Apologies, that was how it was reported in the states, go figure, the press lied 
I’m not pretending anything, from what I’ve seen they are being unreasonable.
I always make my own mind up. I don’t trust any politician or even the media as they’ve proved themselves to be anything but neutral in their reporting. Makes navigating the truth a lot harder.
I don’t think the EU is really ‘winning’ though, the Brexit hurts the EU as well. Maybe not as much as it hurts the UK though.
1 Like
on the subject of scotland. I was born, live and work in W.Scotland, have done for the vast majority of my life, save for a few summer jobs here and there when I was at university. Since 2014 though, and the referendum, an increasing number of people that I encounter through my work (Local council housing stuff) have asked me “where do you come from ?”, and their tone has been somewhat less pleasant in more recent times. Which feels like the country is becoming a bit more xenophobic.
Or maybe it’s just that weegie schemies have become dumber and can no longer tell the difference between an Ayrshire accent and an English one.
Given the losses to the GPB vs. the Euro I think Scotland would be better off dropping the losing currency.
Really? They’re demanding that we have to give them fishing rights otherwise we won’t get a deal and that’s just one thing.
What do you expect when one side has all of the power in negotiations? You voted to scrap all of your existing deals and renegotiate from a position of complete inferiority, why should the EU be obligated to make up for your poor decision at their own expense?
Kind of felt sorry for Scotland somewhat, although the vote was collected individually it was cast as a whole. Leading to the situation of Scotland wanting to remain when the vote went to leave.
You’re right, I didn’t expect much more, which is why no deal is always on the table.
Sure, if the UK wants to commit complete economic suicide. The UK needs a deal more than the EU does, threatening “no deal” is like trying to rob someone by threatening to shoot yourself if they don’t give you all their money. The EU can just shrug, leave the UK to its fate, and demand even more concessions when the UK comes back in a few years and begs to be let back in.
1 Like
The problem with WTO is it mainly revolves around manufactured goods and not much with services and of course the UK is heavy in services.
But whatever, we’ll just have to see what happens. It was always going to be a bumpy ride at least to start with.
Removed some off topic posts. Keep it civil and on topic. Cheers.
1 Like
Once again that’s a matter of subjective interpretation, some see the change from a economic agreement (EEC) to a supranational organisation that overrides national authority (EU) as becoming something else; others see it as a natural progression. A supranational authority can’t exist without its membership ceding some aspects of national authority and sovereignty to it.
Despite the failure to agree an exit policy for the UK there’s rumblings of other EU members following our lead.
“Having this information in advance means that you have over a month to top up your Omega, and stock up on Skill Extractors at the current prices in order to prepare adequately for the changes on 5 October.”
I guess the PLEX (and extractor) sales are very low and this is just a marketing variation on “discount”.
That works both ways Lucas, which is why I phrased it the way I did.
This has been constantly stated by anti-EU types but there’s yet to be any serious movement in that direction.
You’re somewhat correct in that outside of Brexit there’s currently no serious movement in that direction, although both France and the Republic of Ireland have held referendums on related subjects in the past.
There are suggestions that some EU members are getting a bit antsy though, the Swedish appear to be one of them with a Swedish MEP recently warning the EU that more exit referendums may follow Brexit if things continue as they are.
I think that most EU members understand that they can’t compete with massive economies like the US and China as individual coutries.
I think almost every country that isn’t the US and China understands this, even the UK.
I think a lot of the noise for it comes from moves towards populism and nationalism which are driving similar misinformation campaigns to what the UK saw from leave supporters.
The misinformation wasn’t restricted to the leave supporters, the remain supporters were just as bad.
The UK was pretty heavily xenophobic before the vote though so it was pretty easy to push through.
The close 52/48 result of the referendum gives lie to the statement that Brexit was easy to push through. Furthermore the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency did a study in 2018 that showed the UK has one of the lowest rates of xenophobic incidents in the EU.
Both sides see the lead up to the referendum through different lenses, and I get that it’s a divisive subject where there’s very little middle ground; both on a national and a personal level.
Regardless of how people see it the fact remains that both leave and remain groups told lies or used outdated information to support their claims.
I’m going to leave it there lest we get the thread closed for excessive RL political discussion, we’re clearly on different sides of the debate and while I respect your opinion on the matter I’m not prepared to delve into the matter any further than we already have.
It’s been a good discussion and thanks for being civil.
Fly safe o7.
1 Like
I cant fault you for that, the mainstream media the last decade has gone bonkers.
1 Like
Yes you did, if, you were resident in Scotland.
The one thing that struck me leading up to the Scottish referendum with those being interviewed was the underlying feeling that people were worried about the unknown. I think that’s why the Brexit vote happened when it did they thought it would be a similar result, of course they were wrong.
If you piss people off enough they will stop worrying about the unknown and take a chance.
How anyone could be offended by that, is beyond me.
This forum is becoming a joke now.
1 Like
Your post could be construed as xenophobic in nature; restaurants, bars etc have always been major employers of immigrant and migrant labour, little has changed in that respect for at least 40 years, except for the origin of those workers.
2 Likes
Low skill, low pay, dirty work has been done by ‘slaves’ and then ‘immigrants’ through-out human history.
…and in a few generations, these same people become the bosses and rulers., and it all begins again.
Scarlet is making an observation of a social situation, that has existed as long as humans have worked together.
Being a student of the legal system in England, one such example of the EU overriding national sovereignty is the introduction in 1973 of value added tax. This replaced purchase tax (which went into the general accounting system) and netted the Treasury, through which the EU membership is paid (and is the sole reason VAT was introduced in England), 10% of all point of sale gross takings from every business in Britain. Under EU Law, the standard rate of VAT can now be no lower than 15% (source: European Commission). All revenue from VAT from any member State goes directly to the EC Treasury.
Example 2: As a member of the European Union, section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68) made provision for EU legislation to become law in the UK in two ways.
- Some EU legislation was directly applicable to the UK. This meant that it applied automatically in UK law, without any action required by the UK. This legislation is published on the EUR-Lex website.
- Other EU legislation required domestic implementing legislation before it became national law. UK legislation that implemented EU legislation was generally in the form of secondary legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68), though sometimes primary legislation, or secondary legislation made under another Act, was used. Implementing legislation is published on legislation.gov.uk, as part of the UK statute book. For example, see The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 that implemented the EU Directive on the re-use of public sector information (Directive (EC) No. 2003/98). (Sources: UK Government)
Shining example of the first method: The Data Protection Act 1998 has been superceded by the General Data Protection Regulation, which is direct EU law. The DPA addressed a great many things that the GPDR does not, such as the fact that the DPA specifically allowed in section 36, for covert recording of public servants for the purposes of gathering evidence and for domestic purposes. GPDR does not.
Example of the second method: The Human Rights Act 1998 omits some of the Articles cited in the ECHR. Notably, Articles I, XIII, XV, XIX-LIX. Short version: The HRA is not worth the vellum it was scribed on.