politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theoretically at least TMay is the leader with biggest challen
Comments
-
Only demonstrating that Palmerston was right.Luckyguy1983 said:
And much good it has done us.HYUFD said: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 in the context of this tedious line of argument from WG, so was Mandy Rice-Davies.0 -
a point driven home by the Obama presidencyLuckyguy1983 said:
And much good it has done us.HYUFD said: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.
0 -
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 anyway0
-
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.Blue_rog said:
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.tpfkar said:
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.0 -
tpfkar
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?0 -
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!"SeanT said:
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.williamglenn said:
I'm not quoting De Gaulle there. That's the bloke who ran US foreign policy at the start of the Cold War.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLwilliamglenn said:@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.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/01/not-so-special-relationship/
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.
We just want to govern ourselves, and prosper. Like any other country. We don't want to send gunboats to Tanganyika.0 -
WG
Give us an ideal vision of the EU in 2037.
What's it look like?0 -
In other news...
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.
0 -
Good afternoon, my fellow discreet bureaucrats.0
-
WG A recent poll showed non-EU G20 nations backed Brexit0
-
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.SeanT said:
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 europhileScott_P said:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:ai0006
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 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.0 -
Wait till you see the lawyers fees. This divorce ain't gonna be cheap.welshowl said:tpfkar
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?
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.
0 -
What we've done is run away hark back to our comfortable myths and blame the usual scapegoats for all our troubles.SeanT said:
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.williamglenn said:
I'm not quoting De Gaulle there. That's the bloke who ran US foreign policy at the start of the Cold War.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLwilliamglenn said:@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.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/01/not-so-special-relationship/
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.
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.
We are less agile than we were and will spend ten+crucial years distracted arguing about Brexit bullshit.
0 -
Mr. rkrkrk, I said the same thing the other day.
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.0 -
I remain perplexed by the number who think he's a nitwit - anyone with eyes can see his game and respect the game/tactics he plays.rkrkrk said:In other news...
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.
Thought the media would've caught up by now - its been 18 months - alas not.0 -
Third at the time and hugely stronger than now.AlsoIndigo said:
weak as its military powerwilliamglenn said:@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.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/01/not-so-special-relationship/
So that would be 6th in the world then ?
http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
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.0 -
Many, huh?williamglenn said:
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!"
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.
0 -
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.0
-
FarageMarqueeMark said:
Many, huh?williamglenn said:
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!"
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."0 -
tpfkar
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.0 -
You probably will. Everyone else will have got on with life.Jonathan said:
What we've done is run away hark back to our comfortable myths and blame the usual scapegoats for all our troubles.SeanT said:
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.williamglenn said:
I'm not quoting De Gaulle there. That's the bloke who ran US foreign policy at the start of the Cold War.Alanbrooke said:
ROFLwilliamglenn said:@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.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/01/not-so-special-relationship/
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.
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.
We are less agile than we were and will spend ten+crucial years distracted arguing about Brexit bullshit.0 -
I must have missed that - sorry.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. rkrkrk, I said the same thing the other day.
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.
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.0 -
Re the USA I believe it did get a bit rocky for a while in the 1860s!welshowl said:tpfkar
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.0 -
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.isam said: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 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".
0 -
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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_(Lake_Havasu_City)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMWocVvQW0I0 -
If all this Brexit stuff leaves you feeling a bit deprived of poker-faced faux outrage, the Guardian helpfully comes to the rescue:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/04/taxi-firm-under-fire-advertising-campaign
0 -
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.0
-
After all 'fun' with John Mason's tweet yesterday, I'm not sure I can cope.Richard_Nabavi said:If all this Brexit stuff leaves you feeling a bit deprived of poker-faced faux outrage, the Guardian helpfully comes to the rescue:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/04/taxi-firm-under-fire-advertising-campaign0 -
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.Carolus_Rex said:
Re the USA I believe it did get a bit rocky for a while in the 1860s!welshowl said:tpfkar
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.0 -
I have been on that bridge, on a birding trip to southern California/Arizona. "Incongruous" is a word that springs to mind....PlatoSaid said: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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_(Lake_Havasu_City)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMWocVvQW0I0 -
-
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.TOPPING said:
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.isam said: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 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".0 -
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.welshowl said:tpfkar
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.0 -
No mention of begging. Epic fail.Jonathan said:
FarageMarqueeMark said:
Many, huh?williamglenn said:
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!"
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."
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?)0 -
@SebastianEPayne: Kim Darroch previously did Ivan Rogers' job in Brussels for five years. He is certainly no Brexiter.0
-
McCulloch created a whole city from nothing in a terrible location using it as a hook - it was an entrepreneurial feat.MarqueeMark said:
I have been on that bridge, on a birding trip to southern California/Arizona. "Incongruous" is a word that springs to mind....PlatoSaid said: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."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Bridge_(Lake_Havasu_City)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMWocVvQW0I0 -
But how does it all happen?isam said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.isam said: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 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".
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".0 -
I find that extremely unlikely.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
So let them not happen.TOPPING said:
But how does it all happen?isam said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.isam said: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 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".
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".0 -
Farage version of Godwin's Law shall be called MarqueeMark's Law.MarqueeMark said:
No mention of begging. Epic fail.Jonathan said:
FarageMarqueeMark said:
Many, huh?williamglenn said:
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!"
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."
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?)0 -
Please stop being so pretentious, my toes are curling out of embarrassment for you.TOPPING said:
But how does it all happen?isam said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.isam said: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 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".
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
0 -
We got a special 50 pence piece as well, didn't we?Yorkcity said: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.
0 -
The EU gig is clearly the number one slot right now. Whoever gets it will be getting a promotion.TheScreamingEagles said:
0 -
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.Yorkcity said: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.
0 -
SouthamObserver said:
The EU gig is clearly the number one slot right now. Whoever gets it will be getting a promotion.TheScreamingEagles said:
0 -
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.isam said:
Please stop being so pretentious, my toes are curling out of embarrassment for you.TOPPING said:
But how does it all happen?isam said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.isam said: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 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".
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,0 -
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 positionTOPPING said:
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.isam said:
them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remainingTOPPING said:
But how does it all happen?isam said:
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.TOPPING said:
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.isam said: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 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".
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".
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,0 -
You do realise that Dave's deal involves staying in the EU?isam said: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
0 -
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 positionisam said:
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.TOPPING said:
them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remainingisam said:
But how does it all happen?TOPPING said:
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.
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".
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.0 -
Of course! It would be softer than soft Brexit... a dummy to stop the babies crying for a whilewilliamglenn said:
You do realise that Dave's deal involves staying in the EU?isam said: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
0 -
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?MaxPB said:
I find that extremely unlikely.TheScreamingEagles said:
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.0 -
Kim's brother, I believe, is Jeremy Darroch, CEO of Sky.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
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.williamglenn said:
You do realise that Dave's deal involves staying in the EU?isam said: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
Then "EU27" starts to look like a very different animal. Inevitably you would get three-way negotiations.
0 -
Hope nobody's in the vicinity of Chris Bryant when he finds out.rcs1000 said:
Kim's brother, I believe, is Jeremy Darroch, CEO of Sky.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
-
Hope nobody's in the vicinity of Chris Bryant full stop.williamglenn said:
Hope nobody's in the vicinity of Chris Bryant when he finds out.rcs1000 said:
Kim's brother, I believe, is Jeremy Darroch, CEO of Sky.TheScreamingEagles said:
Afternoon all.0 -
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.SouthamObserver said:
The EU gig is clearly the number one slot right now. Whoever gets it will be getting a promotion.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
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.Stark_Dawning said:
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 positionisam said:
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.TOPPING said:
them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remainingisam said:
But how does it all happen?TOPPING said:
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.
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".
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,
Ok what I am inferring is we should take the softest brexit possible, I used Daves deal as an example0 -
Whats Farage doing at the moment? Our man in Washington? lolMaxPB said:
I find that extremely unlikely.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Stay in the EU and call it Brexit? Err, ok then.isam said:
Ok what I am inferring is we should take the softest brexit possible, I used Daves deal as an example0 -
Temporarily to get things going. If it will shut the cry babies up and stop them filibustering it may be worth it in the long runwilliamglenn said:
Stay in the EU and call it Brexit? Err, ok then.isam said:
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?0 -
Can you IMAGINE the diplomatic incidents that would follow on from Ambassador Farage and a well-stocked cellar?0
-
Janet Jackson just came up on Yahoo and my first thought was - dead. Thankfully the news is she's had a baby at 50.0
-
0
-
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.0
-
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.0 -
I suspect people trust things they agree with, whether they are true or not.PlatoSaid said:NolteNc
Only 33% of those who watch CNN trust CNN.
HAHAHAHA. https://t.co/xYsVEQLYon0 -
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.0
-
Happy to admit my ignorance - how do you 'quote' with the disappearance of the quote button. What are the keywords?0
-
You need to begin your posts withTim_B said:Happy to admit my ignorance - how do you 'quote' with the disappearance of the quote button. What are the keywords?
'I am a Cowboys fan' and the quote button appears0 -
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.0
-
By the time we Brexit it will be a £50 coin.View_From_Cumbria said: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.
0 -
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.Tim_B said: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.0 -
I think our starting position would be "yes" to all of them. If this causes a problem in the negotiations so be it.rcs1000 said:
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.Tim_B said: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.0 -
You forgot about the most important European organisation, EUrovision.rcs1000 said:
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.Tim_B said: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.0 -
Thank you!TheScreamingEagles said: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.
0 -
Earth finally moves (a little bit) for a woman in Yorkshire. : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-385051580
-
Ah, the British and their endless opt-ins...rcs1000 said:
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.Tim_B said: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 answer to most of them will be, if you want this then you cannot be outside the single market.0 -
The "Commonwealth Union" - a PB Concept:
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
0 -
@TSE
You don't need to be a EU member to take part in EUROVISION!
Ask Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia.... and Australia
0 -
As you know I am not a fan......TheScreamingEagles said:
You need to begin your posts withTim_B said:Happy to admit my ignorance - how do you 'quote' with the disappearance of the quote button. What are the keywords?
'I am a Cowboys fan' and the quote button appears0 -
I see that the biggest quake was near Dogger Bank in 1931 - presumably the origin of the word dogging :-)DavidL said:Earth finally moves (a little bit) for a woman in Yorkshire. : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-38505158
0 -
If leaving the EU had got us out of Eurovision too, Leave would have got at least 65%.0
-
Why would you have carpet in your kitchen?DavidL said:Earth finally moves (a little bit) for a woman in Yorkshire. : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-38505158
0 -
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.rcs1000 said:
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.Tim_B said: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.
0 -
Overall, in terms of results table placings, we did our best at Eurovision before the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993.Essexit said:If leaving the EU had got us out of Eurovision too, Leave would have got at least 65%.
0 -
Hahaha - that was exactly what I was about to write.Charles said:
Why would you have carpet in your kitchen?DavidL said:Earth finally moves (a little bit) for a woman in Yorkshire. : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-38505158
0 -
- because it's the only thing that got laid in her apartment for years...Charles said:
Why would you have carpet in your kitchen?DavidL said:Earth finally moves (a little bit) for a woman in Yorkshire. : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-38505158
0 -
Ok what I am inferring is we should take the softest brexit possible, I used Daves deal as an exampleisam said:
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.Stark_Dawning said:
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 positionisam said:
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.TOPPING said:
them. What's wrong with that? You should be happy, unless what you really want is division that leads to us remainingisam said:
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".
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,
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.0 -
Surely that would be, which EU-led programmes the EU would like us to continue to pay money into.rcs1000 said:
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.Tim_B said: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.0 -
Once A50 is in, why presume that Britain has to make the next move?Tim_B said:Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
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?DavidL said:
I think our starting position would be "yes" to all of them. If this causes a problem in the negotiations so be it.rcs1000 said:
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.
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?"
0 -
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.rcs1000 said:
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.Tim_B said: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.
0 -
You think they will want massive funding holes opening up in a series of EU-led projects? What planet are you on?Dromedary said:
Once A50 is in, why presume that Britain has to make the next move?Tim_B said:
Presumably the UK has to open negotiations and show its hand first.
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?DavidL said:
I think our starting position would be "yes" to all of them. If this causes a problem in the negotiations so be it.rcs1000 said:
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.0 -
They can tell their voters they are now paying for 100% of all these projects....Dromedary said:Tough talk. Say EU27 adopts the starting position that it's "no" to all of them. What do you do then?
0
