Dano Happy to reply chap Think of it as a classroom, the smart, gifted and entrepreneurial are often held back because the school has one standard applied to all. Now that might be okay for the lower achieving kids as the often the top tier can share and encourage those to lift themselves up but for the top tier after a while they need constant challenges, tasks, the abilities to continually test their skills, without that they become drones and simply lose the talent that used to raise others. The freedom to trade on a world stage as the U.K. rather than tied by 27 other countries and a management company that stifles rather than promotes is vital if we are to raise standards and expectations. Now as you know most non eu countries use free trade agreements as well as wto when the deal permits or which is ever preferential The reason for seeking wto at this stage is not so much our promotion on the world stage but more protection from the eu in the early days of Brexit. The reasons most obvious are (1) they will seek a no deal not because we would not be a good ally, but more they are protecting the eu and if that brings us down to teach others not to leave, they will do so and (2), even after that, they will not want us, as a clean brexit would allow, to succeed as a nation who leaves and then does quite well. So we would under the protection of wto and ability of free trade agreements a country that prospered before the eu and one that can again. As to why band together human nature mostly? in the early days the first dozen or so saw it as the same we had joined for, a trading block by countries with equal values, the ability to contribute more rather than draw out but as usual with humans, those who sought power, tried to expand into the united states of europe wishing for a whole continent to be in charge, rather than the 28 individual countries who despite actually are the employers of the eu comission, are now very much the subserviants of the comission. The commission has become arrogant, non listening, above it's station and it's now like an amicable divorce between two long term partners who hope to remain friends after the split, until a lawyer gets involved to stir things up for their own power needs. A bit like a fireman lighting the fire then claiming to be a hero when they put it out. This bit is valid but some try applying godwins to it. Japan in the 80's realised they could conquer Asia in a way they could not in the war and many parts of the world through the economy. Germany having failed 3 times (if you include the Prussians) to conquer and control europe through armed force, also in the early 80's realised that they could conquer and control europe through economics and they have done that with very few doubting that Germany is the eu and for good reason.
A lot of wisdom there....not to mention if GE are called there might be a considerable risk to lose even more seats to Labours or even UKIP (if Farage returns from his fishing holiday) Even now it makes me smile when I remember TM calling for GE whilst she had a comfortable majority in the Parliament. I guess she learnt that GE is not the best route to sort out internal tory issues.(or any party) Putting joke aside any PM would be in a very difficult position when there is a big "gap" within gov./parliament/voters with regards to which version of Brexit will be the best.
There are no versions, types or degrees of Brexit any more than there are versions of walking through a door. You either walk through from one side to the other or you do not.
The EU are hardly a ringing endorsement for free trade and for pursuing the principles of free trade as promoted by the WTO. There are,of course,a wide range of opinions,some claim that the EU only charges an average of 3%,but do not take into account that the calculation includes many products that EU countries do not produce at all,and therefore attract 0% tariffs. Quite clearly though,(generally speaking),individual opinion on unfair/fair EU tariffs is closely linked to whether the holder is pro/anti Brexit/Trump. Regardless of that,the consumer bears the cost of tariffs in the end. "The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international body whose purpose is to promote free trade by persuading countries to abolish import tariffs and other barriers. As such, it has become closely associated with globalisation. The WTO is the only international agency overseeing the rules of international trade. It polices free trade agreements, settles trade disputes between governments and organises trade negotiations. WTO decisions are absolute and every member must abide by its rulings. So, when the US and the European Union are in dispute over bananas or beef, it is the WTO which acts as judge and jury. WTO members are empowered by the organisation to enforce its decisions by imposing trade sanctions against countries that have breached the rules". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/2429503.stm "My report A Trade Policy for a Brexited Britain, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs last month, had a short section on EU tariffs. I gave the example of how in October last year EU tariffs on orange imports were quintupled from 3.2 percent to 16 percent. This example has been challenged by some on the Remain side, who have suggested that I got my facts wrong. In fact, the source was Dan Lewis, a leading authority on EU tariffs, who wrote on precisely that subject on BrexitCentral last November: “New 16% import tariffs on oranges show why we must leave the Customs Union”. This example illustrates classic EU tariff policy in action. A bunch of producers elsewhere in the EU – in this case Spain – complained about competition from South African orange exporters and lobbied to increase tariffs. They got their way and the net result as it affected the UK was to increase the cost of orange imports to the UK. Lewis also provided some links (here and here) to the Spanish producers’ lobbying efforts and to one of the tariff schedules on his database. One should note, however, that EU tariffs are subject to potential change on a daily basis, and as of August 24th this year, gov.uk/trade-tariff indicates that orange tariffs range up to 12 percent, and tariffs across the broader group ‘Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons’ range up to at least 17.6 percent. The tariff policy would appear to have a seasonal element. Seasonal or not, this policy provided no benefit to the UK. Admittedly, it did provide some element of job protection to Spanish producers, but I would suggest that the primary concern of UK policymakers should be to promote the interests of UK consumers, not those of overseas producers. Elsewhere in my report I gave examples showing that tariffs can be an extremely expensive way to protect jobs. They also destroy jobs in non-protected sectors by making imports needlessly expensive. The oranges tariff is far from unique. As Lewis continued: Sadly, producer interests are all too frequently the basis for so many of the 12,651 import tariffs that form part of the External Tariff Wall. Consumers – a disparate and diverse group at the best of times – are simply no competition for the concentrated lobbying power of companies in Brussels. But if Brexit is primarily about the democratic restoration of the country, we should clearly start setting a path that puts consumers first.” The UK should therefore promote free trade and eliminate barriers to imports as soon as possible. As the then-Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel concisely put it in a Commons Debate in 1843: “I am bound to say that it is our interest to buy cheap, whether other countries will buy cheap or no.” The tariff on orange imports is far from being the least justifiable of the EU’s many thousands of tariffs. Consider coffee. There are a number of different tariff schedules on coffee imports and the general idea underlying them is that raw materials get zero or very low tariffs, but the processed coffee imports that compete with EU coffee processors currently attract tariffs of up to 11.5 percent. Remember that when you buy your next ‘fair trade’ coffee. Then there are the high tariffs on clothes and footwear. In his report The Essential Guide to EU Import Tariffs 2016, Lewis reported that these tariffs accounted for 37 percent of total tariff revenue. These tariffs constitute a regressive tax, affecting the poor relatively more than the rich. They destroy retail jobs in the UK and destroy jobs in the countries that export these commodities – poor countries that the EU claims to wish to help. There is no good reason why importers of clothes and footwear should pay higher tariffs than other importers, and it is not even as if there is any significant domestic industry left to protect. At the other extreme, the Lewis report lists many commodities that generate utterly trivial tariff revenues. Out of a grand total of just under £3 billion, ‘Live animals’ for instance collected just 0.01 percent or £200k of all tariffs across the UK in 2015, and ‘Paper and paperboard; articles of paper pulp, of paper or of paperboard’ raised a meagre £51 in revenue collected. What purpose do these tariffs serve? There are plenty of other senseless tariffs too. There is a 4.7 percent tariff on umbrellas having a telescopic shaft, presumably designed by an Anglophobic EU bureaucrat to punish the UK for its weather, but why also punish Ireland? There is a tariff of 1.7 percent on swords, cutlasses, bayonets, lances and scabbards and sheaths therefor, but my all-time favorite in the dumb tariff category has to be the 15 percent tariff on unicycles. One wonders which clown set that. https://iea.org.uk/the-eus-thousands-of-senseless-tariffs-punish-the-poor/
Watch the programme. You might learn something about what a despicable human being this man is. Not my research. I'm sure the BBC are pretty sure of what they broadcast in view of the fact Trump likes to threaten people who dig up the truth about him.
Haven't watched what Duke has but I give very little respect to the BBC in this modern era, they're just as bad as anyone for creating drama and outrage where there isn't any. Take this piece I read only this morning https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44785916 It's a completely none story, nothing remotely wrong with boarder guards enquiring as to the legal guardianship of children. We (my family) get it all the time. As me and my partner aren't married yet, and she had a daughter from a previous relationship prior to us getting together and having another daughter, we have three different surnames whenever we travel. You know what, we expect to get questions, and that's fine because at some point they'll catch someone trafficking. The BBC stir up just as much unnecessary outrage, faux hatred and doom and gloom as the next 'media outlet' Makes my blood boil knowing I'm forced to pay for these jokers
Or they tell the truth about a person who has some very very dubious relationships with women, some who appear to not be of legal age. Jut a few weeks ago YOU were having a rant about paedos who happened to be muslims, now its someone you apparently look up to, you want all the evidence swept under the carpet as it doesn't fit your agenda.
Agree, the BBC lost independence many years ago and as to your proof duke, even panorama says these allegations were from 2008 I believe, have been disputed and nothing found, Quelle surprise the BBC do a programme a few days before He turns up. Back on the ranch, Trump had told the eu when he first took office that he is no fan of nato, not because he dislikes nato but because it is largely an organisation to protect europe from Russia but many europeans continue to fail to pay their fair share, the 2% of gdp agreed by all members of nato Instead what has the eu done? derided and continually abused Trump and hours before he arrives in europe, the arrogance of the management company, the eu commission, has Tusk saying “Dear America, appreciate your allies. After all, you don't have that many.” Tusk doesn't even have a country, an army or any mandate to use others army's and now he wants to start a verbal war with the biggest contributor to europes safety. How many more times will people ignore the arrogance of the eu commission?
I know facts and truths escape you duke but the muslim pedo gangs were caught and found guilty of the offences by huge numbers of witness's and effected people Even the panorama programme you hold up as the truth, does not claim he is as you claim but makes a lot of porridge around allegations, there is no evidence, there is a lot of assumption, slur and suggestion 2 days before Trump visits. If you have any evidence please submit it to the police
Duke I know you say I'm on block ever since I've shown almost all of your stuff is full of hatred and spite but I will offer you something on the sillyness you raised this morning. During the U.S. election in 2016 and 4 months before the result, the daily beast (no fan of Trump) wrote an article on the 30th June 2016 about Brian Epstien (a now convicted paedophile) and his famous friends and, like the panorama article, used the typical shotgun approach of wherever I shot, that is where I was aiming or in English terms, I have no proof but if I throw enough mud, some MIGHT stick. Anyway their article https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-b...d-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton What you will notice is there are 26 confirmed cases of Bill Clinton being on what was called "the Lolitta Express" in fact Clinton had so many visits to the island and on the plane that the Clintons point blank refuse to answer any questions at all. It does show during that same june of 16 in that election year, that a claim by a Jane Doe was registered at a court against trump, it's worth noting this was the second time in the same year she had taken an action against Trump You will also see in the article that the woman who applied under Jane Doe turned out to not live at the address given and is shown by this part Calls to the phone number listed on the original suit were never answered, with no way to leave a voicemail. The plaintiff’s reported address in Twentynine Palms was a one-bedroom, one-bath home belonging to 72-year-old David Stacey, who had died on Oct. 9, and public records show no evidence of a Katie Johnson living at the property. Neighbors told RadarOnline that squatters had overrun the home while Stacey was hospitalized, and a real-estate agent reported the home had been turned over to the bank by April. so you see duke that fake news that you do when you run in, slur then run off, is getting more and more obvious to many who read your posts in the speakers section
I don't look up to anyone Duke, perhaps other than my mother. I occasionally agree with someone's principles, and at others I don't. But no, I don't look up to anyone, especially Trump or indeed any politicians. As for your comparison between charged and subsequently convicted grooming gangs, which happen to have a far larger proportion of Muslim based offenders, to something you've watched on TV about Trump which hasn't even raised so much as charge yet, let alone a conviction for him, well it just shows how quickly you are to jump to anything which suits your agenda. Pot kettle Duke Perhaps I'll watch the panorama episode and draw my own conclusions, but it won't change my mind about the BBC and the fact that they do create hysteria for people such as yourself.
For those interested, although it surely should be on the Trump thread, I presume this is the panorama episode https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bc6cm8
Martin Selmayrs less-than-adult response to the Croatia win last night. And the EU crooks wonder why 17.4 million British voters want to leave?
I did not read all of that because I am sure it's drivel 1 countries are not classrooms 2 explain the United States of America, the most successful trading block on the planet
