FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Sovereignty

Jump to newest
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central

With the UK, led by people such as the Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, seeking trade agreements with other countries, how important is sovereignty to you? If there are disputes between the UK and businesses, should the UK decide to alter law or trading conditions, then which body should adjudicate on such disputes? Would a non-UK body adjudicating, with power over the UK and its government, be as good as the EU having equivalent powers to fine the UK, for example?

Should the UK not introduce legislative changes, for example to increase the health and well-being of its citizens, in case it would be sued and potentially have to pay out £billions? Or should it just restrict changes for citizens' health matters but impose changes on any thing else and face the consequences?

Some background:

In 2009 US firm Cargill successfully sued Mexico for $77.3m, because of changes the Mexican government had made to improve citizen health. A Dutch company sued Slovakia for €22.1m. A Canadian company sued Peru for $18m. The body that has the power over the country is via investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which involve secret arbitration courts who determine the liability and impose the fines. Is that the type of sovereignty you expect for the future UK? the Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who has claimed £200,000 in travel expenses, is keen to stitch up your future deals, including sovereignty. And thus potentially limit what the UK would be willing to change for the better, should they be subject to fines, for health, the environment, workers rights, etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"With the UK, led by people such as the Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, seeking trade agreements with other countries, how important is sovereignty to you? If there are disputes between the UK and businesses, should the UK decide to alter law or trading conditions, then which body should adjudicate on such disputes? Would a non-UK body adjudicating, with power over the UK and its government, be as good as the EU having equivalent powers to fine the UK, for example?

Should the UK not introduce legislative changes, for example to increase the health and well-being of its citizens, in case it would be sued and potentially have to pay out £billions? Or should it just restrict changes for citizens' health matters but impose changes on any thing else and face the consequences?

Some background:

In 2009 US firm Cargill successfully sued Mexico for $77.3m, because of changes the Mexican government had made to improve citizen health. A Dutch company sued Slovakia for €22.1m. A Canadian company sued Peru for $18m. The body that has the power over the country is via investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which involve secret arbitration courts who determine the liability and impose the fines. Is that the type of sovereignty you expect for the future UK? the Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who has claimed £200,000 in travel expenses, is keen to stitch up your future deals, including sovereignty. And thus potentially limit what the UK would be willing to change for the better, should they be subject to fines, for health, the environment, workers rights, etc. "

Worrying, Especially with the politicians we have. They'd sign upto sny okd nollocks

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"With the UK, led by people such as the Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, seeking trade agreements with other countries, how important is sovereignty to you? If there are disputes between the UK and businesses, should the UK decide to alter law or trading conditions, then which body should adjudicate on such disputes? Would a non-UK body adjudicating, with power over the UK and its government, be as good as the EU having equivalent powers to fine the UK, for example?

Should the UK not introduce legislative changes, for example to increase the health and well-being of its citizens, in case it would be sued and potentially have to pay out £billions? Or should it just restrict changes for citizens' health matters but impose changes on any thing else and face the consequences?

Some background:

In 2009 US firm Cargill successfully sued Mexico for $77.3m, because of changes the Mexican government had made to improve citizen health. A Dutch company sued Slovakia for €22.1m. A Canadian company sued Peru for $18m. The body that has the power over the country is via investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which involve secret arbitration courts who determine the liability and impose the fines. Is that the type of sovereignty you expect for the future UK? the Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who has claimed £200,000 in travel expenses, is keen to stitch up your future deals, including sovereignty. And thus potentially limit what the UK would be willing to change for the better, should they be subject to fines, for health, the environment, workers rights, etc.

Worrying, Especially with the politicians we have. They'd sign upto sny okd nollocks"

*any old bollocks

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well to regain and retain our sovereignty that probably means no trade deals after brexit, just WTO all round.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"Well to regain and retain our sovereignty that probably means no trade deals after brexit, just WTO all round. "

Or hand it to the organisation most likely to sue us for the most? In any event, these ISDS are an affront to democracy, where governments are in thrall to businesses imo. The EU in many respects have helped to keep UK citizens safe, so that UK/EU control: that we shared the development of, was far better than being subject to the whims of external corporations and their armies of lawyers who become the ISDS judges, handing down sentencing on to countries like the UK.

The Prime Minister obviously has little/no control and her government minsisters are about the most rabid incompetent bunch ever brought together. And putting someone like theDisgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox in charge of negotiating these agreements, without full and proper parliamentary scrutiny, is a full recipe for disaster. The control and sovereignty some thought that they were taking back, is likely being dished out to these corporations. And that would be followed by your taxpaying money, when and if they decide to sue the UK for any prospective losses (they don't have to be actual losses, merely losses that they believe they face, because of UK action). And the panel will not be impartial.

If the UK decides to introduce legislation or have competition authorities make decisions that they don't like: they'll devour the UK. Future governments will be less able to respond to changes in public opinion etc, as the UK will be stifled.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icksoneMan
over a year ago

oldham


"With the UK, led by people such as the Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, seeking trade agreements with other countries, how important is sovereignty to you? If there are disputes between the UK and businesses, should the UK decide to alter law or trading conditions, then which body should adjudicate on such disputes? Would a non-UK body adjudicating, with power over the UK and its government, be as good as the EU having equivalent powers to fine the UK, for example?

Should the UK not introduce legislative changes, for example to increase the health and well-being of its citizens, in case it would be sued and potentially have to pay out £billions? Or should it just restrict changes for citizens' health matters but impose changes on any thing else and face the consequences?

Some background:

In 2009 US firm Cargill successfully sued Mexico for $77.3m, because of changes the Mexican government had made to improve citizen health. A Dutch company sued Slovakia for €22.1m. A Canadian company sued Peru for $18m. The body that has the power over the country is via investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, which involve secret arbitration courts who determine the liability and impose the fines. Is that the type of sovereignty you expect for the future UK? the Disgraced Former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who has claimed £200,000 in travel expenses, is keen to stitch up your future deals, including sovereignty. And thus potentially limit what the UK would be willing to change for the better, should they be subject to fines, for health, the environment, workers rights, etc. "

I had a look at Liam Fox naughty boy facts and all three of my chins hit the floor.

How he still has a job in politics biggest me beyond belief.

If I had done some of those things I would be in prison.

But at least we don't have Jeremy Corbyn and Dianna Abbot running things.

PMSL

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

Soverinty very very important,it is the main reason I voted to leave the EU.

The train spotter stuff that the OP comes out with is not relevant.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You just tell those companies to take the high road, they will try and when they fail they won't leave, they want to make profits, if they can they will stay, if they can't they'll fuck off.

Case in point, stick tariffs on Hondas.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Soverinty very very important,it is the main reason I voted to leave the EU.

The train spotter stuff that the OP comes out with is not relevant."

Soverinty is a myth. All Brexit achieve is handing power from a diverse group of elites to a concentrated, less accountable elites.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sovereignty is not a state thing, it's every citizens only true birth right which is why I'm not one to refuse return to Isis bitches(I would however give her 30 years for treason).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"Soverinty very very important,it is the main reason I voted to leave the EU.

The train spotter stuff that the OP comes out with is not relevant."

You are aware of how such deals would affect sovereignty or trainspotting yourself?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ophieslut OP   TV/TS
over a year ago

Central


"Soverinty very very important,it is the main reason I voted to leave the EU.

The train spotter stuff that the OP comes out with is not relevant.

Soverinty is a myth. All Brexit achieve is handing power from a diverse group of elites to a concentrated, less accountable elites.

"

The UK had it and was party to development of controls and laws implemented at EU level. Now with the type of trade deals the UK is exploring, it would be handing it over to non-UK lawyers who will have full power to impose its justice onto the country. These will be lawyers that these corporations fund. How anyone could view this as UK sovereignty or taking back control is beyond rational

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Soverinty very very important,it is the main reason I voted to leave the EU.

The train spotter stuff that the OP comes out with is not relevant."

We are a sovereign state. Not sure you can be more sovereign.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top