Half the country will see that choice as worse than we had before versus a lot worse than we had before. Interesting times ahead.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Half the country will see that choice as worse than we had before versus a lot worse than we had before. Interesting times ahead.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Luka Modric
The divorce bill does no such thing. Of course we have leverage. After stage 1 you are declaring yourself right all along? Come on!
We agreed a one time settlement to cover commitments we have made to date as a member of the EU. That is NOTHING to do with ongoing budget, is it? Its covering promises made for the short term. Further ahead? Everything Ive said lays in wait.
We are one of only 3 net contributors and we are leaving. That hasnt changed. That hole in the budget ahead hasnt been covered.
We still have leverage. We still have money they need, good and services and people wanting to buy their stuff.
The truth that this is not one sided remains. They need us as well. Always have.
There is no hole in the budget ahead, because the budget ahead has not been set.
We agreed to 40-60billion so the hole in their budget until the next round is filled.
Now we are on to talks of trade. They sell to us more than we sell to them.... yada yada yada.
Truth is we will get very little concessions. We will huff and puff and end up signing the deal they ask for in the first place.... Just like the divorce bill. Just like Ireland.... Just like EU nationals.
Don't Get me wrong I'm happy with this because it spells a very soft Brexit.... jusy dont see the point in making ourselves worse off for a worse deal.
They are negociating, it' just that are doing a good job of it. Where as we have some clown negociating for us.
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Are you sure about that? Us leaving is going to hurt them financially I accept, from which you might in a sense extrapolate that they 'wouldn't want us to leave'. But you've summed up at the end of your post the way things are going. I posted a link to a piece in the FT a few days ago (but I think it might not have been possible to read it without an FT account) which described how Shulz seems to be proposing expulsion for any member states who don't 'fall in line' by 2025. I doubt we'd be hearing talk like this if the brexit vote hadn't happened, so doesn't us leaving actually smooth the way for them, ideologically? While simultaneously they get to illustrate how they deal with dissentors?
Last edited:
Truth is EU is stronger with us in it, and we are stronger for being in it. As for further intergration in the future if we were in it still we would have a veto. So we could stop that.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
One bit of detail that seems to be coming out (Davis mentioned it on Andrew Marr and it's come up in parliament today), is that the regulatory alignment agreement promised is restricted to just the six areas covered by the Good Friday Agreement: inland waterways, food safety, special EU programmes, promotion of Irish and Scots languages, inter Ireland trade and lighthouse management.
Four of these are pretty irrelevant in terms of application to Britain. Food safety and inter Ireland trade are the more important ones.
But agriculture, education, environment, health, tourism and transport - and everything else - are seemingly out of scope of regulatory alignment.
Four of these are pretty irrelevant in terms of application to Britain. Food safety and inter Ireland trade are the more important ones.
But agriculture, education, environment, health, tourism and transport - and everything else - are seemingly out of scope of regulatory alignment.
Won't agriculture be quite a big deal for Northern Ireland? Though I guess this all comes in the next phase of negotiations. Can probably save the government some time, it will go like the first round:
EU: "what would you like to do?"
UK: "well, we..."
EU: "this is what you can have, there will be no more talks until you agree."
UK: "but..."
EU: "ok, thats settled then. Let's go and tell the press how hard you negotiated, eh?" *pats Theresa May on the head*
Will she be allowed to wipe her chin first?
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42320052
Remind me - when was the start of the Brexit talk and the vote again?
It is becoming alot more clear now what the impacts of Brexit against the backdrop of a Tory run Govt are - so it is essential that a vote is put to the electorate before March 2019. Accept the deal Vs Reject the Deal Vs Reverse the decision to leave.
That creates a situation where ideology and impact are both known enough to make a balanced decision. That is not to say the result would in any way be guaranteed (the fear of Brexiters) - many views may have changed with the development of information impact and politics.
Remind me - when was the start of the Brexit talk and the vote again?
It is becoming alot more clear now what the impacts of Brexit against the backdrop of a Tory run Govt are - so it is essential that a vote is put to the electorate before March 2019. Accept the deal Vs Reject the Deal Vs Reverse the decision to leave.
That creates a situation where ideology and impact are both known enough to make a balanced decision. That is not to say the result would in any way be guaranteed (the fear of Brexiters) - many views may have changed with the development of information impact and politics.
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
That focuses just on economics though.
I think many Brexiters would argue the freedom from EU control is more valuable.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Just out of interest, would you agree to there being a leave-remain referendum set into UK law, that would have to take place every two years perennially? So every new step towards the superstate/institutional crisis/change in situation could be ratified or rejected by voters. If that principle is important, not just that the pesky voters voted the wrong way.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I am sure that they would but most polling has shown that they want this as long as it is at no cost to them. The polling seems to show that people are becoming a lot more pessimistic about Brexit's impact on their finances, it will be interesting to see if this follows through into more people changing their minds.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Absolutely. Society should be master of the economy, not slave to it.
I may be reading the article wrong (it's badly written), but seems to say it will cost £5.8b between now and 2029 to go to WTO. That sounds a bargain.
milo
Jack L. Jones
We already have a law that means that further transfer of power to the EU needs to be passed by a referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Act_2011
Personally, I agree with Margaret Thatcher that referendums are “a device of dictators and demagogues”. None of the referendums that we have had in recent history have been particularly enlightening and all have tried to play on the fears of voters.