Again you provide nothing to work with. Pretty much everyone agrees weve made a mess of the negotiations. China and America are both in unions the size of the EU and I doubt they would advice breaking up their own countries. Japan is now in deflation largely thanks to trumps trade war with China. Doesnt point to the prosperity of going alone.
Unlike a few others I am not qualified as an expert........I can only go by my own past personal dealings. Why do you think they are without foundation????? Because I won't tell you my reasons?? I said at the outset I couldn't collaborate some of my offerings. I didn't say all of the CEO's did I? Or if I did then I have to correct that. Some would not discuss Brexit. I am sorry if my opinion upsets people.
Mate there is such a thing as slander or construed mis-information or definition of character or whatever........My business dealings with the EU while completely legitimate would be all open to opinions. So I would be foolish to openly discuss them. Some bright spark would possibly disagree then we would be in for expensive litigation.
You don't have to apologise, as it doesn't upset me Beddy. I'm more concerned that if you have something to say, try to back it up to give it some validity. Just saying 'I don't like the EU because... [effectively] I don't' is no argument. You not liking the EU doesn't make it a bad thing. You might as well say, 'I don't like butter on hot toast'. OK, so you don't like the EU. Have you got anything to say that might actually make a difference? If you said, 'I don't like the EU because it is effectively an unelected body that wields too much power over the nation states', is something one could discuss, especially if you produced evidence. See what people are getting at?
But I'm not lying either. This isn't my opinion. It's true. But I can't tell you why. And, as you seem deliberately to misunderstand me, I'll state clearly that I agree that the negotiations have been handled appallingly by the UK government. It's the narrative of your Leave friends that the fault lies with the EU that I disagree with. Vin
The EU openly publishes its workings and discussing them is part of democracy. I can understand not wanting to discuss specifics. I bring up housing and housing development a lot since that's the area I work in but i don't mention specific developments or companies. But I don't understand why you can't just say something like, trade laws have made it hard to import materials. I don't even know if the reasons are economic or because Juncker asked you for nudes.
As a break from the EU/UK, I note that Donald Trump has tweeted his approval of General Motors selling one its major manufacturing plants to an electrical vehicle manufacturer called Workhorse. You may or may not know that Elon Musk of Tesla has had his wings clipped [then they've re-grown] by the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC], a body that effectively polices the US stock market. The SEC have taken Musk to court on a couple of occasions, saying that his 'tweets' affect the stock market value of his company Tesla. Affecting stock market prices with news or opinion can be deemed illegal if the person giving the opinion is materially affected by that opinion. For example, a company they own shares in has a value rise. Non expert, Donald Trump regularly gives opinion which affects the stock market, but gets away with this because he's the President of the United States. Today the value of Workhorse's stock went up by 40% before GM or Workhorse had even made statements. And they are still in talks - it's not a done deal.
I’m not goading you or insulting you I’m merely pointing out that it’s a bit strange that you keep joining in the debate without putting your side across. You’ve said you’d rather leave, fine. I respect that. It’s like a one sided debate: you’re allowed to point out the weakness in our side, but no-one can see your side of the fence. I also respect that you don’t want to disclose your reasons, but it’s a bit unfair to carry on negating the other side without disclosure.
Most "leave fans" do not say the fault lies with the EU. Most of them will admit the EU have played a blinder. Like you most "leave fans" agree that it has been handled appallingly by the UK government............hence the reason the Tory vote is collapsing from a very recent high point!!! Pretty sure this change must be mostly "leave fans":
Sorry fatso....didnt mean to imply that you personally did.......I accept it probably irritates people by not disclosing the main reasons for my dislike of the EU. Some things though are not best disclosed on a football Forum. As far as I am concerned I was merely joining some parts of the debate. My view for what its worth stays the same.........
Vin..... The EU is playing a blinder........They cannot afford to be soft.... I understand that otherwise it could be even more disastrous for them. It will affect them too and the whole of the EU in different ways. Especially financially as they will have to make up the amount eventually, that the UK contributes. That is no mean amount as you well know. Why was there a referendum if all was well with the EU.........Cameron didn't invent that people were unhappy with the EU. Granted it was a surprise that the result went the way it did. Nobody was prepared for that. I didn't say or imply that all of the CEO's were in agreement with each other. Just as there was different opinions from the people I met over the last couple of weeks. Some couldn't understand why we would want to leave the EU. They did understand (without discussing my personal stuff which I won't discuss on here) my other reasons such as over ruling our courts ETC just to mention one of my Gripes. Some made suggestions as to how to over come some of what I call failings (all of which has been debated on here) These suggestions could perhaps have been made by the EU negotiating team if they were generally interested in keeping us in the EU. It was just their opinions and suggestions I am quoting not necessarily mine........
Over ruled? https://www.instituteforgovernment....analysis-shows-uk-rarely-taken-european-court more here https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36473105 and https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/suppo...pean-court-of-justice-and-why-does-it-matter/ also https://theconversation.com/the-uk-...-of-justice-heres-what-it-means-for-you-71524 You need also to look at the benefits of ECJ legislation:- "Concerning the clean air directive the UK was found to be in breach of its EU law obligations in ensuring clean air. But the UK is not alone here. The European Commission has brought actions against 16 member states on this legislation." Cough on.
What I mean by that...is our courts have made judgements then been taken to the EU courts which has over ruled our judgements........Doesn't matter that it hasn't happened that much.....in my opinion it shouldn't have happened at all!! As for the clean air yes you are right........and we were not the only ones....oh shame.........
In the old days these types of disputes often resulted in war. I'm personally happy we can fight in international court rather than on battlefields, or to a lesser extent, trade sanctions and the like. Pre agreed rules and court arbitration are the way forward for me. I hate the idea of national governments acting with impunity.
Research by the Vote Leave referendum campaign group found that the UK has been defeated in 101 out of 131 legal actions taken to the European Court of Justice over the last 40 years. Rulings against the UK Government included prolonging a ban on world-wide export of British beef and scrapping a cut in beer duty. The failure rate of 77.1 per cent for Britain in the Luxembourg-based court was last night being seen as fresh evidence of the urgent need for country to quit the EU.
The beef export ban was to stop the spread of disease while the beer duty cut was due to anti competition laws due to it singling out beer and giving it an advantage over other spirit producers. Our own industry bodies were the ones challenging the government there so could also be considered a victory for the UK.
Despite the meat we were trying to export was not contaminated.......Who made the anti competition laws........Who were they protecting certainly not our own beer makers. They were protecting mainly EU beer makers.........
Cases tend to be referred to the ECJ when EU lawyers expect to win so it would be surprising if there wasn't a bias towards rulings against countries. If you're interested (I know you're not), France loses 90% of its cases. Almost all of those cases were the result of the UK being taken to court for failing to implement EU law. Now, before that gets your back up, bear in mind that that means a failure by the UK to implement laws that it had approved within Europe. I know the papers like to paint the EU as something that imposes laws on us but we are a part of that decision-making process. We are breaking rules we've agreed to. What you're also missing is that we benefit from the rules being applied. When the European Central Bank tried to force clearing of Euro-denominated bonds into the Euro zone ( a big financial blow to the City) the ECJ said it had to abide by the rules and allow banks in London to carry on. How much publicity did the Mail give to that bit of good news for the UK economy? Did they publish a headline "Victory for the UK in the ECJ: saves British government millions in tax receipts"? Guess whether they did... Vin
