politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nuttall’s first goal as UKIP leader is winning under first pas
Options
Comments
-
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
If any (more) doping allegations emerge, and if any are proved, the Beeb can't afford reputationally to have associated itself with it.tlg86 said:You would think winning the Tour De France would get you a nomination for SPOTY. But no.
Possibly good news for Trott and Kenny - more cycling votes for them. Well done BBC!0 -
I did Jason Kenny ew a bit back but more in hope than expectation. Think it's Murray or Brownlee and wide open for third.tlg86 said:You would think winning the Tour De France would get you a nomination for SPOTY. But no.
Possibly good news for Trott and Kenny - more cycling votes for them. Well done BBC!
0 -
Yet again I don't get the nod. This sporting elite have it all sown up.0
-
You are not seriously arguing that leaving the EU would result in the UK losing even more sovereignty?TOPPING said:
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.Cyclefree said:
It is right that "we will choose benefit for our country." But the key phrase is "we will choose".TOPPING said:
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.SimonStClare said:
My uTOPPING said:.
The fantasy world is inhabited.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. You really do live in a fantasy world don't you Williamwilliamglenn said:
to leave.Baskerville said: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.
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 .
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".0 -
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.Monksfield said:
The Kenny vote will be split!tlg86 said:BBC clearly setting this up as Murray v the Kennys
0 -
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
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.0
-
That's only if we do the Norway model? Canada doesn't have to accept the EU's regulations without any say so, surely?TOPPING said:@MP_SE
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.0 -
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.RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Why?tlg86 said:Jamie Vardy nominated is a bit odd.
Are the BBC not in danger of arousing suspicion by not nominating him? Some people will jump to conclusions about why the BBC haven't nominated him.TOPPING said:
If any (more) doping allegations emerge, and if any are proved, the Beeb can't afford reputationally to have associated itself with it.tlg86 said:You would think winning the Tour De France would get you a nomination for SPOTY. But no.
Possibly good news for Trott and Kenny - more cycling votes for them. Well done BBC!0 -
That's also true.tlg86 said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Why?tlg86 said:Jamie Vardy nominated is a bit odd.
Are the BBC not in danger of arousing suspicion by not nominating him? Some people will jump to conclusions about why the BBC haven't nominated him.TOPPING said:
If any (more) doping allegations emerge, and if any are proved, the Beeb can't afford reputationally to have associated itself with it.tlg86 said:You would think winning the Tour De France would get you a nomination for SPOTY. But no.
Possibly good news for Trott and Kenny - more cycling votes for them. Well done BBC!0 -
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.
0 -
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
Top bloke! I was beside him at the traffic lights this morning in his BMW i8.tlg86 said:Jamie Vardy nominated is a bit odd.
Quite a remarkable sportsman.0 -
Hope you didn't hit the windscreen too hard!foxinsoxuk said:
Top bloke! I was beside him at the traffic lights this morning in his BMW i8.tlg86 said:Jamie Vardy nominated is a bit odd.
(only kidding!)0 -
Have any learned PBers commented on the Article 127 business?0
-
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.Cyclefree said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
It's a club for the mutual benefit of all its members.RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
Interestingly, with Jess not making the final 16 I reckon that makes her a lock for lifetime achievement.Monksfield said:
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.DavidL said:
Is anybody seriously betting against Andy Murray?tlg86 said:"Shortlist" of 16 for SPOTY about to be revealed on The One Show.
0 -
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.TOPPING said:
It's a club for the mutual benefit of all its members.RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
Um, is it anything like Order 66?RobD said:Have any learned PBers commented on the Article 127 business?
0 -
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.TOPPING said:
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.Cyclefree said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
I beat him from the lights in my Fiat 500. Simple pleasures...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Hope you didn't hit the windscreen too hard!foxinsoxuk said:
Top bloke! I was beside him at the traffic lights this morning in his BMW i8.tlg86 said:Jamie Vardy nominated is a bit odd.
(only kidding!)0 -
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?RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
It's a club for the mutual benefit of all its members.RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
Maybe people will opt to do what they find attractive.TOPPING said:
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.SimonStClare said:
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.TOPPING said:.
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.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. You really do live in a fantasy world don't you Williamwilliamglenn said:
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.Baskerville said: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.
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.
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 .0 -
Yawn.Sean_F said:
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.TOPPING said:
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.Cyclefree said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
All of it? Unlikely. How much sovereignty did Canada give away when signing a trade deal with the EU?TOPPING said:
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?RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
It's a club for the mutual benefit of all its members.RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
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.TOPPING said:
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.Cyclefree said:
It is right that "we will choose benefit for our country." But the key phrase is "we will choose".TOPPING said:SimonStClare said:
[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".
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.
0 -
Try to engage with other peopleTOPPING said:
Yawn.Sean_F said:
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.TOPPING said:
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.Cyclefree said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
Roughly speaking in Brexit, sovereignty means continuing to being subject to EU rules but not playing a part in making them. Awesome.
0 -
I guess it hasn't stopped Murray from winning it in the past, but he won't be at the show.0
-
We're beyond wondering what the direction of travel of the EU is. We're leaving it. Who cares where it's heading.Sean_F said:
Try to engage with other peopleTOPPING said:
Yawn.Sean_F said:
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.TOPPING said:
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.Cyclefree said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
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.TOPPING said:
We're beyond wondering what the direction of travel of the EU is. We're leaving it. Who cares where it's heading.Sean_F said:
Try to engage with other peopleTOPPING said:
Yawn.Sean_F said:
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.TOPPING said:
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.Cyclefree said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.0 -
Remaining means that for international bodies like the WTO where we lost our seat. Brexit means sitting at the top table once more in our own right.Jonathan said:Roughly speaking in Brexit, sovereignty means continuing to being subject to EU rules but not playing a part in making them. Awesome.
0 -
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.TOPPING said:
Speculation. Neither you nor Michael Gove nor I has any idea.Cyclefree said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.RobD said:
Implying that every British government agreed with every bit of political integration. With QMV that just isn't the case.TOPPING said:
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.
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".
0 -
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.Jonathan said:Roughly speaking in Brexit, sovereignty means continuing to being subject to EU rules but not playing a part in making them. Awesome.
0 -
-
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.foxinsoxuk said:
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.Cyclefree said:
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.DavidL said: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.
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 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 ...0 -
All treaties are, to some extent, denuding of sovereignty, because they bind the hands of future governments.SimonStClare said: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.
0 -
and those 166 UN Member States between them have approximately:Sunil_Prasannan said:
92% of the worlds people (and growing)
85% of the worlds GDP (and growing)0 -
Sadly, very few of them are genuinely free traders.BigRich said:
and those 166 UN Member States between them have approximately:Sunil_Prasannan said:
92% of the worlds people (and growing)
85% of the worlds GDP (and growing)0 -
Someone tell Betfair CNN has Called Michigan for Trump0
-
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).Cyclefree said:
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.TOPPING said:
ThisCyclefree said:
[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".
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.
It is the outcome that matters especially to those who may suffer on account of those decisions (pity the poor patent agents).0 -
Opening our markets to those countries is not likely to relieve the voters of Leaverstan from the ills of globalisation.rcs1000 said:
Sadly, very few of them are genuinely free traders.BigRich said:
and those 166 UN Member States between them have approximately:Sunil_Prasannan said:
92% of the worlds people (and growing)
85% of the worlds GDP (and growing)0 -
No they don't. Any future can abrogate a treaty.rcs1000 said:
All treaties are, to some extent, denuding of sovereignty, because they bind the hands of future governments.SimonStClare said: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.
0 -
In my experience the words "patent agents" and "poor" are generally separated with a "not".TOPPING said:
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).Cyclefree said:TOPPING said:Cyclefree said:
It is the outcome that matters especially to those who may suffer on account of those decisions (pity the poor patent agents).0 -
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.Pulpstar said:Someone tell Betfair CNN has Called Michigan for Trump
0 -
DavidL said:
In my experience the words "patent agents" and "poor" are generally separated with a "not".TOPPING said:
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).Cyclefree said:TOPPING said:Cyclefree said:
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.
0 -
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.SimonStClare said: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.
0 -
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.Cyclefree said: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".
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.0 -
Indeed....DavidL said:
In my experience the words "patent agents" and "poor" are generally separated with a "not".TOPPING said:
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).Cyclefree said:TOPPING said:Cyclefree said:
It is the outcome that matters especially to those who may suffer on account of those decisions (pity the poor patent agents).0 -
just paid out to my account :-)Pulpstar said:Someone tell Betfair CNN has Called Michigan for Trump
0 -
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.TOPPING said:
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".0 -
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.FF43 said:
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.SimonStClare said: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.
0 -
A bit of self-parody never does any harm.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. You really do live in a fantasy world don't you Williamwilliamglenn said:
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.Baskerville said: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.
I'd be interested in your view on the Article 127 challenge. Presumably this is exactly what you'd like to see succeeding?0 -
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.TOPPING said:<
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).0 -
New Thread0
-
Yes. But I will answer more fully on the next thread which has just popped up.williamglenn said:
A bit of self-parody never does any harm.Richard_Tyndall said:
LOL. You really do live in a fantasy world don't you Williamwilliamglenn said:
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.Baskerville said: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.
I'd be interested in your view on the Article 127 challenge. Presumably this is exactly what you'd like to see succeeding?0
This discussion has been closed.