This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
We will keep working on the things that are in the mutual interest and hope that grown up negotiations will allow them to continue after Brexit.
to leave.
LOL. You really do live in a fantasy world don't you William
The fantasy world is inhabited.
My u
It looks a ripe candidate for a fudge. A sensible one because it would be ridiculous for us to ratify pour les autres, and then absent ourselves afterwards.
What I think many especially PB Leavers fail to grasp is that although attractive, the concept of reclaiming control and sovereignty is, in today's world, just that, a concept, an abstract wish. When such concepts hit real world practicalities and actual decisions involving the benefit or harm to our country, it appears from this decision, that we will choose benefit for our country. And rightly so, in my opinion.
All the PB Brexit Don Quixotes can tilt as much as they want but the windmill ends up being a pretty sturdy beast.
To absent ourselves once we've left the EU from this seems for all the world that it would mean a confused and costly patent regime in the UK. But of course that is a question for @SouthamObserver .
It is right that "we will choose benefit for our country." But the key phrase is "we will choose".
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Even the immigration thing we chose, because we thought that it would benefit our country to sign up to that particular clause. Now of course, there are arguments and discussions about what high levels of immigration have done, and to whom. And that's fine.
But the sovereignty thing is a fantasy. The first trade deal we do in our brave new world will necessarily give up some degree of sovereignty. Because that's what deals are all about.
So you saying "but we will choose" is trivial because of course we will choose, we always have chosen (some things at the tactical, others at the strategic level). So here, it seems that "we will choose" to have the ECJ rule over us on patents. Just as it would have done if we had remained a member of the EU.
Your "we will choose" might be (almost certainly is) @Tyndall's "oppressive yoke of EU unelected judges".
You are not seriously arguing that leaving the EU would result in the UK losing even more sovereignty?
BBC clearly setting this up as Murray v the Kennys
The Kenny vote will be split!
On this subject, I wish the BBC would lay off a bit from viewing eerything Jason Kenny does through the lens of Laura Trott and vice versa. I grant you, it's interesting that the two of them are married, but give them a bit of space. There cant be many other couples under so much pressure to publicly and repeatedly declare the wonders of their relationship. The Olympics are interesting enough on their own; there's no need to try to turn them into a soap.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
So you concede we did not chose everything, rather some were imposed on us against our wishes? And as for Cameron's deal.. it was indeed a dud.
Sovereignty is not relinquished imho, when two independent countries enter into a trade agreement. Sovereignty has been lost however, when a majority of 27 other countries can decide for you.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
So you concede we did not chose everything, rather some were imposed on us against our wishes? And as for Cameron's deal.. it was indeed a dud.
We signed up to the club, and then the club said that every Thursday we had to wear our jackets turned inside out and a purple tie and we said hang on, we don't want to do that and here's our new agreement and they said ok you don't have to do that and then we said no actually it's ok we don't like being told what jacket to wear even though you've agreed we don't actually have to wear it, so we're leaving.
He broke the record for scoring goals in consecutive games in 2015. I suppose it's recognition for his contribution to a title winning season. Leicester are 1/4 to win the team award.
He broke the record for scoring goals in consecutive games in 2015. I suppose it's recognition for his contribution to a title winning season. Leicester are 1/4 to win the team award.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
So you concede we did not chose everything, rather some were imposed on us against our wishes? And as for Cameron's deal.. it was indeed a dud.
We signed up to the club, and then the club said that every Thursday we had to wear our jackets turned inside out and a purple tie and we said hang on, we don't want to do that and here's our new agreement and they said ok you don't have to do that and then we said no actually it's ok we don't like being told what jacket to wear even though you've agreed we don't actually have to wear it, so we're leaving.
If that was the case, every decision we disagreed with would have been reversed? In fact, all that Cameron got was a "promise" of no further integration.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
So you concede we did not chose everything, rather some were imposed on us against our wishes? And as for Cameron's deal.. it was indeed a dud.
We signed up to the club, and then the club said that every Thursday we had to wear our jackets turned inside out and a purple tie and we said hang on, we don't want to do that and here's our new agreement and they said ok you don't have to do that and then we said no actually it's ok we don't like being told what jacket to wear even though you've agreed we don't actually have to wear it, so we're leaving.
If that was the case, every decision we disagreed with would have been reversed? In fact, all that Cameron got was a "promise" of no further integration.
It's a club for the mutual benefit of all its members.
"Shortlist" of 16 for SPOTY about to be revealed on The One Show.
Is anybody seriously betting against Andy Murray?
It's never been an award that gets won multiple times though. IMHO he shouldn't have won it last year as Davis Cup apart he had a fairly moderate year by his standards. I thought Jess Ennis deserved it last year, it's a bit of a travesty that Zara apart, no woman has won since 2002.
Interestingly, with Jess not making the final 16 I reckon that makes her a lock for lifetime achievement.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
So you concede we did not chose everything, rather some were imposed on us against our wishes? And as for Cameron's deal.. it was indeed a dud.
We signed up to the club, and then the club said that every Thursday we had to wear our jackets turned inside out and a purple tie and we said hang on, we don't want to do that and here's our new agreement and they said ok you don't have to do that and then we said no actually it's ok we don't like being told what jacket to wear even though you've agreed we don't actually have to wear it, so we're leaving.
If that was the case, every decision we disagreed with would have been reversed? In fact, all that Cameron got was a "promise" of no further integration.
It's a club for the mutual benefit of all its members.
Yes, but we did not chose all the rules, as your earlier post implied we did. Thats the lost sovereignty we would regain by leaving. Whether or not we enter in to trade deals or whatever will then be up to us, not a qualified majority of EU members.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.
Being part of the EU is pretty much a one way direction of travel. EU laws cover much more than product regulation and their scope endlessly expands.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
So you concede we did not chose everything, rather some were imposed on us against our wishes? And as for Cameron's deal.. it was indeed a dud.
We signed up to the club, and then the club said that every Thursday we had to wear our jackets turned inside out and a purple tie and we said hang on, we don't want to do that and here's our new agreement and they said ok you don't have to do that and then we said no actually it's ok we don't like being told what jacket to wear even though you've agreed we don't actually have to wear it, so we're leaving.
If that was the case, every decision we disagreed with would have been reversed? In fact, all that Cameron got was a "promise" of no further integration.
It's a club for the mutual benefit of all its members.
Yes, but we did not chose all the rules, as your earlier post implied we did. Thats the lost sovereignty we would regain by leaving. Whether or not we enter in to trade deals or whatever will then be up to us, not a qualified majority of EU members.
And will give away again in our first trade deal. I mean you do realise that a trade deal involves a compromise between competing demands of more than one party. Don't you?
We will keep working on the things that are in the mutual interest and hope that grown up negotiations will allow them to continue after Brexit.
Absolutely correct, except that the grown up negotiations that we're hoping for will be conducted with the Brexiteers rather than the European Union, until out of fatigue they give up and realise that it doesn't make sense to leave.
LOL. You really do live in a fantasy world don't you William
The fantasy world is inhabited entirely by Leavers. Here we seem to have a bolted on example of us "giving up sovereignty" because the people negotiating and deciding are not morons. Thank goodness.
My understanding is that the UPC Agreement involves the 25 EU countries who initially drafted it, all must agree to ratify, including the UK, or the agreement which has taken 2 years to get to this stage, will be scrapped. It would appear the Government is being quite grown up imho in allowing the agreement to proceed for the sake of the other 24 countries.
However, the UPC Agreement is not open to states outside of the EU. If the post Brexit negotiations allow non-member states to be covered by the UPC, then that will be our decision to remain, if no agreement can be made, then we'lll be out of the UPC automatically.
It looks a ripe candidate for a fudge. A sensible one because it would be ridiculous for us to ratify pour les autres, and then absent ourselves afterwards.
What I think many especially PB Leavers fail to grasp is that although attractive, the concept of reclaiming control and sovereignty is, in today's world, just that, a concept, an abstract wish. When such concepts hit real world practicalities and actual decisions involving the benefit or harm to our country, it appears from this decision, that we will choose benefit for our country. And rightly so, in my opinion.
All the PB Brexit Don Quixotes can tilt as much as they want but the windmill ends up being a pretty sturdy beast.
To absent ourselves once we've left the EU from this seems for all the world that it would mean a confused and costly patent regime in the UK. But of course that is a question for @SouthamObserver .
Maybe people will opt to do what they find attractive.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.
Being part of the EU is pretty much a one way direction of travel. EU laws cover much more than product regulation and their scope endlessly expands.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
So you concede we did not chose everything, rather some were imposed on us against our wishes? And as for Cameron's deal.. it was indeed a dud.
We signed up to the club, and then the club said that every Thursday we had to wear our jackets turned inside out and a purple tie and we said hang on, we don't want to do that and here's our new agreement and they said ok you don't have to do that and then we said no actually it's ok we don't like being told what jacket to wear even though you've agreed we don't actually have to wear it, so we're leaving.
If that was the case, every decision we disagreed with would have been reversed? In fact, all that Cameron got was a "promise" of no further integration.
It's a club for the mutual benefit of all its members.
Yes, but we did not chose all the rules, as your earlier post implied we did. Thats the lost sovereignty we would regain by leaving. Whether or not we enter in to trade deals or whatever will then be up to us, not a qualified majority of EU members.
And will give away again in our first trade deal. I mean you do realise that a trade deal involves a compromise between competing demands of more than one party. Don't you?
All of it? Unlikely. How much sovereignty did Canada give away when signing a trade deal with the EU?
It is right that "we will choose benefit for our country." But the key phrase is "we will choose".
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
[Snipped]
So you saying "but we will choose" is trivial because of course we will choose, we always have chosen (some things at the tactical, others at the strategic level). So here, it seems that "we will choose" to have the ECJ rule over us on patents. Just as it would have done if we had remained a member of the EU.
Your "we will choose" might be (almost certainly is) @Tyndall's "oppressive yoke of EU unelected judges".
I do not think that "we will choose" is trivial. Quite the contrary. You can end up in the same position but how you got there can be important. There is a world of difference between agreeing to something as a country through your Parliament and being forced to do something because others have outvoted you as a result of a previous decision to vote for a treaty which contained such a provision.
You may well have voted for that treaty but not because of that provision but because of other provisions which weighed more heavily in the balance.
Now all agreements are a mixture of things you really want, stuff you like, stuff you don't really care about and some stuff you hate but have to put up with.
The trouble with the EU is that it arrogated more and more power to itself to impose decisions on us in circumstances where there was no practical chance of us ever not being outvoted. To say that "we chose" in those circumstances is a fantasy.
And the effect of this - and the concern for the future - was that it would result in more and more decisions being made where the balance between stuff we want and stuff we really hated would tilt, as far as the UK was concerned, in favour of the latter rather than the former.
In short, how a decision is made is - to some - at least as important as the decision itself. Process - in a democracy - is critical. The process of democracy matters if democracy itself is to be kept alive. The Lisbon Treaty, in particular, with its passerelle clause really offended against this principle.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.
Being part of the EU is pretty much a one way direction of travel. EU laws cover much more than product regulation and their scope endlessly expands.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.
Being part of the EU is pretty much a one way direction of travel. EU laws cover much more than product regulation and their scope endlessly expands.
Yawn.
Try to engage with other people
We're beyond wondering what the direction of travel of the EU is. We're leaving it. Who cares where it's heading.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.
Being part of the EU is pretty much a one way direction of travel. EU laws cover much more than product regulation and their scope endlessly expands.
Yawn.
Try to engage with other people
We're beyond wondering what the direction of travel of the EU is. We're leaving it. Who cares where it's heading.
Everyone who wants to continue the debate ad nauseum as to whether it's a good or bad idea to leave should care. If we continue to be enmeshed in the Single Market then everyone should care to the extent it affects us.
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.
It's all part of it. Plus we opted out, explicitly, from ever closer union/political integration. But that was Dave's dud deal, of course, and is moot.
The opt out from ever closer union/political integration was far far less than it seemed - as we discussed ad nauseam on here at the time - and would not have survived legal challenge or the rulings of the ECJ.
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.
Actually, I do have rather more idea of this, having been involved - when I worked in the Government Legal Service - on the Single European Act. And having forgotten more about many EU Directives than many other people know about any one of them. I deal with EU law every day in my working life. I don't claim to be an expert. But having started out pretty keen on the Common Market I have become progressively less starry eyed about how EU law and EU institutions work in practice. Long experience, I'm afraid. A good teacher.
And those were some of the reasons that led me to the conclusion that what was written in the "deal" about this did not give us an opt out from political integration or ever closer union and would not have done unless it were in a treaty. It was simply a form of words which looked good and which, effectively, said: "you'll have to trust us not to do anything too brazen which will get people too excited and by the time they notice it'll be a done deal anyway".
Roughly speaking in Brexit, sovereignty means continuing to being subject to EU rules but not playing a part in making them. Awesome.
That really is nonsense. Our exporters will have to comply with EU regulations when exporting to the continent but in exactly the same way as they currently have to comply with US regulations to export there, or Chinese regulations...etc. What regulations we impose in our own country will be a matter for us. It is quite possible, indeed likely, that EU regulations will be quite persuasive. It would be desirable to have the same standards where those standards are acceptable to us. But it will be our choice. That is important. It really is.
I wonder who had the really fun job of explaining to Corbyn that he really couldn't go to his hero's funeral? Bet that was a short straw job.
You have all the proof you need that the NHS is such a religion to some on the Left, when the fact that a country has an apparently OK health service is seen as sufficient to excuse the fact that the country is a poor one run by a dictator where all forms of human rights are simply ignored, anyone protesting is locked up, killed or tortured and many thousands of its people want to flee.
It reminds me of the old joke about Communism: A visitor to the Soviet Union is told that the revolution is a bit like an omelette. To get it you have to break some eggs. The visitor listens carefully then replies: "I understand. I see the broken eggs. But where is the omelette?"
When you're in the grip of an ideology - whether Communism or ISIS or Catholicism during the time of the Inquisition - there is no limit to the amount of murder, torture, vileness and other evil you will justify so long as it is done in the name of your ideology or to achieve your ideological goals. Such people often claim to be principled but in reality they are the most unprincipled of all.
The supposedly wonderful Cuban Health System is unsurprisingly largely a myth. Modern pharmaceuticals are in short supply, sometimes even staples like antibiotics and asprin. Cuba sends doctors abroad, but mostly in search of Forex. The ones that I have met in africa were rather patchy in thei skills to put it politely. Cuba has good adult longevity, but mostly because of restricted diet and lots of exercise due to fuel shortages. The Cuban diet is rather like 1940s Britain, healthy but rather spartan.
A couple of years ago a female acquaintance of mine went on a cycle tour of Cuba. She's in her fifties. She went a few days earlier than the rest of the group. The waiter in her hotel chatted her up. She went onto the promenade, and another man chatted her up. Everywhere she went, she was chatted up by men. The reason? Someone at the hotel let people know that she was single and travelling under a Canadian passport.
The highlight. she says, was in another hotel where a woman tried chatting her up ...
It actually made her feel very unsafe, and she was happy when she joined the group.
Sovereignty is not relinquished imho, when two independent countries enter into a trade agreement. Sovereignty has been lost however, when a majority of 27 other countries can decide for you.
All treaties are, to some extent, denuding of sovereignty, because they bind the hands of future governments.
So you saying "but we will choose" is trivial because of course we will choose, we always have chosen (some things at the tactical, others at the strategic level). So here, it seems that "we will choose" to have the ECJ rule over us on patents. Just as it would have done if we had remained a member of the EU.
Your "we will choose" might be (almost certainly is) @Tyndall's "oppressive yoke of EU unelected judges".
I do not think that "we will choose" is trivial. Quite the contrary. You can end up in the same position but how you got there can be important. There is a world of difference between agreeing to something as a country through your Parliament and being forced to do something because others have outvoted you as a result of a previous decision to vote for a treaty which contained such a provision.
You may well have voted for that treaty but not because of that provision but because of other provisions which weighed more heavily in the balance.
Now all agreements are a mixture of things you really want, stuff you like, stuff you don't really care about and some stuff you hate but have to put up with.
The trouble with the EU is that it arrogated more and more power to itself to impose decisions on us in circumstances where there was no practical chance of us ever not being outvoted. To say that "we chose" in those circumstances is a fantasy.
And the effect of this - and the concern for the future - was that it would result in more and more decisions being made where the balance between stuff we want and stuff we really hated would tilt, as far as the UK was concerned, in favour of the latter rather than the former.
In short, how a decision is made is - to some - at least as important as the decision itself. Process - in a democracy - is critical. The process of democracy matters if democracy itself is to be kept alive. The Lisbon Treaty, in particular, with its passerelle clause really offended against this principle.
And hence Dave got his deal. But then we chose to Leave and lo and behold we are voluntarily placing ourselves back under the EU jurisdiction. Like we voluntarily chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty (oh of course you thought it was an outrage).
It is the outcome that matters especially to those who may suffer on account of those decisions (pity the poor patent agents).
Sovereignty is not relinquished imho, when two independent countries enter into a trade agreement. Sovereignty has been lost however, when a majority of 27 other countries can decide for you.
All treaties are, to some extent, denuding of sovereignty, because they bind the hands of future governments.
And hence Dave got his deal. But then we chose to Leave and lo and behold we are voluntarily placing ourselves back under the EU jurisdiction. Like we voluntarily chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty (oh of course you thought it was an outrage).
It is the outcome that matters especially to those who may suffer on account of those decisions (pity the poor patent agents).
In my experience the words "patent agents" and "poor" are generally separated with a "not".
Someone tell Betfair CNN has Called Michigan for Trump
If the average African country conducted its elections like this they would be subject to pretty severe criticism by international observers etc. One trusts the American participants restrain themselves out of sheer embarrassment.
And hence Dave got his deal. But then we chose to Leave and lo and behold we are voluntarily placing ourselves back under the EU jurisdiction. Like we voluntarily chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty (oh of course you thought it was an outrage).
It is the outcome that matters especially to those who may suffer on account of those decisions (pity the poor patent agents).
In my experience the words "patent agents" and "poor" are generally separated with a "not".
Pity the poor start-ups, being hammered by patent trolls.
Sovereignty is not relinquished imho, when two independent countries enter into a trade agreement. Sovereignty has been lost however, when a majority of 27 other countries can decide for you.
Pooled sovereignty is when you agree to be bound by a common set of rules and obligations because you believe it to be in your own interest, it's in the interest of the wider community and because you expect to influence those rules. You may decide the benefits don't outweigh the constraints and leave the organisation. Nevertheless the same principle of pooled sovereignty applies to any international or supranational organisation, whether the EU, NATO, the UN or the United Kingdom.
And those were some of the reasons that led me to the conclusion that what was written in the "deal" about this did not give us an opt out from political integration or ever closer union and would not have done unless it were in a treaty. It was simply a form of words which looked good and which, effectively, said: "you'll have to trust us not to do anything too brazen which will get people too excited and by the time they notice it'll be a done deal anyway".
Your cynicism about the 'opt out' is misplaced given that it literally promised nothing new. The line - "On sovereignty, the proposed Decision of the Heads recognises that in light of the United Kingdom's special situation under the Treaties, it is not committed to further political integration." - is just an interpretation of the current treaties as they stand. This does not make any new implicit promise that could be broken.
Even if new developments were to happen within the current framework, that would not technically be 'further political integration' but merely a fuller expression of the current level of integration as laid down in the treaties.
And hence Dave got his deal. But then we chose to Leave and lo and behold we are voluntarily placing ourselves back under the EU jurisdiction. Like we voluntarily chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty (oh of course you thought it was an outrage).
It is the outcome that matters especially to those who may suffer on account of those decisions (pity the poor patent agents).
In my experience the words "patent agents" and "poor" are generally separated with a "not".
This is part of the fantasy. We chose to become a member of the EU and successive democratically-elected governments chose to integrate more closely. We were always sovereign as was magnificently proven on June 23rd.
Even the immigration thing we chose, because we thought that it would benefit our country to sign up to that particular clause. Now of course, there are arguments and discussions about what high levels of immigration have done, and to whom. And that's fine.
But the sovereignty thing is a fantasy. The first trade deal we do in our brave new world will necessarily give up some degree of sovereignty. Because that's what deals are all about.
So you saying "but we will choose" is trivial because of course we will choose, we always have chosen (some things at the tactical, others at the strategic level). So here, it seems that "we will choose" to have the ECJ rule over us on patents. Just as it would have done if we had remained a member of the EU.
Your "we will choose" might be (almost certainly is) @Tyndall's "oppressive yoke of EU unelected judges".
Nope it really isn't. As I have pointed out many times before there are many countries trading with the EU who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ any more than they are subject to the jurisdiction of US judges. Meeting a set of trading standards is not the same as being subject to a court no matter how much EU fanatics like yourself might try to muddy the waters. Even membership of the EEA via EFTA does not put us under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Sovereignty is not relinquished imho, when two independent countries enter into a trade agreement. Sovereignty has been lost however, when a majority of 27 other countries can decide for you.
Pooled sovereignty is when you agree to be bound by a common set of rules and obligations because you believe it to be in your own interest, it's in the interest of the wider community and because you expect to influence those rules. You may decide the benefits don't outweigh the constraints and leave the organisation. Nevertheless the same principle of pooled sovereignty applies to any international or supranational organisation, whether the EU, NATO, the UN or the United Kingdom.
Two of those constrain sovereignty and two do not. Membership of both the EU and the UK involve surrender of sovereignty as understood by the treaties of Westphalia. Membership of the UN and NATO do not.
We will keep working on the things that are in the mutual interest and hope that grown up negotiations will allow them to continue after Brexit.
Absolutely correct, except that the grown up negotiations that we're hoping for will be conducted with the Brexiteers rather than the European Union, until out of fatigue they give up and realise that it doesn't make sense to leave.
LOL. You really do live in a fantasy world don't you William
A bit of self-parody never does any harm.
I'd be interested in your view on the Article 127 challenge. Presumably this is exactly what you'd like to see succeeding?
And hence Dave got his deal. But then we chose to Leave and lo and behold we are voluntarily placing ourselves back under the EU jurisdiction. Like we voluntarily chose to sign the Lisbon Treaty (oh of course you thought it was an outrage).
It is the outcome that matters especially to those who may suffer on account of those decisions (pity the poor patent agents).
No we are not. We remain under EU jurisdiction as long as we remain members. Once we leave the EU we are no longer allowed to be a member of the patent organisation as it is currently defined. Either the way it is organised will change or we will leave - not because we necessarily want to but because we will be in breach of the basic terms of membership as it is currently constrained.
We will keep working on the things that are in the mutual interest and hope that grown up negotiations will allow them to continue after Brexit.
Absolutely correct, except that the grown up negotiations that we're hoping for will be conducted with the Brexiteers rather than the European Union, until out of fatigue they give up and realise that it doesn't make sense to leave.
LOL. You really do live in a fantasy world don't you William
A bit of self-parody never does any harm.
I'd be interested in your view on the Article 127 challenge. Presumably this is exactly what you'd like to see succeeding?
Yes. But I will answer more fully on the next thread which has just popped up.
Comments
You are not seriously arguing that leaving the EU would result in the UK losing even more sovereignty?
Well the rules (for trade with the EU) will be made without our input so yes in that respect, I suppose I am saying that.
Quite a remarkable sportsman.
(only kidding!)
You may well have voted for that treaty but not because of that provision but because of other provisions which weighed more heavily in the balance.
Now all agreements are a mixture of things you really want, stuff you like, stuff you don't really care about and some stuff you hate but have to put up with.
The trouble with the EU is that it arrogated more and more power to itself to impose decisions on us in circumstances where there was no practical chance of us ever not being outvoted. To say that "we chose" in those circumstances is a fantasy.
And the effect of this - and the concern for the future - was that it would result in more and more decisions being made where the balance between stuff we want and stuff we really hated would tilt, as far as the UK was concerned, in favour of the latter rather than the former.
In short, how a decision is made is - to some - at least as important as the decision itself. Process - in a democracy - is critical. The process of democracy matters if democracy itself is to be kept alive. The Lisbon Treaty, in particular, with its passerelle clause really offended against this principle.
And those were some of the reasons that led me to the conclusion that what was written in the "deal" about this did not give us an opt out from political integration or ever closer union and would not have done unless it were in a treaty. It was simply a form of words which looked good and which, effectively, said: "you'll have to trust us not to do anything too brazen which will get people too excited and by the time they notice it'll be a done deal anyway".
The highlight. she says, was in another hotel where a woman tried chatting her up ...
It actually made her feel very unsafe, and she was happy when she joined the group.
I guess everyone wanted to leave ...
92% of the worlds people (and growing)
85% of the worlds GDP (and growing)
It is the outcome that matters especially to those who may suffer on account of those decisions (pity the poor patent agents).
Pity the poor start-ups, being hammered by patent trolls.
Even if new developments were to happen within the current framework, that would not technically be 'further political integration' but merely a fuller expression of the current level of integration as laid down in the treaties.
I'd be interested in your view on the Article 127 challenge. Presumably this is exactly what you'd like to see succeeding?