BREXIT

[YamFazFan]

We need to ditch BREXIT

Just watching parliament live. That's what quite a few MP's are saying. I'm amazed how many of them don't appear to know that there's been a referendum or the result of it :eek . Shocking really. You wouldn't think that there was anyone left in the UK who didn't know.

[YamFazFan]

Remain is on a roll  :lol

I'm not swallowing that

[VNA]

What is it that you want YamFazFan,
You never answered my question;

Quote<blockquote>Minford admits his model predicts that the policy would cause the ‘elimination’ of UK manufacturing and a large increase in wage inequality.</blockquote>

So tell me YamFazFan do you want to see UK manufacturing eliminated?

[YamFazFan]

What is it that you want YamFazFan,
You never answered my question;

Quote<blockquote>Minford admits his model predicts that the policy would cause the ‘elimination’ of UK manufacturing and a large increase in wage inequality.</blockquote>

So tell me YamFazFan do you want to see UK manufacturing eliminated?

[quote author=VNA link=topic=24678.msg288193#msg288193 date=1543670696]



And can I come back to the one thing I think Minford is absolutely right about;

Minford admits his model predicts that the policy would cause the ‘elimination’ of UK manufacturing and a large increase in wage inequality.

I think Minford is absolutely wrong about that.
[/quote]

[mtread]

[QUOTE] That's what quite a few MP's are saying. I'm amazed how many of them don't appear to know that there's been a referendum or the result of it . Shocking really. You wouldn't think that there was anyone left in the UK who didn't know.

[VNA]

I think Minford is absolutely wrong about that.

So what you are doing is taking an economic model and cherry picking the bits you like and dismissing those you don’t. 



Ah, if only life could be like that.

[VNA]

[YamFazFan]

I think Minford is absolutely wrong about that.

So what you are doing is taking an economic model and cherry picking the bits you like and dismissing those you don’t. 

Isn't that what you did too :rolleyes

[VNA]

Isn't that what you did too [img alt=:rolleyes]http://foc-u.co.uk/Smileys/efocicon/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Umm, no.

[YamFazFan]

I think Minford is absolutely wrong about that.

So what you are doing is taking an economic model and cherry picking the bits you like and dismissing those you don’t. 



Ah, if only life could be like that.

And can I come back to the one thing I think Minford is absolutely right about;

Minford admits his model predicts that the policy would cause the ‘elimination’ of UK manufacturing and a large increase in wage inequality.

[agricola]

Im not weakening. I do not want to remain in an organisation that we can never leave, makes our laws, and has to appease 27 other groups before it can get any agreement. We need to tackle some very serious internal problems as an orderly society is slipping further away from us day by day. Constantly having to have one eye on whats happening in that spiders web of self interested despots, some of whom wish us great harm, is a distraction and a financial burden upon us.

[mtread]

.

[mtread]

And there's more.....

[fazersharp]

I don't care if its 1 law - its one too many.   

And there are laws and there are "laws"Here are some facts for your dis- information propaganda.
 
According to the House of Commons Library, which itself concedes that there is no completely accurate way to make the calculation, between 1993 and 2014 Parliament passed 945 Acts of which 231 implemented EU obligations of some sort.
It also passed 33,160 Statutory Instruments, 4,283 of which implemented EU obligations. Add both of these together and divide by the total number of laws passed, and you get the 13% figure.
But that's not really an accurate figure because most EU regulations don't require new UK laws. They can be implemented in the UK without new legislation, for example by simply changing administrative rules.  So, the 13% figure doesn't take into account EU regulations that don't need additional UK legislation to be brought into force.
If you count all EU regulations, EU-related Acts of Parliament, and EU-related Statutory Instruments, about 62% of laws introduced between 1993 and 2014 that apply in the UK implemented EU obligations.
Robert Oxley from Vote Leave says, "If you stacked the entire EU rule book it would be higher than Nelson's column. That's an incredible amount of paperwork which British businesses, British employers, all the people who have to comply with this legislation have to deal with.  It is cost and time added on to their businesses."
But some put the figure far lower, at around 13%. So who is right?
In a nutshell it's somewhere in-between the two - let's look at why.
To try to work out the proportion of UK law derived from EU law, you need to define what you mean by UK law and EU law, understand how they relate to one another, and only then "do the math".
So, what is meant by UK law? That's tricky because the devolved legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all pass laws that apply only in their nations, and not all laws passed at Westminster apply to the entire UK.
Essentially, there are two main kinds of UK law. Acts of Parliament, also known as statutes, and statutory instruments, which flesh out how a statute will work.
There are also two main types of EU law. There are EU regulations, most of which apply automatically in all 28 EU member states - so most EU regulations are part of UK law.
Then there are EU directives, which set out an aim for member states to achieve. They don't specify how to achieve it, but directives have to be implemented by a national law. The UK normally does this through a statutory instrument.

[mtread]

If you count all EU regulations, EU-related Acts of Parliament, and EU-related Statutory Instruments, about 62% of laws introduced between 1993 and 2014 that apply in the UK implemented EU obligations.

I find that difficult to believe. What's your source? As pointed out, the 14% figure is research in the House of Commons Library

Robert Oxley from Vote Leave says, [/size]"If you stacked the entire EU rule book it would be higher than Nelson's colum

Which is of course typical Vote Leave hyperbole...

[/size][size=78%] [/size][size=11px]

[fazersharp]

If you count all EU regulations, EU-related Acts of Parliament, and EU-related Statutory Instruments, about 62% of laws introduced between 1993 and 2014 that apply in the UK implemented EU obligations.

I find that difficult to believe. What's your source? As pointed out, the 14% figure is research in the House of Commons Library

Robert Oxley from Vote Leave says, [/size]"If you stacked the entire EU rule book it would be higher than Nelson's colum

Which is of course typical Vote Leave hyperbole...

[/size][size=78%] [/size][size=11px]

Here you go -enjoy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e...m-36473105

[agricola]

Quietly re-assembling the suspension on the fazer in the garage, with the radio on (proper mantime). A cross section of MPs discussing Brexit. Astonishingly, (well, not really) all pushing the so called peoples vote (their vote really) the best question came from a fellow oop north, who simply asked, if you get your peoples vote, what would you do if you lost again?

Followed by bluster and completely failing to answer.

Given the all of the forecasts predicted a majority to remain at the referendum, which all proved wrong, what would you do if you lost again?

Still whinge?

[YamFazFan]

It's the possibility of Remain winning a second referendum that you need to really worry about. Does anyone seriously think it wouldn't be as close either way as the first one was?
Leave will have had to win twice. Remain only have to win once. That's why they're so keen to have another crack at it

If there were a second, the result would be binding. Say Remain win by 52% to 48%. That's the same as the margin Leave won by in the first referendum so it's a draw over the two rounds, but only the second one counts and then we're stuck in that rotten to the core institution forever.
They'd be as ungracious in victory as they are in defeat. They would be rubbing Leaver's noses right in it.
If Remain lost again I dread to think how low they would stoop in an attempt to overturn the democratic result again.

[VNA]

Quote from: VNA on 04 December 2018, 08:52:44 PM
Quote
I think Minford is absolutely wrong about that.

So what you are doing is taking an economic model and cherry picking the bits you like and dismissing those you don’t. 



Ah, if only life could be like that.

 
Quote from: VNA on 01 December 2018, 01:24:56 PM

And can I come back to the one thing I think Minford is absolutely right about; 
Quote
Minford admits his model predicts that the policy would cause the ‘elimination’ of UK manufacturing and a large increase in wage inequality.

I’m not promoting Minford's view.  I am not cherry picking it,  I am criticising it.

[VNA]

It's the possibility of Remain winning a second referendum that you need to really worry about. Does anyone seriously think it wouldn't be as close either way as the first one was?
Leave will have had to win twice. Remain only have to win once. That's why they're so keen to have another crack at it [img alt= width=15 height=15]http://foc-u.co.uk/file:///C:/Users/garet/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/img]

If there were a second, the result would be binding. Say Remain win by 52% to 48%. That's the same as the margin Leave won by in the first referendum so it's a draw over the two rounds, but only the second one counts and then we're stuck in that rotten to the core institution forever.
They'd be as ungracious in victory as they are in defeat. They would be rubbing Leaver's noses right in it.
If Remain lost again I dread to think how low they would stoop in an attempt to overturn the democratic result again.

I wouldn’t get too excited about a second referendum.  It is only one option.  Though it has become a viable option.


One of the key moments yesterday was the ruling by the European Court of Justice’s advocate general;

The formal legal recommendation cites Britain's "sovereignty" in treaty-making matters and says withdrawal "may be revoked at any time" during the negotiating period, as long as it is done in good faith.

So what does that mean?  I think in practise it means that NO DEAL is now buried.  I think it also means that May’s deal is dead.  May has tried everything she can to block this advice.  Why?  Because without an exit she can hold a gun to MP’s heads and state, it’s my deal or NO DEAL.


Tory MPs now know that they can vote down May’s deal without the fear of a NO DEAL BREXIT occurring by default.  All MP’s now know it is safe to vote this deal down.


So what could happen is…..  May’s deal is voted down.  May might try again (perhaps doubtful as she may lose spectacularly in the first vote) but it could be voted down a second time.  May will be left with no credibility and the government will be at war with itself as the clock ticks slowly to Armageddon and a NO DEAL BREXIT.


But the government will not risk NO DEAL.  There are only a few dozen MP’s who are in favour of NO DEAL.  Parliament now has the power to call a vote on article 50.


NO DEAL will not happen because the parliament will stop it.  As a sovereign state, as a representative democracy, out MP’s have the power to act to stop such a disaster.


Our democracy is alive and well.