Printable View
I think this element of the thread neatly demonstrates the fallacy within the argument that 'the 2016 referendum shouldn't have been based on a simple leave/remain question'.Quote:
Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller
Imagine how the public would have got on with a remain/leave on WTO terms question..
If you are a member, you pay membership fees. There's nothing surprising about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Exiletyke
But it was &Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon
Do you regard yourself as "the public" or are you above such minutiae
We are & were members when the EU kept our PM outside of their deliberations like a naughty schoolkid on the issue in MarchQuote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon
Didn't say there was anything surprising did I? Quite the contrary in fact
Can't parliament instruct the new pm to take no deal off the table?Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon
I think this element of the thread neatly demonstrates the fallacy within the argument that 'the 2016 referendum shouldn't have been based on a simple leave/remain question'.Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrAvon
Think you've got your logic mixed up Kerr ie demonstrates the "fallacy" shouldn't have been based on a simple question Fallacy being the wrong word
What would your version of the ballot paper have said?
& right on cue Kerr buggers off when questions become difficult [just like Cameron]
Doesn't seem to be sinking in rp No Deal is the default positionQuote:
Originally Posted by ragingpup
Revocation of Article 50 would seem to be the only other course of action & just imagine the sh1t storm that would cause
I do hope that this debacle & the expected EU results in UK sees an end to the two party FPTP system although I won't hold my breath
Oh My ****ing God!!!!!!!! What is it you DO NOT UNDERSTAND?????????Quote:
Originally Posted by WanChaiMiller
Look I will put this as simple as I can and assume that you either genuinely do not understand this are you are playing a silly ****er....
The EU and all its members are members of the WTO and trades to some countries via WTO rules (fixed rules for all the single countries that exist in the WTO). The EU other than having membership to the WTO has private deals with members of the EU where it sets its own tariffs that does not come under the jurisdiction of the WTO because it is a deal done directly to each country and does not need any other rules implemented other than the rules the EU itself sets out.
Once we leave the EU we are free to negotiate our own deals with any country outside the EU and if a deal can be made with those countries we set our own rules for that deal and this is then taken out of the jurisdiction of the WTO. IF WE CANNOT REACH A DEAL WITH A COUNTRY but still want to trade with that country and it is a member of the WTO then we must follow the WTO rules.
Sooooooooooo If the UK set up a private deal with Japan for meat for example then that deal overrides WTO trading laws because it is a private deal done outside of the WTO and no longer comes under WTO jurisdiction.
We would only have to set a fixed tariff as laid out by the WTO if a private deal could not be done and both countries were part of the WTO.
So in answer to your question YES we could set different tariffs to both Australia and Canada if private deals could be agreed on.
WCM is an importer you know, but isn't prepared to say what kind of goods he imports
Can't imagine why
Think he might be playing silly b uggers
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by ragingpup
Parliament voted to trigger Article 50. The government duly gave notice to the EU, which meant that we would leave after two years, with or without a deal, unless we asked for an extension and the EU27 unanimously agreed to allow one.
Parliament has refused to agree the only deal that the EU says it will offer.
Assuming that the EU will not reopen the deal and Parliament isn't going to have a change of heart on it, the only options now are leave without a deal or revoke Article 50 and remain.
As Exile has noticed, the leave date isn't set in stone and we could ask for a further extension, but I don't believe that the new PM will ask and I don't think the EU would unanimously agree. What would be the point?
Attempts to 'take no deal of the table' have been a significant part of the problem. In negotiating terms it was analogous to going into a car showroom, telling the salesman that you are definitely going to buy a particular car (a deal) and then expecting to be offered a really good price.