***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 46 *****
==============================================================
I assume its not the puerile stuff like the colour of the passport. So what is it?
-No EU Membership
-Control over immigration from EU countries.
-Not having to pay to be in the EU.
-To make whichever trade agreements we wish outside the EU.
And.....? Is there anything else? Is there anything that they absolutely do *not* want?
And I don't mean Pat's tired and much repeated old argument of "we've told you once and you didn't listen so now we're sulking and will never tell you again". I mean, what else do you actually want?
Do we value;
-Our own ability to wander, drive and live anywhere in the EU we wish?
-The ability of our businesses to trade without restriction throughout the EU?
-Trade agreements achieved using the scale of the EU? (Airline, Telco, Broadcasting, Banking, pollution, automotive safety, etc.)
What actually *are* the issues and requirements? I genuinely don't know.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 12 Mar 18 at 12:52
|
-No EU Membership...............................................Yes
-Control over immigration from EU countries.........Yes and a points system for all, wherever they originate. A level playing field for all immigrants.
-Not having to pay to be in the EU.........Yes.
-To make whichever trade agreements we wish outside the EU.................Yes,yes!
-Not having to submit to the ECJ and to have our own "native" Bill of Rights.
-Not to be part of an EU Army (It IS coming, we believe).
-The ability to make all our own laws and not having Parliament rubber-stamp those dreamt up by un-elected EU bureaucrats and shoved through the EU Parliament at suh a speed that debate is practically impossible.
-To control our own fishing waters.
There's more, but that'll do, as dinner calls.
|
But the ECJ, Bill of Rights and Fishing rights are nothing to do with the EU.
I'll leave the EU army one, I think you need a tin foil hat to talk about that.
Do we believe that we can get *any* concessions, agreements, benefits or allowances from the EU with contribution money? I presume not. So I further assume that the expectation or desire is that it will be *less* money?
The EU is an elected body, albeit I agree a bit more of a direct link would be better. Mind you, even with full voting rights we've not done a great job of our own UK based politicians, have we?
Presumably if Parliament had the ability to say no to any laws it didn't like, then that particular issue would go away? [with time to debate them] [ or with our own European politicians, e.g. Farage, doing a better job in the first place?]
Why do you believe a level playing field for all immigrants is necessary? Is that not something we'd like to factor into Trade Deals. e.g. Australia - free movement in return for free trade? or similar? Or is it a flat, no immigration agreements on a country/national level at all, ever?
If we did have a trade agreement with Australia, one that we really valued, and Australia said that those terms were contingent on us *NOT* making a similar arrangement with New Zealand without their agreement, would we accept such a term?
So, requirements that I can define;
-We want to pay less money. [Net, I assume?]
-We want to be able to refuse/veto any laws we don't like and we want more time to debate them
-We want to make any trade agreements we wish [even if they conflict with others that we made earlier and we don't mind anyone else doing the same to us].
-We want absolute immigration controls and will never seek or offer preferential terms to anyone
I await the end of your dinner....................
|
|
p.s. where do we stand on customs unions?
|
p.p.s.
Presumably points based immigration is to stop people being a drain on our country.
Would no access to the welfare state and instant deportation on conviction of criminal activity do as a substitute to immigration controls?
|
>>
>>
>> Would no access to the welfare state and instant deportation on conviction of criminal activity
>> do as a substitute to immigration controls?
>>
I am a leaver, but any immigrants accepted into this country have to be given the same rights as everyone else.
Though there are a few of our own I wouldn't mind seeing deported, if anyone were daft enough to take them.
|
So you see immigration requirements assessed by individual as the way forward, rather than drop kicking those we discover to be losers?
Because that hasn't worked very will with non-EU immigration so far, has it. If we're going to insist on it for all, then it needs to be worth the effort, surely?
Did you have any other requirements to add to Roger's?
|
I want out because I do not like the way the EU is heading and I think that in the long term it will fail and we are better off out of it.
Regards immigration we allow in those whose skills we need and have no record of criminality or dubious political intentions. But once accepted here they are here to stay for better or for worse, and should be treated the same as everyone else in this country.
|
|
In what way do you think the EU may fail? Some way we could guard against?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 26 Feb 18 at 20:10
|
|
Sorry, what things was it heading towards that you didn't like, want or agree with?
|
>> Sorry, what things was it heading towards that you didn't like, want or agree with?
I'd be interested in that too. The United States of Europe thing, if that was issue, seemed to be less likely post 2015 rather than more.
|
I am quite intentionally not arguing or disagreeing. I genuinely want to know what those who voted exit want, not what I think they should have wanted, what they think, not what I think they should have thought etc. Etc.
If you are tempted to argue or dispute, I'd be really grateful if you could do it in another thread. Not that you, but just in case.
|
I've said this before but:
(1) wife's uncle was not happy about the bananas - seriously. Sadly he died aged about 90 last year... so he'll not get to see the banana problem sorted.
(2) Neighbour thought too many Somalis coming to the UK. And was not happy with the EC of Human Rights.
|
|
I'd also like to know what we think collectively (those who voted remain and leave) could be a solution for the Irish border and for the Good Friday Agreement. I genuinely do. Must have been part of the thought process that the UK shared a land border with the EU.
|
FFS, I am trying to understand something not dick around with flaming bananas. Can you not let it that focussed just for a bit?
Start a thread, ask your questions there.
I am seriously trying to work out what people wanted when they voted for brexit and what they want now ( which I'd guess would be generally the same).
|
>> FFS, I am trying to understand something not dick around with flaming bananas. Can you
>> not let it that focussed just for a bit?
But that's rationale of some of the Brexiteers, they simply didn't or couldn't think beyond that point. I've got 'friends' on facebook who thought it was all about foreigners dictating to us.
And don't get me started on those who thought Human Rights were (a) a bad thing and (b) an EU imposition.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 26 Feb 18 at 21:32
|
Go away.
You are exactly the reason people will not say what they want and now you're stopping them telling me.
I DON'T WANT YOU TO TELL ME WHAT THEY WANT. I want them to tell me so that I can understand.
You are simply proving people like Pat correct and justifying why she won't say why she wants Brexit.
|
>> Go away.
If you think that approach will work good luck.
|
>> p.s. where do we stand on customs unions?
>>
I can, hand on heart say, that every single SME I have spoken to in the past year that imports from, or exports to EU countries, is deeply concerned about the prospect of a customs union withdrawal for painfully obvious reasons. What is free and instantaneous today, may well become slow and expensive post Brexit. Although as with the whole sorry saga, it's all up in the air.
These are the small manufacturing and engineering firms who buy materials from, or export finished products to, EU countries. And there are thousands of them all over the country.
|
>> But the ECJ...[is] nothing to do with the
>> EU.
I think it is. Confusion with ECHR?
|
>> >> But the ECJ...[is] nothing to do with the
>> >> EU.
>>
>> I think it is. Confusion with ECHR?
Common confusion though usually the other way, asserting Strasbourg court, which deals with rights under the Convention (which pre-dates all but earliest stirrings of the 'Common Market') to be an impost of the EU.
Getting out of the clutches of the ECJ, which decides on interpretation of EU rules, is stated to one of of the PM's red lines.
|
Roger, Robin, Pat and others who voted for Brexit...
Trying to fight past the whining and ridiculousness, I am really trying to understand this.
I would appreciate your thoughts so if you could ignore the idiots and help I would be pleased.
|
Pat says she posted on here what she wanted and you missed it. Start by reading her posts from February 2016?
She is not going to post on this thread and I don't blame her - she does not want to. Not going to happen.
You asked the question why people voted: I gave two examples of people I know. Real ones. Roger has posted but I doubt the other two will. You're wasting your time I'm afraid.
The thread is what do "Brexiteers" want? It's not what does Pat want is it? If that's what you meant why didn't you say it and I would have not added my two examples.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 26 Feb 18 at 22:33
|
And don't forget Pat is old enough to remember the UK before it was even part of Europe:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=22348&m=495665
To quote: "I reminded them I'd known the UK before it was part of Europe and we'd managed just fine but that alienated us even further."
But Pat I see did not want too much more than what we had. Just the bits fixing a lot of us wanted fixing I think, me included. But in my opinion better to fix from within because of the unknown.
This might be the first post about 2 years ago from Pat:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=21930&m=484249
Sorry to hijack the thread but you wanted an idea of how Pat was thinking in 2016. She wasn't far off your own thoughts probably. :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 27 Feb 18 at 00:49
|
It's like asking half way through the war "What exactly do we want?"
We're here because we're here.
This is so boring - just get on with it.
|
>>This is so boring - just get on with it.
I'm with ^this geyser.
|
>> This is so boring - just get on with it.
Is there anything else more sensible that can be said? I have yet to see a single 'end-of-the-world-because' headline where the issue hasn't gone away.
Northern Ireland: if the EU want to put a border there, then that's their choice. We don't have to have one on our side.
We should just go WTO and stop messing about with 'negotiations'.
This way we get certainty. If there's one thing that holds the world back it's uncertainty - of which we have another year and a bit (plus the endless period for transition when we will be neither one thing nor the other).
The electorate voted to leave, so we must leave, as soon as possible. Interestingly I have a large number of friends who voted for Brexit - well-paid London professionals, some of them exceptionally well paid bankers. Mostly, however, the Brexit voters were the white (and indeed and interestingly to a significant extent not white) British working classes. If you don't give them what they voted for then you run the risk of revolution. Parliament only governs by the consent of the population.
I am *so* bored with it. I refuse to read any more air-headed pointless newspaper articles on this topic, I refuse to discuss it. We just need to get on with it. (I didn't vote for it as I am naturally risk averse, but I get why my friends did.)
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 27 Feb 18 at 09:50
|
I arrived in the U.K before we joined the E.U.I could not vote then regarding joining or not joining the E.U.It didn't bother me then I was young more interested in paying the bills and keep in work.
My first time in the U.K was at the age of six.Sixty two years ago.In London we used to bring gargo discharging on the Thames from Rotterdam.The U.K was always different cars driving on the left.Big bars of white chocolate from Nestles which you could't buy on the continent.
Good people to be with.Brits used to stand by each other always believed in fair play and the underdog.I know in my hart why so many voted Brexit it isn't just the E.U.The whole political driven class system has a lot to do with it in the U.K.You can discuss this for hrs not easy on a small forum.
|
>> Northern Ireland: if the EU want to put a border there, then that's their choice.
>> We don't have to have one on our side.
>>
>> We should just go WTO and stop messing about with 'negotiations'.
How can you can align don't have to have one on our side and go to WTO? Surely once you've got tariffs and divergence of regulation then you have to have a border to enforce the tariff and ensure products crossing the border comply with UK regulation?
And this isn't any border. Checks by Brits on Irish people moving within the island of Ireland opens a Pandora's box of ingredients to re-ignite the troubles.
|
>>Surely once you've got tariffs and divergence of regulation then you have to have a border to enforce the tariff
Why? We're quite happy to let things in from Ireland. EU regulations are probably not too bad. And so far as 'ensuring products comply with regulations' so much stuff comes in from banggood.cn by post that it is a horse that bolted long-since.
In the nicest possible way, civil servants are institutionalised to have no imagination, it's not your fault.
>>And this isn't any border. Checks by Brits on Irish people moving within the island of Ireland opens a Pandora's box of ingredients to re-ignite the troubles.
So why do you insist on having checks?
|
>> Why? We're quite happy to let things in from Ireland. EU regulations are probably not
>> too bad. And so far as 'ensuring products comply with regulations' so much stuff comes
>> in from banggood.cn by post that it is a horse that bolted long-since.
>>
>> In the nicest possible way, civil servants are institutionalised to have no imagination, it's not
>> your fault.
I wondered for a bit if that last sentence was serious or not. The absence of an ironic smiley suggests not. For somebody who gets huffy about his user name being shortened you're remarkably keen to dish it out.
The question on the Irish border isn't just about 'stuff from banggood.cn' and if that's really what you imagine you're far less informed than I thought. There's a huge amount of commercial cross border traffic. Not just supply chains within the island of Ireland but goods from the Republic bound for ferries to UK mainland and on to rest of EU. How does that go undocumented and unchecked if we're in different customs zones?
In your world of going to WTA tariffs you HAVE to police it otherwise your not complying with WTA rules and are going to find a recurrence of foreigners telling us what to do. So much for taking back control.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 4 Mar 18 at 09:41
|
We've got to find a media via. By 'we' I mean both the UK and the EU. If the EU thinks that it can take NI away from Britain (by making it subject to EU law) then that just proves how little we want to be in the EU.
Saying 'no that doesn't work' isn't a media via.
And I'm not trying to be nasty. Civil servants are, by and large, there to enforce and implement the status quo - or at best to implement changes imposed on them by their political leaders. By and large they are not there for coming up with imaginative solutions to problems that have not yet been thought of.
I claim no particular knowledge of trade with NI, but we need a solution and both sides saying 'no' is no longer an option.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Sun 4 Mar 18 at 13:55
|
>> We've got to find a media via. By 'we' I mean both the UK and
>> the EU. If the EU thinks that it can take NI away from Britain (by
>> making it subject to EU law) then that just proves how little we want to
>> be in the EU.
>>
>> Saying 'no that doesn't work' isn't a media via.
>>
>> And I'm not trying to be nasty. Civil servants are, by and large, there to
>> enforce and implement the status quo - or at best to implement changes imposed on
>> them by their political leaders. By and large they are not there for coming up
>> with imaginative solutions to problems that have not yet been thought of.
>>
>> I claim no particular knowledge of trade with NI, but we need a solution and
>> both sides saying 'no' is no longer an option.
So you were posting aggressively on a subject of which you accept you know little? Your ideas about Civil Servants is also based on something of a stereotype. No doubt one could make similar gibes at those in fianace/banking/tax etc or whichever bit of that jungle your personal niche is in.
Clearly the EU cannot take NI away from Britain. That interpretation of what is the EU's fall back position is one that comes from the Brexit ultras. Mrs May's speech on Friday seemed at last to move towards some sort of compromise but given that, in accordance with a timetable dictated by her own premature notice under Article 50, we have approx 7 months left to tie this whole divorce/transition stuff up she's desperately.
We live in interesting times!!
|
>>"How does that go undocumented and unchecked if we're in different customs zones?"
It's the EU's problem, it doesn't have to be ours.
>>That interpretation of what is the EU's fall back position is one that comes from the Brexit ultras.
You really believe that? Did, or did not, Michel Barnier say that he would insist on NI remaining in the EU customs union and single market? And is that, or is that not, forcing NI come under the control of Brussels's laws rather than London's? I'm scarcely an ardent Brexiteer (indeed I voted for remain as I am sure you know), and I regard it as an affront to our national sovereignty.
Even the Guardian agrees with my interpretation.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/28/eu-publishes-plan-to-keep-northern-ireland-in-customs-union
|
>> You really believe that? Did, or did not, Michel Barnier say that he would insist
>> on NI remaining in the EU customs union and single market? And is that, or
>> is that not, forcing NI come under the control of Brussels's laws rather than London's?
>> I'm scarcely an ardent Brexiteer (indeed I voted for remain as I am sure you
>> know), and I regard it as an affront to our national sovereignty.
And this is the EU's soft spot weakness, their negotiating position has been scuppered by Eire by insisting there can be no hard border.
Clearly its not possible for the EU to insist that EU legislation or laws applies, constitutionally its not going to happen.
So we have a position already, the EU's preferred backstop, that customs union is possible without EU legislation applying. With no customs border between Eire and NI and no border between NI and the UK mainland we have in effect no border between the EU and the UK.
As mappy says, and I rarely agree with him, Its not our problem, its the EU's.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 5 Mar 18 at 11:10
|
I think Mark's question is pointless. Mind you, it's something that the media continues to rake over, as do the Remainers as well as the Brexiteers. (Things like, "We voted for Brexit, but we didn't vote for x and y.")
It's pointless because all the reasons for leaving or for staying were subsumed in the simple question in the referendum - do we leave the EU or stay in it? There was never any way (nor, practically, could there be) of refining the issue without having a series of referendums, each dependent on the outcome of the previous one.
So to answer Mark's question as it stands: I voted for Brexit because I wanted the UK to leave the EU.
To go any further into it just takes us back to all the useless wrangling and bitter arguments that have been raked over here and elsewhere ad nauseam. There were certainly a lot of different reasons that led people to vote Out, and individual voters prioritised those reasons differently. I feel disappointed to find myself grouped with anti-immigration and quasi-racist voters, for example. And I find it equally frustrating to realise that few who voted Out were looking beyond the immediate future.
But that is the nature of western democracy; voting often involves choosing between package deals. We may not like everything in the package, but we decide which package on the whole gets closest to what we want. It's unfortunate, but inevitable, that the package in question was not in a transparent wrapping and no-one knew exactly what was inside.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Tue 27 Feb 18 at 10:48
|
Just a comment about Northen Ireland. The only solution there is one day a United Ireland.
I am Protestant married a practising Catholic girl.But that country's problems will never be resolved by the political institutions they have now.The good Friday or Belfast agreement is papering over the cracks.There is only one solution,for starters let Ireland have some say over Northen Ireland and it's future.
One thing leaving the E.U has done is opening a can of worms in that country which won't be easy to sort out.
|
>> The only solution there is one day a United Ireland
About as likely as Ireland becoming part of a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
|
The French will cause a revolution if they are crossed.French governments are very wary of the working class once they rise up.Italy and Belgium can be volatile but the rest of us no.
Off topic, try paying not your rates or television licence see what happens you be locked up before you can say Jack Robinson.>:)
The way things are going with a minority Government I wouldn't be surprised if there is a General Election this year.
|
>> I am Protestant married a practising Catholic girl.
Although portrayed as Protestant v Catholic the real Ulster issue is people in the North who identify as British (and are Protestant) versus those who are Irish (Catholic) whether from North or south.
Comparison with other places in UK where both religions live cheek by jowl, eg the Western Isles, (and even that is more complicated) is futile.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 27 Feb 18 at 11:54
|
>> >> I am Protestant married a practising Catholic girl.
>>
>> Although portrayed as Protestant v Catholic the real Ulster issue is people in the North
>> who identify as British (and are Protestant) versus those who are Irish (Catholic) whether from
>> North or south.
>>
>> Comparison with other places in UK where both religions live cheek by jowl, eg the
>> Western Isles, (and even that is more complicated) is futile.
Ireland (north and south) has been a thorn in our side for centuries, the whole island should be towed off and anchored off the shores of the USA.
|
>>the whole island should be towed off and anchored off the shores of the USA.
and if they could take Glasgow along with them it would be splendid.
|
>> I voted for Brexit because I wanted the UK to leave the EU.
But Focal Point, would you accept being outside of the EU but a member of the single market?
|
"But Focal Point, would you accept being outside of the EU but a member of the single market?"
Personally, I would, yes. But it's not a deal-breaker, as I tried to explain earlier. (It's not a scenario that had I known about would have affected the way I voted.)
|
|
Thanks for answering. Interesting to know it's not a deal breaker for at least one person who voted leave. It makes a lot of things easier if we remain in the single market especially for businesses. Shipping components that say make up a car across borders multiple times if there are tariffs for example would be costly. A real example are engines for the MINI that start in the UK, get shipped to Germany, then come back to be put into a car which ultimately gets exported. For JIT manufacturing, the single market is important.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 27 Feb 18 at 12:43
|
Doesn't that absolutely highlight the problem, that with no clear and agreed definition of how BREXIT looks the Govt has nothing to aim for and, as I said somewhere else, is on a hiding to nothing in terms of pleasing the populace. What is not a deal-breaker for some would be a source of great dissatisfaction for another.
I don't get the expectation that we should rush headlong into BREXIT without due diligence and consideration of the impact. I would say that there have been a myriad of unconsidered but reasonably critical issues arising which need to at least have to be thought about.
E.g. did anyone read the other week about the EU medical agency which is relocating into Holland (I think) as a result of BREXIT, thus leaving an expensive building in Canary Wharf to be funded by the UK for the remainder of it's leas. I think it might have been £19m a year. Stuff like that can't be ignored and needs to be addressed.
|
Not sure what we shall get from this thread. Different people have different view points. There is no single thing what Leavers or Remainers want as such.
Personally, I'd want the freedom of movement be curtailed. But I don't care as such with other 3 freedoms.
It is EU's stubbornness to argue all 4 freedoms are non-negotiable which is causing the problem. This is not laws of physics or maths. 4 freedoms were agreed long time back. There is time to review it. It could be 5 new freedoms or 10 new freedoms. This is my opinion and everyone has right to disagree :-)
I don't want ECJ to interfere with UK laws.
I think we can visit all EU countries without visa for tourism even after Brexit (whatever agreement is reached by then). At most we have to fill out a USA/Canada style eVisa type of thing. Not a big deal.
I am not interested having the freedom to work anywhere in EU. If I want to work, I can get a work permit sponsorship. If not, then that is a good indication that my skill is not in demand elsewhere so I'd not bother then. I welcome anyone from any part of the world to come and work/live in UK but that should be work permit route - no special favour for EU candidates over non-EU.
UK's economy is larger than 18 smaller EU countries economies combined (you can check that yourself) - so UK leaving EU is equivalent to 18/19 smaller nations leaving EU. So I think UK does have some negotiation power.
I don't care if GDP goes down because per capita income is what matters not GDP (China/India have much higher GDP than UK).
The Brexit negotiation is a psychological war rather than an economic war now. Rather than trying for win-win both sides are looking for win-lose situation.
|
I voted Brexit, for four reasons:
1, so we can make and enforce our own laws.
2.so we can trade freely with any country in the world.
3.so we can control our own borders (NOT STOP ALL IMMIGRATION - as some would make out)
4.and stop feeding handouts to "developing"Countries and Causes that don't require them.
Simple reasons.
|
>> 4.and stop feeding handouts to "developing"Countries and Causes that don't require them.
>
Well you can kiss that wish goodbye, its got nowt to do with brexit or europe.
>>3.so we can control our own borders (NOT STOP ALL IMMIGRATION - as some would make out)
We do control our own borders, we are not in the shengen area, which is why you need to go through passport control when you go to europe and do the same to come home again.
Sorry That should say we CAN control our own borders, but put so little money into it, that it doesn't happen.
|
>>I think Mark's question is pointless
I think Focus Point doesn't understand.
If we do not know what we want, then how on earth can we judge whether or not we are moving towards it.
If Focus Point's only requirement is to leave the EU, then that will probably be achieved.
If that is the only goal, then we will not be a member but little else will change. Seems a bit pointless to me. Perhaps it is a pity that Focus Point didn't put a bit more effort into thinking before voting. Still, we all do the best we can.
No wonder the UK is so confused at the moment.
|
If the end result is out of the EU but we enter into new agreements that basically puts back what being a member of the EU provided then like Mark I think that was pointless and a waste of our time/money and that of the EU.
In fact shouldn't the EU bill us for their time on this project that we kicked off? Maybe they will and who could blame them?
|
>> If the end result is out of the EU but we enter into new agreements
>> that basically puts back what being a member of the EU provided then like Mark
>> I think that was pointless and a waste of our time/money and that of the
>> EU.
So if you were ordered to live in Manchester, that would be OK because you choose to live there anyway?
I'm surprised you can't see the fundamental difference between aligning through choice and having to align permanently as an obligation, under which the only way to change anything may be to leave; and that is before considering the creation of a USE out of the EU (which looked far less unlikely at that time of the referendum than it does now) from which secession would be much more difficult.
|
|
Yes spending billions to recreate most of what we had is worthwhile I guess.
|
"If we do not know what we want, then how on earth can we judge whether or not we are moving towards it."
I don't know why you're making such a meal of this. There was never a list of specific requirements on the Brexit side. Some people may have made assumptions about what would happen and how, but that was pretty foolish.
"If Focus Point's only requirement is to leave the EU, then that will probably be achieved."
Er, yes.
"If that is the only goal, then we will not be a member but little else will change. Seems a bit pointless to me. Perhaps it is a pity that Focus Point didn't put a bit more effort into thinking before voting. Still, we all do the best we can."
Not being a member means a hell of a lot will have to change.
And I wish you would not be so b***** patronising. I thought you said you were genuinely interested in what people had to say. Or is this just an attempt to wind people up - again?
Don't bother make a reply. I won't be reading it.
|
Actually we could leave the EU but still remain a member of a customs union and a common market.
That would mean some change certainly but perhaps not very much on the economic front. It would satisfy your main object “to leave the EU†. I suggest that such a deal would be accepted by most remainers. Are you saying that as a leaver such a deal would be satisfactory to you?
|
I voted Leave, and would vote the same way again now.
The single market, customs union, and immigration doesn't really bother me TBH.
Leaving the EU but staying in the single market and the customs union would possibly please many Remainiacs and Brexiteers.
|
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4701874/Tony-Blair-s-poll-says-Britons-want-Hard-Brexit.htm
So, notwithstanding apparent link to Blair's recent views it's a headline from 9 months ago Survey in heady days of Brexit means Brexit and some work before last year's GE.
No account taken of December 'agreement' with EU/ And no realisation of where we are today with dawning realisation that May hasn't a Scooby about what Brexit means. Never mind how to acheive it without costing us even more of what's left of British industry.
Roger, you live in a dream world.
|
>> Roger, you live in a dream world.
He's planning for a cold day in hell apparently.
|
>>Roger, you live in a dream world.
Well, no. He just lives in a world you don't like. Or me, for that matter. But here's the thing, the last time anybody counted, more people stood on Roger's side of the line than stood on yours or mine. And whilst there are bits of the Brexit argument which are appalling, and bits of which it are naive, stupid or outright wrong, it's not all nonsense.
As I wanted to use this thread to understand, what 'the people' want has been established - out. But what that means or what they actually want out of it is not clear.
In my experience whether in work, in politics or with my wife and children, what people say they want is always the easy bit. Why they want it and what they think it wlil do for them is always the really important bit.
But no, so many people prefer the flow of...
Person 1: "I want....."
Person 2: "No, that's stupid".
Whereas, if you actually want to achieve anything....
Person 1: "I want...."
Person 2: "Why?, Can you explain in detail?"
...is so much better.
Strangely, given our outward personalities, you prefer approach 1 and I prefer approach 2. I find that interesting.
Do say if you disagree. But I've never noticed you really listen to an argument beyond working out how to refute it. ref: cycling stuff. And I'm not being rude, it's just how we/you/I are.
As for the Daily Mail's story, I don't understand. The headline doesn't match with the story. Or I'm having a particularly thick moment.
|
>> Well, no. He just lives in a world you don't like. Or me, for that
>> matter.
I don't think I disagree with stuff that followed above but right now it's too late for a considered reply.
I'll think about it tomorrow.
|
Dutch Premier Rutte made a strong speech in Germany how he sees the future of Europe.He spoke in the English language and what he said some I agreed and disagreed with
Regarding the negotiations it is't a matter of backing down or forcing the United Kingdom in a corner.
There are no winners or losers if anything it could end up being a stalemate.I never felt that the U.K whilst in the E.U is controlled by them.We are not part of Schengen have passport control.Still have the pound as our currency.People who wanted to leave said we want our country back it never left in the first place.
|
>> Strangely, given our outward personalities, you prefer approach 1 and I prefer approach 2. I
>> find that interesting.
>>
>> Do say if you disagree. But I've never noticed you really listen to an argument
>> beyond working out how to refute it. ref: cycling stuff. And I'm not being rude,
>> it's just how we/you/I are.
I'm not sure you're right. I certainly don't think universally in terms of "that's stupid". I too have tried to get Pat to come out of her lair and explain why she voted for Brexit; I'm genuinely interested. Staying on the subject Manatee, in the pre referendum threads, gave some excellent summaries of a properly argued case against the EU. Douglas Carswell, whose free thinking an libertarianism I respected also put the argument well on, IIRC, Any Questions.
So much other commentary was fallacious, mendacious or both. Farage was and remains a master of the both category.
On a more general level my usual response to assertions with which I disagree, say a headline in the Daily Mail or a comment here on sentencing of criminals, is to try and research fact. If I can do so by reference to the original document, say a court judgement, on which the assertion is supposedly based then so much the better. So common is a misquote or (deliberate?) misinterpretation that it's a pretty straightforward exercise.
Some of the stuff that's asserted about cyclists or solutions to the 'problem' they pose is so easily disproved or debunked that it's like shooting fish in a barrel!!
The only danger is of finding Pavlov's in the saddle!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 4 Mar 18 at 15:07
|
>> Staying on the subject Manatee, in the pre referendum threads, gave some excellent summaries of a properly argued case against the EU.
But that wasn't the subject.
I wanted to understand why people voted against the EU. Whey *THEY* voted. Not why someone else thought they voted, whether or not someone else thought they were wrong, etc. etc.
And since you mention Pat, who can b***** blame her. Two people responded before you waded in with why everybody was wrong and they were ridiculous to think that way - or something like that. That was why I abandoned the idea. You wouldn't even be quiet long enough for people to express their views before you were mocking those views.
Nice way to understand. Sometimes you need to listen and to understand *why* people think in a certain way. Not simply limiting yourself to researching evidence so that you can show that they are wrong.
Surely you have found in your life that the fact that someone wants something is often more important than what they want and you need to understand, not simply dismiss?
But don't worry, I've given up the idea in here. Funnily enough I got quite helpful and in some cases very informative answers elsewhere which were sufficient for me.
|
We all explained why we voted how we did eighteen months ago. Going over it again and again is just getting boring.
We are where we are so let's leave it to the negotiators to make the best of it.
|
Well frankly all you people who voted for Brexit are complete idiots.
Thank you for giving politicians a mandate to change stuff, what the hell kind of job did you think they were going to make of it? Its like giving the lunatics control of the asylum.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 4 Mar 18 at 16:33
|
>> >> Staying on the subject Manatee, in the pre referendum threads, gave some excellent summaries
>> of a properly argued case against the EU.
>>
>> But that wasn't the subject.
>>
>> I wanted to understand why people voted against the EU. Whey *THEY* voted. Not why
>> someone else thought they voted, whether or not someone else thought they were wrong,
If you'd made that clear in OP and stated you'd like the rest of us to 'butt out' and not comment/criticise you might have got somewhere. Instead you waited until a couple of us had added comments and anecdotal evidence before, rather rudely, telling us to shut up.
My reference to Manatee's posts and to Carswell were to things stated in support of out and trying to understand their rationale. Attempting to show, in response to a comment aimed specifically at me about listening to other views, that I had done so. IIRC Manatee at least wavered towards an out vote.
And please don't have a go at me for supposed mocking when you did exactly that to Pat in the OP.
|
>> QED. Fool.
Whatever. More discourtesy. I don't know why you think being rude assists your argument.
|
|
Oh, did you think I was trying to assist my argument? No, you're quite wrong. I was simply passing on an assessment.
|
I think Mark Twain was on to something when he (allegedly) said “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.â€
;-)
|
|
I know, but it's difficult to resist sometimes.
|
....yes, I'm sure Bromp finds it so......
;-)
|
|
Yeah, you'd have thought so wouldn't you, but strangely...............
|
|
Anyway moving on beyond the personal abuse..
|
Ignoring there being a border between the two Irelands for moment.
A lot of exports from the Republic of Ireland presumably goes via the UK before onward transit to otherEU countries and further? i.e. there will be lorries with produce, live stock, cement, whatever, that goes via the ports, gets moved through Wales/England/Scotland by road and over/under the channel or through ports on the east coast to mainland Europe.
If the UK is not in the common market, won't these loads need to be checked when they enter the UK and then again when they re-enter the EU?
Even if there was some alignment between NI and the EU, when things reach the UK mainland for onward movement to the EU then the problem reappears doesn't it? The rest of the UK (i.e. Great Britain is not in the EU/common market). I am probably right in thinking some exports from the Republic of Ireland actually go through Welsh ports.
Maybe the answer is to stop using UK ports and sending everything directly to mainland Europe?
EDIT: In fact if you take my cement example, most of that is likely to go via Anglesey or Liverpool rather than the NI.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 4 Mar 18 at 18:21
|
>> Ignoring there being a border between the two Irelands for moment.
The answer is simple. Export all those who live in Northern Ireland to Southern Ireland, move all the brexiteers to northern ireland, put up a border between north and south, and between the mainland and northern ireland.
Everyone wins. The Irish are all reunited, the brexiteers get an enclave out of the EU, the rest of us have got shot of the troublesome micks.
|
It's one solution I suppose - might not be popular with some. ;-)
My examples of course also have problems the other way - produce from the EU being transported to the Republic of Ireland via UK ports.
I can't see how this can work unless the UK remains in the common market or whatever we call it. Because even ignoring the NI problem you still have a problem with transporting things via the other UK ports directly to the Republic.
You can sort of see why we had the common market in the 70s.... But then that project evolved. The original project was a good idea which I am sure most voting Brexit still thinks is a good idea. It's what's happened since they dislike and how they think things would continue to change/develop/evolve.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 4 Mar 18 at 18:51
|
...As the EU (and thereby currently the UK) is a signatory to TIR arrangements, I suspect that this can be reduced largely to a bit of additional paperwork by the UK being signatory to the TIR arrangements post-Brexit.
TIR covers the case of goods in-transit being sealed whilst "passing through".
Hardly "frictionless" but also neither is it high friction.
The reality is that there are arrangements that cover most of the issues, many of which were in place before our EU membership, that can be (re-) adopted post Brexit (but it all seems rather a waste of effort to me).
|
|
But how 'sealed' are the goods? Physically or paper work and trust? It's been so long people forget why we entered the common market.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 4 Mar 18 at 19:09
|
...I'd suggest you have a quick look at this......
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIR_Convention
(people forget that these issues existed, and largely had solutions, before the instigation of the common market, and also still exist outside the common market - there are existing solutions that can be utilised, albeit less-frictionless that a common market - or at least, a customs union)
|
Somebody here linked years ago to a film about taking a cargo of (shot and deaded) game birds to Italy. Stops at borders and further customs exam at destination when seals were cut.
Is that what we call frictionless?
|
>> The answer is simple. Export all those who live in Northern Ireland to Southern Ireland, move all the brexiteers to northern ireland, put up a border between north and south, and between the mainland and northern ireland.
Or an even simpler option - Ireland leaves EU too along with UK :-)
|
>> Or an even simpler option - Ireland leaves EU too along with UK :-)
Even simpler still.
Northern Ireland becomes part of the Republic of Ireland.
It should have happened in the 1920s.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 5 Mar 18 at 12:42
|
>> Northern Ireland becomes part of the Republic of Ireland.
In the EU referendum, NI voted 56-44 remain-leave.
So 44% of NI want to leave EU. I wonder why (EU) Remainers can't show sympathy with fellow Remainers (remain in UK). If 48% remainers can't be ignored, then 44% remainers in NI can't be ignored either.
If the result were 90-10 instead of 56-44, then United Ireland could indeed be a possibility.
|
>> In the EU referendum, NI voted 56-44 remain-leave.
>>
>> So 44% of NI want to leave EU. I wonder why (EU) Remainers can't show
>> sympathy with fellow Remainers (remain in UK). If 48% remainers can't be ignored, then 44%
>> remainers in NI can't be ignored either.
>>
>> If the result were 90-10 instead of 56-44, then United Ireland could indeed be a
>> possibility.
I've read that several times and I still don't understand.
|
I meant to say 44% of leave supports in NI have the similar situation of 48% of remain supports in UK.
|
>>
>>
>> Even simpler still.
>>
>> Northern Ireland becomes part of the Republic of Ireland.
>>
>> It should have happened in the 1920s.
>>
>>
Too late now.
Eire wants the north like it wants a hole in the head, two million hardline Unionists with a hatred of all the Republic stands for to contend with. Despite the sympathy people of Eire felt for the plight of the Nationalists during the bad old days there is not much warmth felt for those north of the border, at least if the views of my large family over there and other Irish people I know are anything to go by.
|
There are about 1.8 million in NI and barely half must be nominally Protestant by now.
Nevertheless I agree - Eire can be in no hurry to adopt that problem.
|
>> There are about 1.8 million in NI and barely half must be nominally Protestant by
>> now.
>>
>> Nevertheless I agree - Eire can be in no hurry to adopt that problem.
>>
The split is 48%/45% Protestant/Catholic in 2011 according to Wiki.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland
Is it changing? Or do they all have large families?
Last edited by: Duncan on Mon 5 Mar 18 at 17:49
|
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Northern_Ireland
>>
>> Is it changing? Or do they all have large families?
The Wiki paragraph on national identity is interesting too. The tendency during the Troubles to report conflict in terms of Catholic v Protestant was misleading.
|
Maybe it was this ? Well done.
From today's FT
The US is offering Britain a worse “Open Skies†deal after Brexit than it had as an EU member, in a negotiating stance that would badly hit the transatlantic operating rights of British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.
British and American negotiators secretly met in January for the first formal talks on a new air services deal, aiming to fill the gap created when Britain falls out of the EU-US open skies treaty after Brexit, according to people familiar with talks.
The talks were cut short after US negotiators offered only a standard bilateral agreement. These typically require airlines to be majority owned and controlled by parties from their country of origin.
Such limits would be problematic for British carriers as they have large foreign shareholdings. Under existing arrangements, UK-based airlines are covered by the “Open Skies†treaty that requires them to be majority EU owned.
One person attending the London meetings to “put Humpty Dumpty back together†said: “You can’t just scratch out ‘EU’ and put in ‘UK’.†A British official said it showed “the squeeze†London will face as it tries to reconstruct its international agreements after Brexit, even with close allies such as Washington.
Negotiators are confident of an eventual agreement to keep open the busy UK-US routes, which account for more than a third of current transatlantic flight traffic. But there are legal and political obstacles that could impede the two sides from reaching a deal in time to give legal certainty to airlines booking flights a year in advance.
“We have every confidence that the US and UK will sign a deal that is in everyone’s interests and that IAG will comply with the EU and UK ownership and control regulations post Brexit,†said International Airlines Group, which owns British Airways. Virgin Atlantic said it remained “assured that a new liberal agreement will be reached, allowing us to keep flying to all of our destinations in North Americaâ€.
Chris Grayling, UK transport secretary, declared in October that he was making “rapid progress†in reaching ambitious new airline agreements with the US and other international partners. According to FT estimates, the UK must renegotiate and replace about 65 international transport agreements after Brexit.
In its opening stance the US side rolled back valuable elements of the US-EU agreement, the most liberal open skies deal ever agreed by Washington. Its post-Brexit offer to the UK did not include membership of a joint committee on regulatory co-operation or special access to the Fly America programme, which allocates tickets for US government employees. Washington also asked for improved flying rights for US courier services such as FedEx.
The Americans will play it hard. The mood has changed [against liberalisation], it’s the worst time to be negotiating
Senior EU official
The UK has also yet to formally offer the US access to overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands, which were not included as part of the original US-EU deal, according to people familiar with the talks.
There are also potential issues over the continuation of antitrust exemptions, permitted by the US-EU open skies agreement, which allow airline alliances to set fares and share revenue, according to people familiar with talks.
The biggest sticking-point is a standard ownership clause in Washington’s bilateral aviation agreements that would exclude airlines from the deal if “substantial ownership and effective control†does not rest with US or UK nationals respectively. In effect it requires majority ownership by one of the two sides if an airline is to benefit.
London asked the US to adjust its long-held policy since it would exclude the three main British-based transatlantic carriers, which all fall short of the eligibility criteria. These are IAG, the owner of British Airways and Iberia; Virgin Atlantic; and Norwegian UK.
Sir Richard Branson owns 51 per cent of Virgin, making it majority UK-owned. But he is in the process of selling 31 per cent to Air France-KLM, which could complicate Virgin’s access rights to the US. US airline Delta owns the remaining stake.
The challenge is most acute for Willie Walsh, IAG chief executive, whose group must also clear the EU’s 50 per cent ownership threshold to avoid losing his European operating rights after Brexit, when UK nationals are no longer counted.
One senior EU official said the airline operator was heading for “a crunchâ€. “From the US point of view, there is not a single big airline that is UK-owned and controlled,†he said. “The Americans will play it hard. The mood has changed [against liberalisation], it’s the worst time to be negotiating.â€
Recommended
British airlines warned over post-Brexit flight restrictions
After Brexit: the UK will need to renegotiate at least 759 treaties
IAG calls for EU to relax ownership laws as Brexit concerns mount
Andrew Charlton, an aviation consultant, said the negotiations with the US were likely to be “fraught with difficultiesâ€.
“The EU has been arguing for a change to the ownership and control rule for decades but the US has never said yes. It’s been a sticking point forever. If the US has never bent before then why would they do it just for the UK?†he said, adding that such a change could set a big precedent.
British negotiators are hopeful the ownership issues can be addressed through a side agreement or memorandum of understanding giving airlines solid legal rights. But so far the US side has not gone beyond offering temporary “waiversâ€, on a case-by-case basis to airlines.
The UK’s EU membership also prevents the country from signing trade or aviation services agreements before the end of March 2019 when Britain is due to leave the bloc. The EU’s Brexit negotiators are insisting it seek permission for deals during any transition period.
British negotiators are hoping to convince partners such as the US to treat them as EU members during the transition period, so they do not automatically fall out of agreements during that period.
A senior UK government source said it was “nonsense to suggest that planes won’t fly between UK and US post-Brexit. Both sides have a strong interest in reaching an agreement and are very close to one.â€
The US also played down fears of a looming crisis.
“Our shared aim with the United Kingdom is to ensure the smoothest possible transition in the transatlantic market,†said the state department. “Commercial aviation is key to the dynamic economic relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. Discussions are going well and, while specific dates are not set, we plan to meet again soon.â€
Last edited by: R.P. on Tue 6 Mar 18 at 09:19
|
>> Maybe it was this ? Well done.
>>
>> www.ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80
That site's paywalled. Is this particular 'price worth paying' the one MRs B's just mentioned to me; mobile phone roaming?
|
British mobile phone users face bills of up to €50 for each song they stream while roaming in the EU, in the worst-case scenario, unless the UK can agree a comprehensive free-trade deal after Brexit.
The EU has campaigned against roaming fees over the past decade, reducing what operators can charge ahead of an eventual abolition for nearly all users from next summer. The reforms were repeatedly hailed by former prime minister David Cameron during the Brexit referendum.
But Britain will not be covered by these rules once it quits the bloc, allowing continental carriers to charge British consumers what they like — and potentially leaving consumers with the bills of €10 per MB that are commonly paid by US visitors who do not arrange special data packages.
“That is the risk,†said one EU official working on roaming charges.
The return of “bill shock†— the surprisingly large charge from your phone company after a trip abroad — will be more pronounced now that people use their phones for more than just talking and texting.
For example, listening to a song on Spotify takes between 3MB and 5MB, which would leave non-EU customers with a bill of up to €50.
UK networks fear that rival telecoms companies in the EU could raise wholesale prices for calls and data. One telecoms executive told the Financial Times that it is preparing for a “worse case scenarioâ€, in which these higher charges were not covered entirely by roaming charges, but would spill over into higher line rental or other fees across the whole network. “We could be exposed to the likes of France and Spain raising prices,†he said.
A quick bilateral deal between the UK and the EU to cover roaming is not possible, according to the European Commission. In a response to a question on the topic last year, Günther Oettinger, the German commissioner responsible for the bloc’s telecoms policy, said that “there are obvious constraintsâ€.
Under WTO rules, any bilateral agreement outside of a comprehensive free-trade deal would have to be extended to all other WTO members, warned Mr Oettinger in a response to the European Parliament last year.
Negotiating roaming rights as part of any free-trade deal will be delicate, warned industry experts and officials.
Countries that receive huge numbers of British tourists may be unwilling to offer generous terms to the UK, largely because tourist traffic — and subsequent congestion on networks — is tilted in one direction.
While 13m British people visited Spain last year, far fewer Spanish travelled the other way. It took a decade of negotiations to persuade countries such as Italy and Spain to sign off on the EU’s current limits on roaming fees, warned officials.
Instead, operators would have to forge their own bilateral deals with other phone companies across Europe. During these talks companies that operate their own networks in the UK, such as Vodafone and Three, would be able to exchange access to their own infrastructure with continental peers. This would potentially make negotiations straightforward, according to officials.
Smaller “virtual operatorsâ€, who do not own infrastructure and piggyback on the networks of larger rivals, such as TalkTalk and Sky, have no such leverage and would be unlikely to be offered generous terms, leaving their customers facing potentially huge price hikes, warned one official.
Talks between operators have been relatively straightforward in recent years as the EU has capped what they can charge each other, leaving little incentive to drive a hard bargain.
|
|
That's the only one I can quickly see, but it's not new.
|
|
Cut and paste the article now Bromp.
|
Besides mobile phones and roaming charges in the E.U.What else is going to be more difficult for British and E.U citizens?
We have come a long way over 40 years to sort this Exit from the E.U out in less than ten years I can't see.Unless someone proves me wrong.
|
>> Besides mobile phones and roaming charges in the E.U.What else is going to be more
>> difficult for British and E.U citizens?
The next one up is probably flights to/from EU countries. Ryanair, Easy Jet etc operate under EU rules. Once we leave those rules no longer apply. Ryanair being Irish probably have less of a problem though many of their pilots are EU nationals.
Easy, whose main fleet is UK registered but operates form bases across the European mainland, must be working flat out on contingencies. Even smaller operators like Jet2 have bases in Spain (eg Alicante) using machines registered in the UK.
But hey ho; Something Will Turn Up.
|
>> Besides mobile phones and roaming charges in the E.U.What else is going to be more
>> difficult for British and E.U citizens?
Reciprocal Healthcare - valuable for those who cannot get travel insurance.
Driving licence validity/exchange - altho planned transfer of points may be made more difficult :)
Double taxation issues.
There will be more but these come immediately to mind.
|
Brompton, I think you missed this as it was a long way up thread. Interested in your take on it.
>>That interpretation of what is the EU's fall back position is one that comes from the Brexit ultras.
>You really believe that? Did, or did not, Michel Barnier...
|
>> Brompton, I think you missed this as it was a long way up thread. Interested
>> in your take on it.
MM,
Apologies for not responding. I tired of this thread on Sunday after NoFM2R's attempt at being, to use the Yorkshire vernacular, a bit clever over my posts and/or their style.
Returning to the subject.
The Guardian article you quoted appears (paragraph preceding picture of BoJo) to confirm that the position under discussion is a fall back in event that no agreement is in place on Brexit day.
Since I'm not at work today and and have time on my hands I thought I'd do some research. There's so much fluff and real or synthetic outrage over the EU's position over the Northern Irish question that it's really difficult to establish the facts.
Starting with the source document, the whole of the EU's paper published last week is here:
ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement.pdf
This text is intended to put into legal language what was agreed at the summit in December. The bit that deals with Ireland/UK border starts at page 98.
It appears to be a given that the Good Friday Agreement provides for the permanent and irrevocable removal of all controls on movement of people or goods at the NI/Republic border. No problem while that's a border between two EU countries. Very much a problem when goods (and perhaps people) are moving between EU/non EU territory.
It's not just a question of the EU wanting controls and so their problem. If we are trading with EU on WTO terms, as you suggest, then having an open border with one WTO party (EU/Eire) while imposing controls on others breaches WTO treaties. I suspect in practice we'd want our own controls on what's coming in too.
So what's in Friday's publication reflects what has to happen if we're to square circle of (i) meeting terms of Belfast Agreement and (ii) trading on WTO terms with EU.
The NI question was asked of Boris at one of the referendum debates. His answer focused on the Balkans....
Tell me where I'm wrong.
|
>>Apologies for not responding. I tired of this thread on Sunday after NoFM2R's attempt at being, to use the Yorkshire vernacular, a bit clever over my posts and/or their style.
What a very small comment. And so very immature.
Why make the comment? Did it make you feel clever? I wouldn't have been trying to be "a bit clever", I don't remember the occurrence but I was probably telling you off for being a prat.
|
>> Why make the comment? Did it make you feel clever? I wouldn't have been trying
>> to be "a bit clever", I don't remember the occurrence but I was probably telling
>> you off for being a prat.
I suggest you read your own posts. If you cannot remember what you were writing 48 or so hours ago you might need to worry.
|
>> It appears to be a given that the Good Friday Agreement provides for the permanent and
>> irrevocable removal of all controls on movement of people or goods at the NI/Republic border.
Exactly - we cannot decide to cancel this agreement. It is agreed and registered with the UN. So there can be no border. I think we all get that what some don't accept is if there can be no border there... can we have a border at all elsewhere? And if not it might mean we have to go for a softer form of Brexit.
|
>>Tell me where I'm wrong.
Thank you for that history lesson; not sure I can tell you. Tell me where I'm wrong though.
Not a helpful thing for the EU to do.
|
History tends to repeat itself mapmaker,if the rest of Europe is making mischief out of the N.I.situation that is wrong.
They will say that we are leaving this agreement after 40 years not the other way round.In this unstable world we live in at the moment, we would be better off staying in besides all the other problems we have to deal with.
|
The more I see of the nasty and petty little people who run the EU, the more pleased I am we are (hopefully) leaving.
Bully boys, they are, threatening us now we voted to leave their club - reasonably nice enough to us when we were a big net contributor to their grubby schemes and cushy lives.
Now, they are behaving like spoiled brats chucking their toys out of the pram.
|
"They" are not being nasty or petty, they are merely telling us we cant cherry pick.
Who is "they" anyway, if you mean nasty and petty about the NI border for example, that was at the insistence of the government of Eire.
"they" are governments insisting on stuff, just like we did. Funny how you manage to shoehorn things into "them" Not just the EU either is it.
|
I see no threats, just a continued maintenance of their position that the UK cannot expect to receive the same trading benefits outside the EU that they currently receive whilst a member
This seems blindingly obvious and totally reasonable. Why anyone should expect otherwise seems incomprehensible. There are no winners here. Both the UK and The EU will be the poorer as a result of this foolishness..
|
I don't see threats either - they are being consistent and telling us we can't have our cake and eat it. They are not bullying us at all.
If anyone is trying to be unfair it is the UK. This is not the EU top people we have to deal with - there are 27 countries we need to get agreement from.
Did anyone really think the EU would say of course you can be a member of that bit and ignore all the bits you don't want/like?
|
>> cushy lives.
Like the MEPs such as Farage.... I agree with you on that one. He's got himself a nice EU funded pension too.
|
>> Now, they are behaving like spoiled brats chucking their toys out of the pram.
You're looking in a mirror. It's the UK that's behaved like a spoilt brat pretty much since our accession in 1973.
|
This quote from Hammond earlier sounds like a threat to me:
"We should be under no illusion about the significant additional costs if this highly efficient market were to fragment"
So if they don't let us include financial services in any trade deal it will be bad for the UK and the EU. I get that. But it is the UK deciding to leave despite the damage it could cause. Why should the EU give in to this thread - we could always decide to remain in the single market and still leave the EU.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 7 Mar 18 at 23:29
|
It isn't about us and them and calling each other isn't getting us anywhere.
Presient Trump has decided in his wisdom to start a trade war unless he changes his fickle mind again.
The E.U won't back down this time they can't afford to unless it is all talk.They won't back down from us if they think it will damage the E.U institution even more.There is to much at stake.
The financial services got us all in a almighty mess after 2008.They need to be more controlled which the E.U wants to do.
|
What do "Brexiteers" want? - Roger.
