Hard Brexit

[Francis Albert]

On ‎22‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 00:17, jake said:

 

Pretty much the order you would expect with one glaring exception.

Only a few years ago Sweden was the nation that most welcomed immigrants. It wasn't like Greece the unwilling victim of immigration (and already in deep economic trouble) but it threw its doors open despite being remote from the sources of refugees and economic migrants. 

What has happened since? Sweden has experienced what the sudden mass influx of immigrants, particularly from very different cultures,  can in practice mean. Of course you won't learn about that from the mainstream media or mainstream politicians here. You wouldn't have heard about it from their equivalents in Sweden. Because the negatives of sudden mass immigration were not talked about - to do so would after all be racist.

But the Swedish people nevertheless noticed. And have moved to support right wing anti-immigration parties (which barely existed before) in large numbers..

 

[Boris]

35 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Pretty much the order you would expect with one glaring exception.

Only a few years ago Sweden was the nation that most welcomed immigrants. It wasn't like Greece the unwilling victim of immigration (and already in deep economic trouble) but it threw its doors open despite being remote from the sources of refugees and economic migrants. 

What has happened since? Sweden has experienced what the sudden mass influx of immigrants, particularly from very different cultures,  can in practice mean. Of course you won't learn about that from the mainstream media or mainstream politicians here. You wouldn't have heard about it from their equivalents in Sweden. Because the negatives of sudden mass immigration were not talked about - to do so would after all be racist.

But the Swedish people nevertheless noticed. And have moved to support right wing anti-immigration parties (which barely existed before) in large numbers..

 

 

Source?

 

Not heard this so much from my Swedish sister in law and Scottish brother in law who live in Malmo.

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Source?

 

Not heard this so much from my Swedish sister in law and Scottish brother in law who live in Malmo.

If they have not noticed the rise of the Swedish Democratic Party or sussed the reasons for it I am not surprised you've not heard much from them.

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

If they have not noticed the rise of the Swedish Democratic Party or sussed the reasons for it I am not surprised you've not heard much from them.

Current polling has them +4 on the last three election in 2014, but still only third largest party. Whilst not what I would like, I take your hyperbole with a pinch of salt regards these "huge numbers" 

[Francis Albert]

9 minutes ago, Boris said:

Current polling has them +4 on the last three election in 2014, but still only third largest party. Whilst not what I would like, I take your hyperbole with a pinch of salt regards these "huge numbers" 

Running at about 15% I think, still far more than any far right anti-immigration party has achieved in the "racist" UK.

The small recent decline in their support is attributed to ... introduction of tighter immigration controls by Sweden.

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Running at about 15% I think, still far more than any far right anti-immigration party has achieved in the "racist" UK.

The small recent decline in their support is attributed to ... introduction of tighter immigration controls by Sweden.

So you can be in the EU and tighten immigration. Who would have known! 

 

Regards your first point, the Tories did alright... 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Boris

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, Boris said:

So you can be in the EU and tighten immigration. Who would have known! 

 

Regards your first point, the Tories did alright... 

The conservatives under Cameron presided over 300,000 net immigration per year (a record I think). They are not a far right anti-immigration party.

 

You can tighten immigration while in the EU ... in relation to non-EU citizens. It is a bit more difficult if other EU nations accept non-EU immigrants and grant them citizenship.

[scott herbertson]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

The conservatives under Cameron presided over 300,000 net immigration per year (a record I think). They are not a far right anti-immigration party.

 

You can tighten immigration while in the EU ... in relation to non-EU citizens. It is a bit more difficult if other EU nations accept non-EU immigrants and grant them citizenship.

 

 

I dont think you can use the 300,000 a year actual figures as evidence of not having an anti immigration policy given the stated policy intention was to reduce it below 100,000. Not being able to work out how to do something doesn’t mean you didn’t intend to do it.

 

However I think the conservatives are not far right (at least not all of them) and realise their position isn’t really sustainable. Non EU immigration is still huge and yet they have not yet put forward using any of the potential tools for dealing with it - eg a points system, dual citizenship only (with revoking powers).

 

re the substantive point nobody can say what the impact will be yet as the deal is still nothing like done. Personally I think the custums and borders issue is one which will come up earlier than immigration as transition measures ( giving EU citizens quick and easy annual visas during the transition period etc). Tariffs and customs are less easy it seems to me as I can’t see the EU letting us have open customs borders without paying in some way, and as soon as they make a change, we pull have to change too so bang goes the legal supremacy bit. On the other hand if we don’t do that I don’t see how we get away with no border in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Britain.

 

 

 

 

[John Findlay]

5 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

I dont think you can use the 300,000 a year actual figures as evidence of not having an anti immigration policy given the stated policy intention was to reduce it below 100,000. Not being able to work out how to do something doesn’t mean you didn’t intend to do it.

 

However I think the conservatives are not far right (at least not all of them) and realise their position isn’t really sustainable. Non EU immigration is still huge and yet they have not yet put forward using any of the potential tools for dealing with it - eg a points system, dual citizenship only (with revoking powers).

 

re the substantive point nobody can say what the impact will be yet as the deal is still nothing like done. Personally I think the custums and borders issue is one which will come up earlier than immigration as transition measures ( giving EU citizens quick and easy annual visas during the transition period etc). Tariffs and customs are less easy it seems to me as I can’t see the EU letting us have open customs borders without paying in some way, and as soon as they make a change, we pull have to change too so bang goes the legal supremacy bit. On the other hand if we don’t do that I don’t see how we get away with no border in Ireland or between Northern Ireland and Britain.

 

 

 

 

I didn't realise there was a border between  Northern Ireland and Britain.

[scott herbertson]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

I didn't realise there was a border between  Northern Ireland and Britain.

 

 

There isnt , but if differential tariffs arise, and we find some comprise keep an open border between the Republic and the North, then there might have to be customs control between both countries and mainland Britain, otherwise said tariffs would be unenforceable.

[John Findlay]

2 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

There isnt , but if differential tariffs arise, and we find some comprise keep an open border between the Republic and the North, then there might have to be customs control between both countries and mainland Britain, otherwise said tariffs would be unenforceable.

Got you now. I predict that there will be no hard border between North and South Ireland after/IF, that's a big IF,

Brexit happens.

[scott herbertson]

8 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Got you now. I predict that there will be no hard border between North and South Ireland after/IF, that's a big IF,

Brexit happens.

 

 

Everybody is saying that John, but the devil will be in the detail. It depends what you mean by a hard border I guess. 

 

Here’s two issues - maybe not impossible to resolve but I’d be interested to see the solutions

 

1. No freedom of movement between EU and UK. No hard border, no passport checks. Immigration possible to UK via Republic

 

2. Customs duties placed on Scotch whisky and English beers going to EU, if we place similar  on French wines, Belgian beers etc, then we create the old Calais to Dover runs, but now between the Republic Northern Ireland and UK

[JamboX2]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Pretty much the order you would expect with one glaring exception.

Only a few years ago Sweden was the nation that most welcomed immigrants. It wasn't like Greece the unwilling victim of immigration (and already in deep economic trouble) but it threw its doors open despite being remote from the sources of refugees and economic migrants. 

What has happened since? Sweden has experienced what the sudden mass influx of immigrants, particularly from very different cultures,  can in practice mean. Of course you won't learn about that from the mainstream media or mainstream politicians here. You wouldn't have heard about it from their equivalents in Sweden. Because the negatives of sudden mass immigration were not talked about - to do so would after all be racist.

But the Swedish people nevertheless noticed. And have moved to support right wing anti-immigration parties (which barely existed before) in large numbers..

 

 

But reports on immigration show it has either no effect or a moderate positive on a country.

 

How much of this is based on reality or on misinformed prejudices?

[John Findlay]

6 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Everybody is saying that John, but the devil will be in the detail. It depends what you mean by a hard border I guess. 

 

Here’s two issues - maybe not impossible to resolve but I’d be interested to see the solutions

 

1. No freedom of movement between EU and UK. No hard border, no passport checks. Immigration possible to UK via Republic

 

2. Customs duties placed on Scotch whisky and English beers going to EU, if we place similar  on French wines, Belgian beers etc, then we create the old Calais to Dover runs, but now between the Republic Northern Ireland and UK

Scott I think it is fair to say that you have perharps had far greater dealings with politicians of all persuasions than I. Did you ever really trust any of them? I freely admit I'm a cynic. This will drag on and on despite what politicians either side of the English Channel, North Sea and, the Irish Sea say.

[scott herbertson]

11 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Scott I think it is fair to say that you have perharps had far greater dealings with politicians of all persuasions than I. Did you ever really trust any of them? I freely admit I'm a cynic. This will drag on and on despite what politicians either side of the English Channel, North Sea and, the Irish Sea say.

 

 

Welll that’s quite a question John. Happy to chat to you about that over a beer. The short answer is yes, there were a few who were straightforward, principled and honest. I’m also lstill friendly towards a few of the politicians I worked closely with. Those who get into cabinet or leadership roles are inevitably led to say what their political instincts (often wrong!) tell them people want to hear. However much the same could be said about senior management in public services. When I got to these levels I would have to brief staff on new programmes which I had no belief in myself . That’s one of the reasons I got out early.

 

I agree it will drag on - there are too many vested interests to allow the simpler solutions, and too much at stake locally for the national leaders to make principled decisions, rather than politically driven ones.

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

But reports on immigration show it has either no effect or a moderate positive on a country.

 

How much of this is based on reality or on misinformed prejudices?

I don't know if your first sentence applies to all countries in all circumstances but I accept it is generally true.

I don't think the increase in anti-immigration (more accurately pro-more controlled immigration) views is just about misinformed prejudices. The mainstream Swedish parties and mainstream media have downplayed the existence of and the scale of negative effects of immigration so I think changing views are not just because Swedes are misinformed or have become more prejudiced.

For example I don't think there is any doubt the incidence of murder, and other violent crimes including rape among immigrant communities in Sweden is higher than among longer term resident Swedes. And gang warfare in many mainly immigrant areas of the major cities is a problem that did not exist on anything like the same scale before. Official sources accept that but argue that this  due to factors such as recent immigrants being more disadvantaged and poorer. That may well be the case, but it doesn't stop it being a negative consequence of greatly increased immigration.

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Welll that’s quite a question John. Happy to chat to you about that over a beer. The short answer is yes, there were a few who were straightforward, principled and honest. I’m also lstill friendly towards a few of the politicians I worked closely with. Those who get into cabinet or leadership roles are inevitably led to say what their political instincts (often wrong!) tell them people want to hear. However much the same could be said about senior management in public services. When I got to these levels I would have to brief staff on new programmes which I had no belief in myself . That’s one of the reasons I got out early.

 

I agree it will drag on - there are too many vested interests to allow the simpler solutions, and too much at stake locally for the national leaders to make principled decisions, rather than politically driven ones.

Thanks for that Scott.

[JamboX2]

21 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I don't know if your first sentence applies to all countries in all circumstances but I accept it is generally true.

I don't think the increase in anti-immigration (more accurately pro-more controlled immigration) views is just about misinformed prejudices. The mainstream Swedish parties and mainstream media have downplayed the existence of and the scale of negative effects of immigration so I think changing views are not just because Swedes are misinformed or have become more prejudiced.

For example I don't think there is any doubt the incidence of murder, and other violent crimes including rape among immigrant communities in Sweden is higher than among longer term resident Swedes. And gang warfare in many mainly immigrant areas of the major cities is a problem that did not exist on anything like the same scale before. Official sources accept that but argue that this  due to factors such as recent immigrants being more disadvantaged and poorer. That may well be the case, but it doesn't stop it being a negative consequence of greatly increased immigration.

 

Are immigrant areas not also generally areas of high poverty and inequality? 

 

I'd argue a lot of these issues are underlying issues exacerbated by increased numbers of poor people living together. These are class not race issues. 

 

The growing anti-immigration agenda in the UK and the west has as much to do with pre-existing inequality, poverty and a failure on integrating these people and communities into wider society as it does with it being too many immigrants.

Edited February 23, 2018 by JamboX2

[Francis Albert]

20 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Are immigrant areas not also generally areas of high poverty and inequality? 

 

I'd argue a lot of these issues are underlying issues exacerbated by increased numbers of poor people living together. These are class not race issues. 

 

The growing anti-immigration agenda in the UK and the west has as much to do with pre-existing inequality, poverty and a failure on integrating these people and communities into wider society as it does with it being too many immigrants.

I thought that is what i said at least on the inequality and poverty issue. Integration is a two way street.

 

 

[Francis Albert]

I see Labour has now come down in favour of remaining in the customs union. Assuming the EU's "nuanced" negotiating position means what it says - a customs union goes with accepting all EU rules, now and however changed in the future, I wonder what Labour, the majority of whose MPs voted for the referendum, thinks this position does to deliver what the majority in that referendum voted for.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

14 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I see Labour has now come down in favour of remaining in the customs union. Assuming the EU's "nuanced" negotiating position means what it says - a customs union goes with accepting all EU rules, now and however changed in the future, I wonder what Labour, the majority of whose MPs voted for the referendum, thinks this position does to deliver what the majority in that referendum voted for.

 

Not THE customs union but a newly negotiated customs union, which Barry Gardiner, Labour's Shadow International Trade Secretary said on TV this morning would be for goods but maybe not for services and we'd have to negotiate which other parts are included or aren't included, so in other words 'cherry pick' something which the EU has made perfectly clear will not happen.

 

He also said that this gives certainty and clarity to businesses, really, how is that giving certainty and clarity, when businesses don't know whether their sector is going to be in some form of a customs union or not and more to the point it would still all have to be negotiated in the first place.

 

I would expect Corbyn to give more details in his speech later. 

 

[Francis Albert]

31 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Not THE customs union but a newly negotiated customs union, which Barry Gardiner, Labour's Shadow International Trade Secretary said on TV this morning would be for goods but maybe not for services and we'd have to negotiate which other parts are included or aren't included, so in other words 'cherry pick' something which the EU has made perfectly clear will not happen.

 

He also said that this gives certainty and clarity to businesses, really, how is that giving certainty and clarity, when businesses don't know whether their sector is going to be in some form of a customs union or not and more to the point it would still all have to be negotiated in the first place.

 

I would expect Corbyn to give more details in his speech later. 

 

Thanks. Either I misread or the story I read was misleading' I am now not clear how much this position on trade differs from that of the so called hard Brexiteers but as you say Jeremy will no doubt make it all clear later.

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks. Either I misread or the story I read was misleading' I am now not clear how much this position on trade differs from that of the so called hard Brexiteers but as you say Jeremy will no doubt make it all clear later.

 

The difference is that there would be some form of customs union between the EU and the UK.

 

The hard brexiteers wish no customs union at all.

 

As far as I understand it, at least.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

12 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

The difference is that there would be some form of customs union between the EU and the UK.

 

The hard brexiteers wish no customs union at all.

 

As far as I understand it, at least.

 

Non starter as far as I see it, simply because I can not see the EU agreeing for the UK to have a meaningful say on future trade deals the EU makes, whilst not being a member of the EU.

 

I just can't see the EU agreeing to that.

 

[Boris]

55 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Non starter as far as I see it, simply because I can not see the EU agreeing for the UK to have a meaningful say on future trade deals the EU makes, whilst not being a member of the EU.

 

I just can't see the EU agreeing to that.

 

 

I'm not sure any new CU would have the UK having any meaningful say.  It could pass comment, but whether the EU acted on said comments...

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

23 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

I'm not sure any new CU would have the UK having any meaningful say.  It could pass comment, but whether the EU acted on said comments...

 

 

 

According to Barry Gardiner this morning and again after Corbyn's speech, he stated that Labour would negotiate with the EU that the UK wouldn't just have a say, but would be able to influence future EU trade deals, so as they were the best deal that suited the UK.

 

I'd imagine that Juncker & Tusk will be laughing their heads off right about now.

 

 

[Boris]

2 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

According to Barry Gardiner this morning and again after Corbyn's speech, he stated that Labour would negotiate with the EU that the UK wouldn't just have a say, but would be able to influence future EU trade deals, so as they were the best deal that suited the UK.

 

I'd imagine that Juncker & Tusk will be laughing their heads off right about now.

 

 

 

Hmm...you could well be right.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

32 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Hmm...you could well be right.

 

Faisal Islam from Sky News was just on a few minutes ago and he said that he'd asked Sir Keir Starmer what sort of realistic influence did he think the UK could expect to get over future EU trade deals.

Starmer's reply was, because the UK is such a large and important trading partner with the EU we think the EU would give us a real say on future trade deals.

 

And some folks think the Tories don't have a clue, sounds to me like neither the Tories & Labour have a clue.

[Boris]

19 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Faisal Islam from Sky News was just on a few minutes ago and he said that he'd asked Sir Keir Starmer what sort of realistic influence did he think the UK could expect to get over future EU trade deals.

Starmer's reply was, because the UK is such a large and important trading partner with the EU we think the EU would give us a real say on future trade deals.

 

And some folks think the Tories don't have a clue, sounds to me like neither the Tories & Labour have a clue.

 

There are simply not enough facepalms.

 

That defence by Starmer is no different to Fox or Davis saying of course we will get a deal as we are too important to the EU.

 

Bloody hell.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

There are simply not enough facepalms.

 

That defence by Starmer is no different to Fox or Davis saying of course we will get a deal as we are too important to the EU.

 

Bloody hell.

 

 

Corbyn on the BBC saying that his strategy is to negotiate, negotiate and negotiate and (well you get the drift) until an agreement is reached with the EU.

 

Kuenssberg asked him what his plan B was, Corbyn replied to keep on negotiating until plan A was achieved.

 

And it's taken Labour 20 months to come up with this genius of a plan.

 

We're fecked, doomed I tell you doomed.

[manaliveits105]

Lets get right oot asap and if the EU play hard ball tell them to ram it and build up trade with the rest of the world  - then get Krankie and her cronies TF 

[JamboX2]

5 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

According to Barry Gardiner this morning and again after Corbyn's speech, he stated that Labour would negotiate with the EU that the UK wouldn't just have a say, but would be able to influence future EU trade deals, so as they were the best deal that suited the UK.

 

I'd imagine that Juncker & Tusk will be laughing their heads off right about now.

 

 

 

Sounds like the Labour party is slowly moving to the Norway model. Which operates similarly.

 

Agreed tariffs for goods going between the two with certain exemptions (i.e. Norway has opt outs on agricultural and fisheries goods). 

 

Norway will no doubt get a limited say in trade deals.

[JamboX2]

4 hours ago, Boris said:

 

There are simply not enough facepalms.

 

That defence by Starmer is no different to Fox or Davis saying of course we will get a deal as we are too important to the EU.

 

Bloody hell.

 

 

Whilst I agree to an extent. I think all these statements are merely negotiating positions.

 

No one will know till they sit down at the table. 

 

What we do know now is Labour's position is closer to the EU and backed by a swathe of business groups, unions and more MPs than May does.

[Victorian]

Labour provide an alternative approach that itself provides some clarity for business and the best some people can offer is that Labour are performing a party political dirty trick.     Never mind that the Tories are still arguing and plotting against each other out of personal ambition and elitist dogma.     Driving the bus off a cliff because it only affects those who have nothing or who have businesses to keep afloat.

 

No let's continue to ignore those political games.    Let's criticise those who offer a credible and united effort to keep the bus on the road.

[Boris]

41 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Whilst I agree to an extent. I think all these statements are merely negotiating positions.

 

No one will know till they sit down at the table. 

 

What we do know now is Labour's position is closer to the EU and backed by a swathe of business groups, unions and more MPs than May does.

True, and I welcome that. However the logic used to defend the position worries me. 

[Boris]

48 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Sounds like the Labour party is slowly moving to the Norway model. Which operates similarly.

 

Agreed tariffs for goods going between the two with certain exemptions (i.e. Norway has opt outs on agricultural and fisheries goods). 

 

Norway will no doubt get a limited say in trade deals.

Sounds promising. 

[Francis Albert]

Corbyn and labour are at one level right. The EU needs a deal because no deal would bad for the EU. But in any negotiation you need a credible fall back position. The EU's is clear. No deal if it doesn't meet our requirements -  no cherry picking etc (I think this is called by some a nuanced position). 

A negotiating position where you say you will simply go on negotiating until you get what you want (especially when what you say you want has no chance of being agreed) is not a negotiating position at all. No deal would be painful for both the uk and the eu but we would all remain among the richest  countries in the world and life would go on. The EU certainly seems to accept no deal is a potential outcome. If the UK does not give that mesage (as Corbyn suggests we should not) we are inviting the EU to name their terms.

 

 

[JamboX2]

26 minutes ago, Boris said:

True, and I welcome that. However the logic used to defend the position worries me. 

Same.

 

Frankly this whole process is an utter waste of time. Fast sgoeing how much beeter membership is to being outside the tent.

 

How you can argue for CU and not be in the club but want a say in the deals that club makes is beyond me.

 

The UK in future will be considered. But not bowed to.

[JamboX2]

16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Corbyn and labour are at one level right. The EU needs a deal because no deal would bad for the EU. But in any negotiation you need a credible fall back position. The EU's is clear. No deal if it doesn't meet our requirements -  no cherry picking etc (I think this is called by some a nuanced position). 

A negotiating position where you say you will simply go on negotiating until you get what you want (especially when what you say you want has no chance of being agreed) is not a negotiating position at all. No deal would be painful for both the uk and the eu but we would all remain among the richest  countries in the world and life would go on. The EU certainly seems to accept no deal is a potential outcome. If the UK does not give that mesage (as Corbyn suggests we should not) we are inviting the EU to name their terms.

 

 

 

We are inviting that by having no plan. Indecision by the government invites that.

 

Why the PM has not yet decided that she is bound by parliamentary arithmetic rather than 30ish flakey Victorians and neo-Thatcherites is beyond me.

 

Equally an economy of a few hundred million will absorb economic shock better than one of 60 million.

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

We are inviting that by having no plan. Indecision by the government invites that.

 

Why the PM has not yet decided that she is bound by parliamentary arithmetic rather than 30ish flakey Victorians and neo-Thatcherites is beyond me.

 

Equally an economy of a few hundred million will absorb economic shock better than one of 60 million.

It is a crazy idea i suppose but  maybe may and most of her colleagues think they should try to deliver what people voted for when given the option by mps by a 6 to 1 majority including a substantial majority of labour mps.

 And you aren't really saying are you that the labour position is a "plan" ?

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, manaliveits105 said:

Lets get right oot asap and if the EU play hard ball tell them to ram it and build up trade with the rest of the world....

 

 

Yeah, that might work.

 

If you double your trade with China, Russia and India you'll more or less make up for what you'll lose in trade with Ireland - that's the wee island at the outside western edge of the EU with about 1% of the EU's population and not much more of its economy.

 

As for France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.........

 

 

 

Your government is running around the world trying to prepare trade deals to make up for the trade deals you'll automatically lose with the rest of the world by leaving the EU.  So far, I think you've covered off on talking to 40% of the countries - but so far what you've got for the most part is demands from them for more concessions in order to keep the same level of trade.  Many of the concessions were for things that the UK didn't want to concede, and that you were able to hold a line on because the EU stood with the UK in holding the line.  Now these countries can trade with the rest of the EU as they currently do while demanding extra concessions from the UK to let the UK get back the same access it used to have before leaving the EU.

[Boris]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

Same.

 

Frankly this whole process is an utter waste of time. Fast sgoeing how much beeter membership is to being outside the tent.

 

How you can argue for CU and not be in the club but want a say in the deals that club makes is beyond me.

 

The UK in future will be considered. But not bowed to.

 

Agreed. We've missed the boat regards influencing how Europe could be and are now isolating ourselves.

 

For all the global rhetoric spouted by the likes of Fox and Johnson, Europe is our backyard and it's very much in our interests to be centre to that. IMO.

[Boris]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Yeah, that might work.

 

If you double your trade with China, Russia and India you'll more or less make up for what you'll lose in trade with Ireland - that's the wee island at the outside western edge of the EU with about 1% of the EU's population and not much more of its economy.

 

As for France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands.........

 

 

 

Your government is running around the world trying to prepare trade deals to make up for the trade deals you'll automatically lose with the rest of the world by leaving the EU.  So far, I think you've covered off on talking to 40% of the countries - but so far what you've got for the most part is demands from them for more concessions in order to keep the same level of trade.  Many of the concessions were for things that the UK didn't want to concede, and that you were able to hold a line on because the EU stood with the UK in holding the line.  Now these countries can trade with the rest of the EU as they currently do while demanding extra concessions from the UK to let the UK get back the same access it used to have before leaving the EU.

 

*insert Paul Hertley emoticon here*

 

[Ulysses]

6 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

*insert Paul Hertley emoticon here*

 

 

Nah, it'll all be fine in the end.

[JamboX2]

10 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Agreed. We've missed the boat regards influencing how Europe could be and are now isolating ourselves.

 

For all the global rhetoric spouted by the likes of Fox and Johnson, Europe is our backyard and it's very much in our interests to be centre to that. IMO.

 

Actually we are the prime force behind a lot of what the EU is today. Nigel Lawson in the late 80s thought ERM would control inflation and pushed it. As dis his successor at the Treasury, John Major. ERM led to the Euro.

 

Single Market, Maastricht, Lisbon the UK helped and pushed for all 3.

 

Now we're slunking off for no real reason other than a failed gamble by a PM. 

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

It is a crazy idea i suppose but  maybe may and most of her colleagues think they should try to deliver what people voted for when given the option by mps by a 6 to 1 majority including a substantial majority of labour mps.

 And you aren't really saying are you that the labour position is a "plan" ?

 

Yes. It is more of a plan or aim than May has ever produced.

 

Here's the thing on what folk voted for - we had a referendum and a government with a Tory majority began to make it's moves towards a hard Brexit. Then last June it held an election. Lost it's majority and saw a soft-Brexit majority returned by the people.

 

People voted in a referendum to leave the EU. They did not therefore vote for say leaving the or a Customs Union. They did not say end the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

 

We will leave. The nature and shape of that departure is the responsibility of a minority government which will need as broad a parliamentary support as possible to get a final decision through Parliament.

 

Mrs May should listen to the peoples representatives and act accordingly. That - thankfully - is not what Mogg or his acolytes want.

[jake]

See the echo chamber is back.

 

As far as I can tell a very telling judgement was made today against the Scottish government based on EU law.

 

But hey it's nothing.

 

Only our most valuable asset.

[jake]

39 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Yes. It is more of a plan or aim than May has ever produced.

 

Here's the thing on what folk voted for - we had a referendum and a government with a Tory majority began to make it's moves towards a hard Brexit. Then last June it held an election. Lost it's majority and saw a soft-Brexit majority returned by the people.

 

People voted in a referendum to leave the EU. They did not therefore vote for say leaving the or a Customs Union. They did not say end the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

 

We will leave. The nature and shape of that departure is the responsibility of a minority government which will need as broad a parliamentary support as possible to get a final decision through Parliament.

 

Mrs May should listen to the peoples representatives and act accordingly. That - thankfully - is not what Mogg or his acolytes want.

The people's representative is not on balance the parliament of Europe.

It is Westminster who voted through brexit on behalf of a vote who voted brexit.

That is the bottom line.

 

Out of a corrupt union that is the mechanism of the haves over the have nots.

The facts speak for themselves.

 

Shall I list the facts.

Or shall you list the myth of peace in europe

[Francis Albert]

41 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Yes. It is more of a plan or aim than May has ever produced.

 

Here's the thing on what folk voted for - we had a referendum and a government with a Tory majority began to make it's moves towards a hard Brexit. Then last June it held an election. Lost it's majority and saw a soft-Brexit majority returned by the people.

 

People voted in a referendum to leave the EU. They did not therefore vote for say leaving the or a Customs Union. They did not say end the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

 

We will leave. The nature and shape of that departure is the responsibility of a minority government which will need as broad a parliamentary support as possible to get a final decision through Parliament.

 

Mrs May should listen to the peoples representatives and act accordingly. That - thankfully - is not what Mogg or his acolytes want.

So what do you think a reasonable response to the Leave vote would be? A Brexit in name only where we remain to.all intents and purposes except having no say? The last election did not remotely represent a soft brexit vs hard brexit choice and labour did not campaign for soft brexit or brexit in name only.

 

[jake]

Many European politicians calling for the EU to stop punitive action against the democratic will of the UK.