argument that they can't provide details on their plans because it would damage their negotiating position has always seemed weak to me, but in fact I actually feel when it comes down to it that transparency and scrutiny are more important than our perceived negotiating position, and full disclosure and the type of running commentary that has been dismissed out of hand would probably be a good thing.
posted on 4/11/16
comment by Sömeday_693 - Elneny will be our salvation (U8892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by rossobianchi - Rock the Pogbah (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
It'd be wrong for them to do so Ledders, I agree. It's incredibly unlikely that'd happen IMO.
I don't think it's unhealthy for us to have an open discussion about exactly what the Govt should pursue on behalf of the nation during negotiations though.
The public really has a right to have their MP engage with the Government in a debate about what the UK's aims should be, and to know what the Government is actually going to seek for the country.
'Brexit means Brexit' really isn't good enough; it doesn't mean anything at all to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, definitely agree. It would be political suicide for many MPs to vote against article 50 depending on how their constituents voted.
The governments argument that they can't provide details on their plans because it would damage their negotiating position has always seemed weak to me, but in fact I actually feel when it comes down to it that transparency and scrutiny are more important than our perceived negotiating position, and full disclosure and the type of running commentary that has been dismissed out of hand would probably be a good thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, there's no sound basis for the argument about the UK's negotiating position being undermined if the UK population has no idea about what its very few and unrepresentative negotiators are actually trying to achieve.
posted on 4/11/16
Name those that British people want to keep over having an agreement such as CETA.
-------
I'll throw this back to you as you seem to have a grasp of CETA.
What would the British people benefit from, that they don't do at the moment if we had a CETA type agreement?
posted on 5/11/16
comment by Redinthehead - FreeGaza - فلسطين (U1860)
posted 13 hours, 33 minutes ago
Name those that British people want to keep over having an agreement such as CETA.
-------
I'll throw this back to you as you seem to have a grasp of CETA.
What would the British people benefit from, that they don't do at the moment if we had a CETA type agreement?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Full control over border controls with free trade.
Page 387 of 395
388 | 389 | 390 | 391 | 392