WG Yet the UK was alongside the US in both world wars and the Cold War while most of Europe was either Fascist or Communist as well as Korea and both Iraq Wars and Afghanistan. The only nation with a stronger record of support for the U.S. is Australia who also sent troops to Vietnam.
And much good it has done us.
Only demonstrating that Palmerston was right.
and in the context of this tedious line of argument from WG, so was Mandy Rice-Davies.
WG Yet the UK was alongside the US in both world wars and the Cold War while most of Europe was either Fascist or Communist as well as Korea and both Iraq Wars and Afghanistan. The only nation with a stronger record of support for the U.S. is Australia who also sent troops to Vietnam.
Joining the EEC and the EU and being out voted all too frequently. The UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all share a monarch and a culture and the U.S. in part much the same too. The heart of the EU is the Eurozone and the original members namely France, Italy, Germany, the Benelux nations etc. The UK was always on the outside we would have been better off staying in EFTA which we will likely return to eventually anyway
I suggest we all calm down a little on Brexit - simply because from here it all hinges on the renegotiations. If the Government can pull it out of the bag and come up with a deal that 70% can live with (assuming that would be 15% incandescent on both sides) then the world will move on. If however there becomes a clear majority against what's proposed then we are in the territory where we may need a terms referendum. We won't know which for a while, little we can do to influence at this stage, so I suggest we pour ourselves a good drink and discuss another topic for a while. If people like me could be persuaded to move on with the right deal, then we probably are worth waiting to see if the Government are as ready for this as their fans claim.
I admire your optimism. There are a number on here that would still cancel the result if they could and the myriad of delaying court cases emphasises the denial that a lot on the remain side are still experiencing.
Rather than optimism, I think it's some friendly advice to the keen remainers - bide your time. If you're going to get anywhere, there will be a groundswell of opinion against the negotiations as they progress, and that is the time to be heard, rather than now.
Unless M Barnier says "no change to anything, except here's a bill for 50Bn Euro's", in which case reaction here might not be a groundswell of support for the EU?
@Ishmael_Z Another quote from that period from the archives for you - Dean Acheson on Britain:
Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role. The attempt to play a separate power role — that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based on a ‘special relationship’ with the United States, a role based on being head of a ‘commonwealth’ which has no political structure, or unity, or strength — this role is about played out. Great Britain, attempting to be a broker between the United States and Russia, has seemed to conduct policy as weak as its military power.
said a bloke who's country capitulated to Germany in 1940 and still does
De Gaulle talking about our decliniing world influence is like a turkey saying he wouldnt want to be a goose round Christmas time.
I'm not quoting De Gaulle there. That's the bloke who ran US foreign policy at the start of the Cold War.
Who the hell cares what some Yank said about 100 years ago? I don't. 99% of Leavers don't. Really, it is the Remainers who are stuck in the mid 20th century.
We just want to govern ourselves, and prosper. Like any other country. We don't want to send gunboats to Tanganyika.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
What really fucks me off with all this bleating from Remainers about "civil service impartiality" is that none of them, not one of them, either noticed or cared when the Treaty of Lisbon decided that from now on, EU Commissioners should show a clear "commitment to Europe". i.e. be europhile
This effectively meant 50-60% of Brits - the eurosceptics - were legally barred from ever taking the top jobs in the EU civil service. It meant our political overlords in Brussels had a partiality on EVERYTHING.
So you know, Remainers, you didn't care then, so you can fuck off now.
The EU is a political actor in its own right. Given its objectives, its civil service *should* have a commitment to that organisation and not be merely representatives of their country. You wouldn't want a German Commissioner, say, running the Single Market in the explicit interests of Germany; that would undermine the whole basis of the Single Market.
The problem isn't that the Commission was implicitly Europhile (could it realistically be other?); the problem was (and is) that the Commission is not just the civil service but also the EU government. It's always been a fiction that the Commissioners were bureaucrats when their role in developing the EU (or EEC, or EC), was essentially political. As such, they should be recognisable politicians, subject to the usual political pressures of accountability to parliament and, ultimately, to the electorate.
Unless M Barnier says "no change to anything, except here's a bill for 50Bn Euro's", in which case reaction here might not be a groundswell of support for the EU?
Wait till you see the lawyers fees. This divorce ain't gonna be cheap.
This would be a pretty miserable place to be though - the campaign not to leave would be based on lack of benefits and huge costs, another run of the Project Fear rubbish that failed so miserably. The remainers need to make the case for why we went in in the first place, and what the value could be of a Europe working well. You've just asked what the vision for Europe is in 20 years - that strikes me as the question we should debate far more.
@Ishmael_Z Another quote from that period from the archives for you - Dean Acheson on Britain:
Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role. The attempt to play a separate power role — that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based on a ‘special relationship’ with the United States, a role based on being head of a ‘commonwealth’ which has no political structure, or unity, or strength — this role is about played out. Great Britain, attempting to be a broker between the United States and Russia, has seemed to conduct policy as weak as its military power.
said a bloke who's country capitulated to Germany in 1940 and still does
De Gaulle talking about our decliniing world influence is like a turkey saying he wouldnt want to be a goose round Christmas time.
I'm not quoting De Gaulle there. That's the bloke who ran US foreign policy at the start of the Cold War.
Who the hell cares what some Yank said about 100 years ago? I don't. 99% of Leavers don't. Really, it is the Remainers who are stuck in the mid 20th century.
We just want to govern ourselves, and prosper. Like any other country. We don't want to send gunboats to Tanganyika.
All European nations - all western nations, including the USA - are in relative decline, as Asia rises. It is inevitable. It will happen whether we are in the EU or outside. (And, if anything, it is America which is the country now losing a role: as global policeman.)
Moreover, a tsunami of technological change is about to break over us. Sweeping away many old certainties (and making the strains of Brexit look trivial)
In the light of these huge changes, we the British have decided we'd like to steer ourselves through these choppy waters, as we hope we can do a better job than unelected bureaucrats in a foreign capital. Thanks.
What we've done is run away hark back to our comfortable myths and blame the usual scapegoats for all our troubles.
We are less agile than we were and will spend ten+crucial years distracted arguing about Brexit bullshit.
The BBC were rather grudging and negative in their reporting, but Trump's Twitter feed had two victories yesterday, in car manufacturing and the ethics committee debate.
@Ishmael_Z Another quote from that period from the archives for you - Dean Acheson on Britain:
Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role. The attempt to play a separate power role — that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based on a ‘special relationship’ with the United States, a role based on being head of a ‘commonwealth’ which has no political structure, or unity, or strength — this role is about played out. Great Britain, attempting to be a broker between the United States and Russia, has seemed to conduct policy as weak as its military power.
All the same, we shouldn't be complacent: Britain now has a smaller combined total of destroyers and frigates in its entire navy than the number of battleships alone that it deployed at Jutland.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Farage
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
Re my "2037 EU" question. Indeed. I'm often struck how the USA sat down in 1787 (?) four years after gaining independence and wrote the template that still holds. They spent 1775 -83 being unified in what they were against (King George, no taxation without representation etc) but then sat down pdq to work out what the 13 little states had in common and what they all voted to sign up for. 230 years and counting implies they didn't do a bad job.
Where's the open visionary European equivalent? One of my major distrusts of the EU is my perception that nothing major was ever done by the front door of actually getting the consent of the people (nobody will ever convince me Germans would've voted to swap the DM for the Euro - and they would've been right and saved everyone an awful lot of grief if they'd been given a chance). It's almost as if Brussels is scared witless of the prospect of articulating a full fat, full caffeine federal union (jeez there's enough models out there USA, Canada, Australia, India), hence the constant diet of fudge to limbo.
@Ishmael_Z Another quote from that period from the archives for you - Dean Acheson on Britain:
Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role. The attempt to play a separate power role — that is, a role apart from Europe, a role based on a ‘special relationship’ with the United States, a role based on being head of a ‘commonwealth’ which has no political structure, or unity, or strength — this role is about played out. Great Britain, attempting to be a broker between the United States and Russia, has seemed to conduct policy as weak as its military power.
said a bloke who's country capitulated to Germany in 1940 and still does
De Gaulle talking about our decliniing world influence is like a turkey saying he wouldnt want to be a goose round Christmas time.
I'm not quoting De Gaulle there. That's the bloke who ran US foreign policy at the start of the Cold War.
Who the hell cares what some Yank said about 100 years ago? I don't. 99% of Leavers don't. Really, it is the Remainers who are stuck in the mid 20th century.
We just want to govern ourselves, and prosper. Like any other country. We don't want to send gunboats to Tanganyika.
All European nations - all western nations, including the USA - are in relative decline, as Asia rises. It is inevitable. It will happen whether we are in the EU or outside. (And, if anything, it is America which is the country now losing a role: as global policeman.)
Moreover, a tsunami of technological change is about to break over us. Sweeping away many old certainties (and making the strains of Brexit look trivial)
In the light of these huge changes, we the British have decided we'd like to steer ourselves through these choppy waters, as we hope we can do a better job than unelected bureaucrats in a foreign capital. Thanks.
What we've done is run away hark back to our comfortable myths and blame the usual scapegoats for all our troubles.
We are less agile than we were and will spend ten+crucial years distracted arguing about Brexit bullshit.
You probably will. Everyone else will have got on with life.
The BBC were rather grudging and negative in their reporting, but Trump's Twitter feed had two victories yesterday, in car manufacturing and the ethics committee debate.
I must have missed that - sorry.
Makes me worry for my anti-Tillerson bet... Still hoping Republican senators show a bit more backbone and that they don't feel they can be seen to be weak on national security.
Re my "2037 EU" question. Indeed. I'm often struck how the USA sat down in 1787 (?) four years after gaining independence and wrote the template that still holds. They spent 1775 -83 being unified in what they were against (King George, no taxation without representation etc) but then sat down pdq to work out what the 13 little states had in common and what they all voted to sign up for. 230 years and counting implies they didn't do a bad job.
Where's the open visionary European equivalent? One of my major distrusts of the EU is my perception that nothing major was ever done by the front door of actually getting the consent of the people (nobody will ever convince me Germans would've voted to swap the DM for the Euro - and they would've been right and saved everyone an awful lot of grief if they'd been given a chance). It's almost as if Brussels is scared witless of the prospect of articulating a full fat, full caffeine federal union (jeez there's enough models out there USA, Canada, Australia, India), hence the constant diet of fudge to limbo.
Re the USA I believe it did get a bit rocky for a while in the 1860s!
Let's just leave, accepting Cameron's crap deal. At the next GE the voters can pick the party who's vision is the most attractive.
It's interesting that you, and Arron and @SeanT are now all echoing the same mantra: let's just leave, everything will sort itself out. Which seems a sort of uninformed desire, if I may say so, albeit perhaps mirrors the attention span of those advocating it.
It will in any case be interesting to see if this is picked up by the MSM and thereby becomes more widespread a demand by "the masses".
Something that appears here from time to time is the tale of an American buying London Bridge.
He did. And you can see it today.
"London Bridge is a bridge in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. It was built in the 1830s and formerly spanned the River Thames in London, England. It was dismantled in 1967 and relocated to Arizona. The Arizona bridge is a reinforced concrete structure clad in the original masonry of the 1830s bridge, which was purchased by Robert P. McCulloch from the City of London. McCulloch had exterior granite blocks from the original bridge numbered and transported to America to construct the present bridge in Lake Havasu City, a planned community he established in 1964 on the shore of Lake Havasu. The bridge was completed in 1971 (along with a canal), and links an island in the Colorado River with the main part of Lake Havasu City. The song London Bridge is Falling Down is a nursery rhyme that predates the bridge's original 19th century construction."
Can we have a football match at Wembley when we leave the EU ?Similar to When the three Britain Ireland and Denmark joined the EC and played the six Belgium France Italy Luxembourg Netherlands and Germany in 1973 .The one against the 27 will show our spirit.
Re my "2037 EU" question. Indeed. I'm often struck how the USA sat down in 1787 (?) four years after gaining independence and wrote the template that still holds. They spent 1775 -83 being unified in what they were against (King George, no taxation without representation etc) but then sat down pdq to work out what the 13 little states had in common and what they all voted to sign up for. 230 years and counting implies they didn't do a bad job.
Where's the open visionary European equivalent? One of my major distrusts of the EU is my perception that nothing major was ever done by the front door of actually getting the consent of the people (nobody will ever convince me Germans would've voted to swap the DM for the Euro - and they would've been right and saved everyone an awful lot of grief if they'd been given a chance). It's almost as if Brussels is scared witless of the prospect of articulating a full fat, full caffeine federal union (jeez there's enough models out there USA, Canada, Australia, India), hence the constant diet of fudge to limbo.
Re the USA I believe it did get a bit rocky for a while in the 1860s!
In terms of international power politics, it would have been a good idea for Britain to take steps to ensure that the Confederacy remained in existence. Immoral, but a good idea.
Something that appears here from time to time is the tale of an American buying London Bridge.
He did. And you can see it today.
"London Bridge is a bridge in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. It was built in the 1830s and formerly spanned the River Thames in London, England. It was dismantled in 1967 and relocated to Arizona. The Arizona bridge is a reinforced concrete structure clad in the original masonry of the 1830s bridge, which was purchased by Robert P. McCulloch from the City of London. McCulloch had exterior granite blocks from the original bridge numbered and transported to America to construct the present bridge in Lake Havasu City, a planned community he established in 1964 on the shore of Lake Havasu. The bridge was completed in 1971 (along with a canal), and links an island in the Colorado River with the main part of Lake Havasu City. The song London Bridge is Falling Down is a nursery rhyme that predates the bridge's original 19th century construction."
Let's just leave, accepting Cameron's crap deal. At the next GE the voters can pick the party who's vision is the most attractive.
It's interesting that you, and Arron and @SeanT are now all echoing the same mantra: let's just leave, everything will sort itself out. Which seems a sort of uninformed desire, if I may say so, albeit perhaps mirrors the attention span of those advocating it.
It will in any case be interesting to see if this is picked up by the MSM and thereby becomes more widespread a demand by "the masses".
Sorry not to be a raging extremist, it would make it more difficult to lampoon us all and be a smart arse if I were. I am happy to have extremely soft brexit, virtual EU membership without being in, as long as we are officially out, and able to vote for who we feel shares our vision. It could be a pro EU party that has it in its manifesto to rejoin, if so, so be it.
Re my "2037 EU" question. Indeed. I'm often struck how the USA sat down in 1787 (?) four years after gaining independence and wrote the template that still holds. They spent 1775 -83 being unified in what they were against (King George, no taxation without representation etc) but then sat down pdq to work out what the 13 little states had in common and what they all voted to sign up for. 230 years and counting implies they didn't do a bad job.
Where's the open visionary European equivalent? One of my major distrusts of the EU is my perception that nothing major was ever done by the front door of actually getting the consent of the people (nobody will ever convince me Germans would've voted to swap the DM for the Euro - and they would've been right and saved everyone an awful lot of grief if they'd been given a chance). It's almost as if Brussels is scared witless of the prospect of articulating a full fat, full caffeine federal union (jeez there's enough models out there USA, Canada, Australia, India), hence the constant diet of fudge to limbo.
There's compelling evidence that Jefferson pinched the Declaration from N Carolinians - they'd written much the same a year before - and hence their flag.
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Farage
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
No mention of begging. Epic fail.
Farage is just a loud-mouthed tw@. Citing him as evidence to support any argument is weak in the extreme. It's why he was effectively locked in a cellar for most of the Referendum campaign, only bursting out a few times, such as to launch UKIPs dodgy poster.
(Makes me wonder - at what point is there going to be a Farage version of Godwin's Law?)
Who would actually *want* to recreate the British Empire? I can't imagine a worse fate for this country than ruling over a load of poverty-stricken hellholes dotted round the world, at massive cost in lives and money?
Something that appears here from time to time is the tale of an American buying London Bridge.
He did. And you can see it today.
"London Bridge is a bridge in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. It was built in the 1830s and formerly spanned the River Thames in London, England. It was dismantled in 1967 and relocated to Arizona. The Arizona bridge is a reinforced concrete structure clad in the original masonry of the 1830s bridge, which was purchased by Robert P. McCulloch from the City of London. McCulloch had exterior granite blocks from the original bridge numbered and transported to America to construct the present bridge in Lake Havasu City, a planned community he established in 1964 on the shore of Lake Havasu. The bridge was completed in 1971 (along with a canal), and links an island in the Colorado River with the main part of Lake Havasu City. The song London Bridge is Falling Down is a nursery rhyme that predates the bridge's original 19th century construction."
Let's just leave, accepting Cameron's crap deal. At the next GE the voters can pick the party who's vision is the most attractive.
It's interesting that you, and Arron and @SeanT are now all echoing the same mantra: let's just leave, everything will sort itself out. Which seems a sort of uninformed desire, if I may say so, albeit perhaps mirrors the attention span of those advocating it.
It will in any case be interesting to see if this is picked up by the MSM and thereby becomes more widespread a demand by "the masses".
Sorry not to be a raging extremist, it would make it more difficult to lampoon us all and be a smart arse if I were. I am happy to have extremely soft brexit, virtual EU membership without being in, as long as we are officially out, and able to vote for who we feel shares our vision. It could be a pro EU party that has it in its manifesto to rejoin, if so, so be it.
But how does it all happen?
We need a plan, some goals, a strategy and then we need to execute efficiently.
You lot (apologies) seem to be saying let's just go for it now and it will all fall into place. As that wise and worldly ex-Civil Servant pointed out, free trade deals don't "just happen".
Let's just leave, accepting Cameron's crap deal. At the next GE the voters can pick the party who's vision is the most attractive.
It's interesting that you, and Arron and @SeanT are now all echoing the same mantra: let's just leave, everything will sort itself out. Which seems a sort of uninformed desire, if I may say so, albeit perhaps mirrors the attention span of those advocating it.
It will in any case be interesting to see if this is picked up by the MSM and thereby becomes more widespread a demand by "the masses".
Sorry not to be a raging extremist, it would make it more difficult to lampoon us all and be a smart arse if I were. I am happy to have extremely soft brexit, virtual EU membership without being in, as long as we are officially out, and able to vote for who we feel shares our vision. It could be a pro EU party that has it in its manifesto to rejoin, if so, so be it.
But how does it all happen?
We need a plan, some goals, a strategy and then we need to execute efficiently.
You lot (apologies) seem to be saying let's just go for it now and it will all fall into place. As that wise and worldly ex-Civil Servant pointed out, free trade deals don't "just happen".
Sadly many Brexiteers also expect our former colonies to come begging - "I always knew you'd come back to us sir..." - so they can get their Sally Field moment - "You like us! You really like us!"
Many, huh?
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
Farage
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
No mention of begging. Epic fail.
Farage is just a loud-mouthed tw@. Citing him as evidence to support any argument is weak in the extreme. It's why he was effectively locked in a cellar for most of the Referendum campaign, only bursting out a few times, such as to launch UKIPs dodgy poster.
(Makes me wonder - at what point is there going to be a Farage version of Godwin's Law?)
Farage version of Godwin's Law shall be called MarqueeMark's Law.
Let's just leave, accepting Cameron's crap deal. At the next GE the voters can pick the party who's vision is the most attractive.
It's interesting that you, and Arron and @SeanT are now all echoing the same mantra: let's just leave, everything will sort itself out. Which seems a sort of uninformed desire, if I may say so, albeit perhaps mirrors the attention span of those advocating it.
It will in any case be interesting to see if this is picked up by the MSM and thereby becomes more widespread a demand by "the masses".
Sorry not to be a raging extremist, it would make it more difficult to lampoon us all and be a smart arse if I were. I am happy to have extremely soft brexit, virtual EU membership without being in, as long as we are officially out, and able to vote for who we feel shares our vision. It could be a pro EU party that has it in its manifesto to rejoin, if so, so be it.
But how does it all happen?
We need a plan, some goals, a strategy and then we need to execute efficiently.
You lot (apologies) seem to be saying let's just go for it now and it will all fall into place. As that wise and worldly ex-Civil Servant pointed out, free trade deals don't "just happen".
Please stop being so pretentious, my toes are curling out of embarrassment for you.
It is possible to leave the EU, but it doesn't have to be jumping off a cliff. For now I say we should accept a deal as crap for commited Leavers as Cameron tried to sell and, when we have a GE, the public can vote for the party they feel will get the best for them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remaining
Can we have a football match at Wembley when we leave the EU ?Similar to When the three Britain Ireland and Denmark joined the EC and played the six Belgium France Italy Luxembourg Netherlands and Germany in 1973 .The one against the 27 will show our spirit.
We got a special 50 pence piece as well, didn't we?
Can we have a football match at Wembley when we leave the EU ?Similar to When the three Britain Ireland and Denmark joined the EC and played the six Belgium France Italy Luxembourg Netherlands and Germany in 1973 .The one against the 27 will show our spirit.
I'd never heard of that until you mentioned it. We won! It's quite amazing that the Scots and Irish (doesn't look like any Welsh players featured) agreed to play in it. They clearly weren't worried that it would undermine their own footballing independence. I guess this was before Stanley Rous was ousted as President of FIFA by that crook Havelange.
Let's just leave, accepting Cameron's crap deal. At the next GE the voters can pick the party who's vision is the most attractive.
It's interesting that you, and Arron and @SeanT are now all echoing the same mantra: let's just leave, everything will sort itself out. Which seems a sort of uninformed desire, if I may say so, albeit perhaps mirrors the attention span of those advocating it.
It will in any case be interesting to see if this is picked up by the MSM and thereby becomes more widespread a demand by "the masses".
Sorry not to be a raging extremist, it would make it more difficult to lampoon us all and be a smart arse if I were. I am happy to have extremely soft brexit, virtual EU membership without being in, as long as we are officially out, and able to vote for who we feel shares our vision. It could be a pro EU party that has it in its manifesto to rejoin, if so, so be it.
But how does it all happen?
We need a plan, some goals, a strategy and then we need to execute efficiently.
You lot (apologies) seem to be saying let's just go for it now and it will all fall into place. As that wise and worldly ex-Civil Servant pointed out, free trade deals don't "just happen".
Please stop being so pretentious, my toes are curling out of embarrassment for you.
It is possible to leave the EU, but it doesn't have to be jumping off a cliff. For now I say we should accept a deal as crap for commited Leavers as Cameron tried to sell and, when we have a GE, the public can vote for the party they feel will get the best for them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remaining
So if I've got this right, accept a deal, say single market membership, and then at the next GE each party says "vote for us and we will continue membership of the single market/leave the single market" as applicable.
Yes that works, if you want every five year electoral cycle to be wholly taken up with negotiation in or out of or different terms of the single market. And you say you just want the whole thing over with and us to leave? Oh my aching toes.
Having slightly more concern for my fellow citizens, especially the working poor, I would say that that would be an horrendous way forward.
Much better would be to get as good a deal as we can now and work to make it as successful as possible. My own view as you are aware is that it won't be as good as the status quo ante, especially for the working poor. But that is moot and also, as we know, you lot on their behalf think that is a price worth paying,
Let's just leave, accepting Cameron's crap deal. At the next GE the voters can pick the party who's vision is the most attractive.
It's interesting that you, and Arron and @SeanT are now all echoing the same mantra: let's just leave, everything will sort itself out. Which seems a sort of uninformed desire, if I may say so, albeit perhaps mirrors the attention span of those advocating it.
It will in any case be interesting to see if this is picked up by the MSM and thereby becomes more widespread a demand by "the masses".
Sorry not to be a raging extremist, it would make it more difficult to lampoon us all and be a smart arse if I were. I am happy to have extremely soft brexit, virtual EU membership without being in, as long as we are officially out, and able to vote for who we feel shares our vision. It could be a pro EU party that has it in its manifesto to rejoin, if so, so be it.
But how does it all happen?
We need a plan, some goals, a strategy and then we need to execute efficiently.
You lot (apologies) seem to be saying let's just go for it now and it will all fall into place. As that wise and worldly ex-Civil Servant pointed out, free trade deals don't "just happen".
them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remaining
So if I've got this right, accept a deal, say single market membership, and then at the next GE each party says "vote for us and we will continue membership of the single market/leave the single market" as applicable.
Yes that works, if you want every five year electoral cycle to be wholly taken up with negotiation in or out of or different terms of the single market. And you say you just want the whole thing over with and us to leave? Oh my aching toes.
Having slightly more concern for my fellow citizens, especially the working poor, I would say that that would be an horrendous way forward.
Much better would be to get as good a deal as we can now and work to make it as successful as possible. My own view as you are aware is that it won't be as good as the status quo ante, especially for the working poor. But that is moot and also, as we know, you lot on their behalf think that is a price worth paying,
It would be no different to the current state of affairs where some governments have looser or tighter arrangements with foreign countries, which the EU now is. But to shut up those who lost the referendum and are trying to nause it for everyone, I'd accept Daves crap, rejected deal as a holding position
It would be no different to the current state of affairs where some governments have looser or tighter arrangements with foreign countries, which the EU now is. But to shut up those who lost the referendum and are trying to nause it for everyone, I'd accept Daves crap, rejected deal as a holding position
You do realise that Dave's deal involves staying in the EU?
Sorry not to be a raging extremist, it would make it more difficult to lampoon us all and be a smart arse if I were. I am happy to have extremely soft brexit, virtual EU membership without being in, as long as we are officially out, and able to vote for who we feel shares our vision. It could be a pro EU party that has it in its manifesto to rejoin, if so, so be it.
But how does it all happen?
We need a plan, some goals, a strategy and then we need to execute efficiently.
You lot (apologies) seem to be saying let's just go for it now and it will all fall into place. As that wise and worldly ex-Civil Servant pointed out, free trade deals don't "just happen".
them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remaining
So if I've got this right, accept a deal, say single market membership, and then at the next GE each party says "vote for us and we will continue membership of the single market/leave the single market" as applicable.
Yes that works, if you want every five year electoral cycle to be wholly taken up with negotiation in or out of or different terms of the single market. And you say you just want the whole thing over with and us to leave? Oh my aching toes.
Having slightly more concern for my fellow citizens, especially the working poor, I would say that that would be an horrendous way forward.
Much better would be to get as good a deal as we can now and work to make it as successful as possible. My own view as you are aware is that it won't be as good as the status quo ante, especially for the working poor. But that is moot and also, as we know, you lot on their behalf think that is a price worth paying,
It would be no different to the current state of affairs where some governments have looser or tighter arrangements with foreign countries, which the EU now is. But to shut up those who lost the referendum and are trying to nause it for everyone, I'd accept Daves crap, rejected deal as a holding position
It's a nice idea, but Dave's deal became dead and buried with the Leave vote - there was a death clause for it in the negotiations. Vanilla WTO membership is now our default position; we need to build up whatever we can from that.
It would be no different to the current state of affairs where some governments have looser or tighter arrangements with foreign countries, which the EU now is. But to shut up those who lost the referendum and are trying to nause it for everyone, I'd accept Daves crap, rejected deal as a holding position
You do realise that Dave's deal involves staying in the EU?
Of course! It would be softer than soft Brexit... a dummy to stop the babies crying for a while
You're probably right. But when Trump told Britain to appoint Farage as ambassador in Washington, I clocked that Number 10 didn't say "We decide who to appoint; you don't". Or "We don't want a foreign government's advice about who to appoint as ambassador, whether to that country or any other country". Instead they said there wasn't a vacancy. Now if a vacancy arises, who knows?
I don't think Farage would get the post, although I do think he'd accept it if offered. Of more interest from a betting point of view is whether he will advise Trump to back his own supposed horse in France, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, rather than Marine Le Pen. The amounts available at Betfair both for and against Le Pen seem to be increasing.
It would be no different to the current state of affairs where some governments have looser or tighter arrangements with foreign countries, which the EU now is. But to shut up those who lost the referendum and are trying to nause it for everyone, I'd accept Daves crap, rejected deal as a holding position
You do realise that Dave's deal involves staying in the EU?
Looking forward a bit, what if before calling a Frexit referendum, Marine does a Dave, doubtless putting more of her back into the work than he did, and comes up with a "Marine's deal", whereby France opts out from ever-closer union. Blah blah, fill in your own details.
Then "EU27" starts to look like a very different animal. Inevitably you would get three-way negotiations.
Who would actually *want* to recreate the British Empire? I can't imagine a worse fate for this country than ruling over a load of poverty-stricken hellholes dotted round the world, at massive cost in lives and money?
The EU gig is clearly the number one slot right now. Whoever gets it will be getting a promotion.
ISTR that the EU gig has been viewed as the Number One posting for ambassadors for some time because, uniquiely, it combines a relative independence of action with the chance to make a real difference. Ambassador to the US is all well and good for example, but the President and the PM speak so often these days that the diplomatic posting is one that operates on a lower level.
Sorry not to be a raging extremist, it would make it more difficult to lampoon us all and be a smart arse if I were. I am happy to have extremely soft brexit, virtual EU membership without being in, as long as we are officially out, and able to vote for who we feel shares our vision. It could be a pro EU party that has it in its manifesto to rejoin, if so, so be it.
But how does it all happen?
We need a plan, some goals, a strategy and then we need to execute efficiently.
You lot (apologies) seem to be saying let's just go for it now and it will all fall into place. As that wise and worldly ex-Civil Servant pointed out, free trade deals don't "just happen".
them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remaining
So if I've got this right, accept a deal, say single market membership, and then at the next GE each party says "vote for us and we will continue membership of the single market/leave the single market" as applicable.
Yes that works, if you want every five year electoral cycle to be wholly taken up with negotiation in or out of or different terms of the single market. And you say you just want the whole thing over with and us to leave? Oh my aching toes.
Having slightly more concern for my fellow citizens, especially the working poor, I would say that that would be an horrendous way forward.
Much better would be to get as good a deal as we can now and work to make it as successful as possible. My own view as you are aware is that it won't be as good as the status quo ante, especially for the working poor. But that is moot and also, as we know, you lot on their behalf think that is a price worth paying,
It would be no different to the current state of affairs where some governments have looser or tighter arrangements with foreign countries, which the EU now is. But to shut up those who lost the referendum and are trying to nause it for everyone, I'd accept Daves crap, rejected deal as a holding position
It's a nice idea, but Dave's deal became dead and buried with the Leave vote - there was a death clause for it in the negotiations. Vanilla WTO membership is now our default position; we need to build up whatever we can from that.
Ok what I am inferring is we should take the softest brexit possible, I used Daves deal as an example
Hilary Benn on excellent form on radio 2 at lunchtime saying he had campaigned hard for Remain, accepted the result and was working as hard as possible for a successful brexit. (her is chairman of the Exiting the European Union Select Committee). How very different from the home life of our own dear Remainers.
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
The joining the EEC 50p piece had hands holding each other in a ring which pre-imagined the ring of 12 stars to represent the then 11 members. There will be endless fun drawing the one hand two finger gesture on the leave EU 50p coin.
To access the the quote button, hit the time-stamp of the post you're wanting to reply to, and it'll take you to the vanilla forums and give you the quote button there.
The joining the EEC 50p piece had hands holding each other in a ring which pre-imagined the ring of 12 stars to represent the then 11 members. There will be endless fun drawing the one hand two finger gesture on the leave EU 50p coin.
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
I think our starting position would be "yes" to all of them. If this causes a problem in the negotiations so be it.
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
You forgot about the most important European organisation, EUrovision.
To access the the quote button, hit the time-stamp of the post you're wanting to reply to, and it'll take you to the vanilla forums and give you the quote button there.
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
Ah, the British and their endless opt-ins...
The answer to most of them will be, if you want this then you cannot be outside the single market.
Countries that speak English as a majority language (the "Anglosphere") = 6 Countries that are in "Personal Union" with the UK Monarchy = 12 (excluding those listed above) Countries that are currently in "Political Union" with the UK = 26 (excluding those listed above)
As well as all the above countries' external or overseas territories.
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
Galileo is an oddity, it only has any point at all in the event of world war - it is designed to fill the void left by the US taking GPS off the air except for its own military. It pisses off the US because it negates the advantage of shutting down GPS, and the first thing the US would probably do in a shooting war would be to try, probably successfully, to take down the Galileo satellites. I'd be very happy to see our share of the Galileo budget paid to, ooooh, the NHS, say.
We need a plan, some goals, a strategy and then we need to execute efficiently.
You lot (apologies) seem to be saying let's just go for it now and it will all fall into place. As that wise and worldly ex-Civil Servant pointed out, free trade deals don't "just happen".
them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remaining
So if I've got this right, accept a deal, say single market membership, and then at the next GE each party says "vote for us and we will continue membership of the single market/leave the single market" as applicable.
Yes that works, if you want every five year electoral cycle to be wholly taken up with negotiation in or out of or different terms of the single market. And you say you just want the whole thing over with and us to leave? Oh my aching toes.
Having slightly more concern for my fellow citizens, especially the working poor, I would say that that would be an horrendous way forward.
Much better would be to get as good a deal as we can now and work to make it as successful as possible. My own view as you are aware is that it won't be as good as the status quo ante, especially for the working poor. But that is moot and also, as we know, you lot on their behalf think that is a price worth paying,
It would be no different to the current state of affairs where some governments have looser or tighter arrangements with foreign countries, which the EU now is. But to shut up those who lost the referendum and are trying to nause it for everyone, I'd accept Daves crap, rejected deal as a holding position
It's a nice idea, but Dave's deal became dead and buried with the Leave vote - there was a death clause for it in the negotiations. Vanilla WTO membership is now our default position; we need to build up whatever we can from that.
Ok what I am inferring is we should take the softest brexit possible, I used Daves deal as an example
I'm quite sure that the 'softest Brexit possible' would be easily attainable: it would be exactly the same as now, other than without any UK representation in the institutions. It also wouldn't be Brexit in any meaningful way.
The Brexit vote has to be honoured, which as a minimum means an end to free movement of people, an end to the jurisdiction of the CJEU over the UK and a substantial reduction in the club fee. In reality, I don't see how that can be squared with Single Market membership. As such, there ought to be no reason for Britain to pay a fee at all. That should be the baseline from which negotiations start.
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
Surely that would be, which EU-led programmes the EU would like us to continue to pay money into.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
I think our starting position would be "yes" to all of them. If this causes a problem in the negotiations so be it.
Tough talk. Say EU27 adopts the starting position that it's "no" to all of them. What do you do then?
Or they could say "Fine! We'll help you with everything on your list, limies! Especially air traffic control, which we know is so important to you. And you'll give up the City of London's operations on the continent, yes?"
Regarding hard vs soft brexit, as someone viewing this from afar it seems to me that what the Leavers want from brexit is less important than understanding what the EU is prepared to give, as the UK is the supplicant on this.
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
I would substitute "wish" for "can". In my own little world we have said we are going to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement. That means the system is likely to be up and running before the end of the year, while we are still an EU member state. There is currently conflicting legal advice about whether the UK can remain a member of the system once we have left the EU, though. To create certainty, the Treaty will have to be redrafted and then signed off by the CJEU and, possibly, the UK Supreme Court as well. I suspect that the UPC is not the only body this applies to. Anything that has the CJEU as an ultimate arbiter or is subject to EU law will be the same. It's not just that we will have to accept EU jurisdiction, but also that the EU will have to be convinced that we will accept it.
There are other questions, too, such as which EU-led programmes (Erasmus, Galileo, European Medicines Agency, the pan-European Air Traffic control thingy etc.) that we wish to remain members of.
I think our starting position would be "yes" to all of them. If this causes a problem in the negotiations so be it.
Tough talk. Say EU27 adopts the starting position that it's "no" to all of them. What do you do then?
You think they will want massive funding holes opening up in a series of EU-led projects? What planet are you on?
Comments
and in the context of this tedious line of argument from WG, so was Mandy Rice-Davies.
Unless M Barnier says "no change to anything, except here's a bill for 50Bn Euro's", in which case reaction here might not be a groundswell of support for the EU?
Give us an ideal vision of the EU in 2037.
What's it look like?
Trump slaps down House Republicans trying to gut ethics office:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/
Impressive power play.
The problem isn't that the Commission was implicitly Europhile (could it realistically be other?); the problem was (and is) that the Commission is not just the civil service but also the EU government. It's always been a fiction that the Commissioners were bureaucrats when their role in developing the EU (or EEC, or EC), was essentially political. As such, they should be recognisable politicians, subject to the usual political pressures of accountability to parliament and, ultimately, to the electorate.
This would be a pretty miserable place to be though - the campaign not to leave would be based on lack of benefits and huge costs, another run of the Project Fear rubbish that failed so miserably. The remainers need to make the case for why we went in in the first place, and what the value could be of a Europe working well. You've just asked what the vision for Europe is in 20 years - that strikes me as the question we should debate far more.
We are less agile than we were and will spend ten+crucial years distracted arguing about Brexit bullshit.
The BBC were rather grudging and negative in their reporting, but Trump's Twitter feed had two victories yesterday, in car manufacturing and the ethics committee debate.
Thought the media would've caught up by now - its been 18 months - alas not.
All the same, we shouldn't be complacent: Britain now has a smaller combined total of destroyers and frigates in its entire navy than the number of battleships alone that it deployed at Jutland.
In which case, naming one thousand should be easy.
Or just one. Name a single person who has expressed that view - a person who is not solely inhabiting your mind.
But to be fair, you are providing endless point'n'laugh entertainment on a very grey day.
" the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand said they’re in a race for who could be the first country to make a trade deal with Britain outside the European Union."
Re my "2037 EU" question. Indeed. I'm often struck how the USA sat down in 1787 (?) four years after gaining independence and wrote the template that still holds. They spent 1775 -83 being unified in what they were against (King George, no taxation without representation etc) but then sat down pdq to work out what the 13 little states had in common and what they all voted to sign up for. 230 years and counting implies they didn't do a bad job.
Where's the open visionary European equivalent? One of my major distrusts of the EU is my perception that nothing major was ever done by the front door of actually getting the consent of the people (nobody will ever convince me Germans would've voted to swap the DM for the Euro - and they would've been right and saved everyone an awful lot of grief if they'd been given a chance). It's almost as if Brussels is scared witless of the prospect of articulating a full fat, full caffeine federal union (jeez there's enough models out there USA, Canada, Australia, India), hence the constant diet of fudge to limbo.
Makes me worry for my anti-Tillerson bet... Still hoping Republican senators show a bit more backbone and that they don't feel they can be seen to be weak on national security.
It will in any case be interesting to see if this is picked up by the MSM and thereby becomes more widespread a demand by "the masses".
He did. And you can see it today.
"London Bridge is a bridge in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. It was built in the 1830s and formerly spanned the River Thames in London, England. It was dismantled in 1967 and relocated to Arizona. The Arizona bridge is a reinforced concrete structure clad in the original masonry of the 1830s bridge, which was purchased by Robert P. McCulloch from the City of London. McCulloch had exterior granite blocks from the original bridge numbered and transported to America to construct the present bridge in Lake Havasu City, a planned community he established in 1964 on the shore of Lake Havasu. The bridge was completed in 1971 (along with a canal), and links an island in the Colorado River with the main part of Lake Havasu City. The song London Bridge is Falling Down is a nursery rhyme that predates the bridge's original 19th century construction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_(Lake_Havasu_City)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMWocVvQW0I
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/04/taxi-firm-under-fire-advertising-campaign
Farage is just a loud-mouthed tw@. Citing him as evidence to support any argument is weak in the extreme. It's why he was effectively locked in a cellar for most of the Referendum campaign, only bursting out a few times, such as to launch UKIPs dodgy poster.
(Makes me wonder - at what point is there going to be a Farage version of Godwin's Law?)
Who would actually *want* to recreate the British Empire? I can't imagine a worse fate for this country than ruling over a load of poverty-stricken hellholes dotted round the world, at massive cost in lives and money?
We need a plan, some goals, a strategy and then we need to execute efficiently.
You lot (apologies) seem to be saying let's just go for it now and it will all fall into place. As that wise and worldly ex-Civil Servant pointed out, free trade deals don't "just happen".
It is possible to leave the EU, but it doesn't have to be jumping off a cliff. For now I say we should accept a deal as crap for commited Leavers as Cameron tried to sell and, when we have a GE, the public can vote for the party they feel will get the best for them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remaining
Yes that works, if you want every five year electoral cycle to be wholly taken up with negotiation in or out of or different terms of the single market. And you say you just want the whole thing over with and us to leave? Oh my aching toes.
Having slightly more concern for my fellow citizens, especially the working poor, I would say that that would be an horrendous way forward.
Much better would be to get as good a deal as we can now and work to make it as successful as possible. My own view as you are aware is that it won't be as good as the status quo ante, especially for the working poor. But that is moot and also, as we know, you lot on their behalf think that is a price worth paying,
It's a nice idea, but Dave's deal became dead and buried with the Leave vote - there was a death clause for it in the negotiations. Vanilla WTO membership is now our default position; we need to build up whatever we can from that.
I don't think Farage would get the post, although I do think he'd accept it if offered. Of more interest from a betting point of view is whether he will advise Trump to back his own supposed horse in France, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, rather than Marine Le Pen. The amounts available at Betfair both for and against Le Pen seem to be increasing.
Then "EU27" starts to look like a very different animal. Inevitably you would get three-way negotiations.
Afternoon all.
Ok what I am inferring is we should take the softest brexit possible, I used Daves deal as an example
We could have exactly the same deal as now if the voters elect a party that proposed it, so why not?
Only 33% of those who watch CNN trust CNN.
HAHAHAHA. https://t.co/xYsVEQLYon
The second largest economy in the EU is leaving, there are eurozone problems, the immigration crisis and so on.
It is surely not in the EU interest to give the UK too good a deal, as then others will want out too. The deal also has to be approved by all 27 countries (plus Wallonia)?
On the other hand, the EU won't want to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
'I am a Cowboys fan' and the quote button appears
The answer to most of them will be, if you want this then you cannot be outside the single market.
Countries that speak English as a majority language (the "Anglosphere") = 6
Countries that are in "Personal Union" with the UK Monarchy = 12 (excluding those listed above)
Countries that are currently in "Political Union" with the UK = 26 (excluding those listed above)
As well as all the above countries' external or overseas territories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandbox
You don't need to be a EU member to take part in EUROVISION!
Ask Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia.... and Australia
I'm quite sure that the 'softest Brexit possible' would be easily attainable: it would be exactly the same as now, other than without any UK representation in the institutions. It also wouldn't be Brexit in any meaningful way.
The Brexit vote has to be honoured, which as a minimum means an end to free movement of people, an end to the jurisdiction of the CJEU over the UK and a substantial reduction in the club fee. In reality, I don't see how that can be squared with Single Market membership. As such, there ought to be no reason for Britain to pay a fee at all. That should be the baseline from which negotiations start.
This isn't a proposed rule-change or a divorce. Tough talk. Say EU27 adopts the starting position that it's "no" to all of them. What do you do then?
Or they could say "Fine! We'll help you with everything on your list, limies! Especially air traffic control, which we know is so important to you. And you'll give up the City of London's operations on the continent, yes?"