Easy travel around Europe. Easier transactions if you are buying/selling across borders. That’s about it.
I’m still waiting for someone, anyone to give me a valid reason for why we should remain in this corrupt club. What the f### do we get out of our expensive membership? yip, i wouldn't/shouldn't.. argue with this.
keep going Noobie, I love pointing out the crap you come up with. "The British government committed to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into the law of Northern Ireland and to the establishment of a Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Setting statutory obligations for public authorities in Northern Ireland to carry out their work "with due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity was set as a particular priority." The Irish government committed to "[taking] steps to further the protection of human rights in its jurisdiction" and to the establishment of an Irish Human Rights Commission." So how does that work outwith the EU? If the UK breaks the treaty, why should Ireland not re instate its claim on the six counties by reverting to the previous clause of its constitution, repealed to facilitate the Good Friday Agreement? How else can it show that it wants to protect its citizens ?
The UK Supreme Court has a case in front of it regarding the validity of the result since it has been proven that the Leave campaign acted illegally and Arron Banks is up on criminal charges
Passporting rights for financial services and the single market which includes services in general, most trade deals only include goods but services is a high % of our economy. But the argument is done, we had it to 2 years ago. You called it a 'corrupt club' so there really isn't anything I can say that will change your mind. btw Westminster is just as corrupt as Brussels so we are only moving the corruption from one place to another
Isn’t it set up now though, so the commitment is made and can continue regardless of Eu membership? What wrong with keeping the convention, I’d imagine no different to any other conventions like the war ones, and being outside of the Eu? Nothing there suggest Eu have any right to set or rule on laws related to the convention
As I understood it, Banks has been referred to the police for investigation by the electoral commission, this is different than up on criminal charges. Could you post a link where you think the first part regarding the validity of the result is in the supreme court? I wonder if you are confusing it with the technical question now infront of the ECJ that asks the technical question, can the U.K. withdraw from article 50 without the other 27 members permission?
I would doubt it. the UK is not allowed to set up trade deals until we leave the EU. That's my understanding.
But isn’t this about equal rights, nothing to do with trade. An aside question. Why is the whole f*cking thing about trade?! F*ck trade. We can grow stuff, build stuff, have plants of land and 63m people to produce and buy the stuff. Those who trade abroad simply want an easy route. F*ck everyone else. No different to the east end traders and their selfish attitude to life
Well because my point still remains correct, check the signatories of the agreement, U.K. government and the Republics government. NOWHERE will you find the eu Now as the the eu human rights, that was used as a standard agreed between the two, to cement a common goal/direction in regards to both sides. Using an agreed standard is NOT the same as an agreement with the eu, again, happy for you to show a copy of the good Friday agreement with the eu involved in it's signatory role? I'll await the proof when you understand the difference it would be like the U.K. having an agreement with the u.s. but under wto/ free trade rules, one is a set of jointly agreed standards but the agreement remains between the u.k. and u.s. only. I hope I have explained that better
the ECJ case is a separate case. Banks will be charged by the police given he has already been found guilty by the electoral commission. its a formality. www.ukineuchallenge.com case is set for DEC 7, not that the MSM want you to know about it
Ok. So we know what the trade deal is with `Eu and the rest of the world, right. What’s to stop us simply implementing that with other countries (assuming they will) as an interim?
Irrelevant though, isn’t it. They didn’t miscount the votes. Nor did they fraudulently buy votes or buy voting cards (which it’s know plenty of the London boroughs have in the past) The chancellor said markets would collapse on a no vote. They haven’t. So surely we should discount all of the remain votes on that basis as it clearly influsemd the voting...
sorry, but removing the only thing that protects Irish citizens from Britain kills the GFA stone dead. but since you don't acknowledge the treatment of catholics by the Britain, that means nothing to you and everything to them. You may not have noticed but Irish republicans do not trust Britain and have no reason to either Are you aware the US government still has the position of Special Envoy to NI?
there must be some basis, you cant just role up to the supreme court and demand to be heard. If the same had happened the other way around, I would make the same point. The facts are the facts. Its a bit like Russia beating England in a world cup final then finding out the Russian team all took steroids but getting away with it because England never had a shot on goal.
you are desperate stretching. He has been found to have broken electoral rules and has been fined by the electoral commission because it is not a criminal offence so they have referred it to the police to investigate if anything illegal has taken place. Their statement A statement said: “Due to multiple suspected offences, some of which fall outside the commission’s remit, the commission has referred this matter and handed its evidence to the National Crime Agency.” The NCA confirmed it had begun an investigation connected to “suspected electoral law offences covered by that referral, as well as any associated offences”. It said: “While electoral law offences would not routinely fall within the NCA’s remit, the nature of the necessary inquiries and the potential for offences to have been committed other than under electoral law led us to consider an NCA investigation appropriate in this instance.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...cy-over-suspected-offences-in-brexit-campaign however they made a rather awkward mistake. The electoral commission so far has only investigated the leave side and not the remain. within days of them making the announcement of the banks decision, the chair and three other electoral commission, stepped down and to date, have still not investigated the remain side despite the £8 million overspend at the beginning from the government leaflets to every home. Also the electoral commission failed to follow written procedure as they are dictated too. upon their conclusions they were due to give Banks legal team the right of appeal, they did not, they went straight to the NCA. Whilst accusing others of not following procedure, the electoral commission failed to investigate both sides and allow one side the right of appeal, it's going nowhere As to the case you mention, one of many chancers who will end up being shown the door.
I agree with the corruption statement but at least we can vote the villains out of Westminster....trouble is the incoming Herbert’s would be just as villainous!
You still remain incorrect, as mentioned, an agreed set of rules is like two boxers in the ring but both using queensbury rules. The fight is still between the two, the marquis was never in the ring, just as the agreement has nothing to do with the eu. The Catholics mention is your usual red herring as the human rights application see's no religion only that it respects all. Next? I am aware they have the title of a special envoy but if you check this list, northern ireland is not the only one and none involve the eu and the current position is so important, it doesn't even have anyone doing it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassadors_of_the_United_States Again a desperate lunge at nonsense from yourself.
In that case why hand exclusive policy making in respect of social rights, worker’s rights, human rights, environmental protections & policies back to a Government you don’t / won’t trust?
Just watched a couple of videos on Facebook. The first showed a long line of firemen about to be thanked by dignitaries for their service over the last few days.The firemen turned their backs on the dignitaries,then turned and walked away when the speechifying started. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1961856677214805 The second was French policemen taking their helmets off and refusing to confront the demonstrators. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=267253367270345 It wouldn't happen here...give a Brit a uniform and he'll be battering a newspaper seller to his knees before you can say knife...
