What about them?
Isn't the end point for that standing room only
Hang on, wind back a few pages and I wrote that much of what the EU 'assumed' in terms of 'competences' was, and quite deliberately, innocuous stuff that wasn't controversial and so remained unnoticed. And it was stuff that any government anywhere does, e.g. Oz, Japan, Canada, Chile etc. etc..
I say we shouldn't be in the EU while membership requires it having primacy over us. Bin that, revert to a proper trading bloc rather than a dishonest wannabe super-state, and I'll vote to rejoin.
Just noticed this post...
"Spinning" generally implies trying to make lies sound credible, or at very least trying to distort the truth.
Whereas in this case, that seems a pretty sound assessment.
'Bespoke' Brexit deal signed off as UK to rejoin EU's £85bn Horizon science scheme
The UK is to return to the European Union’s £85 billion Horizon science research programme following months of negotiations.www.cityam.com
"Britain continued to participate under the post-Brexit trade deal brokered with Brussels but was frozen out in a tit-for-tat retaliation in a dispute over Northern Ireland arrangements."
Indeed, even in the final stages of the negotiations to rejoin, the EU was still being typically bloody-minded by insisting that the UK should have to pay for the two years that they weren't even in it!
They really are a horrible shower of sh1t and why any decent ordinary working citizen of the UK wants to cling on to them is totally beyond me!
By collectively you mean that America decides surely ??Just noticed this post...
NATO decisions are made collectively, but... there is no compulsion on any member state to implement them. NATO cannot, via any mechanism in the Treaty, legislate for / pass laws over / impose regulations upon / hand out directives to or do anything else that is binding on a member state. NATO has no Court which - as a prerequisite of membership - takes precedence over a member state's domestic Courts and which can declare a member state's own constitution as unlawful!, nor does it have a 'constitution' (cloaked as a treaty) which is deemed the source of primacy over its members. So no, we shouldn't leave NATO.
I don't recall Farage/ Leave saying farming was going to be thrown under a bus and certainly said farm support was safe.Ag' is a fraction of the economy! Currently benefits for people who can / could work are being paid to 1.57m people, obviously less than the number of pensioners, but a hell of a lot in real terms, working out at over £6bn per year, more than three times England's BPS, well over £8bns together.
That's a lot of money, and if it is to be labelled as 'minimal', then it's fair for me to point out that the cost of a new general hospital or an Army division is 1/8th of a minimal. Or that the whole sum would allow for every single nursing, medical and engineering student in the country to have free tuition and a non-repayable maintenance grant of over £10k each year.
I say we shouldn't be in the EU while membership requires it having primacy over us. Bin that, revert to a proper trading bloc rather than a dishonest wannabe super-state, and I'll vote to rejoin.
But we all know this is fantasy; it is intending to be a monolithic state, it already has primacy, it is seeking to expand its 'competences' all the time (it doesn't like the word sovereignty), with every ECJ ruling, every EC Directive and Regulation, and with every new 'treaty' - it didn't have the courage to keep the planned term 'Constitution'...
Free trade, yes, visa-free travel, yes, extradition, scientific cooperation etc. yes, yes, yes; but when they demand subservience and that our legislative prerogative be surrendered, no, no, no...
paddy Biden
No one more gullible than those who wish to remain subservient to the EU!
No, I don't. If the US wanted something to happen in re NATO and any other single country, let alone a group, thought otherwise, it not only wouldn't happen under NATO auspices, it couldn't happen under them.
The Remain side is in no position to preach regarding honesty, nor hyperbole, during the Referendum campaign. Again, you are trying to play the Remain trick of saying something, and hoping that it goes unchallenged and so becomes accepted 'fact'.
Until all major economies remove subsidy, doing so unilaterally will just destroy domestic farming and food security.As with all such things, the reliance of UK ag' on subsidy has left its recipients weak, and this is clearly demonstrated by the fact the you are concerned that they will struggle without it. I've no problem with the Exchequer helping in the transition away from subsidy, that is morally right and economically sensible, be it via tax, one-off grants or interest-free loans during a transition period. But the gratis handovers have to go, and the sooner this reliance on the general taxpayer goes, the better: if it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly...
It's interesting to read up on how NZ achieved this.
This is all very true as well sadly.
We’re on the same pageHang on, wind back a few pages and I wrote that much of what the EU 'assumed' in terms of 'competences' was, and quite deliberately, innocuous stuff that wasn't controversial and so remained unnoticed. And it was stuff that any government anywhere does, e.g. Oz, Japan, Canada, Chile etc. etc..
Therefore this sort of governance (and that is a careful choice of word) won't in great part change because it doesn't need to and, as far as I know, nobody argued that it should.
Only one aspect of governance needed to change to make an enormous difference in principal and practice to everything else, and that is with regard to the accountability of the lawmakers. There was and could be none while within the EEC / EC / EU, it is entirely so again now. This isn't for a moment to claim that the actual 'Government' at any given time and of any given party will be good, but it will be accountable.
Ag' is a fraction of the economy! Currently benefits for people who can / could work are being paid to 1.57m people, obviously less than the number of pensioners, but a hell of a lot in real terms, working out at over £6bn per year, more than three times England's BPS, well over £8bns together.
That's a lot of money, and if it is to be labelled as 'minimal', then it's fair for me to point out that the cost of a new general hospital or an Army division is 1/8th of a minimal. Or that the whole sum would allow for every single nursing, medical and engineering student in the country to have free tuition and a non-repayable maintenance grant of over £10k each year.
I say we shouldn't be in the EU while membership requires it having primacy over us. Bin that, revert to a proper trading bloc rather than a dishonest wannabe super-state, and I'll vote to rejoin.
But we all know this is fantasy; it is intending to be a monolithic state, it already has primacy, it is seeking to expand its 'competences' all the time (it doesn't like the word sovereignty), with every ECJ ruling, every EC Directive and Regulation, and with every new 'treaty' - it didn't have the courage to keep the planned term 'Constitution'...
Free trade, yes, visa-free travel, yes, extradition, scientific cooperation etc. yes, yes, yes; but when they demand subservience and that our legislative prerogative be surrendered, no, no, no...
AgreedHang on, wind back a few pages and I wrote that much of what the EU 'assumed' in terms of 'competences' was, and quite deliberately, innocuous stuff that wasn't controversial and so remained unnoticed. And it was stuff that any government anywhere does, e.g. Oz, Japan, Canada, Chile etc. etc..
Therefore this sort of governance (and that is a careful choice of word) won't in great part change because it doesn't need to and, as far as I know, nobody argued that it should.
Only one aspect of governance needed to change to make an enormous difference in principal and practice to everything else, and that is with regard to the accountability of the lawmakers. There was and could be none while within the EEC / EC / EU, it is entirely so again now. This isn't for a moment to claim that the actual 'Government' at any given time and of any given party will be good, but it will be accountable.
Ag' is a fraction of the economy! Currently benefits for people who can / could work are being paid to 1.57m people, obviously less than the number of pensioners, but a hell of a lot in real terms, working out at over £6bn per year, more than three times England's BPS, well over £8bns together.
That's a lot of money, and if it is to be labelled as 'minimal', then it's fair for me to point out that the cost of a new general hospital or an Army division is 1/8th of a minimal. Or that the whole sum would allow for every single nursing, medical and engineering student in the country to have free tuition and a non-repayable maintenance grant of over £10k each year.
I say we shouldn't be in the EU while membership requires it having primacy over us. Bin that, revert to a proper trading bloc rather than a dishonest wannabe super-state, and I'll vote to rejoin.
But we all know this is fantasy; it is intending to be a monolithic state, it already has primacy, it is seeking to expand its 'competences' all the time (it doesn't like the word sovereignty), with every ECJ ruling, every EC Directive and Regulation, and with every new 'treaty' - it didn't have the courage to keep the planned term 'Constitution'...
Free trade, yes, visa-free travel, yes, extradition, scientific cooperation etc. yes, yes, yes; but when they demand subservience and that our legislative prerogative be surrendered, no, no, no...
I know loads of 'farmers' who wouldn't welcome losing their unearned cut of the taxpayers' money...
Probably but it's not a sentiment I've come across in 'real life'. As I do, mainly seen as a necessary evil to deal with competitor nations agricultural support and to ensure food security.I know loads of 'farmers' who wouldn't welcome losing their unearned cut of the taxpayers' money...
