Brexit Phase Two - Trade

[QUOTE="skid2, post: 8639226, member: 54542"]I didn’t bring it up.
Brexiters are in mortal fear of it.
It’s been the other anti Eu line with the brexiters who are convinced that the Eu is destined to become some sort of superstate. (I cant see it myself, they can’t even get Belgium to unite)

But it was the fear of a USE which apparently caused people on here to vote leave. Something other than parliamentary sovereignty and immigration

I can’t make it any simpler.
So I’ll just bow out of this one.



Edit:)[/QUOTE]

I quoted the post in which you did.

You claimed a vote made by someone almost guaranteed a USE.

You then explained at length how important it was to retain influence to prevent it.

Almost as if you're in "mortal fear" of it.

The veto we've lost was really important to you. Why?

I personally see a USE as a potentially good thing for us.

I don't understand the objections to it, particularly from those who are strong advocates of the EU.
 
We keep hearing that it couldn't happen while we were in but that only holds true while we had a government that was against the idea.

With a large part of the electorate seemingly pro-EU, surely a future pro-EU government could have easily led us or encouraged us into a USE. It seems that there was a drip drip approach anyway by those in charge.

And I wonder how many of the Remain supporters would be happy with the idea of a USE with us involved; it's certainly a valid aspiration.

I suggest leaving makes it much harder for us to be led into a USE by subterfuge.
It would have needed a referendum @Taffd - any change to the TEU would have.

1529790396787.png

I would never have voted for a USE,
 
<snigger>
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
We keep hearing that it couldn't happen while we were in but that only holds true while we had a government that was against the idea.

With a large part of the electorate seemingly pro-EU, surely a future pro-EU government could have easily led us or encouraged us into a USE. It seems that there was a drip drip approach anyway by those in charge.

And I wonder how many of the Remain supporters would be happy with the idea of a USE with us involved; it's certainly a valid aspiration.

I suggest leaving makes it much harder for us to be led into a USE by subterfuge.
I’d take the view that cooperation and working together makes more sense than walking out on our own.

A USE I never gave much thought to although they seem to have been able to coordinate the railways which is a good thing. As long as we had an input and a say in what’s going on it wouldn’t have annoyed me one bit.


As for leaving actually preventing a USE, that never occurred to me.. that’s good that.
So the rest of them can say it wasn’t about racism, it was to prevent Europe taking over the world.
 
Ah, so if political pressure is applied to get the SFO to drop their investigation, magically, Airbus will stay.
Ah yes, the SFO have actually dropped investigations after political pressure is applied.
As we all know.
Now a choon for all the remainers to play in the background as they crack on with Plan B and the cunning operation to extricate their lives, families and careers from the UK before Armageddon in March.


 
I’m confused to what your twitter commentator is saying?
It's a joke. Aimed at everyone. An awful lot of people need to lighten the feck up
 
I've read it, it's old. I've given you newer information which you apparently refuse to address. Not my problem and nothing made up at all there.

Here, some light reading for you to ignore:

Government warned British cars 'won't qualify for free trade deals' after Brexit

Very good.

"This means that in the absence of special content deals, the bulk of UK assembled cars would not qualify for tariff-free treatment under a typical free trade deal."

I presume you read that bit? Just another non story really isn't it. All it actually says is that any free trade deals need to take that in to account. We don't currently have a free trade deal, never mind a a typical one.

It also works in reverse, BMW may need to build a new engine factory pretty sharpish, so might Ford and PSA

Ford alone build over 1.5 million engines in the UK but they dont assemble any vehicles.
BMW make over quarter of a million, all exported.

But feel free to continue to spout hysterical nonsense, you still aren't going to get your referendum re-run.
 
It would have needed a referendum @Taffd - any change to the TEU would have.

View attachment 339420
I would never have voted for a USE,
but of course you wouldn't champ. That's why those of us who voted leave, voted leave. We were sure as f*ck not going to get an input into anything else. Including a USE regardless of your protestations to the contrary. Softly, softly. By stealth we'd have arrived where various forces within the EU want to be.
 
Ah, so if political pressure is applied to get the SFO to drop their investigation, magically, Airbus will stay.
Alternatively, just ask them how quckly they can build a new £400,000,000 composite wing factory in France. They haven't got long....

They will also have to spend £30,000,000 training the new workforce for it.
 
It would have needed a referendum @Taffd - any change to the TEU would have.

View attachment 339420
I would never have voted for a USE,
Getting confused now.

I thought the Lisbon Treaty should have had a referendum but spin, for want of a suitable phrase, enabled it to be signed without one.

The subterfuge of which I spoke.

If it can happen in one instance, why not another?

And as I said, it's a valid aspiration and one I shared a long time ago when we first voted to stay in the CM.

Blanket statements that it's never going to happen don't appear to have much merit. And who are we to veto such an aspiration, if everybody else wants it?
 
Very good.

"This means that in the absence of special content deals, the bulk of UK assembled cars would not qualify for tariff-free treatment under a typical free trade deal."

I presume you read that bit? Just another non story really isn't it. All it actually says is that any free trade deals need to take that in to account. We don't currently have a free trade deal, never mind a a typical one.

It also works in reverse, BMW may need to build a new engine factory pretty sharpish, so might Ford and PSA

Ford alone build over 1.5 million engines in the UK but they dont assemble any vehicles.
BMW make over quarter of a million, all exported.

But feel free to continue to spout hysterical nonsense, you still aren't going to get your referendum re-run.
Nothing hysterical in the least. We're not prepared to leave, let alone get FTAs. Once you can accept that the rest is easier.

Keep your head in the sand though. Ignore the Japanese ambassador's comments because he's just bluffing aye?
 
Getting confused now.

I thought the Lisbon Treaty should have had a referendum but spin, for want of a suitable phrase, enabled it to be signed without one.

The subterfuge of which I spoke.

If it can happen in one instance, why not another?

And as I said, it's a valid aspiration and one I shared a long time ago when we first voted to stay in the CM.

Blanket statements that it's never going to happen don't appear to have much merit. And who are we to veto such an aspiration, if everybody else wants it?
don't worry. @Graculus says we would have to have a referendum and we have a veto. We're fine.
 
Getting confused now.

I thought the Lisbon Treaty should have had a referendum but spin, for want of a suitable phrase, enabled it to be signed without one.

The subterfuge of which I spoke.

If it can happen in one instance, why not another?

And as I said, it's a valid aspiration and one I shared a long time ago when we first voted to stay in the CM.

Blanket statements that it's never going to happen don't appear to have much merit. And who are we to veto such an aspiration, if everybody else wants it?
Lisbon maybe should have had a referendum but there was no legal requirement.

The 2011 act made it a legal requirement.
 

Latest Threads

Top