Donald Trump concedes, after a fashion – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
He's right, he would win an election if he rigged it. Free elections on the other hand...Gary_Burton said:4 -
I'd rather sign an extension to the transition period than have that choice. I also think it's clear the EU won't change their LPF stance to two extra years in transition helps us a lot more than it helps them as we have the time to figure out customs and importation procedures for food and other perishable goods as well as supply chain logistics for large companies to have uninterrupted supply of semi-manufactured goods.Philip_Thompson said:
It is.MaxPB said:
If food supply security comes at a cost of people or other types of smuggling that's a pretty high cost.Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Forced choice though would you pay that price or not?
If it comes to it then food security is more important than security theatre.
A two year delay to implementation of customs checks to EU goods is all gain for us at the cost of £18bn (two more years of net contributions). There's no way the government will be ready for it.0 -
Advert free, plus music subscription (my subscription was originally a Google Play music subscription not a YouTube one, it got transferred over at no extra cost).DecrepiterJohnL said:
What does Youtube Premium buy you (besides the £90 in free stuff)? Is it just advert-free?Philip_Thompson said:
Is that offer still available? I am a premium subscriber but didn't know about that offer.RochdalePioneers said:Excellent. My free Google Stadia Premier Edition pack has arrived. "Dear YouTube Premium subscriber" said the email. "Would you like a £90 Stadia controller and Chromecast Ultra for free?" it asked. Yes! Yes I would.
I've not got the free stuff so would be nice to do so if it is still possible.0 -
They could return empty without any cargo and bypass French customs.ManchesterKurt said:
We cannot wave the lorries through in the other direction, they cannot return with that second load of tomatoes from Spain if they are still stuck in Kent heading back from the earlier journey.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
It wouldn't be very good for transport costs, environment or our exports, but quite possible.0 -
Oh yes, like being a tax haven for criminals.kinabalu said:
Exactly what I'm driving at. If we do not use our "freedom" to do some serious things that would have been verboten as EU members, Brexit has been (being kind) a monumental waste of time and energy.williamglenn said:
But it always was our choice, so the only valid reason to leave based on this argument would be a pressing and urgent need to diverge. Unless there is one, then we shouldn't have left.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.2 -
Well we have never managed to stop smuggling.dixiedean said:
Indeed. We were managing to do both just about fine before this damn foolish plan.alex_ said:
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?
But either way the decision was made to leave.
After we have left we will manage to do both (as well as we ever did) again, all we are talking about is a potential disruption.1 -
TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR BORDERS !!!
Just wave 'em through...0 -
BTW, more fun and games at Felixstowe.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54908129
Basically the fat´s in the fire now. The crisis is already under way.
"Scrooge Christmas in sight as Covid stops toys... blah... blah... blah... etc. etc."
Unless Johnson acts this week, he is going to feel Sunak´s hot breath on his neck within a few weeks (hat tip D. Cummings´ trouble making games).0 -
But they'd still have to get through a gridlocked Kent caused by lack of preparation for handling reimposed import procedures for all those lorries still trying to export to the EU.Foxy said:
They could return empty without any cargo and bypass French customs.ManchesterKurt said:
We cannot wave the lorries through in the other direction, they cannot return with that second load of tomatoes from Spain if they are still stuck in Kent heading back from the earlier journey.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
It wouldn't be very good for transport costs, environment or our exports, but quite possible.0 -
We have obviously stopped huge amounts of smuggling. Both through stuff which has been physically stopped, and that which was never attempted in the first place because of the controls in place to prevent it.Philip_Thompson said:
Well we have never managed to stop smuggling.dixiedean said:
Indeed. We were managing to do both just about fine before this damn foolish plan.alex_ said:
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?
But either way the decision was made to leave.
After we have left we will manage to do both (as well as we ever did) again, all we are talking about is a potential disruption.
Nobody makes the claim that all smuggling is prevented but that is a nonsense point to argue.0 -
Why should the EU compromise any further? On anything? This (expletive deleted) mess was OUR IDEA, remember.Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm advocating no extension and the EU compromises and gives us what they want. If they don't then no deal and we face the consequences of that.alex_ said:
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?
I expect a few weeks of disruption. If the consequences are smuggling for a few weeks as people adapt or lack of food for a few weeks then that's an easy choice for me. Food is more important to secure than preventing a bit of smuggling for a few weeks.
I reckon that in continuing to negotiate they're being more than reasonable. They'd be far better off ensuring a ferry service between somewhere in N France and Cork and/or Dún Laoghaire to keep RoI our of the brown stuff!
And being a bit creative with motor parts.0 -
Also, we have already left. Everything else is now about the development of the future relationship.Philip_Thompson said:
Well we have never managed to stop smuggling.dixiedean said:
Indeed. We were managing to do both just about fine before this damn foolish plan.alex_ said:
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?
But either way the decision was made to leave.
After we have left we will manage to do both (as well as we ever did) again, all we are talking about is a potential disruption.0 -
"Part of the problem is a shipment of 11,000 containers of PPE ordered by the government that is clogging up the port."Cicero said:BTW, more fun and games at Felixstowe.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54908129
Basically the fat´s in the fire now. The crisis is already under way.
"Scrooge Christmas in sight as Covid stops toys... blah... blah... blah... etc. etc."
Unless Johnson acts this week, he is going to feel Sunak´s hot breath on his neck within a few weeks (hat tip D. Cummings´ trouble making games).
Bloody Brexit..0 -
Philip reminds me of the little pool of mercury I used to have on the pen holder line of my wooden desk at school.kinabalu said:
You're back to square one - asserting that even though EU membership did not compromise our sovereignty we have left in order to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.
I'd spend hours pressing it into tiny pieces for it to join up again.0 -
F1: 2021 markets up (Constructors has been up for a little while).
There's 1.4 on Hamilton and no each way option, which is a bit rubbish so far from the season start.0 -
Yes, the traffic might still be a problem.rpjs said:
But they'd still have to get through a gridlocked Kent caused by lack of preparation for handling reimposed import procedures for all those lorries still trying to export to the EU.Foxy said:
They could return empty without any cargo and bypass French customs.ManchesterKurt said:
We cannot wave the lorries through in the other direction, they cannot return with that second load of tomatoes from Spain if they are still stuck in Kent heading back from the earlier journey.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
It wouldn't be very good for transport costs, environment or our exports, but quite possible.0 -
Just a thought.... What is the difference between "people trafickers" and "slave dealers"?0
-
You are the lone voice that increasingly sounds like the Comical Ali of Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.0 -
Like the Spotify Premium "have a Nest Mini on us" offer I think it was blink and you miss it (I missed it). It popped up on my YouTube account late on Thursday night. I accepted it and completed the redemption link there and then. On Friday morning I read about how it had already sold out in various markets...Philip_Thompson said:
Is that offer still available? I am a premium subscriber but didn't know about that offer.RochdalePioneers said:Excellent. My free Google Stadia Premier Edition pack has arrived. "Dear YouTube Premium subscriber" said the email. "Would you like a £90 Stadia controller and Chromecast Ultra for free?" it asked. Yes! Yes I would.
1 -
The Irish are not stupid. They've been massively rejigging their ferries.OldKingCole said:
Why should the EU compromise any further? On anything? This (expletive deleted) mess was OUR IDEA, remember.Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm advocating no extension and the EU compromises and gives us what they want. If they don't then no deal and we face the consequences of that.alex_ said:
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?
I expect a few weeks of disruption. If the consequences are smuggling for a few weeks as people adapt or lack of food for a few weeks then that's an easy choice for me. Food is more important to secure than preventing a bit of smuggling for a few weeks.
I reckon that in continuing to negotiate they're being more than reasonable. They'd be far better off ensuring a ferry service between somewhere in N France and Cork and/or Dún Laoghaire to keep RoI our of the brown stuff!
And being a bit creative with motor parts.0 -
Because despite it all, a deal is in their interests too. I believe they are being cheeky on fish, but that’s partly because of the current situation. A hypothetical new country would not be expected to cede as much on fish, but we are, because we have done for many years. The consequences to Ireland, France , Holland and other fishing nations of no deal will not be huge, but will affect them. They benefit from trade with the uk, and that trade will continue. Interestingly, George useless set out the argument for buying local produce, rather than we buy European widgets while they buy our widgets. There is some sense in this, not least reducing food miles etc.OldKingCole said:
Why should the EU compromise any further? On anything? This (expletive deleted) mess was OUR IDEA, remember.Philip_Thompson said:
No I'm advocating no extension and the EU compromises and gives us what they want. If they don't then no deal and we face the consequences of that.alex_ said:
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?
I expect a few weeks of disruption. If the consequences are smuggling for a few weeks as people adapt or lack of food for a few weeks then that's an easy choice for me. Food is more important to secure than preventing a bit of smuggling for a few weeks.
I reckon that in continuing to negotiate they're being more than reasonable. They'd be far better off ensuring a ferry service between somewhere in N France and Cork and/or Dún Laoghaire to keep RoI our of the brown stuff!
And being a bit creative with motor parts.1 -
I'm beginning to wonder if he thinks our heads zip up the back.alex_ said:
We have obviously stopped huge amounts of smuggling. Both through stuff which has been physically stopped, and that which was never attempted in the first place because of the controls in place to prevent it.Philip_Thompson said:
Well we have never managed to stop smuggling.dixiedean said:
Indeed. We were managing to do both just about fine before this damn foolish plan.alex_ said:
Where's the forced choice? You are the one advocating no deal, no extension.Philip_Thompson said:
Well yes. We attempt to stop the smuggling of drugs, people, untaxed tobacco, guns and much more into the country. Do we succeed? Or does some smuggling get through?alex_ said:
You're nuts. Tackling smuggling (whether people, guns, drugs, or even more mundane goods)is now akin to prohibition?Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Force choice which would be more important to you: ensuring continuity of food supply, or attempting to prevent some smuggling?
But either way the decision was made to leave.
After we have left we will manage to do both (as well as we ever did) again, all we are talking about is a potential disruption.
Nobody makes the claim that all smuggling is prevented but that is a nonsense point to argue.0 -
We are not fighting Brexit. We left. Brexit - the UK's exit from the EU - was completed back in January. This is about what happens now that we have left.gealbhan said:You are absolutely right Philip, the way the remainers argue with “no fresh food medicines, utter disaster, world war three coming” is a very poor way to fight brexit. The only way to properly attack brexit is as the vast majority of economists said, we invent extra bills for ourselves to pay on business trading we will get poorer year on year as a nation till we struggle to pay for defence, security, welfare, health, pensions etc etc.
Also there is no political crisis from Boris extending transition for more talks, because of Covid, you can’t deliver even an oven ready deal with Covid going on, everyone will forgive the extension.2 -
We already do - most of it comes from the Rest of the World into the EU (Zeebrugge, Rotterdam) and then onwards to the UK, France, Germany etc etc. Running a separate UK supply route that bypasses the EU is entirely possible albeit at a massive price.FrankBooth said:Can't we just import food from the rest of the world? Might not be as good of course. And won't we just see more goods being delivered by ship?
0 -
Don't be cheeky (!) and stop abusing logic and language. If you pool something, do you compromise your ability to use it? Yes. Of course you do. So your position is that EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty. There's no need to pretend you have an outre alternative view. Our diminution of sovereignty in the EU was a fundamental part of the Leave argument.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Because we have unpooled it.kinabalu said:
You're back to square one - asserting that even though EU membership did not compromise our sovereignty we have left in order to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.
It was not compromised but we have reclaimed it from being pooled. No contradiction there.
If you have money in a Betfair account you haven't compromised that money, it's still yours but if you want to spend it in the shops you will need to reclaim it and withdraw it first.
Understand that yet or do we need pictures to explain it to you?0 -
We are already five years into this process.MaxPB said:
I'd rather sign an extension to the transition period than have that choice. I also think it's clear the EU won't change their LPF stance to two extra years in transition helps us a lot more than it helps them as we have the time to figure out customs and importation procedures for food and other perishable goods as well as supply chain logistics for large companies to have uninterrupted supply of semi-manufactured goods.Philip_Thompson said:
It is.MaxPB said:
If food supply security comes at a cost of people or other types of smuggling that's a pretty high cost.Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Forced choice though would you pay that price or not?
If it comes to it then food security is more important than security theatre.
A two year delay to implementation of customs checks to EU goods is all gain for us at the cost of £18bn (two more years of net contributions). There's no way the government will be ready for it.
If we kick the can another two years I doubt anything meaningful would change in my time and we would still have the Sword of Damocles hanging overhead for another two years at a time we need more investment.
Whereas if we get on with it now the worst of the disruption from Brexit will be over and done with before people are vaccinated from COVID. Kill two birds with one stone and clear the path for future growth0 -
-
He is the only one who can be bothered to respond. The rest of us, however we voted, are waiting to see how it pans out. The circular rehashing of all the Brexit stuff from 4 years ago is very tedious. Chances are there'll be an agreement - that is generally the way the EU operates. I'm unclear as an example what will happen otherwise to those millions [billions?] of tomatoes the Spanish want to keep on sending to the UK if the latest Domesday forecasts people clog up this site with come to [sic!] fruition. For myself I'd have preferred to remain but have sorted out my new Spanish residency, my healthcare.....etc. I can also report that Brits continue to buy property here in ever growing numbers - in short life goes on.OllyT said:
You are the lone voice that increasingly sounds like the Comical Ali of Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.2 -
No, voluntarily pooling is not compromising in my view.kinabalu said:
Don't be cheeky (!) and stop abusing logic and language. If you pool something, do you compromise your ability to use it? Yes. Of course you do. So your position is that EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty. There's no need to pretend you have an outre alternative view. Our diminution of sovereignty in the EU was a fundamental part of the Leave argument.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Because we have unpooled it.kinabalu said:
You're back to square one - asserting that even though EU membership did not compromise our sovereignty we have left in order to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.
It was not compromised but we have reclaimed it from being pooled. No contradiction there.
If you have money in a Betfair account you haven't compromised that money, it's still yours but if you want to spend it in the shops you will need to reclaim it and withdraw it first.
Understand that yet or do we need pictures to explain it to you?
But if it in your view then it's surely incontrovertible in your view that our sovereignty was compromised. But that's your logic then not mine.1 -
Keep an eye on Michael Gove, who has been tipped (possibly by himself) to take over at Health. Gove might have been discombobulated by his old ally Cummings' departure but he is still a player.Cicero said:BTW, more fun and games at Felixstowe.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54908129
Basically the fat´s in the fire now. The crisis is already under way.
"Scrooge Christmas in sight as Covid stops toys... blah... blah... blah... etc. etc."
Unless Johnson acts this week, he is going to feel Sunak´s hot breath on his neck within a few weeks (hat tip D. Cummings´ trouble making games).0 -
Quite a time to take over, with the vaccine coming, and getting away from Brexit.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Keep an eye on Michael Gove, who has been tipped (possibly by himself) to take over at Health. Gove might have been discombobulated by his old ally Cummings' departure but he is still a player.Cicero said:BTW, more fun and games at Felixstowe.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54908129
Basically the fat´s in the fire now. The crisis is already under way.
"Scrooge Christmas in sight as Covid stops toys... blah... blah... blah... etc. etc."
Unless Johnson acts this week, he is going to feel Sunak´s hot breath on his neck within a few weeks (hat tip D. Cummings´ trouble making games).0 -
There's no win lose or draw on here. There is only the everlasting argument. The key thing to avoid - which I do not always manage - is becoming the rat on a wheel.Barnesian said:
Philip reminds me of the little pool of mercury I used to have on the pen holder line of my wooden desk at school.kinabalu said:
You're back to square one - asserting that even though EU membership did not compromise our sovereignty we have left in order to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.
I'd spend hours pressing it into tiny pieces for it to join up again.
0 -
Or a lone voice like Copernicus.OllyT said:
You are the lone voice that increasingly sounds like the Comical Ali of Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
The lone voice can be right.0 -
And ditching some of those pesky employment and environmental protections!Carnyx said:
Oh yes, like being a tax haven for criminals.kinabalu said:
Exactly what I'm driving at. If we do not use our "freedom" to do some serious things that would have been verboten as EU members, Brexit has been (being kind) a monumental waste of time and energy.williamglenn said:
But it always was our choice, so the only valid reason to leave based on this argument would be a pressing and urgent need to diverge. Unless there is one, then we shouldn't have left.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.0 -
The problem is that we're not five years into the process, we're about a year into the process. Theresa May and Philip Hammond did absolutely no worst case scenario planning so until Boris there was zero effort being put into doubling our customs capacity and tripling it for food products.Philip_Thompson said:
We are already five years into this process.MaxPB said:
I'd rather sign an extension to the transition period than have that choice. I also think it's clear the EU won't change their LPF stance to two extra years in transition helps us a lot more than it helps them as we have the time to figure out customs and importation procedures for food and other perishable goods as well as supply chain logistics for large companies to have uninterrupted supply of semi-manufactured goods.Philip_Thompson said:
It is.MaxPB said:
If food supply security comes at a cost of people or other types of smuggling that's a pretty high cost.Philip_Thompson said:
Exactly. You may be attempting sarcasm but it is right.alex_ said:
Fair point.Philip_Thompson said:
So?alex_ said:
I sense an opportunity for people smugglers... Or anything smugglers, come to think of it.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Who cares about aiding international organised crime, about those who exploit the suffering of others for their own gain, even about compromising our ability to control what comes into the country at all, as long as we can get our tomatoes on our supermarket shelves?
Crime happens. Smuggling happens. Prohibition has never worked.
Having food on our shelves is more important than embracing security theater to pretend that prohibition works.
Once we have security of our supplies we can do other stuff too, but they are lesser priorities.
Forced choice though would you pay that price or not?
If it comes to it then food security is more important than security theatre.
A two year delay to implementation of customs checks to EU goods is all gain for us at the cost of £18bn (two more years of net contributions). There's no way the government will be ready for it.
If we kick the can another two years I doubt anything meaningful would change in my time and we would still have the Sword of Damocles hanging overhead for another two years at a time we need more investment.
Whereas if we get on with it now the worst of the disruption from Brexit will be over and done with before people are vaccinated from COVID. Kill two birds with one stone and clear the path for future growth
That's the reality and you're misunderstanding the issue. It's not as if there's a few weeks of customs issues after a no deal and then we reach a new equilibrium, it's a two year slog of building customs capacity and systems for importing three times as much food that needs to be checked and two times as much of everything else so the disruption lasts for two years and carries a much higher economic cost than the £18bn or so an additional two years of transition would take.
I don't want to no deal, it looks as though we will because the EU won't shift on the LPF and as everyone with more than three brain cells has already realised the government will never sign a deal with those provisions so no deal it is. You can blame Theresa May, you can blame Philip Hammond, you can blame Boris or whoever you want, ultimately leaving with no deal in January will have a gigantic economic cost to it, mostly related to customs processing capacity. It's a fixable problem and the cost of that fix is two more years in the transition period.
I'm a pragmatist more than anything else and leaving with no deal as it stands doesn't suit the UK at all, in two years time with customs regimes figured out and more non-EU trade deals signed it does and the threat of no deal from the EU basically goes from a 7% GDP loss to 0.7%, £18bn is cheap to get that kind of relief.0 -
He’s behaving like we always knew he would. It’s the Republican Party’s failure to call him out for it that is the real threat to the democratic process. Utterly unforgivable.JohnWheatley said:Surely the the Dems response should be equally brief - 'put up or shut up' - even though he won't.
Should he even be invited to the inauguration unless he makes a genuine concession? Or would that just reinforce his conspiracy theories?
I really just want someone to stick a sock in his mouth or remove the caps button from his phone. He is seriously undermining the democratic process which always relies on shared trust in the mechanics.2 -
So now you're denying the basic meaning of the word "compromise" and undermining your own analogies on pooled money etc.Philip_Thompson said:
No, voluntarily pooling is not compromising in my view.kinabalu said:
Don't be cheeky (!) and stop abusing logic and language. If you pool something, do you compromise your ability to use it? Yes. Of course you do. So your position is that EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty. There's no need to pretend you have an outre alternative view. Our diminution of sovereignty in the EU was a fundamental part of the Leave argument.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Because we have unpooled it.kinabalu said:
You're back to square one - asserting that even though EU membership did not compromise our sovereignty we have left in order to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.
It was not compromised but we have reclaimed it from being pooled. No contradiction there.
If you have money in a Betfair account you haven't compromised that money, it's still yours but if you want to spend it in the shops you will need to reclaim it and withdraw it first.
Understand that yet or do we need pictures to explain it to you?
But if it in your view then it's surely incontrovertible in your view that our sovereignty was compromised. But that's your logic then not mine.0 -
-
Surely the point is he lost the election *even though* he tried to rig it?kle4 said:
He's right, he would win an election if he rigged it. Free elections on the other hand...Gary_Burton said:0 -
To reach a compromise and to say that something is compromised have different meanings.kinabalu said:
So now you're denying the basic meaning of the word "compromise" and undermining your own analogies on pooled money etc.Philip_Thompson said:
No, voluntarily pooling is not compromising in my view.kinabalu said:
Don't be cheeky (!) and stop abusing logic and language. If you pool something, do you compromise your ability to use it? Yes. Of course you do. So your position is that EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty. There's no need to pretend you have an outre alternative view. Our diminution of sovereignty in the EU was a fundamental part of the Leave argument.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Because we have unpooled it.kinabalu said:
You're back to square one - asserting that even though EU membership did not compromise our sovereignty we have left in order to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.
It was not compromised but we have reclaimed it from being pooled. No contradiction there.
If you have money in a Betfair account you haven't compromised that money, it's still yours but if you want to spend it in the shops you will need to reclaim it and withdraw it first.
Understand that yet or do we need pictures to explain it to you?
But if it in your view then it's surely incontrovertible in your view that our sovereignty was compromised. But that's your logic then not mine.
0 -
0
-
-
Yes he did but he's taken it back.Foxy said:BTW, has Donald really conceded?
https://twitter.com/Breaking24Seven/status/1327986908711051267?s=19
He's too dumb and too much of a loudmouth to realise he was conceding when he did.0 -
He looks very tired, to me, and even ill.Foxy said:BTW, has Donald really conceded?
https://twitter.com/Breaking24Seven/status/1327986908711051267?s=19
Has his hair turned white?
Is he no longer bothering?1 -
You seem quite happy to respond to everything else, what's the problem with defending Brexit?felix said:
He is the only one who can be bothered to respond. The rest of us, however we voted, are waiting to see how it pans out. The circular rehashing of all the Brexit stuff from 4 years ago is very tedious. Chances are there'll be an agreement - that is generally the way the EU operates. I'm unclear as an example what will happen otherwise to those millions [billions?] of tomatoes the Spanish want to keep on sending to the UK if the latest Domesday forecasts people clog up this site with come to [sic!] fruition. For myself I'd have preferred to remain but have sorted out my new Spanish residency, my healthcare.....etc. I can also report that Brits continue to buy property here in ever growing numbers - in short life goes on.OllyT said:
You are the lone voice that increasingly sounds like the Comical Ali of Brexit.Philip_Thompson said:
Mine will come from Morrisons. Or Asda. 😜Flanner said:
Simple questionPhilip_Thompson said:
Yes. No big deal.
With Customs not working, where do tomatoes come from on Jan 1? Or peppers?
Remember: HMRC tell us there's no capacity to process arriving lorries, and HMG STILL haven't issued the basic guide to truckers -even in English - for how to get through in six weeks' time (but 80% of trucks arriving from the EU are driven by non-Brits).
You can't divert to other ports (Felixstowe's chocker already with imports from outside the EU) And whatever lunatic decided to start this insane experiment with bureaucratising goods we rely on Europe for on Jan 1 obviously forgot that the world's closed for the previous ten days.
If need be we will just waive the trucks through. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
0 -
[deleted]ClippP said:
He looks very tired, to me, and even ill.Foxy said:BTW, has Donald really conceded?
https://twitter.com/Breaking24Seven/status/1327986908711051267?s=19
Has his hair turned white?
Is he no longer bothering?0 -
I misread that as 'no longer breathing' which caused some surprise.ClippP said:
He looks very tired, to me, and even ill.Foxy said:BTW, has Donald really conceded?
https://twitter.com/Breaking24Seven/status/1327986908711051267?s=19
Has his hair turned white?
Is he no longer bothering?0 -
Wouldn't be the worst outcome.ydoethur said:
I misread that as 'no longer breathing' which caused some surprise.ClippP said:
He looks very tired, to me, and even ill.Foxy said:BTW, has Donald really conceded?
https://twitter.com/Breaking24Seven/status/1327986908711051267?s=19
Has his hair turned white?
Is he no longer bothering?0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
My parents listened to Sir Keir's Desert Island Discs this morning, and my Dad said he liked him and would vote for him. He doesn't know anything about politics really, (voted Leave and considered voting Lib Dem in 2019) but that doesn't matter, most people don't.
Mind you, both my folks are Labour voters anyway, so its not that much of a breakthrough. But he said he came across as a nice bloke, liked football - that is a clincher really - and better than Corbyn, who my Dad would think was the ultimate wally, and I know he doesn't like Boris.0 -
They do. And the latter is more relevant here.Philip_Thompson said:
To reach a compromise and to say that something is compromised have different meanings.kinabalu said:
So now you're denying the basic meaning of the word "compromise" and undermining your own analogies on pooled money etc.Philip_Thompson said:
No, voluntarily pooling is not compromising in my view.kinabalu said:
Don't be cheeky (!) and stop abusing logic and language. If you pool something, do you compromise your ability to use it? Yes. Of course you do. So your position is that EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty. There's no need to pretend you have an outre alternative view. Our diminution of sovereignty in the EU was a fundamental part of the Leave argument.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Because we have unpooled it.kinabalu said:
You're back to square one - asserting that even though EU membership did not compromise our sovereignty we have left in order to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
No. What part of this do you not understand? You're not listening.kinabalu said:
All change from you again. So EU membership DID compromise our sovereignty and leaving was thus more important than the right to leave. Which means that diverging is more important than the right to diverge. We must materially diverge. Ergo if we don't diverge, Brexit = Waste of Time. Which I have long argued and you have long failed to accept. No way out here. You're in chains.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
(i) We need to leave the EU to reclaim our sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Not sure what point you're trying to prove since I've said that all along?kinabalu said:
Correct. If there were not a right to leave, the EU would be a prison and its members would have lost their sovereignty. Good call to stop trying to refute irrefutable logic.Philip_Thompson said:
FPT no the door is unlocked. The whole point of leaving, so that we can choose how to diverge is to have an unlocked door.kinabalu said:
Ergo the right to leave was key not leaving. Which is where we were. There's no escape for you here. The door is locked. Unlike us in the EU you have lost your sovereignty.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the option to diverge is key.kinabalu said:
You said having the option to diverge is the key thing not the actual divergence. That cannot be unsaid now you realize the logic of it takes you to a place you find awkward. PB debate doesn't work that way.Philip_Thompson said:
No, because the option to diverge will be followed by increasing amounts of actual divergence. Some have already been announced that will apply from 1/1/21 and more will follow as time goes on.kinabalu said:
If the option to diverge is more important than diverging it follows with similar cast-iron logic that the option to leave was more important than leaving. The option to leave was the important thing. Which we had. We had the option to leave. We demonstrated this by doing so. But we did not need to prove it. It was always clear that we could leave. And given we could we did not need to. This is maths not politics. Brexit = Waste of Time. QED.Philip_Thompson said:
It's always been the case that change would be incremental over the future. Remember pretty much the entire body of EU law was adopted as domestic law as part of the Withdrawal Act.kinabalu said:
Get 'No Change But With The Option For Future Divergence' Brexit Done!williamglenn said:
An extension is the path of least resistance. Johnson just needs to make it look like the EU has backed down.Scott_xP said:
It's having the option for future divergence, unilaterally controlled by our sovereign Parliament, that is the key issue.
So yes the option to diverge is followed up with actual divergence. The option to leave is followed up with actually leaving. Maths not politics. Your maths. QED, I win.
It will be followed by actual divergence but if you're not happy with the actual divergence you can reverse it by electing a new government. It's called taking back control.
The right to diverge is more important than what is actually done with that right. It is saying democracy is more important than any law passed under the democracy.
What we do once we step outside is less important than the fact that the door is unlocked.
The door would only be locked if we couldn't diverge or couldn't leave in either scenario. That would then be a prison.
It's always been my view there is no sovereign issue with pooling sovereignty voluntarily in the EU.
(ii) Membership of the EU does not compromise our sovereignty.
Can these 2 views be reconciled without one's pants falling down?
You can pool your sovereignty (ii) but if you wish to unilaterally exercise it you must first unpool it (i).
Entirely consistent. I could set up a joint bank account with you for us to wager bets together but if I wanted to unilaterally control my own income I would need my income to go into a personal not joint account.
EU membership did NOT compromise our sovereignty. It entailed voluntarily pooling our sovereignty not compromising it.
The right to leave was more important than actually leaving but that right was never in dispute. The only question was whether we should.
Ergo and exactly the same the right to diverge is more important than how we diverge.
We don't have to materially diverge, if we vote not to. But it will be our choice.
So you're making a fatal flaw in your first assumption and that undermines and reversed everything that follows.
It was not compromised but we have reclaimed it from being pooled. No contradiction there.
If you have money in a Betfair account you haven't compromised that money, it's still yours but if you want to spend it in the shops you will need to reclaim it and withdraw it first.
Understand that yet or do we need pictures to explain it to you?
But if it in your view then it's surely incontrovertible in your view that our sovereignty was compromised. But that's your logic then not mine.0
This discussion has been closed.