Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

SouthLondonUser

sevenhills wrote: »

What do Scottish building regulations say about the use of cladding on high rise domestic tower blocks?

Since 2005 Scottish building regulations have stated that cladding and insulation on high rise domestic buildings should either be made of non-combustible materials or the whole cladding system has been the subject of a stringent fire test. From 2005 these regulations applied to new high rise domestic buildings or re-cladding work to existing high rise domestic buildings.


https://www.gov.scot/publications/grenfell-responding-in-scotland/

How dare you reply to insinuations and fake news with hard, indisputable facts? Shame on you!

Herzlos

sevenhills wrote: »

I accept what you are saying, but at least the UK on its own should be a much simpler deal, not 27 countries that need to agree on what they want.

I agree the deal would be much simpler since only we have to agree on it. Will it be a better deal than the EU will get? I can't see how.

Also, the EU is years ahead of us in these negotiations, and the only real way for us to expedite deals is to agree to everything.

When it comes to Chinese diplomacy with the UK, do you think they'll remember the Opium wars? Will that make them more or less sympathetic to us?

Do many of the places brexiteers think we can beat the EU too have history where the UK didn't come across favourably.

LHW99

Originally Posted by Takedap

The first bit is a Q&A session running to 21 questions & answers.
For the benefit for those who don't want to trawl through it, I've summarised it below. Yes, I've shorted some of the Q&A but that's only because I can't cut & paste from what was originally a photocopied document. I have not changed the context & the link is still there for checking. All 21 are there with no omissions.

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

And once more the silence of the Brexiters is defeaning. They love to post fake news from unreliable sources like the Express, then go awfully quiet when someone demolishes their arguments one by one...


Maybe at least 1 Brexiter could be kind enough to enlighten us on what was so shocking about that FCO document???

I hope you do not intend to imply that the FCO document from 1972 is "fake news"?
Specifically it should be borne in mind that the document discussed the then EEC, without the later treaty changes creating the EU. Nevertheless, if one has the patience to read a little further, there is a long discussion of sovereignty, and how it could be affected by enlargement of the community:
Again, without being able to copy from the document:


For eample .......it is not correct to regard the European Community treaties as involving solely matters of a legal significance equivalent to other existing treaties.......we shall be accepting an external legislature which regards itself as having direct powers of legislating with effect within the UK even in derogation of UK statures and as having in certain fields exclusive (sic) legislative competance so that our own legislature has none.


By accepting Community Treaties we shall have to admit the whole range of subsidiary law which has been made by the Communities. Not only this but we shall be making provision in advance for the unquestioned direct application (ie without any further participation of Parliament) of Community Laws not yet made.


IMO these points do amount to relinquishing powers of the National Parliament, and (also IMO) may explain why when Parliament is expected to take the wish of the people and act upon it they have been singularly unable to agree on ANY way through, and give very little sign of ever being able to.

SouthLondonUser

I never said it was fake news. Do not twist my words. I said I fail to see what was so shocking about that.

It did explicitly say that it would strengthen the UK's international position (or something to that effect, I forget the exact words).

Yes, being part of a supranational body does mean relinquishing some "sovereignty". But it also means being stronger on the international scene. Again, I'm not sure how much more "sovereign" we'd have been had we stayed out of the EU - eg we would have probably not been able to refuse chlorinated chicken and all the other stuff the Americans impose on smaller countries which do not have the same bargaining power as a large block like the EU.

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

Don’t medical students have to fund themselves these days?

Didn't realise that medical students funded themselves to become Doctors.

Thrugelmir

sevenhills wrote: »

I accept what you are saying, but at least the UK on its own should be a much simpler deal, not 27 countries that need to agree on what they want.

Or not want as the case maybe. To protect National Interests for example.

buglawton

Takedap wrote: »

Is this expectation based on anything apart from blind faith?

Look at the industrial landscape around you. History is not on your side.

I did and posted this a few pages ago
"Funny how the media and ministers are suddenly getting all exercised about British manufacturing. Oh and some desperate remain-justifiers.
Perhaps if there'd been some real action on the UK's industrial base beginning several decades ago, the industrial regions would not so overwhelmingly have voted leave."
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75779413&postcount=3061
Not sure who's needing the history lessons around here.

SouthLondonUser

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Or not want as the case maybe. To protect National Interests for example.

We were told that closing trade deals would have been very easy, that we'd hold all the cards, etc.


I'm not sure what you are saying now? That we will NOT close deals?

Thrugelmir

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

We were told that closing trade deals would have been very easy, that we'd hold all the cards, etc.


I'm not sure what you are saying now? That we will NOT close deals?

I'm referring to protectionism within the EU. No country is going to agree to something which impacts their own industry. While it may be beneficial to other member states. For example France and agriculture. A political no no.

Takedap

buglawton wrote: »

I did and posted this a few pages ago
"Funny how the media and ministers are suddenly getting all exercised about British manufacturing. Oh and some desperate remain-justifiers.
Perhaps if there'd been some real action on the UK's industrial base beginning several decades ago, the industrial regions would not so overwhelmingly have voted leave."
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75779413&postcount=3061
Not sure who's needing the history lessons around here.

The question was if you had any evidence to back up your claim that that "By then relatively nimble countries, and I expect the UK to be one, will have learned how to take advantage of such changes."



I don't see how the above statement addresses that.