Erolz66:
What they think about if we should leave or stay is history. But surely they have a right to an opinion on how we leave ? That this is not wiped out just because they voted leave ? MP's did vote on May's deal. Do you think that should not have been voted on ? That TM should have struck the best deal she could and sign it and we all then just get behind it ? If you think it should be voted on, then should it not be voted on by MP's that are (or should be) reflecting the views of their constituents ? Do those who voted leave have no right to a say in such decisions just because they voted leave ?
Why? The question was IN or OUT not how or when or on what terms! Having made the decision to leave, surely don’t we pay politicians and civil servants enough to make the decisions on the details as to how to implement it? Isn't that what we pay them fore? I have been overruled on occasions in my career but I didn’t go and sulk in the office and moan about it, I carried out the decision made. That was my job! I had a say, I was overruled but I got on with it! But I didn’t keep going back and complaining about a decision I disagreed with. Quite often I was later proved right ..... not every time, but when I did the reversion to Plan A was usually very low profile so that those that made the original decision were not made to look silly.
Do you accept that there is a whole range of trade deals that can be done between parties ? That some remove more barriers to trade than others ? That there is a general correlation between things like how many barriers a given form of deal removes and on how many things and things like how much 'regulatory alignment' there needs to be in a given form of deal ? Do you not think there is anything unrealistic in the idea that we can free ourselves from the 'influence of EU Mandarins' and yet still maintain a form of trade deal that is dependent on such 'regulatory alignment' ? That we have in no way sought to try and 'have our cake and eat it' or that attempts to do so doing so plays any part in defining where we end up ?
What’s wrong with carrying on as we have done for the last few years in trade with the EU? If it means just changing the numbers on a customs form, or not applying EU Law but UK Law ..... that’s where you work out differences. Gradually over time you get an agreed system. But where EU Law clashes with UK Law then we should have the right to apply our Laws in Our country.
At present I don’t believe you can buy Cyprus banana’s in the EU because they don’t comply with the EU regulations. So now we could buy Cyprus banana’s in the UK (
They are sweeter than the normal imported ones anyway.) But will Big Brother EU step in and forbid Cyprus from exporting? That is the sort of mindless legislation I would be pleased to see thrown in the trash can.
You are getting divorced .....(and) ..... yet you believe that you can do so without any negative impact or material impact on you as a result of getting divorced ........
I didn’t say that! I said you discuss and compromise on the basis that neither one of you is going carry on as before but you need to set in motion what those compromises will be, try to make decisions that will minimise the impact and cope with any problems that occur when they occur in the same cooperative manner. If one party then runs off to a Lawyer in a fit of peak ..... you can chuck any likely hood of a smooth separation.
Let’s pass on the Irish problem ..... it’s a bit like the Cyprus problem ....... there will never really be a solution that will please everyone involved.
