There was a report by the economic bureau of a Dutch bank on the matter of the Brexit and the economic effect. It said: -/- 10.000euro's per working person for the Dutch with a hard Brexit, till 3.000euro's with a much softer Brexit or even remain after all (for the Britts themselves 13.000euro's). it isn't a matter of sitting back, it does touch other countries. So yeah, thanks my Brittish friends.

I guess the question always devolves down to whether one is European or one is "whatever nation" and whether that nation, as a sovereign entity, has a right to dictate (or request and expect real action) anything back up to the EU. For the UK they were going to be given additional freedoms or control if they had stayed but then silly people were sold that something so complex as a nations interactions with other international entities would be a simple thing to change.

As I do not live there I can only watch and be interested. Too many passions are involved and expressed for me to do much more.

Tugg

Dutchy wrote:

There was a report by the economic bureau of a Dutch bank on the matter of the Brexit and the economic effect. It said: -/- 10.000euro's per working person for the Dutch with a hard Brexit, till 3.000euro's with a much softer Brexit or even remain after all (for the Britts themselves 13.000euro's). it isn't a matter of sitting back, it does touch other countries. So yeah, thanks my Brittish friends.

It's a sunk cost.

The effects of a hard Brexit will adversely affect every major economy. That's he nature of a global economy. The Brits advocating it want to do as they wish, and if that hurts others, too bad. Either they're too thick to realize the broader implications of what they're doing, or they understand it but don't care.

What can anyone do about it? The only things left to do now are:

1) transfer some of the external costs back by turning the screw hard when the Brits come looking for trade deals.
2) sit back and watch it unfold. And offset your own country's suffering with the inevitable schadenfreude of watching the perpetrator exercise their sovereign right to inflict absurd self harm.

Jeremy Corbyn has a shot at becoming PM. Think about that.

Dutchy wrote:

There was a report by the economic bureau of a Dutch bank on the matter of the Brexit and the economic effect. It said: -/- 10.000euro's per working person for the Dutch with a hard Brexit, till 3.000euro's with a much softer Brexit or even remain after all (for the Britts themselves 13.000euro's). it isn't a matter of sitting back, it does touch other countries. So yeah, thanks my Brittish friends.

Any reports on what happens to the Euro zone economies when the ECB eventually stop with the 60billion Euro a month of Quantitative Easing? (Printing Money)


I'll hazard a guess.... Deflation.

ElPistolero wrote:

1) transfer some of the external costs back by turning the screw hard when the Brits come looking for trade deals.

Is this actually allowed? I don't think you can charge outside costs to trade deals that do not directly apply and/or are excessive. I would think if you did then the aggrieved party could go to the WTO. Of course I understand that any such case would be something like a ten year process.

One of the very important things for both sides to work towards is to not get into a tit for tat situation that can only get worse, escalate.

Tugg

ElPistolero wrote:

I particularly enjoyed stumbling upon an a.net poster (a Brexiteer IIRC) getting mocked and laughed at in the pro-Brexit CH for pointing out the less positive implications of a cliff edge Brexit on aviation. I suspect said poster realizes his brothers in arms really don't understand what they signed up for.

If by CH you mean ConservativeHome then the poster in question is no doubt me. I have truly hit new heights of internet stardom for myself.

Dutchy wrote:

There was a report by the economic bureau of a Dutch bank on the matter of the Brexit and the economic effect. It said: -/- 10.000euro's per working person for the Dutch with a hard Brexit, till 3.000euro's with a much softer Brexit or even remain after all (for the Britts themselves 13.000euro's). it isn't a matter of sitting back, it does touch other countries. So yeah, thanks my Brittish friends.

Time to make a deal then isn't it? Both sides can swallow their pride and reach an amicable settlement. Both sides's hardliners will bitch and moan, everyone else will get on with life.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Time to make a deal then isn't it? Both sides can swallow their pride and reach an amicable settlement. Both sides's hardliners will bitch and moan, everyone else will get on with life.

The Brits have to choose, what level they want to participate, their current position: no downside, all the benefits, isn't attainable. There is a whole pallet available for them to choose from.

Dano1977 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

There was a report by the economic bureau of a Dutch bank on the matter of the Brexit and the economic effect. It said: -/- 10.000euro's per working person for the Dutch with a hard Brexit, till 3.000euro's with a much softer Brexit or even remain after all (for the Britts themselves 13.000euro's). it isn't a matter of sitting back, it does touch other countries. So yeah, thanks my Brittish friends.

Any reports on what happens to the Euro zone economies when the ECB eventually stop with the 60billion Euro a month of Quantitative Easing? (Printing Money)


I'll hazard a guess.... Deflation.

Off topic. (and the ECB is slowly stopping this).

Do you have any opinion on the report?

ElPistolero wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

There was a report by the economic bureau of a Dutch bank on the matter of the Brexit and the economic effect. It said: -/- 10.000euro's per working person for the Dutch with a hard Brexit, till 3.000euro's with a much softer Brexit or even remain after all (for the Britts themselves 13.000euro's). it isn't a matter of sitting back, it does touch other countries. So yeah, thanks my Brittish friends.

It's a sunk cost.

The effects of a hard Brexit will adversely affect every major economy. That's he nature of a global economy. The Brits advocating it want to do as they wish, and if that hurts others, too bad. Either they're too thick to realize the broader implications of what they're doing, or they understand it but don't care.

What can anyone do about it? The only things left to do now are:

1) transfer some of the external costs back by turning the screw hard when the Brits come looking for trade deals.
2) sit back and watch it unfold. And offset your own country's suffering with the inevitable schadenfreude of watching the perpetrator exercise their sovereign right to inflict absurd self harm.

Jeremy Corbyn has a shot at becoming PM. Think about that.

yes, the 3.000 euro's are sunk cost per woking Dutchmen, but the 7.000 isn't yet, but that is up to the Brits.

Food for thought: http://eureferendum.com/
The guy is a wall known brexiter but he tries to use his brain.

Dutchy wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

There was a report by the economic bureau of a Dutch bank on the matter of the Brexit and the economic effect. It said: -/- 10.000euro's per working person for the Dutch with a hard Brexit, till 3.000euro's with a much softer Brexit or even remain after all (for the Britts themselves 13.000euro's). it isn't a matter of sitting back, it does touch other countries. So yeah, thanks my Brittish friends.

Any reports on what happens to the Euro zone economies when the ECB eventually stop with the 60billion Euro a month of Quantitative Easing? (Printing Money)


I'll hazard a guess.... Deflation.

Off topic. (and the ECB is slowly stopping this).

Do you have any opinion on the report?

I think we have seen that European countries want to do a trade deal with the U.K. A leaked report from a German Ministry basically says a trade deal must be done, otherwise Germany loses one of it's biggest export markets (biggest in Europe).

The only stumbling block is Brussels, who seem intent on extracting as much money as they possibly can. (We should pay what we agreed too, but not above or beyond that unless stipulated in separate negotiations after trade deal has been concluded)

So in finishing. Nobody is going to win out of Brexit, Everybody is going to feel short to medium term pain. But leaving means Europe loses it's biggest thorn in closer integration and the European Army idea, and the U.K. gets what it voted for.

And the off topic elephant in room, which you expertly avoided. Once the ECB stops QE, I think the Eurozone will go into Deflation and things won't look so rosy.

The British position is strong, the EU will have to move.

AH Seahawk you are faking a russian troll today?

Dano1977 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Any reports on what happens to the Euro zone economies when the ECB eventually stop with the 60billion Euro a month of Quantitative Easing? (Printing Money)


I'll hazard a guess.... Deflation.

Off topic. (and the ECB is slowly stopping this).

Do you have any opinion on the report?

I think we have seen that European countries want to do a trade deal with the U.K. A leaked report from a German Ministry basically says a trade deal must be done, otherwise Germany loses one of it's biggest export markets (biggest in Europe).

The only stumbling block is Brussels, who seem intent on extracting as much money as they possibly can. (We should pay what we agreed too, but not above or beyond that unless stipulated in separate negotiations after trade deal has been concluded)

So in finishing. Nobody is going to win out of Brexit, Everybody is going to feel short to medium term pain. But leaving means Europe loses it's biggest thorn in closer integration and the European Army idea, and the U.K. gets what it voted for.

Sure, EU countries want to trade with the UK, doesn't want the UK to trade with the EU?

Do you have evidence that the stumbling block is Brussels? Don't you think London is a stumbling block also? You mentioned the divorce bill. Probably a lot of ways to look at it, all have their own truth. You think Brussels want to extract as much as it can, don't you think London wants to pay as little as possible?

Britains trade partners (2015 numbers):
United States: US$60.4 billion (14.8% of total UK exports)
Germany: $43.6 billion (10.7%)
France: $25.9 billion (6.3%)
Netherlands: $25.6 billion (6.3%)
Ireland: $22.9 billion (5.6%)
Switzerland: $18.9 billion (4.6%)
China: $18 billion (4.4%)
Belgium: $15.8 billion (3.9%)
Italy: $13.1 billion (3.2%)
Spain: $12.7 billion (3.1%)
United Arab Emirates: $9 billion (2.2%)
Hong Kong: $8.8 billion (2.2%)
Japan: $6.4 billion (1.6%)
Canada: $6.2 billion (1.5%)
Sweden: $6.1 billion (1.5%)

See a pattern here?

Is the UK more important to the EU or the other way around?

I am all for a fair trade deal and the divorce bill needs to settle in a reasonable way (what that is, I don't know and neither do you, probably somewhere in between London and Brussels point of view).
As for the trade deal: that is up to London to decide: the Norwegian model, the Swiss model, the Canadian model, the Japanese Model, the Marrocco model.

What is impossible: free access to the internal market, without paying to the institutions, without the rule of law of the EU etc. It has been said numerous times here don't put it all on Brussels, that is a big distortion of the truth.

Dano1977 wrote:

And the off topic elephant in room, which you expertly avoided. Once the ECB stops QE, I think the Eurozone will go into Deflation and things won't look so rosy.

Open another thread about it and I promise to discuss it there

Olddog wrote:

AH Seahawk you are faking a russian troll today?

More, a member of the British government.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Time to make a deal then isn't it? Both sides can swallow their pride and reach an amicable settlement. Both sides's hardliners will bitch and moan, everyone else will get on with life.

I'm not against a fair deal, but it has clearly to be fair, if the UK talks about having "won" then it would be bad, even if it's just talk and not the reality of the deal. Because then other EU countries, or worse, regions, like Catalonia, will think about doing the same thing. And that would cost me (us) far more than 10K€.

I also think 10K€ for the Dutch has a lot to do with stuff like the Dutch Sandwich, something that will have to be cracked down on regardless of the Brexit situation.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

If by CH you mean ConservativeHome then the poster in question is no doubt me. I have truly hit new heights of internet stardom for myself.
...
Time to make a deal then isn't it? Both sides can swallow their pride and reach an amicable settlement. Both sides's hardliners will bitch and moan, everyone else will get on with life.

Indeed. I occasionally check it out for s$&ts and giggles. And it never disappoints. The level of delusion in the pro-Brexit camp is staggering. Granted, I don't think first hand experience of mockery and derision for pointing out the obvious is enough to convince our resident Brexiteers that the majority of Brexit voters are either too detached from reality or too thick to comprehend it. At he very least, an odd bunch to throw ones lot in with.

As for putting egos aside, I expect any settlement (even a hard Brexit) will be amicable. Just won't be good for anyone. The bigger problem for the UK is that any associated global economic head winds will be attributed to the Brexit vote, rather than any EU intransigence that follows. The general lack of clarity emanating from the UK only strengthens that view in the eyes of the non-EUforeign bureaucrats you're going to have to negotiate trade deals with. The narrative is slipping away.

Dano1977 wrote:

I think we have seen that European countries want to do a trade deal with the U.K. A leaked report from a German Ministry basically says a trade deal must be done, otherwise Germany loses one of it's biggest export markets (biggest in Europe).

Indeed, and Her Majesty's Treasury is pushing back on Brexit as hard as it can. It's an inescapable fact that everyone realizes that single market-esque free trade is economically beneficial.

Problem is, Brexit is about politics, not economics. Brexiteers openly admit that they prioritized political concepts over economic reality. In such an environment, hoping that the other side will put economics over politics is dareIsay delusional.

Dutchy wrote:

their current position: no downside, all the benefits,

I think this is one of the problems in general with the discussion, some people think there was no downside to the original situation. There obviously were "downsides" to the deal or we would not be where we are and people should be able to and willing to acknowledge that. Essentially nations give up portions of their sovereignty in pacts like the EU, and that is as it is agreed to be. But that does not mean there is no downside to that. Downsides can be individualistic and specific, benefits can be general and broad, overall. But there are still downsides.

Is withdrawing a net benefit? Only time will tell, there will be downsides no doubt, they will be different downsides, but there will also be benefits as well. The EU supporters seem to fall for the same line that got many in Britain to vote for Brexit. That there is no downside to being beholden to and and bound by the rules and requirements of the EU governing structure. Enough voters in Britain believed something similar, they were told there would be no downside to leaving. It is a false position for either side to take.

Tugg

Sure there are downsides being within the EU, but there are more upsides to it.

Dutchy wrote:

Sure there are downsides being within the EU, but there are more upsides to it.

OK, but you did say "no downsides". What downsides do you see? Just curious, not trying to pick a fight.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Sure there are downsides being within the EU, but there are more upsides to it.

OK, but you did say "no downsides". What downsides do you see? Just curious, not trying to pick a fight.

Tugg

where did I say the EU has no downsides? I said that is more or less the current negotiation position of London: we want all the benefits (access to the internal market) and no downsides (no regulations, no freedom of movement, no money to the EU etc.). And that is a ridiculous position.

I see all kind of downsides, unfair competition in the labor market, people whom are exploited for instance. And more in general, what happens to be good for the EU, doesn't necessarily be good for The Netherlands, some rules, some regulations etc. So lot's of things but in general more benefits than downsides.

The Brexiters' main complaint was/is about immigration. All political parties in successive UK governments have opened the gates of immigration wide and large, including when there was no EU involvement (immigration from former colonies) or when the EU allowed restrictions (for several Eastern European countries, France allowed no immigration for 7 years, the UK allowed everyone from day one).

Another complaint is about the downsides of globalization, of course Brexit will not change that, and at least the EU single market has rules that apply to everyone and level things a bit.

Dutchy wrote:

where did I say the EU has no downsides? I said that is more or less the current negotiation position of London: we want all the benefits (access to the internal market) and no downsides (no regulations, no freedom of movement, no money to the EU etc.). And that is a ridiculous position.

I see all kind of downsides, unfair competition in the labor market, people whom are exploited for instance. And more in general, what happens to be good for the EU, doesn't necessarily be good for The Netherlands, some rules, some regulations etc. So lot's of things but in general more benefits than downsides.

Sorry, no offense intended, you had said:

Dutchy wrote:

The Brits have to choose, what level they want to participate, their current position: no downside, all the benefits, isn't attainable. There is a whole pallet available for them to choose from.

I read your comment of "no downsides" to imply the current UK position within the EU has no downsides. I am seeing now that you meant something different but that is not how it read. I assume you are trying to say the UK wants every benefit with no corresponding cost but that is not really an accurate assessment so that is not how it came across to me. (Well the UK may want that but just like the EU wants everything imaginable covered fully and with sufficient level to remove from consideration any similar action, it is also not realistic.)

The only thing I would offer is why would it actually hurt the EU to have a strong and open free trade agreement with the UK? It seems like as you state the benefits of free trade would easily offset the costs and additionally the UK would no longer be this odd torn in the side of the EU and their governance.

Of course I have to watch this from across the ocean with the reality of the crap-fest the USA is currently going through. Who needs world leadership when you can be an insular, protectionist also ran? (I think some here want to be like China, completely controlling, forceful of required "patriotism", governmenally self interested and "us first", and then of course market successful - like China. But of course that is not the way it really works.)

Tugg

Free trade isn't a problem, just copy paste the free trade agreement with Canada and done. But that will not satisfy the City for instance, they want and many more companies alike, free access to the internal market and that goes well behond free trade. Access to the internal market comes with a lot of regulations and a lot of oversides, recognizing the European courts for instance. So access to the internal market means giving up some sovereign powers and that is not what the hardcore Brexeteers wanted, trade yes, loss of sovereignty no. That's what I meant with the position of London: all the benefits and no drawbacks.

As to why it would actually hurt the EU if they would grant the UK full access to the internal market without any regulations or oversides: unfair competition, added risks (Icesave on a massive scale), baring the cost by all other countries etc. etc. etc. So yes, it would hurt the EU internally.

Aesma wrote:

The Brexiters' main complaint was/is about immigration.

Can we stop, painting all brexiteers as anti immigration. Some of us are more than the neanderthal knuckle draggers.

It's akin to me saying all french males go around on a bicycle wearing a stripey jumper, beret and with a string of onions around the neck.

Dano1977 wrote:

Can we stop, painting all brexiteers as anti immigration. Some of us are more than the neanderthal knuckle draggers.

It's akin to me saying all french males go around on a bicycle wearing a stripey jumper, beret and with a string of onions around the neck.

Yes and the fact that hate crime jumped in UK is a fantasy....

Olddog wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Can we stop, painting all brexiteers as anti immigration. Some of us are more than the neanderthal knuckle draggers.

It's akin to me saying all french males go around on a bicycle wearing a stripey jumper, beret and with a string of onions around the neck.

Yes and the fact that hate crime jumped in UK is a fantasy....

So hate crime now is just crimes against immigrants?

Ask them how they feel ?
Ask to EU people that got theses infamous illegal letters from the home office ?
Ask europeans that are banned from renting some houses and getting loans?
Ask the welsh mother who was speaking in welsh to her daughter and was told she should stick to english and so on ?

You know that we can read online your newspapers and the hate we can read on most comments sections are just sad.

Tugger wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

their current position: no downside, all the benefits,

I think this is one of the problems in general with the discussion, some people think there was no downside to the original situation. There obviously were "downsides" to the deal or we would not be where we are and people should be able to and willing to acknowledge that. Essentially nations give up portions of their sovereignty in pacts like the EU, and that is as it is agreed to be. But that does not mean there is no downside to that. Downsides can be individualistic and specific, benefits can be general and broad, overall. But there are still downsides.

Is withdrawing a net benefit? Only time will tell, there will be downsides no doubt, they will be different downsides, but there will also be benefits as well. The EU supporters seem to fall for the same line that got many in Britain to vote for Brexit. That there is no downside to being beholden to and and bound by the rules and requirements of the EU governing structure. Enough voters in Britain believed something similar, they were told there would be no downside to leaving. It is a false position for either side to take.

Tugg

Sure being in the EU has lots of downsides, nobody says or thinks otherwise. You pay for the EU budget, you bow to the EU courts, you must allow people from the other EU countries to settle freely in your country, but in exchange you get access to the huge common market and EU money for developing your country or at least help for certain projects. The problem is that the British idea was to keep the benefits of the EU and remove the drawbacks, which has little appeal to the countries staying in the EU.

Olddog wrote:

the hate we can read on most comments sections are just sad.

If you're using the internet comments on tabloid newspapers as an example........Well, maybe you should just buy a plane ticket and come here?

Olddog wrote:

Yes and the fact that hate crime jumped in UK is a fantasy....

Jumped in Germany too though didn't it?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 00616.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39096833

Dano1977 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The Brexiters' main complaint was/is about immigration.

Can we stop, painting all brexiteers as anti immigration. Some of us are more than the neanderthal knuckle draggers.

Sure, but most people who voted Brexit quite obviously are anti immigration. So much so that everyone - bonafide remained, reluctant leaver, EU members, foreign observers - recognize that it's THE defining red line in the UK's position on/opposition to the four freedoms. It precludes membership in the single market (which your own treasury is fighting to stay in). If you take it out of the equation, it's not clear that Brexit would have happened.

I'm willing to bet good money that when future historians look back on Brexit, it will be bracketed as anti-immigrant populism alongside the Trump/Le Pen/ EU far right resurgence.

Dano1977 wrote:

So hate crime now is just crimes against immigrants?

Are you arguing that crimes against immigrants that are motivated by the fact that they are immigrants are not hate crimes?

Dano1977 wrote:

I think we have seen that European countries want to do a trade deal with the U.K. A leaked report from a German Ministry basically says a trade deal must be done, otherwise Germany loses one of it's biggest export markets (biggest in Europe).

Sure. The brexiteers just deluded themselves into believing that that would determine the EU's negotiating position, but that was and is simply not the case.

In actual fact pretty much all EU27 countries have an interest in good trade relations with the UK.

The huge mistake brexiters keep making is that they apparently still believe that that was the primary, overriding concern among the EU27 so the UK could jiust drag its feet and wait until the europeans caved and threw the four freedoms and their other positions overboard.

But it has long been clear already that while trade relations with the UK were a concern for the EU27, it is only a lower-ranking one, not a decisive one.

Most Tory politicians keep completely ignoring the actually decisive priorities of the EU27 which absolutely trump trade relations for the europeans, and those priorities are the integrity of the European Union and of its principles (completely excluding most of the brexiteers' objectives) and the protection of its citizens.

Having good trade relations is important, but not essential for the EU27.

Preserving the EU and its foundations, however, is completely essential and not up for debate, trade relations be damned if that's what it comes to. And the EU27 have been in agreement long before the Brexit referendum and they have been unanimous on that throughout.

I've been watching the UK debate (such as it is) about Brexit and there is complete and utter incomprehension and total ignorance about this essential fact among most of the Tory politicians (and many others, too) and most of the british media wallow almost exclusively in domestic british prejudices against the EU with almost zero actual, real knowledge of it popping up at all.

The only stumbling block is Brussels, who seem intent on extracting as much money as they possibly can. (We should pay what we agreed too, but not above or beyond that unless stipulated in separate negotiations after trade deal has been concluded)

The EU holds that same position, but the UK negotiators so far have been refusing to acknowledge that, ignoring May's Florence speech.

So in finishing. Nobody is going to win out of Brexit, Everybody is going to feel short to medium term pain. But leaving means Europe loses it's biggest thorn in closer integration and the European Army idea, and the U.K. gets what it voted for.

We'll see whether the british public will indeed see the actually occurring consequences that way as time goes on.

We in the EU27 have mostly already moved on and just want it over with. The fallout on our side will be manageable and being rid of the UK veto will indeed be a boon in many areas.

And the off topic elephant in room, which you expertly avoided. Once the ECB stops QE, I think the Eurozone will go into Deflation and things won't look so rosy.

That's small potatoes compared to the challenges ahead for the Bank of England which has that same, global problem in addition to all the others, with Brexit only piling on at the top.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

the hate we can read on most comments sections are just sad.

If you're using the internet comments on tabloid newspapers as an example........Well, maybe you should just buy a plane ticket and come here?

I did not know that bbc.com was a tabloid....

UK government and public missing the major point here;

For Germany netherlands and Scandinavia who will be the major net contributors to the Eu in the future the loss of of the single market would be catastrophic and would do anything to avoid the single market and development of services into EU to develop.

UK and Brexiters express a will for Scandinavia and Netherlands to break free from EU and that would mean the end to a functioning single market and the build up of Eastern Europe.

A free trade agreement that is not ncluding free movement and single market will therefore only include products with the gain of Germany, Eastern Europe and Scandinavia and loss of services that would gain UK.

So of course Germany wants a free trade agreement!

UK will still loose a major part of services to Paris and Frankfurt by this model and special France seems to know it very well.

But UK already tried to build a free trade area in the sixties. To my knowledge it was not competitive against what the EU was building. And it is the UK who asked (begged ?) to join the EU.

Olddog wrote:

But UK already tried to build a free trade area in the sixties. To my knowledge it was not competitive against what the EU was building. And it is the UK who asked (begged ?) to join the EU.

...and now they want out so let them go...The biggest issue on the UK side are those elites who refuse to accept the will of 17+million folks who voted to leave. All the delays, changes in positions, stumbling blocks etc etc all have one thing in common, folks on the remain side wanting to do all they can to prevent a leave. One has to wonder why they don't all support leave then if and when the economy folds, the Tory party will never see power again for another 50 years.
The alternative they appear to be pushing is to remain at all cost, and to the EU's credit, they will ensure the cost is to leave the EU financially secure for another 20 years, whether the UK can actually support the divorce bill is not relevant, as Labour says, stay at all cost. The supremacy of EU laws during and after transition seems to get lost in the shuffle.

I still think to simplify things everyone should go WTO, the additional funds will give both sides the financial support needed while both sides negotiate, and for those who think this would be an increase in the cost of living, what exactly do you think will happen in the UK if they even fork over 20billion, an increase in the cost of living.

Contrary to the lies you can read or hear from Liam Fox, none is trading on WTO rules alone. Read:

The European Union treaty data database is in the public domain and is easily accessible online and the summary of agreements is listed here: http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/vi ... leID=76200.
You can see the agreements between the EU and the United States of America listed from page 322, and China from page 74.

From http://eureferendum.com/ today.

par13del wrote:

Olddog wrote:

But UK already tried to build a free trade area in the sixties. To my knowledge it was not competitive against what the EU was building. And it is the UK who asked (begged ?) to join the EU.

...and now they want out so let them go...The biggest issue on the UK side are those elites who refuse to accept the will of 17+million folks who voted to leave.

Those elites are the copper telling the disoriented bloke on the roof not to jump. Or at the very least jump on the net, not the pavement.

par13del wrote:

The biggest issue on the UK side are those elites who refuse to accept the will of 17+million folks who voted to leave. All the delays, changes in positions, stumbling blocks etc etc all have one thing in common, folks on the remain side wanting to do all they can to prevent a leave..

which makes perfect sense, considering that leaving the common market had nowhere near 17 million votes. Without two more rounds of voting, there is no mandate for the UK government. One do find out which two options are the most popular (Stay, leave EU stay in common market, leave EU leave common market) and another one to put those favorites up to a vote.

All available data points strongly towards leave/leave having nowhere near a majority of votes. It would appear that the "Elites" care for the peoples wishes, staying in the common market, much more than the current government, that doesn´t seem to be phased that they lost they majority over their hard Brexit position.

best regards
Thomas

The vote was clear and leave means leave in every aspect.

seahawk wrote:

The vote was clear and leave means leave in every aspect.

If only !!!

ElPistolero wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

So hate crime now is just crimes against immigrants?

Are you arguing that crimes against immigrants that are motivated by the fact that they are immigrants are not hate crimes?

No, I'm arguing that hate crimes covers a broad spectrum of crimes and not just those committed against immigrants, and it could be a whole host of other reasons why the figures have gone up?

Dano1977 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

So hate crime now is just crimes against immigrants?

Are you arguing that crimes against immigrants that are motivated by the fact that they are immigrants are not hate crimes?

No, I'm arguing that hate crimes covers a broad spectrum of crimes and not just those committed against immigrants, and it could be a whole host of other reasons why the figures have gone up?

It could be except that attacks against EU citizens which were extremely rare started to happen too regularly?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 11196.html

I myself had a friend of mine, someone who'd been in the UK for 8 years, coming back because of the almost overnight hostility from people emboldened after the Brexit vote. I don't doubt they held the same views before, but at least they kept it to themselves.

seahawk wrote:

The vote was clear and leave means leave in every aspect.

I disagree. The run up to the vote was full of mis-statements (lies), such as the money which would go into NHS, the "great" trade agreements the UK would be able to negotiate, a cap on immigration, and so on. The voters were sold a fleeced and they are starting to realize it now. I personally would live to see a vote on the final product and let's see how that turns out. I think if people could many voters would change their vote.

That is a British problem. The option was quite clear "Leave the European Union" - nothing said leaving a bit or partly or if is convenient.

seahawk wrote:

That is a British problem. The option was quite clear "Leave the European Union" - nothing said leaving a bit or partly or if is convenient.

The other way around, nothing was said about what the future relationship with the EU should be. So they leave the EU, but the question is what now?

Dano1977 wrote:

No, I'm arguing that hate crimes covers a broad spectrum of crimes and not just those committed against immigrants, and it could be a whole host of other reasons why the figures have gone up?

Perhaps,but if we apply the philosophical razor recommended by your countryman, one William from Oakham, it would be very difficult to ignore the connection between the Brexit campaigners tacit support for anti-immigrant and anti-European sentiment, and the spike in hate crime against them that followed.

To put it simply, when one blames immigration for the woes of society, one inevitably paints a target on the backs of recent immigrants in said society.

Dutchy wrote:

seahawk wrote:

That is a British problem. The option was quite clear "Leave the European Union" - nothing said leaving a bit or partly or if is convenient.

The other way around, nothing was said about what the future relationship with the EU should be. So they leave the EU, but the question is what now?

Leave means being no part of anything formed by the EU, which imho includes the common market.