comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 42 minutes ago
Metro
Come Q1 2019 the UK will no longer be, (assuming we leave the customs union) subject the CJEU adjudication, nor EU statute. Hence the great repel bill which will enshrine all existing EU legislation into UK law.
Do you think it would be democratic, for one party, (without a mandate) to circumvent parliament, and then pick and choose which parts of EU statute are enshrined into UK law?
In theory they could repel whatever bits of legislation they want. From employment rights (annual leave, maternity etc etc) to environmental protections without a mandate to do so.
This has little to do with Brexit but ensuring the government are held accountable.
A few weeks ago I posted a link to the EU Commission Q&A on CETA. It was transparent, and provided a full breakdown of what their intentions were etc.
The gov cannot be open, not because they want to play their cards close to their chest. But because if they do, the public will realise how weak the UK's position is, in that it is impossible to get a "good deal" for the entire country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree, how realistic was it to get a good deal from this situation. And anyone who voted for Brexit now complaining, What did you expect? Its like when Cameron first got in to No.10, I stated that if the torries get into power taxes will go up. Evan Nick Clegg at the time eluded to it, in one of the TV debates. So a few months after what happens, taxes go up and everyone starts complaining.
Number 1
I believe this was one of the main reasons why Cameron stood down. He consistently said A50 would be triggered, (if vote Leave won) immediately after the referendum.
I think when the enormity of the task ahead became clear, (with neither campaign having an exit strategy) he was more than willing to pass on the baton.
he was more than willing to pass on the baton.
-------------------
It seemed to me more like passing the buck,he called a referendum without any consideration if it went against his wishes,no exit policy at all,making himself redundant was the easy way out.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 9 minutes ago
he was more than willing to pass on the baton.
-------------------
It seemed to me more like passing the buck,he called a referendum without any consideration if it went against his wishes,no exit policy at all,making himself redundant was the easy way out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True. Although as it was the Leave campaign who were (unbelievably) promising trade relationships etc would remain as is, in the event of a Brexit, IMO they should have been obligated into offering some sort of road map/exit strategy.
Mind you, as vote Leave didn’t have a Scooby Doo, the government should therefore have implemented some sort of contingency plan.
Both sides were making promises which the average person thought to be untenable,maybe they should have given some thoughts to the electorate who were going to decide the in or out that was asked for,total incompetence from the politicians from both camps.
As regards to the "Scooby Doo",the remain side got stuffed with their own arrogance.
groovyduringthewar
The Remain campaign was atrocious. Both were to be honest.
Have mentioned before but if the public (regardless of the referendum nonsense) had been more aware of how interconnected the UK is with the EU, and reliance on the bloc, then there wouldn’t have been a referendum in the first place.
However decades of euromyths and misrepresentation by large sections of the media, endorsed by euroskeptics conditioned the public into demonising the EU, and therefore being more susceptible to the belief that the UK somehow could be in a better position being isolated.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 6 minutes ago
groovyduringthewar
The Remain campaign was atrocious. Both were to be honest.
Have mentioned before but if the public (regardless of the referendum nonsense) had been more aware of how interconnected the UK is with the EU, and reliance on the bloc, then there wouldn’t have been a referendum in the first place.
However decades of euromyths and misrepresentation by large sections of the media, endorsed by euroskeptics conditioned the public into demonising the EU, and therefore being more susceptible to the belief that the UK somehow could be in a better position being isolated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree, however I think successive governments need to take some of the blame here as well as the media. There has been constantly a, "we can't get anything done" (mainly immigration numbers) because of the EU by different governments to ease their own failings. It was at some point going to bit them back in the rssse.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Number 1
True. Why the government made promises in regard to immigration cuts I have no idea.
How could any executive make assurances on something they did not have full control of.
That said, if the current government (which I suspect they will do after Brexit) removed oversea students from official migration figures, they would be cut by around a third.
"The stark reality is that we haven't the slightest clue as to what he current situation is."
Hence the conjecture
-----
Then i'll repeat myself. Discussing the plan isn't conjecture, dismissing it and criticising those overseeing the planning is.
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 6 minutes ago
"The stark reality is that we haven't the slightest clue as to what he current situation is."
Hence the conjecture
-----
Then i'll repeat myself. Discussing the plan isn't conjecture, dismissing it and criticising those overseeing the planning is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when the information/plans has proven to be false or misleading?
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 6 minutes ago
"The stark reality is that we haven't the slightest clue as to what he current situation is."
Hence the conjecture
-----
Then i'll repeat myself. Discussing the plan isn't conjecture, dismissing it and criticising those overseeing the planning is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when the information/plans has proven to be false or misleading?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't really want to wade in here, but surely conjecture means as far as I am aware making an opinion on false information. Unless we know what is really going on, surely everything debated it conjecture.
Nissan received a written assurance from the Government stating their plan is to have the same trading conditions post Brexit. I.e Remain in the SM and customs union.
On this basis Nissan (thankfully) took the decision to remain in the UK. Although I understand the EU Commission and WTO have asked the Government to expand on these assurances to ascertain if they do not fall foul of state aid/subsidy laws.
When other sectors (Agri, Pharma, Financial Services etc) asked the government for the same/similar guarantees, they were provided with different answers, or some vague ambiguous response.
Depending on which member of Government you listen to, the strategy differs. WTO regulations state that a country cannot have bespoke trading regulations for a particular industry. It has to be based on the bulk of GDP.
Which is why I feel the leaked Deloitte report was spot on.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 31 seconds ago
Nissan received a written assurance from the Government stating their plan is to have the same trading conditions post Brexit. I.e Remain in the SM and customs union.
On this basis Nissan (thankfully) took the decision to remain in the UK. Although I understand the EU Commission and WTO have asked the Government to expand on these assurances to ascertain if they do not fall foul of state aid/subsidy laws.
When other sectors (Agri, Pharma, Financial Services etc) asked the government for the same/similar guarantees, they were provided with different answers, or some vague ambiguous response.
Depending on which member of Government you listen to, the strategy differs. WTO regulations state that a country cannot have bespoke trading regulations for a particular industry. It has to be based on the bulk of GDP.
Which is why I feel the leaked Deloitte report was spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I have been living under a rock but when did the government give assurances to Nissan about being in the SM. As far as I am aware this has not been made public, yes the government gave some sort of assurance, it could be anything. Maybe that the UK will try to keep SM, does not mean they will.
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 31 seconds ago
Nissan received a written assurance from the Government stating their plan is to have the same trading conditions post Brexit. I.e Remain in the SM and customs union.
On this basis Nissan (thankfully) took the decision to remain in the UK. Although I understand the EU Commission and WTO have asked the Government to expand on these assurances to ascertain if they do not fall foul of state aid/subsidy laws.
When other sectors (Agri, Pharma, Financial Services etc) asked the government for the same/similar guarantees, they were provided with different answers, or some vague ambiguous response.
Depending on which member of Government you listen to, the strategy differs. WTO regulations state that a country cannot have bespoke trading regulations for a particular industry. It has to be based on the bulk of GDP.
Which is why I feel the leaked Deloitte report was spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I have been living under a rock but when did the government give assurances to Nissan about being in the SM. As far as I am aware this has not been made public, yes the government gave some sort of assurance, it could be anything. Maybe that the UK will try to keep SM, does not mean they will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government informed Nissan they would be seeking to provide them with the “same trading conditions” post Brexit.
It was on this basis they chose to remain in the UK.
As far as I was aware the government made assurances that Nissan won't be affected somehow and UK will always be an effective trading nation regardless of being in the SM or not. That is not quite the same as you stated.
Made assurances that Nissan won't be affected, yes.
Basically UK PLC will underwrite any losses that Nissan will suffer as a result of any Brexit conditions.
Of course these costs will be taken into account when considering any Brexit plan.
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 45 minutes ago
"The stark reality is that we haven't the slightest clue as to what he current situation is."
Hence the conjecture
-----
Then i'll repeat myself. Discussing the plan isn't conjecture, dismissing it and criticising those overseeing the planning is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how that's repeating yourself, but I appreciate the clarification.
Number 1
Full access to the SM and customs union is critical for nearly every car manufacturer in the UK.
If the UK opts out, trade tariffs will be imposed. This not only includes the final product but assembly as well. In that parts are not exclusively sourced/produced in the UK. Each time parts, pass through the SM tariffs will be imposed.
It’s not unusual for many vehicle parts to be assembled in the UK, go to France, Germany etc., back into the UK, vice versa etc. etc. On many occasions.
Nissan, like others could not compete with their rivals if the UK opted out of the SM/customs union.
Furthermore it is illegal for a government to subsidise trade tariffs (known as state aid under EU statute or subsidies in accordance with WTO regs).
I get that, but that does not mean the UK government gave them assurances of being in the SM or customs union.
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 1 minute ago
I get that, but that does not mean the UK government gave them assurances of being in the SM or customs union.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan were on the verge of leaving the UK.
https://www.ft.com/content/68c12fbe-920e-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923
They did a complete u-turn. Given their entire UK operation relies on the SM and customs union why do you think they agreed to stay?
An interesting European monetary story...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38015518
Go ADIDAS
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 18 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 1 minute ago
I get that, but that does not mean the UK government gave them assurances of being in the SM or customs union.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan were on the verge of leaving the UK.
https://www.ft.com/content/68c12fbe-920e-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923
They did a complete u-turn. Given their entire UK operation relies on the SM and customs union why do you think they agreed to stay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand what you are pointing out, but the reality is we do not know what assurances the government gave Nissan, until either the government or Nissan tells us, both of which are not forthcoming. To you and I it might make logical sense but we don't know the full story here. You cannot make stories up until you know for definite that is what has happened, and until that time stating it might be construed as conjecture.
Sign in if you want to comment
Brexit AHHHHHH
Page 78 of 166
79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83
posted on 17/11/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 42 minutes ago
Metro
Come Q1 2019 the UK will no longer be, (assuming we leave the customs union) subject the CJEU adjudication, nor EU statute. Hence the great repel bill which will enshrine all existing EU legislation into UK law.
Do you think it would be democratic, for one party, (without a mandate) to circumvent parliament, and then pick and choose which parts of EU statute are enshrined into UK law?
In theory they could repel whatever bits of legislation they want. From employment rights (annual leave, maternity etc etc) to environmental protections without a mandate to do so.
This has little to do with Brexit but ensuring the government are held accountable.
A few weeks ago I posted a link to the EU Commission Q&A on CETA. It was transparent, and provided a full breakdown of what their intentions were etc.
The gov cannot be open, not because they want to play their cards close to their chest. But because if they do, the public will realise how weak the UK's position is, in that it is impossible to get a "good deal" for the entire country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree, how realistic was it to get a good deal from this situation. And anyone who voted for Brexit now complaining, What did you expect? Its like when Cameron first got in to No.10, I stated that if the torries get into power taxes will go up. Evan Nick Clegg at the time eluded to it, in one of the TV debates. So a few months after what happens, taxes go up and everyone starts complaining.
posted on 17/11/16
Number 1
I believe this was one of the main reasons why Cameron stood down. He consistently said A50 would be triggered, (if vote Leave won) immediately after the referendum.
I think when the enormity of the task ahead became clear, (with neither campaign having an exit strategy) he was more than willing to pass on the baton.
posted on 17/11/16
he was more than willing to pass on the baton.
-------------------
It seemed to me more like passing the buck,he called a referendum without any consideration if it went against his wishes,no exit policy at all,making himself redundant was the easy way out.
posted on 17/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 17/11/16
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 9 minutes ago
he was more than willing to pass on the baton.
-------------------
It seemed to me more like passing the buck,he called a referendum without any consideration if it went against his wishes,no exit policy at all,making himself redundant was the easy way out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True. Although as it was the Leave campaign who were (unbelievably) promising trade relationships etc would remain as is, in the event of a Brexit, IMO they should have been obligated into offering some sort of road map/exit strategy.
Mind you, as vote Leave didn’t have a Scooby Doo, the government should therefore have implemented some sort of contingency plan.
posted on 17/11/16
Both sides were making promises which the average person thought to be untenable,maybe they should have given some thoughts to the electorate who were going to decide the in or out that was asked for,total incompetence from the politicians from both camps.
As regards to the "Scooby Doo",the remain side got stuffed with their own arrogance.
posted on 17/11/16
groovyduringthewar
The Remain campaign was atrocious. Both were to be honest.
Have mentioned before but if the public (regardless of the referendum nonsense) had been more aware of how interconnected the UK is with the EU, and reliance on the bloc, then there wouldn’t have been a referendum in the first place.
However decades of euromyths and misrepresentation by large sections of the media, endorsed by euroskeptics conditioned the public into demonising the EU, and therefore being more susceptible to the belief that the UK somehow could be in a better position being isolated.
posted on 17/11/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 6 minutes ago
groovyduringthewar
The Remain campaign was atrocious. Both were to be honest.
Have mentioned before but if the public (regardless of the referendum nonsense) had been more aware of how interconnected the UK is with the EU, and reliance on the bloc, then there wouldn’t have been a referendum in the first place.
However decades of euromyths and misrepresentation by large sections of the media, endorsed by euroskeptics conditioned the public into demonising the EU, and therefore being more susceptible to the belief that the UK somehow could be in a better position being isolated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree, however I think successive governments need to take some of the blame here as well as the media. There has been constantly a, "we can't get anything done" (mainly immigration numbers) because of the EU by different governments to ease their own failings. It was at some point going to bit them back in the rssse.
posted on 17/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 17/11/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 17/11/16
Number 1
True. Why the government made promises in regard to immigration cuts I have no idea.
How could any executive make assurances on something they did not have full control of.
That said, if the current government (which I suspect they will do after Brexit) removed oversea students from official migration figures, they would be cut by around a third.
posted on 17/11/16
"The stark reality is that we haven't the slightest clue as to what he current situation is."
Hence the conjecture
-----
Then i'll repeat myself. Discussing the plan isn't conjecture, dismissing it and criticising those overseeing the planning is.
posted on 17/11/16
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 6 minutes ago
"The stark reality is that we haven't the slightest clue as to what he current situation is."
Hence the conjecture
-----
Then i'll repeat myself. Discussing the plan isn't conjecture, dismissing it and criticising those overseeing the planning is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when the information/plans has proven to be false or misleading?
posted on 17/11/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 6 minutes ago
"The stark reality is that we haven't the slightest clue as to what he current situation is."
Hence the conjecture
-----
Then i'll repeat myself. Discussing the plan isn't conjecture, dismissing it and criticising those overseeing the planning is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when the information/plans has proven to be false or misleading?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't really want to wade in here, but surely conjecture means as far as I am aware making an opinion on false information. Unless we know what is really going on, surely everything debated it conjecture.
posted on 17/11/16
Nissan received a written assurance from the Government stating their plan is to have the same trading conditions post Brexit. I.e Remain in the SM and customs union.
On this basis Nissan (thankfully) took the decision to remain in the UK. Although I understand the EU Commission and WTO have asked the Government to expand on these assurances to ascertain if they do not fall foul of state aid/subsidy laws.
When other sectors (Agri, Pharma, Financial Services etc) asked the government for the same/similar guarantees, they were provided with different answers, or some vague ambiguous response.
Depending on which member of Government you listen to, the strategy differs. WTO regulations state that a country cannot have bespoke trading regulations for a particular industry. It has to be based on the bulk of GDP.
Which is why I feel the leaked Deloitte report was spot on.
posted on 17/11/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 31 seconds ago
Nissan received a written assurance from the Government stating their plan is to have the same trading conditions post Brexit. I.e Remain in the SM and customs union.
On this basis Nissan (thankfully) took the decision to remain in the UK. Although I understand the EU Commission and WTO have asked the Government to expand on these assurances to ascertain if they do not fall foul of state aid/subsidy laws.
When other sectors (Agri, Pharma, Financial Services etc) asked the government for the same/similar guarantees, they were provided with different answers, or some vague ambiguous response.
Depending on which member of Government you listen to, the strategy differs. WTO regulations state that a country cannot have bespoke trading regulations for a particular industry. It has to be based on the bulk of GDP.
Which is why I feel the leaked Deloitte report was spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I have been living under a rock but when did the government give assurances to Nissan about being in the SM. As far as I am aware this has not been made public, yes the government gave some sort of assurance, it could be anything. Maybe that the UK will try to keep SM, does not mean they will.
posted on 17/11/16
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 31 seconds ago
Nissan received a written assurance from the Government stating their plan is to have the same trading conditions post Brexit. I.e Remain in the SM and customs union.
On this basis Nissan (thankfully) took the decision to remain in the UK. Although I understand the EU Commission and WTO have asked the Government to expand on these assurances to ascertain if they do not fall foul of state aid/subsidy laws.
When other sectors (Agri, Pharma, Financial Services etc) asked the government for the same/similar guarantees, they were provided with different answers, or some vague ambiguous response.
Depending on which member of Government you listen to, the strategy differs. WTO regulations state that a country cannot have bespoke trading regulations for a particular industry. It has to be based on the bulk of GDP.
Which is why I feel the leaked Deloitte report was spot on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe I have been living under a rock but when did the government give assurances to Nissan about being in the SM. As far as I am aware this has not been made public, yes the government gave some sort of assurance, it could be anything. Maybe that the UK will try to keep SM, does not mean they will.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government informed Nissan they would be seeking to provide them with the “same trading conditions” post Brexit.
It was on this basis they chose to remain in the UK.
posted on 17/11/16
As far as I was aware the government made assurances that Nissan won't be affected somehow and UK will always be an effective trading nation regardless of being in the SM or not. That is not quite the same as you stated.
posted on 17/11/16
Made assurances that Nissan won't be affected, yes.
Basically UK PLC will underwrite any losses that Nissan will suffer as a result of any Brexit conditions.
Of course these costs will be taken into account when considering any Brexit plan.
posted on 17/11/16
comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 45 minutes ago
"The stark reality is that we haven't the slightest clue as to what he current situation is."
Hence the conjecture
-----
Then i'll repeat myself. Discussing the plan isn't conjecture, dismissing it and criticising those overseeing the planning is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how that's repeating yourself, but I appreciate the clarification.
posted on 17/11/16
Number 1
Full access to the SM and customs union is critical for nearly every car manufacturer in the UK.
If the UK opts out, trade tariffs will be imposed. This not only includes the final product but assembly as well. In that parts are not exclusively sourced/produced in the UK. Each time parts, pass through the SM tariffs will be imposed.
It’s not unusual for many vehicle parts to be assembled in the UK, go to France, Germany etc., back into the UK, vice versa etc. etc. On many occasions.
Nissan, like others could not compete with their rivals if the UK opted out of the SM/customs union.
Furthermore it is illegal for a government to subsidise trade tariffs (known as state aid under EU statute or subsidies in accordance with WTO regs).
posted on 17/11/16
I get that, but that does not mean the UK government gave them assurances of being in the SM or customs union.
posted on 17/11/16
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 1 minute ago
I get that, but that does not mean the UK government gave them assurances of being in the SM or customs union.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan were on the verge of leaving the UK.
https://www.ft.com/content/68c12fbe-920e-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923
They did a complete u-turn. Given their entire UK operation relies on the SM and customs union why do you think they agreed to stay?
posted on 17/11/16
An interesting European monetary story...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38015518
Go ADIDAS
posted on 18/11/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 18 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Number 1 unless we are number 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (U15631)
posted 1 minute ago
I get that, but that does not mean the UK government gave them assurances of being in the SM or customs union.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan were on the verge of leaving the UK.
https://www.ft.com/content/68c12fbe-920e-11e6-8df8-d3778b55a923
They did a complete u-turn. Given their entire UK operation relies on the SM and customs union why do you think they agreed to stay?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand what you are pointing out, but the reality is we do not know what assurances the government gave Nissan, until either the government or Nissan tells us, both of which are not forthcoming. To you and I it might make logical sense but we don't know the full story here. You cannot make stories up until you know for definite that is what has happened, and until that time stating it might be construed as conjecture.
Page 78 of 166
79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83