The REAL difference is that the uk will not be in a position to influence any of hem, and if the uk starts to deviate, rather than a slap on the wrist, it will have sanctions slapped on, and if they are affecting Ireland, UN sanctions possibly, as the GFA was lodged .in simpler times with the UN as a Treaty
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Ah yeah, but!.....blue passports! Blue passports will identify we Brits and will undoubtedly provide us with
Taking back control is important..........as is being identified as British so never forget how important that blue passport is. It should be displayed with pride just as this law officer did.......
A couple of AFP officers stopped at a property west of Canberra and talked to an old Aboriginal standing on the road. He told the old Aboriginal, "Morning sir, I need to inspect this land for illegally grown drugs."
The elder reluctantly said, "okay, but don't go into that field over there...", as he nodded his head towards the location.
The AFP officer verbally exploded & said, "Look sir, I have the authority of the federal government with me!". Reaching into his rear back pocket, the AFP officer removed his badge & proudly displayed it to the old Aboriginal. "See this badge?! This badge means I can go wherever I want, whenever I want................on any land! No questions asked, no answers given! Do you understand mate?"
The elder nodded kindly, apologized & went about his business. Moments later he heard loud - fearful screams; he looked up & saw the AFP officer running for his life, being chased by a large Bull. With every step the Bull was gaining ground on the officer & it was likely that he'd sure enough get gored before he reached safety. The officer was clearly terrified. The old Aboriginal threw down his tools & ran as fast as he could to the fence & yelled at the top of his lungs...... "YOU’RE BADGE! SHOW HIM YOU’RE ******* BADGE!"
Tom
I think the idea is to kick that can down the road until the separation takes root.
The hard brexiters would accept that wording.
This morning in the Guardian
"
UK's hopes for post-Brexit trade deal an illusion – Donald Tusk
EU leaders left incredulous by reports of Theresa May’s strategy following Chequers meeting
“However, if the media reports are correct, I am afraid the UK position today is based on pure illusion. It looks like the cake [and eat it] philosophy is still alive.
“From the very start it has been a set principle of the EU27 that there cannot be any cherrypicking of single market à la carte. This will continue to be a key principle, I have no doubt.”
Speaking at a summit of EU27 member states in Brussels, to discuss the EU’s budget and leadership post-Brexit, Leo Varadkar, the Irish taoiseach, also insisted that the single market was “not à la carte”.
It is believed the British government is seeking to maintain frictionless trade in some sectors by staying in lock-step alignment with EU regulation, while opening up the prospect of diverging in other areas in order to gain a competitive advantage in the international marketplace.
“For example, membership of the internal market, that means certain obligations. Membership of the customs union, that means certain obligations.”
Interestingly, as was shown in the video I posted the Leave campaign didn't want to leave either organisation.
So now, where is the problem?
"
UK's hopes for post-Brexit trade deal an illusion – Donald Tusk
EU leaders left incredulous by reports of Theresa May’s strategy following Chequers meeting
“However, if the media reports are correct, I am afraid the UK position today is based on pure illusion. It looks like the cake [and eat it] philosophy is still alive.
“From the very start it has been a set principle of the EU27 that there cannot be any cherrypicking of single market à la carte. This will continue to be a key principle, I have no doubt.”
Speaking at a summit of EU27 member states in Brussels, to discuss the EU’s budget and leadership post-Brexit, Leo Varadkar, the Irish taoiseach, also insisted that the single market was “not à la carte”.
It is believed the British government is seeking to maintain frictionless trade in some sectors by staying in lock-step alignment with EU regulation, while opening up the prospect of diverging in other areas in order to gain a competitive advantage in the international marketplace.
“For example, membership of the internal market, that means certain obligations. Membership of the customs union, that means certain obligations.”
Interestingly, as was shown in the video I posted the Leave campaign didn't want to leave either organisation.
So now, where is the problem?
Answer: The problem is where it has always been - among the ranks of the dishonest in the HofC. Most people know them better as tories!
Tom
the problem is how to get the EU to wheel and deal like Donald Trump.
The EU wants structures and rules for trade, DT wants to do deal by deal, you scratch my back, I scratch yours. So our government split our economy into 3 baskets sector by sector, one of them should be in the SM, one in CU and one WTO.
Hard brexiters believe that soon, the EU will come to DT's way because money is king. Their premise is the EU will need our £9 billions a year, and potentially we can charge a couple of billions in import duty on EU goods if no deal brexit. Their mistake is in understating the difference between trade treaties (EU view) and trade deals (DT view). When DT is no longer president, deals made in his time will have to be done again. What would be in the UK's best interest? long term treaties or short term deals?
Last edited:
Cancelling Brexit is the only thing in our long term interest.
Anyone with any sense should be able to see that the UK's best interest, both short and long-term is to remain part of the EU with all that goes with it.
Those of us old enough to remember life before 1973 will know just how bad things really were and will also remember that General De Gaulle in particular did not want the UK to be part of the then common market. De Gaulle knew exactly how the British would behave - he wasn't wrong!
Tom
Last edited:
it's a difficult guess.
The EU's way is good but the UK has a lot of brilliant economists.
We can potentially outdo the EU on long term.
By exporting economists to the EU? (And we wouldn't be able to afford to keep them.)
So they then have all the brilliant economists...
it's just a way to say that we are more capable, richer and more developed than the average EU27 countries. We may be able to do better than our arch-rival France in the long term.
Doesn't it become painful sitting on that fence for so long?
If the UK couldn't make a better fist of our economic strategy before 1973 when we begged repeatedly to join the Common Market, what on Earth allows you to imagine that we might do better today?
I don't know which economists you allude to but we had economists pre-Common Market too. Fortunately, economists don't run the country and they don't have elections to determine whether the 'bulls' or the 'bears' will have 5 years free gambling with other people's money.
One could almost be persuaded to think that the tory party, very, very close friends with the experts on monetary policy and investment would by now have produced a healthy bank balance for UK plc......or does it take longer than most of the 20th century and a fair chunk of the first 20% of the 21st century to bring about this 'land of plenty'?
Tom
Not at all sure that argument holds any water. What makes "us" more capable, richer and more developed than the EU27 countries? Any measurements?
(Of course we have more of very many things than, say, Latvia or Malta, they are so small. But either scaling appropriately or looking at the top end countries, not convinced.)
Are you being silly, or are you taking the Mickey?
Just how is that going to work?
Brilliant economists? that seems to be an Oxymoron along the lines of "Military Intelligence"
Take Minford for example, preferably take him somewhere else entirely,he believes job losses among the Plebs after Brexit to be a desirable collateral effect, the man is a menace.
Last edited:
we are a long way from 1973.
Let's take a look at the G7 countries.
If you compare for the period since we joined (1973) how much in growth Canada, the USA and Japan, the 3 countries outside the EU, have achieved against the four in the EU: Germany, UK, France and Italy, the 3 outsiders do better than the 4 insiders.
Some may argue that is because the EU's structures and systems suit Germany better than any other member countries.
The long term treaty of staying in the EU, obviously.
But if we are feeling masochistic, a Norway deal.
.
But if there's one thing we have been famous for, it's not achieving our potential. This will be no different.
.
A Norway deal without the money they have tucked away in an investment fund.
Do you really think a global entity should behave like a used car salesman?