B
blightymam
Niiiiiiiiiiice
Who is going to be the next Prime Minister?
- Thread starter DRM
- Start date
Sponsored Links
That's pretty simplistic.
Probably most of those who voted had made up their minds about the EU a long, long time ago; whether they were Remain or Leave, no amount of argument from either campaign would have made any difference.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,736
- Reaction score
- 2,633
- Country
He would be tough to deal with....he's got the biggest balls of all!
Sponsored Links
Oooh. Do you think that is why Gove has four votes.?
"So long as she understands that she is not to deliver on some of the extremely stupid things that she's been saying."
I read that report, and the quote from that old fossil just about sums up the state of our ruling class. Speaking of fossils,
Hesletine surfaced somewhere during the campaign - why do we have to listen to these has-beens?
Only up to a certain point: after that point, agreements take as long as either, some, or all of the parties want them to take.
Are you really of the opinion that the negotiations on a trade agreement are intentionally drawn out?
Doesn't that belief suggest that the agreement is only desirable by one of the parties and the other party does not particularly want an agreement.
In which case, do you think the negotiation for a trade agreement between UK and EU will be desirable by UK or EU?
Which one will intentionally slow down the negotiation?
Do you not think that the complexity and perpetual 'need to consult and re-consider' causes the time frame to be long and drawn out?
I am of the opinion that some negotiations are intentionally drawn out, yes.
That doesn't really follow; by entering into discussions at all, both parties implicitly want an agreement. In the case of Brexit (as it is current, and precipitated this thread), it was Brexit (i.e. the situation) that the EU didn't want.
See above, and (as the UK voted "Leave", the negotiation is implicitly desirable by the UK (or, at least, as tolerable "means to an end"), and the converse is therefore true for the "Please Remain!"-leaning EU.
It's in the EU's interest to stall negotiations - after two years of Article 50 being triggered, UK would revert to WTO rules (unless agreement had already been reached, or the EU members allowed an extension). Stalling the negotiations would act as a warning to other potential "leavers".
You've answered for me - thank you - with your use of "perpetual". Demonstrates the mentality behind these protracted "negotiations".
That, and the time frame consists of a. time required, plus b. additional time added by the parties themselves. But I said that at the start.
Well, it's entertaining that you think that.
The Outists have been telling us that rEU can't get by without our trade and would be begging us to accept preferential terms. Have you told them that they're wrong, and do they believe you yet?
BTW the "2 year" deadline refers to the terms of the Divorce settlement, not any subsequent trade treaties that might or might not be agreed.
You talk as though all EU rules and regs are written on tablets of stone.The reality is that half of them have been ignored or worse since they were written.
It's called realpolitik.
It's called realpolitik.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,736
- Reaction score
- 2,633
- Country
However, there have been several cases (one recently: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/one-legged-albanian-murder-suspect-can-deported/) where murderers who have come here from another country have tried to bleat human rights by saying they will be ill-treated if they return.
And what human rights did their victims have?
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
