Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Free movement is not the issue here. I'm asking if it's possible to have a trade deal with the EU without free movement, and the answer is clearly, yes.

Some people on the Remain side, (not the people on here) seem to be peddling the idea that trade with the EU = free movement as a condition, when the examples of Australia and Japan clearly demonstrate otherwise...

Of course a trade deal without free movement is possible, it just won't be anywhere near as good a deal as we had before is all. I'm still a bit annoyed about the free movement bogeyman.
Nigel et all have made immigration out to be something it's not, and this is coming from someone who actually lives in an area with some of the highest levels of eastern European immigration in the country.
Basically they've pandered to a low level dislike of "job stealing" immigrants and fears of being swamped by hordes of Muslim terrorists to hamstring us in negotiations, forcing us to include it as a red line in negotiations.
Take back control? Pander to my base fears more like.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

My position is perfectly clear, if my avatar hasn't already made it clear.

The quicker we get this sorted out, the better in my book.

I'm comparing it to dental work - you can stall and put it off, but sooner or later, you need to sit in that chair and get it done...

Lets grasp the nettle and be done with it...

I'd argue that the more apt analogy would be to say that a new, experimental operation has been discovered and written about.

Your position is effectively that the doctors at a particular hospital should rush in and try to perform the operation as it could help their patient. However none of the doctors or nurses at that hospital currently have extensive experience in this kind of surgery, nor any first hand experience of the surgical procedure to be carried out, having only read about it. This of course brings a great deal of risk to the surgery as they may not be prepared to deal with potential complications.

The opposing argument is that the doctors should wait until expert surgeons and nurses, with experience of at least the type of surgery if not the actual operation itself, can be brought in to carry out the operation and so reduce the risk to the patient.

If you're going to have a transplant you don't get your local GP to do it in their practice surgery, you wait until a specialised surgeon is available in a fully equipped surgical hospital.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

My position is perfectly clear, if my avatar hasn't already made it clear.

The quicker we get this sorted out, the better in my book.

I'm comparing it to dental work - you can stall and put it off, but sooner or later, you need to sit in that chair and get it done...

Lets grasp the nettle and be done with it...

I'd argue that the more apt analogy would be to say that a new, experimental operation has been written about. Your position is that the doctors at a particular hospital should rush in and try to perform the operation as it could help their patient. However none of the doctors or nurses at that hospital currently have any experience in this kind of surgery, nor first hand experience of the surgical procedure to be carried out. This of course brings a great deal of risk to the surgery.

The opposing argument is that the doctors should wait until expert surgeons and nurses, with experience of at least the type of surgery if not the actual operation itself, can be brought in to carry out the operation and so reduce the risk to the patient.

You're forgetting that according to Farage, the evil EU is preventing us from getting those doctors and nurses from places like India, so your analogy bit the dust due to staff shortages

On a serious note, I believe that it doesn't matter if we do a quick BREXIT or a longer BREXIT, we'll still gain things and lose things during the negotiations.

With a quick BREXIT, we can get on with building a new Britain for the 21st century, and reforge a new relationship with our European friends and allies.

It's like having family over for Christmas. Christmas day, boxing day, even the 27th, is fine, but come the 28th or the 29th, I want them out the door

Lets not let it drag on for evermore.

If there was any doubt that Nigel Farage is on the wrong side of humanity, then it should be eradicated by the fact that the odious prat is speaking at a Donald Trump rally.

http://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-and-donald-trump-to-appear-on-stage-together-10550059


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
......

On a serious note, I believe that it doesn't matter if we do a quick BREXIT or a longer BREXIT, we'll still gain things and lose things during the negotiations.

With a quick BREXIT, we can get on with building a new Britain for the 21st century, and reforge a new relationship with our European friends and allies.

It's like having family over for Christmas. Christmas day, boxing day, even the 27th, is fine, but come the 28th or the 29th, I want them out the door

Lets not let it drag on for evermore.

Weird analogy, I'm pro-EU, but I wouldn't compare it to Christmas, I love Christmas. This is more like the separation of a husband and wife before the divorce proceedings are initiated. We've got to pack our stuff and find a cheap flat, a solicitor and an old banger to get about in first. We've got to get a lot of stuff sorted out before we can have a midlife crisis fling with Australia.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Free movement is not the issue here. I'm asking if it's possible to have a trade deal with the EU without free movement, and the answer is clearly, yes.

Some people on the Remain side, (not the people on here) seem to be peddling the idea that trade with the EU = free movement as a condition, when the examples of Australia and Japan clearly demonstrate otherwise...

Service passporting is not the same as free trade. The UK desperately needs service passporting to enable our banks, lawyers and insurance companies to operate easily in the EU.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

My position is perfectly clear, if my avatar hasn't already made it clear.

The quicker we get this sorted out, the better in my book.

I'm comparing it to dental work - you can stall and put it off, but sooner or later, you need to sit in that chair and get it done...

Lets grasp the nettle and be done with it...

I'd argue that the more apt analogy would be to say that a new, experimental operation has been written about. Your position is that the doctors at a particular hospital should rush in and try to perform the operation as it could help their patient. However none of the doctors or nurses at that hospital currently have any experience in this kind of surgery, nor first hand experience of the surgical procedure to be carried out. This of course brings a great deal of risk to the surgery.

The opposing argument is that the doctors should wait until expert surgeons and nurses, with experience of at least the type of surgery if not the actual operation itself, can be brought in to carry out the operation and so reduce the risk to the patient.

You're forgetting that according to Farage, the evil EU is preventing us from getting those doctors and nurses from places like India, so your analogy bit the dust due to staff shortages

On a serious note, I believe that it doesn't matter if we do a quick BREXIT or a longer BREXIT, we'll still gain things and lose things during the negotiations.

With a quick BREXIT, we can get on with building a new Britain for the 21st century, and reforge a new relationship with our European friends and allies.

It's like having family over for Christmas. Christmas day, boxing day, even the 27th, is fine, but come the 28th or the 29th, I want them out the door

Lets not let it drag on for evermore.

Let's drag it out until we are sure we are getting the best possible deal.

If we can't get a good enough deal, let's knock it on the head.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

On a serious note, I believe that it doesn't matter if we do a quick BREXIT or a longer BREXIT, we'll still gain things and lose things during the negotiations.

With a quick BREXIT, we can get on with building a new Britain for the 21st century, and reforge a new relationship with our European friends and allies.

It's like having family over for Christmas. Christmas day, boxing day, even the 27th, is fine, but come the 28th or the 29th, I want them out the door

Lets not let it drag on for evermore.

We'd be the laughing stock (even more so than we are now) of the EU if the sped through the negotiations. Rushing things means things get missed. There are likely thousands of pages of legislation, regulations and other documents to read understand digest and understand how they all link together and we don't even have a team that has even started looking at any of it. If you rush things then you are going to miss something.

As an imaginary example say we opt out of the formal validation of the Euro vehicle emission standards, but somewhere deep in the Environmental EU playbook it states that imports that don't formally have this standard have a 2% surcharge on all vehicles entering the EU so they can undertake the tests and validate they meet the standards. It's not an import duty so would still apply regardless of a free trade agreement if it exists. And it was simply missed because the process was rushed and no one had time to read and link the issue in Environmental Document 17D, Chapter 14, Section A, sub-section III, clause 15, sub clause iv. I know this because I work with contracts, for one contract it takes at *minimum* 18 months to write including discussing with procurement teams, legal teams, operations teams and so on and this is *one* document. Now escalate this to all the EU documents and it is going to take years and years of hard work to get it right. Yes I could write one in three months, but it will be full of holes and the contractor would be laughing themselves silly as they drove a bus through all the gaps at our cost. The same will happen with the EU, force through a quick resolution and the Country will pay for it (even more so than if it left and took it's time).

And it's not like recent examples of negotiating items shows that we have a good team available. Just look at the google tax fiasco where they offered to pay £130m for approx. ten years and then a few days later France came out and said the minimum they were going after a was £billion or so. It hardly implies we have stellar negotiators.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Bureaucracy the world over is never good, regardless of country.

Equivalent bureaucracy at the EU level works better than the national equivalents despite what you've been told.

I work on a field (agrochemicals) where each country still goes his own way despite timid attempts at integrating legislation and registry and I don't know of any manufacturer in my field (including UK ones) who don't support a single market.

The little stuff that we have to file directly to the EU works several orders of magnitude faster and more efficiently that any EU country period.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Free movement is not the issue here. I'm asking if it's possible to have a trade deal with the EU without free movement, and the answer is clearly, yes.

It's possible but unlikely. Some agreements for free trade will occur when there is a mutual benefit for both parties with minimal direct competition. Basically both sides have something the other side wants and is willing to make a few sacrifices for this to happen. On the other hand if there are too many competitive elements then free trade is less likely. So our milk/food is in competition with EU farmers milk/food, our ship builders are in direct competition with the EU's. Yes there will be trade deals (even if there isn't one there is WTO standard to apply) but you can only expect to have good deals for those industries/services that are not directly competing with an already established same industry/service in the EU

So say we made wind turbines, no one in the EU did then there is a benefit for both parties to have a trade deal. On the other hand if we made solar panels and there was a big solar panel industry in the EU already you are not going to get a decent trade deal because the EU will want to prioritise it's own employment not jeopardise especially say if we are getting cheap components from another part of the globe the EU does not have access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:


Equivalent bureaucracy at the EU level works better than the national equivalents despite what you've been told.

Agreed, the UK unfortunately have cut a lot of these national bodies to the bone whilst still expecting them to report to Government in the same way which means a larger percentage of the work force is being diverted just to reporting. Some mentioned earlier about DEFRA and the joke since the cuts began is that the reason they are so slow is that the only staff remaining are 'one man and his dog' (an exaggeration but the point is sound).

 Whirlwind wrote:

jouso wrote:


Equivalent bureaucracy at the EU level works better than the national equivalents despite what you've been told.

Agreed, the UK unfortunately have cut a lot of these national bodies to the bone whilst still expecting them to report to Government in the same way which means a larger percentage of the work force is being diverted just to reporting. Some mentioned earlier about DEFRA and the joke since the cuts began is that the reason they are so slow is that the only staff remaining are 'one man and his dog' (an exaggeration but the point is sound).

That was me and since that's the only UK public body I've had the (not)pleasure to directly work with other than a few bored borders and customs officers I just had to laugh a bit when I read the EU was responsible for red tape and endless paper shuffling.

Friends living in the UK tell me that local public bodies are indeed more efficient (or at least more polite) that most of its continental equivalents but if the rest of the central government agencies are anything like DEFRA you guys are basically shafted.

jouso wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

jouso wrote:


Equivalent bureaucracy at the EU level works better than the national equivalents despite what you've been told.

Agreed, the UK unfortunately have cut a lot of these national bodies to the bone whilst still expecting them to report to Government in the same way which means a larger percentage of the work force is being diverted just to reporting. Some mentioned earlier about DEFRA and the joke since the cuts began is that the reason they are so slow is that the only staff remaining are 'one man and his dog' (an exaggeration but the point is sound).

That was me and since that's the only UK public body I've had the (not)pleasure to directly work with other than a few bored borders and customs officers I just had to laugh a bit when I read the EU was responsible for red tape and endless paper shuffling.

Friends living in the UK tell me that local public bodies are indeed more efficient (or at least more polite) that most of its continental equivalents but if the rest of the central government agencies are anything like DEFRA you guys are basically shafted.

Hey don't worry, relentless, overwhelming positivity will sort it all out. We came second in the Olympics after all.

Our local bodies are horrendously understaffed too.

 Whirlwind wrote:

We'd be the laughing stock (even more so than we are now) of the EU if the sped through the negotiations.

Which I think at this point is what some people seem to want.

I'd rather wait to get my tooth sorted by a professional over instead immediately going down to my local city, finding a dark alleyway and asking a random stranger who looks like a meth addict to knock out any of my teeth (and hopefully get the right one!) with a rusty hammer, which seems to be what some want.

Herzlos wrote:
Our local bodies are horrendously understaffed too.

They are and current plans are they will need to make cuts until at least 2020. There is no let up, that means more services go because there is simply no money to provide the non-mandatory services. The Torys have made it their mission to remove the state and I do not see May changing this at all (if anything it will probably get worse given who she has put in charge for certain areas). It will be these areas that also get cut because of any changes in the economy arising due to Brexit as they are easy targets and not directly attributable to the government when things go wrong.

The sad thing is that these cuts affect the worst off (and for many those that voted Brexit too), the old age care becomes worse, Trading Standards become unable to be effective, Planning becomes about how much money is on the table, social care benefits, courses for the poorly educated will all be cut.

Apparently, England is right wing now.
No wonder Corbyn is so popular with the grass roots. Right now the only thing that would put me off voting for him, is if a video was released on YouTube of him fellating Donald Trump, and even then I'd still think about it carefully.

All my problems with Jermony summed up here:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/shouldnt-vote-jeremy-corbyn/?_ga=1.261120461.1947967368.1439585132

Also, in my opinion, people really should grow out of his type of politics in their early twenties. I got it all out of my system by the time I was 15. But if you're still like that as an o.a.p then quite frankly, I think you're a complete sad act.

Fight for equality and social justice certainly, but do it as a grown up. Not as a sad old fart acting like Rik from the Young Ones.

I just enjoy watching him make the Blairites squirm.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
All my problems with Jermony summed up here:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/shouldnt-vote-jeremy-corbyn/?_ga=1.261120461.1947967368.1439585132

Also, in my opinion, people really should grow out of his type of politics in their early twenties. I got it all out of my system by the time I was 15. But if you're still like that as an o.a.p then quite frankly, I think you're a complete sad act.

Fight for equality and social justice certainly, but do it as a grown up. Not as a sad old fart acting like Rik from the Young Ones.

A single article reflects your entire opinion? That's some political depth you're demonstrating.

As to your opinion, support for Corbyn is a backlash again the tory -ism, and the neo-liberalism of the Labour party. Yes the man has some dodgy ideas, but then he has some pretty sound ones too, and frankly anything that pisses off Blairites is to be applauded. That era of the Blairite Labour party is gone, Corbyn will never be prime minister but he reflects a reawakening and re-evaluation of the ideals of the Left wing. There are enough right wing politicians in this country all ready we don't need them in the Labour party too.
"Nu-Labour" died for me when David Cameron became the "heir to Blair". An Eton educated elitist millionaire? Labour truly had lost it way.
The current crop of PLP Blairites have already lost touch with their voter base, look at the destruction wrought on the party over the last few years, that's not all been Corbyn. They haven't grasped the idea that Labour supporters want to move on from the 90s, and create a new Labour party that actually represents them, not just another centre right conservative party for those too squeamish and weak to actually come out as Tories.

I'm in my 40s and I support Corby as an avatar for reform, as does my father who's in his 70s, and besides I'm sure you're aware of the irony of things we should get out of our system in our early years on a forum for table top games? Or did that one whistle past your head?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
....and on the issue of fellating Donald Trump,

http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37182076

Favourite quote? "They're really the same man, they're saying the same thing."

So, Farage has appeared on the other side of the pond to give I'm-really-not-endorsing-Donald-Trump-honest speeches.

Horray! One country banjaxed, on to the next!

 Graphite wrote:
So, Farage has appeared on the other side of the pond to give I'm-really-not-endorsing-Donald-Trump-honest speeches.

Horray! One country banjaxed, on to the next!

In other surprising news, my opinion of Nigel Farage has actually managed to drop out of the bottom of the scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Also, in my opinion, people really should grow out of his type of politics in their early twenties. I got it all out of my system by the time I was 15. But if you're still like that as an o.a.p then quite frankly, I think you're a complete sad act.

Fight for equality and social justice certainly, but do it as a grown up. Not as a sad old fart acting like Rik from the Young Ones.

Ooh, the "I don't like it therefore it's childish" argument! It's been a while since I've seen that one in the wild. Maybe if we prod it a bit it'll make sense!

and besides I'm sure you're aware of the irony of things we should get out of our system in our early years on a forum for table top games? Or did that one whistle past your head?

Touché.

@ Goliath

Everything Corbyn is pushing has been tried and tested before here and elsewhere, and it always fails miserably. Labour lost the last election because nobody trusted them to run the economy. Corbyn shows that they haven't learnt a thing with his idea of massively increasing spending whilst refusing to outline where the money will come from.

Then there was his idiotic idea for trident; let's keep the subs and all the jobs that go with that but not carry any nukes on board to satisfy the CND crowd. A ballistic missile sub with no missiles is like a gun with no bullets; pointless. That is a stupid, childish, (politically) cowardly policy to even suggest. As is the rest of his polices.

Also a guy who appears on Iranian propaganda TV for a pay check is a scumbag, and I don't care how anyone tries to spin that.

Labour barely lost the last election. They got 30.4% of the votes, while Conservative got 36.9%.

It is only the FPTP system that allows a party to get slightly over 1/3rd of the votes and win over half the seats.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Labour barely lost the last election. They got 30.4% of the votes, while Conservative got 36.9%.

It is only the FPTP system that allows a party to get slightly over 1/3rd of the votes and win over half the seats.

Yeah FPTP is corrupt as hell.

Least we got a referendum on it or Proportional Representation. Oh wait, the Tories changed it to Alternative Voting. Guess they really didn't want the British people actually choosing their voting system. Corrupt fethers.

SomeRandomEvilGuy wrote:

Yeah FPTP is corrupt as hell.

It's not corrupt as that would imply the results are rigged. The issue is that it is outdated voting mechanism that worked when there were only two parties around but now with a host of different ones it is no longer suitable for todays society.

However the Tories do not want to change it as it benefits them to leave as it is (or maybe change the boundaries to help their cause) - and they are also a party stuck in the past, just look at the idea of reintroducing Grammar schools as an example. Labour are also unlikely to want to change it because they still benefit from the system in the long term. The question is whether SNP will now want to change it because it will significantly reduce their voice in Westminster if a full proportional system was implemented (the number of seats they have is vastly in excess of their overall population proportion).

So I'd say it is a pseudo-democracy because although it is a democratic system individuals ability to influence who gets voted in is dependent on where you live rather than being equal across the Country.

 Whirlwind wrote:
The question is whether SNP will now want to change it because it will significantly reduce their voice in Westminster if a full proportional system was implemented (the number of seats they have is vastly in excess of their overall population proportion).

They do.

Lol, of all the things to pick on Education and Grammar Schools is a terrible one considering the Tories current education policy.

 Baragash wrote:
Lol, of all the things to pick on Education and Grammar Schools is a terrible one considering the Tories current education policy.

You mean like underpay them, get teaching assistants to do teaching instead, privatise schools so the academies can pay themselves silly amounts of money, let them choose their own syllabus and overwork the teachers. None of which Grammar schools will help because the UK now is different to than it was in the 60's and 70's and looking to past solutions is only going to end in failure. The point is the Tories are stuck in the past with their policies (and it seems to be getting worse now).

So it looks like the Tories really are going to try and scrap the human rights act: http://www.thecanary.co/2016/08/25/this-is-the-bombshell-dropped-by-theresa-mays-government-while-the-media-whined-on-about-traingate/

This is exactly why I was so against leaving the EU. The Tories (and May in particular) are the last people I want with unchecked decision making abilities.

The Labour NEC debacle continues:

http://teamrock.com/news/2016-08-26/labour-party-sees-red-over-foo-fighters-facebook-post

That is pretty funny. Mind you, people do get deeply offended by words. Fethity feth feth etc.

I've brought this link over from the NATO thread, but I knew this would happen: Czechs and Hungarians calling for an EU army!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37196802

I knew it! I knew it!

Another Remain argument bites the dust.