keano77

Well Barnier seems to have been swinging the lead so perhaps Boris?s optimism met EU highlighter pen-pushing bureaucracy.

Good question pk. As far as I understand it the Govt?s argument is that the WA is ambiguous and many of the details were to be ironed out in the course of negotiations through ?the Joint committee?. One consequence of the ambiguity is that businesses based in GB could be subject to EU (single market) rules if they supply goods to Northern Ireland. The Bill aims to remove such ambiguity as it is a back door for the EU to exercise control over domestic matters through strict legal interpretation. A sort of the devil is in the detail. The BBC touches on this here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54092940

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Someone tell keano it's not the 19th century > anymore, the world has moved on, England is a > minor world player compared to several hundred > years ago and that the EU is not some invading > force that extracted taxes from the natives As an Irishman you will know how the Troika compelled Ireland to introduce all sorts of charges and taxes on the natives as a condition for the bailout. Property taxes and water rates spring to mind although mass demonstrations by the natives forced toe government to back down on water rates.

UK government publishes legal position defending decision to ignore international law ...Essentially, it argues that domestic law, and decisions by parliament, trump international law. It claims that the supreme court ruling in the article 50 case supports this argument... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/sep/10/coronavirus-uk-boris-johnson-moonshot-testing-latest-news

UK has already breached withdrawal agreement, EU lawyers say Leaked legal opinion says bloc already has grounds to take ?legal remedies? that could lead to financial and trade sanctions https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/10/fears-grow-that-uk-is-preparing-to-quit-brexit-talks Project fear version 10,001?

It?s not as simple as that pk. Forgive me for cut and pasting from The Telegraph ?... The 1707 Articles of Union between England and Scotland, and those between Great Britain and Ireland in 1800, abolished all customs duties between the different parts of the United Kingdom. They also declared that the citizens of all parts should be ?on the same footing in respect of trade and navigation, and in all treaties with foreign powers...? Now, the WA has given the EU power to override UK unity and seamless trade all because the EU wants to collect taxes if goods enter the Republic. An oversimplification on my part perhaps but since when did the UK bow down to foreign tax collectors? Discuss

It woke you up.

I suggest you read what is in the bill and try to understand why it is there.

I?m not sure pk. It is a bit high stakes. Both sides want a deal. Unfortunately the EU still wants to ensnare the UK in its spider?s web in perpetuity. Compromise would be the best solution. However, a no deal would not be disastrous either as we chart our way in a post-Covid world.

Deep breaths and count to 10 remainers. Exciting yourselves is not good for your blood pressure. It?s a tactic to up the stakes in the negotiations. Barnier was caught with his trousers down colouring in paragraphs with his highlighter pens. The EU has now woken up and the big players will need to get off their arses and get involved. Genius really.

Nothing to talk about. A bill has been put forward that has had the desired effect of making the EU pee its pants and Remaners run round like headless chickens. Nothing has been voted on, no Act passed. Chill folks.

I understand j.a. I?m neutral on this and hopefully can see both sides. Seenbeen. Yes, a horrible example of bigotry. While dad and mum, 2 daddies, 2 mummies, one parent etc is perfectly fine it starts getting complicated with non-binary, fluid, undecided and so on who/which would all need to be represented. So, back to the original point of this thread - what is included, who is including it and why and what do parents think about it.

...But for a minority of parents it is not in keeping with our views... Is it a minority niledynodely? Or is it the silent majority who are uncomfortable with this? This is the problem the government has. The proponents are loud and vocal and will ?cancel? or accuse those who don?t agree with hate crimes etc The matter, rightly or wrongly, has become wrapped up in the culture/gender issue.

There?s no doubt in my mind that the demonstrations in Birmingham were ?hijacked? by activists. Maybe the government is right to postpone the RSE implementation. The intention is/was to make the lessons compulsory. If schools are obliged to consult parents will the ?curriculum? be tailored to different communities - ie different versions in different areas? I don?t know, just wondering

j.a. I only mentioned the gender wars/trans issue because it?s about relationships and sexual education, not just the mechanics of sex. But agree that it?s a can of worms

Fair point pk. There?s nothing wrong with being tolerant of others? sexual choices. But it not that simple is it? Some communities - Muslims, Christians, Jews etc - might consider some of the practices wrong and object to their children being exposed to such material. We saw this issue in Handsworth in Birmingham recently. At the end of the day it is social engineering and what is educating and informing from the perspective of secular liberal parents differs from those parents with different religious persuasions. Presumably the lessons are not compulsory and parents can withdraw their children from such classes if they wish?

... You can only educate and inform ... I don?t think to OP is disagreeing with this j.a. Rather the OP?s concern appears to be who is doing the educating and informing and what agendas is being followed. The gender wars are creating difficulties because of vocal minorities trying to enforce their views on others. An example here would be the problems Stonewall has encountered with an alleged anti-women trans policy. Parents have a right to know who is preparing these ?educational? texts and to decide if they consider them appropriate for their children.

I think most nations of whatever economy are worried. There are calls for the debts of developing countries to be written off - many will never be able to pay them off and interest payments are keeping their populations in poverty There are serious concerns global stock markets are divorced from reality and might crash Fears of a property crash The virus isn?t going away anytime soon Etc etc In short, we might be better off away from the EU to give us the flexibility to respond to a very certain world

I wouldn?t call Barnier a nasty man. In fact I think he?s been doing a good job, working to his brief, from an EU Point of view. I think we should concede on the fishing issue. Let our EU friends fish in our waters but only with row boats and one fishing rod and a tin of worms each. The weight of the tin must be in lbs and ozs and the worms can be whatever shape nature gave them - even wonky banana shape.

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not just these migrants taking a view on UK > versus EU nations....apparently the heads of some > mult-national business's too.... > > https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/mainland-europ > e-is-finally-coming-to-terms-with-brexit > > I expect it probably becuase they're all just > ill-informed though.... It might not be that easy though TheCat ?11bn Dutch 'departure tax' could derail Unilever plans Consumer goods giant may abandon the proposed unification of its Anglo-Dutch structure if a tax bill is passed by Dutch MPs https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/08/10/11bn-dutch-departure-tax-could-derail-unilever-plans/ I suppose you can?t blame the Dutch for being desperate to hold onto a multinational success story

True Blah Blah.

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > AllLivesMatter!...errrr, except the darkies in the > dinghies... Those words say a lot about you DR. My view is if people are prepared to risk their lives to come to Britain let them in. They have shown determination, tenacity and drive and a belief in Britain sadly missing in the country today. In fact I?d operate a one in two out policy. One migrant in, two whinging Remainers who?ve been putting Britain down out. 🙂

I see you?ve all avoided the question why are these boat people paying big bucks to gangsters to risk their lives in overcrowded kiddies? dinghies to try to get to Britain rather than stay in the EU? Fair enough, you don?t know and cut and pasted statistics don?t help either. Some might call that ignorance

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To answer your question Keano, asylum seekers > settle in many countries and the UK is not as > badly affected as many other EU countries either. > Some facts on asylum seekers here. > > https://fullfact.org/immigration/why-do-migrants-a > nd-asylum-seekers-want-come-uk/ Again Blah Blah, like Red Devil, you haven?t defined your terms. ?Asylum seekers? covers a multitude of Reasons (and excuses)- fleeing wars/famine, ethnic cleansing, sexual orientation discrimination etc etc. The boat people you referred to are economic migrants who probably have more money in their pockets than you or I.

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Does it comfort you to pretend that 'many' > people > > who made a different choice to you are truly > that > > stupid? > > Not it doesn't comfort me at all. Ignorance always > leads to poor choices and poor choices have > consequences. Ignorance can be a slippery concept. What is regarded as knowledge in a particular era can be shown to be incorrect as knowledge develops. The atom was supposed to be indivisible, the earth flat, the Universe comprised the Milky Way and so on. Some people might argue that poor choices made by successive British governments allowing us (The UK) to be ensnared in an EU spider?s web, the consequences of which we are still trying to extricate ourselves from. Were those politicians (and Remainers) ignorant?