So the 'threats' are starting and timely because of the get together on Exchequers today.
Apparently the EC is suggesting that UK driving licences might not be recognised in the EU after BREXIT. According to the Telegraph and Express anyway.
www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/22/uk-driving-licences-may-no-longer-recognised-europe-brexit-eu/
All depends on what we agree I suppose.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 22 Feb 18 at 19:04
|
Oh what complete and utter rhubarb.
The worst case, and I mean the *WORST* case, is that you would need to carry an IDP (available form the AA) along with your driving licence. These laws are in place and not related to the EU.
The only exception would be where you became normally resident in another country then you would have to acquire their country license.
All the rest of that article is reactionary, ignorant rubbish.
This sort of pathetic scaremongering is exactly what we don't need. It just discredits the value attached to things were should be worrying about.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Feb 18 at 03:42
|
Don't know why I typed Exchequers :-) Doing three projects at once and multi-tasking. Should have re-read it.
But this stuff is not needed. By the EC if true and by the press. Does not help anyone.
|
>> Apparently the EC is suggesting that UK driving licences might not be recognised in the
>> EU after BREXIT. According to the Telegraph and Express anyway.
Quite simple.
If the EU won't recognise UK driving licences, then the UK doesn't recognise EU licences.
|
>> If the EU won't recognise UK driving licences, then the UK doesn't recognise EU licences.
That's obvious.... this stance is stupid and not helpful though. There's things you could do to still be allowed to drive in the EU and vice versa. Someone from the USA can drive in the EU and vice versa for example. But why even threaten this?
|
What do you think "recognise UK driving licence" actually means?
I think you may be confused.
|
I used recognise because that is the word the Telegraph article used. I think the Express said drivers would be 'banned'. iNews says 'rejected'. From the iNews piece:
"UK driving licences will no longer be recognised by the EU after Brexit, the European Commission has suggested. Motorists with UK-issued licences could be prohibited from driving in Europe if the EU refuses to accept the documents post-Brexit and no other arrangement has been put in place."
I think it is all scaremongering.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 22 Feb 18 at 23:06
|
And then you see this in the Guardian:
"Jeremy Corbyn could back remaining in EU customs union"
This is going to end up with Corbyn as PM! :-( Although I'd take Ed Miliband as PM and no referendum on BREXIT in hindsight :-)
|
|
I was just watching Question Time and the Andrew O'Neill show. What seems to me to be happening now is that Labour and the rest are sitting back and letting the Tories decide how to shape Brexit, and not providing any hints ot tips as to their own thoughts, then once it's all done and too late to change they swoop and pick faults with the outcome, thereby gaining traction with the electorate at the expense of the Tories. Who, I suppose, deserve whatever they get as it was them who started it.
|
|
Its all b*******, is what it is.
|
|
At least we can get our bendy bananas back.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 23 Feb 18 at 00:03
|
Not real a threat. It is simply the EU pointing out that as thing stand the legislation granting the right to use a British licence after withdrawal from the EU would no longer apply and that would be another area requiring a new agreement to be legislated upon. The are hundreds of things like this - bureaucratic and comparatively easy to resolve but they all take time and effort.
As has been said all along the whole thing is an administrative nightmare on both sides.
|
Administration is only a nightmare to those with a vested interest in making it so.
Thousands of people took motoring holidays in Europe before the war, and fashionable people took their horses and carriages across the channel to Brussels for the ball on the eve of the battle of Waterloo.
If the EU really think it is useful to raise such silly difficulties then one really has to ask, why do they want us back so much?
|
>> If the EU really think it is useful to raise such silly difficulties
They are not, merely telling us it will go back to the way it was before we joined. When thousands of people took motoring holidays in Europe with their IDP.
No licences, IDP, photocard or otherwise were required to invade Europe and kick Napoleons butt at Waterloo.
|
"At least we can get our bendy bananas back."
....... and decent vacuum cleaners.
|
>> "At least we can get our bendy bananas back."
>>
>> ....... and decent vacuum cleaners.
Why did I never end up with straight ones like I was promised by EU membership?
And Yes, Mr Dyson is now going to stop selling his vacuum cleaners to Europe when we leave and concentrate on just selling high wattage ones to the UK market. Or maybe have two production lines, one for Europe and one one for elsewhere. I'm sure thats a likely outcome.
|
My Harry vacuum cleaner conforms to the EU power limit. It works well and I don't need a more powerful one. As for Dyson cleaners, after one experience of using one I would never have another. It was a PITA.
And who cares about the shape of bananas anyway?
|
>> And who cares about the shape of bananas anyway?
Someone did, it got a lot of press.
|
>> And who cares about the shape of bananas anyway?
I thought of an answer to that, but it would only get me banned so I won't.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Feb 18 at 16:44
|
>> and decent vacuum cleaners.
Increasing wattage doesn't increase the vacuum - the maximum 'suck' you can exert is -1 atmosphere.
Slapping on "2500W of power" logo is a willy-waving exercise and has little to do with its effectiveness.
Reducing the power of kettles on the other hand would be stupid - the slower you heat the water the less efficient it is getting to a boil.
Of course, the excess 1kWh of leccy being used by the vacuum cleaner for an hour each week effectively reduces your heating bill by 1kWh....
|
>> Reducing the power of kettles on the other hand would be stupid - the slower
>> you heat the water the less efficient it is getting to a boil.
If you simply reduce the wattage while retaining current design that's true. The 1200w kettle in the caravan takes about 10 minutes to boil. Indeed, the energy required to raise a temperature of water by one degree is a scientific constant - 1 calorie to raise a gram of water by 1 degree.
If however energy reduction drives more efficient design then there is scope to save.
|
>>If however energy reduction drives more efficient design then there is scope to save.
Spoken like a true civil servant. "It is not possible to boil water more efficiently. Therefore I require you to design a more efficient kettle." ;)
|
>> Spoken like a true civil servant. "It is not possible to boil water more efficiently.
>> Therefore I require you to design a more efficient kettle." ;)
While the smiley is noted that was an ill and ignorant informed dig.
A 3 kw element in the bottom of a plastic jug is NOT an efficient means of boiling water. Aside from anything else it's grossly lacking in insulation.
|
While the smiley is noted that was an ill and ignorant informed dig.
>>
>> A 3 kw element in the bottom of a plastic jug is NOT an efficient
>> means of boiling water. Aside from anything else it's grossly lacking in insulation.
Not far off 100% efficient I would guess. In the 3 or four minutes it takes to boil a fullish kettle there will be very little heat loss.
And the faster it boils, the less there will be.
If you wanted to use a 100W kettle that took an hour to boil, then insulation would matter more.
|
OK I just did an experiment.
My kettle is labelled 1850-2200 watts.
I put a 1000g (weighed) of tap water in it that I estimated to be at 10 degrees Celsius.
It took c. 205 seconds to get to a rolling boil, about 185 seconds as near as I could judge to start boiling.
The calories required are easy to work out (90,000).
Using a conversion factor of 1 kilocalorie = 0.00116222 kWh, it would require 205 seconds at 1.84kW to raise the litre of water to 100 degrees.
I don't think the results are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the process is close to 100% efficient.
I suppose I could have used a thermometer. It's a bit difficult to tell when boiling point is actually reached, and by the time lots of steam is being produced it's gone too far.
|
"OK I just did an experiment."
..... and wasted energy and time; you should know, Manatee, that the Grauniadisti are impervious to logic ;-)
|
|
In 20 odd posts that's some nice thread drift. :)
|
Musing on this, I was thinking that a gas hob will be much less efficient than an electric kettle because so much heat from the burner escapes around the kettle and just heats the air in the kitchen.
But thinking about gas, what we should perhaps be comparing is using gas directly to boil a kettle, and using gas in a power station to make electricity to convey via transformers and overhead power lines to somebody's kettle to boil the water.
The most efficient combined cycle gas turbine plants are about 60% efficient. Electricity transmission losses are in the range 8%-15% according to one source. So the possible best case for electricity is about 50% efficiency with nearly all of the deficit being in generation and transmission.
It might actually be more efficient to use the gas directly and put a whistling kettle on the hob.
|
>>
>> A 3 kw element in the bottom of a plastic jug is NOT an efficient
>> means of boiling water. Aside from anything else it's grossly lacking in insulation.
>>
I’m sure we were taught at school that an electric kettle was almost 100% efficient...virtually all of the electrical energy is converted to heat. There’s a bit of sound I suppose...
You can’t make it more efficient, but you can use less energy by simply boiling only the water you need
Edited to add, I see Manatee has carried out the classic school physics experiment to confirm :)
Last edited by: PeterS on Fri 23 Feb 18 at 19:42
|
So bottom line..
I frequently hop over to City Europe and buy wine and food, while I'm there I might go to Belgium where the tobacco is cheaper for a relative.
How will this affect me?
|
Worst case, you'll need to get an IDP from The AA.
Most likely, sod all.
Like me and the now defunct paper counterpart to my license. I have used my license all over the world for ID, for Police, For rental cars etc. and never been asked for it.
I actually do have an IDP, and I've never been asked for that either.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 23 Feb 18 at 22:30
|
>> So bottom line..
>>
>> I frequently hop over to City Europe and buy wine and food, while I'm there
>> I might go to Belgium where the tobacco is cheaper for a relative.
>>
>> How will this affect me?
Quite badly really, you are in for a nasty shock. No problems with the driving license, but you will be limited to 200 ciggies and 6 bottles of wine, like the old days.
|
OK so just renewed licence and you only get the plastic bit so no paper.
Sorry what is an IDP and why would I have to go to the AA? not a fan of them due a bad experience a few years back?
I bet there will be the 'hawkers' down at Dover docks ferry terminal trying to sell you them bit like the 'GB" stickers and beam changers and hi-viz vests at an inflated price.
Z - you must be joking!!!!! who the hell would agree to going back to those stupid limits???
I do a lot of buying on eBay from Europe mostly Germany (technical pens especially if marked W-Germany), please don't tell me it's going to be like the US and get ripped-off with import tax and VAT??
|
>> Sorry what is an IDP
International Driving Permit - worst case we'd need one to drive in the EU countries.
>> Z - you must be joking!!!!! who the hell would agree to going back to those stupid limits???
If we're not in the EU then there will be limits. What Zero suggest may well be the limits. What's the problem? We want to be outside the EU don't we?
Who the hell would agree to these limits.... the UK government?
>> I do a lot of buying on eBay from Europe mostly Germany
Could well be like you are worrying about and you pay for import tax and VAT. It's what Brexit is about. Just pass on the costs to whoever you are selling to?
|
I don't get what Rudedog's issue is. We leave the EU and there will be changes. We voted for that and it will happen. If it impact's us then so be it, e.g. limits on bring bottles of wine from the EU to the UK. Was that not what we voted on in 2016???
I take iit Rudedog wanted us us to remain in the UK but that is not what UK wanted. It will be what it is.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sat 24 Feb 18 at 01:06
|
Sorry what is an IDP and why would I have to go to the AA?
>> not a fan of them due a bad experience a few years back?
You can get them from larger post offices. Just fill a form in, take a passport photo and they'll do it while you wait. It costs about a fiver, it lasts a year.
|
Wouldn’t bother me if the limit was 200 cigs and 6 bottles of wine. I’ve never brought tobacco into the UK..I only know one smoker and I always refused her request to bring back cheap cigs to reduce her life span. I don’t have a problem with her smoking, but if she is potentially going to use NHS related resources at some future point then it’s only fair she pays duty to HMG to pay for some of that care.
Same applies if you drink lots of alcohol. I’m happy to pay UK tax on my considerable beer consumption and odd bottle of wine or two.
Last edited by: legacylad on Sat 24 Feb 18 at 07:37
|
All an IDP is, is a verified affidavit that you, the person on the photo, are licensed to drive certain classes of vehicles in your home country, and a translation of that into lot of different languages.
The current UK driving license merely presents that same information into a standardised format recognised across Europe.
If we don't change the format of the UK license, its still acceptable across Europe.
Will the fact that the license does not change its format after Brexit annoy the rabid swivelled eyed Brexiteers? probably.
|
>> Will the fact that the license does not change its format after Brexit annoy the
>> rabid swivelled eyed Brexiteers? probably.
I suspect, if blue passports are a precedent, it will be changed for exactly that reason. Presumably the swivel eyed would like a red booklet instead.
|
"I suspect, if blue passports are a precedent, it will be changed for exactly that reason. Presumably the swivel eyed would like a red booklet instead."
I suggest that you poor, simple Bremainiacs should venture outside and get some fresh air.
|
>> I suggest that you poor, simple Bremainiacs should venture outside and get some fresh air.
We do, because we are not afraid of mixing with all those nasty immigrants....
|
"We do, because we are not afraid of mixing with all those nasty immigrants...."
Why do you think that all immigrants are nasty? Are you, by any chance, a xenophobic, racist scumbag?
|
>> "We do, because we are not afraid of mixing with all those nasty immigrants...."
>>
>> Why do you think that all immigrants are nasty? Are you, by any chance, a
>> xenophobic, racist scumbag?
No, my name is not Roger.
|
Can you show me where the swivel eyed ever asked for a blue passport?
Or have asked for a different driving licence?
Thought not, it was an idea thought up by TM and crew to say 'Look at us, we're doing something'
They have no understanding of what Brexiters wants just as this forum.
...and before you ask, no, we're sick of explaining to deaf ears and closed minds.
Pat
|
"Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage called the move the "first, real, tangible" victory since the referendum to leave the EU in 2016.
"In the 2016 referendum, we wanted our passports back. Now we've got them back," he wrote on Twitter.
|
>> They have no understanding of what Brexiters wants just as this forum.
That's the problem Pat. In was a clear offer of the status quo. Nobody knows what Brexit means.
Out's offer came in 57 varieties and, 18 months after referendum, government is like a rabbit in the headlights knowing neither what form of Brexit to follow nor how to achieve whichever form they eventually choose.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 24 Feb 18 at 14:18
|
>>knowing neither what form of Brexit to follow nor how to achieve whichever form they eventually choose.
Fundamentally Brexit is not possible, so they cannot even drive towards real results. What they are looking for is the faux exit (hereinafter known as fuaxit) most likely to make people think they've got Brexit and top whining about it.
Blue passports is likely to be the level of 'victory' achieved.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 24 Feb 18 at 15:03
|
>> >> They have no understanding of what Brexiters wants just as this forum.
>>
>> That's the problem Pat. In was a clear offer of the status quo. Nobody knows
>> what Brexit means.
I agree with your last sentence, however, I note the subtle change of wording from my quote of 'wants' to yours of 'means'!
If people would stop and actually listen to want we want, and what made us vote to leave, as opposed to assuming we are racists and only voted to stop any type of immigration, we are completely uneducated and find it impossible to understand the full meaning then, and only then, we may actually start to get somewhere.
Pat
|
>> I agree with your last sentence, however, I note the subtle change of wording from
>> my quote of 'wants' to yours of 'means'!
Not intended to be a subtle, and by inference misleading, change of wording. I was simply pointing out that that nobody has a scooby as to what comes next. But since those who voted out had no unifying rationale that's hardly surprising.
And reverting to burgundy passports and swivel eyed loons:
indy100.com/article/andrew-rosindell-mp-tory-burgundy-pink-passports-7662836
|
>> If people would stop and actually listen to want we want, and what made us
>> vote to leave, as opposed to assuming we are racists and only voted to stop
>> any type of immigration, we are completely uneducated and find it impossible to understand the
>> full meaning then, and only then, we may actually start to get somewhere.
So what is it that you want and what made you vote to leave?
|
Like I and most others have said many times, we're sick of talking to closed minds who refuse to hear what we have to say.
Remainers will twist and turn everything in an effort to prove their way is the only way and our only reason for voting out is immigration.
They will spout rubbish like the flag on the licence etc to prove how silly and shallow we were, so now it is just better to let them get on with whatever they want to believe.
In a word, we are sick of being ridiculed, but our day will come.
We will get our way and ultimately it will be better as a few are already beginning to realise, that's why the panic is beginning to set in.
Pat
|
>> Like I and most others have said many times, we're sick of talking to closed
>> minds who refuse to hear what we have to say.
I've either never seen your rationale for Brexit or I've forgotten.
Please enlighten us.
|
Bromp, if we weren't worth listening to the first time around then why on earth would we repeat it?
Pat
|
>> Bromp, if we weren't worth listening to the first time around then why on earth
>> would we repeat it?
As I said I don't remember reading it the first time. I'm genuinely curious as to what you, and others in same mindset, think a successful Brexit will bring us.
|
We will get our way and ultimately it will be better as a few are already beginning to realise,
What way? how will it improve? what will it improve? and when?
You steadfastly refuse to say.
|
>>our day will come.
That could be the Brexiteers anthem .. our day will come, and we'll have everything.!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvZcLSFIYKo
|
That was a publicity stunt to promote The Sun, I'm sure you don't need me to explain that to you CG!
Pat
|
Of course it was a publicity stunt but it was designed to appeal to a proportion of remain voters whose arguments for leaving are indeed at that level. You only have to read the comments on any forum discussing Brexit to find examples of their views.
I do understand why many people are disillusioned with many elements of modern life and why the want change although it has to be said that many of the problems in society have little to do with membership of the EU.
I have yet to see an article or hear a speech by anyone on the remain side setting out what exactly they want to achieve and to show clearly how leaving the EU will achieve the changes they want. The aims of Remainers seem remarkably confused and are for the most part negative. They are against the EU but they don’t know what the are for. The exceptions are of course the politicians like Johnson an Ree-Mogg who just want power.
|
The UK driving licence is widely acceptable without an IDP elsewhere in the world (incl of course our friends in the US) so I don't see that the EU would differ from that, unless out of spite, and despite what the press say (and the some of the public therefore believe) I don't think that's really their agenda.
(But if hiring abroad don't forget that some foreign hire companies require a certificate number which you need to get from the DVLA up to four weeks in advance of hire start, IIRC)
|
>> (But if hiring abroad don't forget that some foreign hire companies require a certificate number
>> which you need to get from the DVLA up to four weeks in advance of
>> hire start, IIRC)
Never had to provide that either, did it once, it was never asked for, so never bothered again
|
|
As mentioned I renewed my licence in January, we now have British flag in top corner, that should make it all OK.
|
>> that should make it all OK.<<
Can you explain why you think Brexiteers would be so easily appeased Rudedog, or are you just living up to your name?
Why shouldn't we have a British Flag on a British licence?
I'm proud of my nationality, proud of my country of birth and where better to display that than on an internationally recognised piece of documentation?
Why has it become the norm for anyone who didn't vote for Brexit to decry anything it brings, whether they agree with it or not?
Does it feel like you're letting the side down?
Pat
|
>> I'm proud of my nationality, proud of my country of birth
I no longer am. Certainly not proud of a large proportion of those who live within.
>> Does it feel like you're letting the side down?
No that horse bolted. We are now internationally recognised as a bunch of idiots.
|
>> Why has it become the norm for anyone who didn't vote for Brexit to decry
>> anything it brings,
Ok What benefits is it bringing. Convince me.
|
No, you tell me what harm having the flag on our driving licence does and why it should be criticised.
Pat
|
>> As mentioned I renewed my licence in January, we now have British flag in top
>> corner, that should make it all OK.
Ah! thats puts you in a right pickle. You can now only bring bring back 200 ciggies and 6 bottles of wine. Rest of us still with Euro stars on ours are ok.
|
Mine has a British Flag and I still bring back what I want and no-one has ever asked to see my driving licence:)
How about foot passengers, do they now have to have a driving licence then to bring back any duty free?
Pat
|
>> Mine has a British Flag and I still bring back what I want and no-one
>> has ever asked to see my driving licence:)
JOKE ALERT - WOOSH STRAIGHT OVER PATS HEAD
|
New one has both flags still on it.... What should I do?
And we haven't even touched on my euro flag on my number plate! Will we be required to cover them up?
|
>> New one has both flags still on it.... What should I do?
Ah that means you can get your EU allowance AND an extra 200 ciggies and 6 bottles of wine.
>> And we haven't even touched on my euro flag on my number plate! Will we
>> be required to cover them up?
That means you can drive on the R/H side of the road like all the europeans, but watch out for the non EU flag cars that will be driving on the left
EDIT - Oh best explain for Pats benefit. Thats a Joke
Joke: NOUN
1A thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline.
1.1 A trick played on someone for fun.
1.2 informal in singular A person or thing that is ridiculously inadequate.
‘public transport is a joke’
|
Why is there still this focus on "remainers" and "exiters"? I don't really understand why people want to retain those two groupings. Neither were particularly coherent groups anyway.
We will stop being members of the EU, that much is pretty certain.
Everything else is a matter of getting the best out of any particular area or subject. One's previous or current standing on EU membership is surely no longer relevant?
Since surely the referendum was on not other subject other than membership. And that issue is now resolved.
Why do people keep harping on about it? It's done.
|
I hope someone is joking regarding driving licenses from the U.K
Regarding remainers and exiters it is the kind of deal we will end up leaving the E.U.
Being a member of any organisation after 40 years and the breaking up is never going to be easy
On the continent there are plenty of countries who want reform from Brussel.The Germans where never happy of Italy and Greece joining due to their unstable economies.They had enough problems after the Berlin wall bringing East Germany up to some kind of standard which the West Germans payed for.
The most sensible deal would be similair to Norway being part of a customs union.But sensibility and referendums never go hand in hand.
.
|
>>On the continent there are plenty of countries who want reform from Brussel
Regrettably I think we could have done very well rebelling from within. However, now were are leaving then surely we ought to be seeking other groups to found/join?
|
>> Regrettably I think we could have done very well rebelling from within. However, now were
>> are leaving then surely we ought to be seeking other groups to found/join?
Spot on. There are several members of the 27 whose thinking is similar to that of UK. Poland, Hungary and Romania for starters.
|
I was at a dinner also attended by some of the EU negotiators. In personal conversations I was told by some of them that every UK "demand" was supported by other countries. Not every country supported all of them, and none of them were supported by all countries, however there was considerable wieght behind the changes we wanted.
Of course we're leaving and so the opportunity to change the EU from within has gone, however it does tend to suggest that there are many like-minded countries in Europe with whom various possibilities should exist.
Though I do fear it could all get a bit "Animal Farm".
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 24 Feb 18 at 16:24
|
>> >>On the continent there are plenty of countries who want reform from Brussel
>>
>> Regrettably I think we could have done very well rebelling from within. However, now were
>> are leaving then surely we ought to be seeking other groups to found/join?
Wouldnt it have been good to turn up at the council of europe and say
"We have a mandate from te people to take the country out of the EU. Here are the reasons the people voted to leave. We leave in two years unless they are fixed" .
|
>>There are several members of the 27 whose thinking is similar to that of UK. Poland, Hungary and Romania for starters.
Ha ha ha.
Enjoy that new Union chaps.
|
>> >>There are several members of the 27 whose thinking is similar to that of UK.
>> Poland, Hungary and Romania for starters.
>>
>> Ha ha ha.
>>
>> Enjoy that new Union chaps.
I appreciate the irony of relying on states with authoritarian leaders but the point was that allies were there for the picking if Cameron hadn't spent his first term pi**ing everyone else off.
Another that would prefer to be outside any 'superstate', and I think even the Franco/German axis is moving away from that, is Denmark.
|
>> that allies were there for the picking if Cameron hadn't spent his first term pi**ing
>> everyone else off.
Cameron thought he had a very short light stick, Europe thought he had a very short light stick, the referendum stick. No-one thought we would vote to leave.
As it turns out the stick was very long and very heavy. And everyone is going to get beaten with it.
|
>> the point was that allies were there for the picking
Absolutely. They probably still are.
The problem is that the group "Brexiteers" don't actually exist as an entity, or even as a group with a single set of desires.
As a set of people they agree on one thing only - leaving the EU.
Whether that is driven by beliefs and/or understandings of immigration, sovereignty, desires for the days of the British Empire varies.
I think it is not driven by economics. The most optimistic argument I have heard is that it will be no worse.
The second problem is that the group "Remainers" also doesn't exist as a group with a single set of desires. They have and had no argument or solution to any of the arguments or desires of the exit people. All they had was an idea that membership and the Status Quo was the only option available.
So it became a bunch of people who by and large wanted to leave the EU because of sovereignty issues against a bunch of people who wanted to stay for economic reasons.
Given that it's kind of surprising that Exit won by so little. I'd have expected quite a noticeable majority.
I have always found myself in a strange position because I really didn't like and didn't want the direction that the EU was going in, and disliked an enormous amount of what was the existing situation and am under no doubt that it needed *serious* fixing and changing.
I absolutely agree that the status quo was wrong and unacceptable. My difficulty was that I thought the best way forward was a fixed EU membership, not no EU membership.
Now exit has been agreed. There is no point in arguing that. It's agreed, for better or worse, and that's all there is to it. It would be impossible, and wrong, to simply change that or try to stop it, and entirely pointless to moan about it or argue about it.
What is important now is what do we want after the EU?
And I see no one, not someone who wanted to be in nor someone who wanted to be out, who knows or is even suggesting what that model might be.
I don't see anybody or any group who is actually providing meaningful input or definition into even the requirements, never mind the approach and possible compromise or negotiation.
The lack of agreement and direction now is not related to EU Membership. That is no longer in doubt. Clinging to that argument is the refuge of people who do not understand the issues and prefer to cling to a battle cry.
The world tomorrow is the UK outside the EU. That is a fact.
Now what do we want from it? What do we not want for it? Which are the negotiable areas and which are the die in the ditch areas? And what will that solution look like and how will it work?
Because without that then the EU, in or out, is not relevant. We'll be dead in the ditch anyway. I know this s***. Like it or not, believe it or not, the UK is on the edge of unavoidable economic disaster. And not because we're leaving, but because we don't know WTF we're going.
.*******
What do we want that the future to look like? And we need to come up with better ideas that "Blue Passports being good" from one side and "nothing other than membership" from the other side.
So come on, in or out, what *do* you want? how do you suggest we make it work and what would you sacrifice to get it?
Because at least then our abominably useless and despicable politicians, on *all* sides, would have at least something to go towards, argue against and be judged by.
I have no hope, because I see few, if any, people actually able to calmly and intelligently look past the initial argument and seek a workable solution.
|
|
I lost a paragraph. I doubt it matters. Even I cannot remember what was in it.
|
Hard Brexit, take the economic hit, but start negotiating thereafter without being afraid to lose little perks we have at present.
The UK's negotiating position is basically "We want X, Y and Z".
The EU replies with "You can have a teeny little z and like it" knowing that they just have to give enough to stop May resigning and the uncertainty that would bring.
I would expect a 5-10% rapid drop economically would be preferable to being 1-2% behind the EU for every year of the transition period and possibly being in a weaker position by negotiating a crappy outcome.
But May can't lead the country because she's in hawk to the DUP and her own party are even more feverishly divided on Europe than before, so we'll get some more years of this current P***.
**Edit** - www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43162908 - didn't expect that!
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sat 24 Feb 18 at 20:32
|
>> The UK's negotiating position is basically "We want X, Y and Z".
All it takes is one of the 27 EU countries to say no and that's that. And I would not be surprised if the countries that get money from the EU rather than paying it in will be awkward because without the UK contribution they will get less. And ironically this is one reason why some want to leave - i.e. don't want to be giving money to these poorer EU countries and there is a risk they could scupper and deals.
|
>> **Edit** - www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43162908 - didn't expect that!
Neither did I. I doubt the English team expected that either. Well done the Scots.
|
Oh, I remember the missing bit; it was a comment on a Dinner I had attended with some of the EU negotiators. The main point being that there was significant support for out demands form other countries.
Essentially whilst no one country supported everything we wanted, everything we wanted was supported by some countries.
They felt we held surprising clout and support and felt sure we would take advantage of that and out commanding position and wouldn't be stupid enough to just throw our Teddy Bear in the corner.
Hah!
|
Someone's blog from about 2 years ago, i.e. before the Referendum:
peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-concise-brexit-arguments.html?m=1
Something the author says is: "we can say with some certainty that single market access will be protected and we will concede on freedom of movement to get it. Many will not like it, but that's how it is."
So we don't seem to be doing that now. Anyone who voted for BREXIT and read this blog as part of their research might be disappointed with our government's approach.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 25 Feb 18 at 00:33
|
This was sort of an interesting read - so is the Good Friday Agreement going to be that hard to renege on?
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/25/brexit-vision-england-perfidy-over-ireland-good-friday-agreemnt
|
UK Driving Licences and EU After BREXIT - No FM2R
