Brexit - EU position

UltimoTiger777 · Mon Dec 11, 2017 11:50 am

Hermann sounds like a right little bitch doesn't he?

Olddog · Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:13 pm

No he perfectly sums up the feelings for most europeans.

seahawk · Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:19 pm

UltimoTiger777 wrote:
Hermann sounds like a right little bitch doesn't he?

Probably just a German who hates the UK because the Krauts lost the war. It is always about the war.

par13del · Mon Dec 11, 2017 2:50 pm

It has to be about the money that the UK needs to keep paying into the EU, after all, the UK has been the one who has prevented the closer integration of the EU for years, so why would the EU be so interested in the UK remaining tied to the EU?
However, thinking further, it does make sense if the EU can get the UK onto the Norway model, they would effectively have to continue to live under the EU mandates while not being able to affect or influence the future of the EU.

As with most things, taking a step back at looking at things with a clear head bring greater understanding.

Aesma · Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:16 pm

I'm not sure what you're responding to. That Hermann guy isn't mentioning any kind of deal with the UK, he wants them out completely.

par13del · Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:11 pm

I was not addressing him specifically, just the whole Brexit issue, including some of the other articles in papers over the weekend since the "deal" was announced.

Aesma · Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:22 pm

The UK used to get a lot for not much in return. Now they want to get a little less, in exchange for nothing. The EU has a united position in disagreeing to this, but that doesn't mean everyone thinks the same. Some countries were already resenting the UK situation in the EU, while other countries thought the EU should be more like what the UK wanted.

So the more the UK asks, the more you could see division on the EU side.

Dutchy · Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:26 pm

Aesma wrote:
The UK used to get a lot for not much in return. Now they want to get a little less, in exchange for nothing. The EU has a united position in disagreeing to this, but that doesn't mean everyone thinks the same. Some countries were already resenting the UK situation in the EU, while other countries thought the EU should be more like what the UK wanted.

So the more the UK asks, the more you could see division on the EU side.

Yes, this is true, The Netherlands feels it has lost an ally. But I think if the UK ask for a lot, the rest will be drawn together, rather than apart. Because of the way things go, on a "human" level, I don't think the UK will have a lot of goodwill left.

seahawk · Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:00 pm

par13del wrote:
It has to be about the money that the UK needs to keep paying into the EU, after all, the UK has been the one who has prevented the closer integration of the EU for years, so why would the EU be so interested in the UK remaining tied to the EU?
However, thinking further, it does make sense if the EU can get the UK onto the Norway model, they would effectively have to continue to live under the EU mandates while not being able to affect or influence the future of the EU.

As with most things, taking a step back at looking at things with a clear head bring greater understanding.

It was rude of the EU to trigger the Breixt ... oh wait...

UltimoTiger777 · Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:29 pm

seahawk wrote:
UltimoTiger777 wrote:
Hermann sounds like a right little bitch doesn't he?

Probably just a German who hates the UK because the Krauts lost the war. It is always about the war.

I wouldn't resent him for being upset about losing the war. He just doesn't need to by such a crybaby about it. Show some stoicism like a good Sumo wrestler would.

I've come round to the position that Britain would be better off staying in the EEA/EFTA. The rest of the EU can carry on with its "ever closer union", we can carry on outside it while having our own seat at the global bodies which set many of the standards for trade etc.

par13del · Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:56 pm

seahawk wrote:
It was rude of the EU to trigger the Breixt ... oh wait...

...yeah but who is talking about and negotiating Brexit, they are talking about remaining in the EU and being tied to the EU for decades to come, remember the question on the referendum, do you want in our out of the EU....one cannot have special trading relationships with the EU unless you are in the EU and live by EU mandates.

par13del · Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:03 pm

UltimoTiger777 wrote:
I've come round to the position that Britain would be better off staying in the EEA/EFTA. The rest of the EU can carry on with its "ever closer union", we can carry on outside it while having our own seat at the global bodies which set many of the standards for trade etc.

This is what I am trying to understand, if being in the EEA/EFTA means having the 4 pillars, abiding by all EU rules / mandates, paying into the EU but having no seat at the EU decision table, why not just be a member, what is the advantage of the Norway model?

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/e ... c-features

Olddog · Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:26 pm

The main political/populist advantage is to claim not being in the EU, while in fact it is just an illusion.

Look what I just found on the guardian live:

German minister accuses May of not being open with voters about UK paying 'Brexit bill' before trade deal finalised

A German minister has accused Theresa May of not being open with British voters about the fact that the UK will have to pay a “Brexit bill” to the EU before a trade deal is finalised. According to a Spiegel Online report, Michael Roth, the German Europe minister, made the comment at an EU meeting in Brussels.

The Spiegel report is in German, but here is a Google Translate translation of the start of the story, with minor tidying up from me.

The German government has called on Britain’s prime minister Theresa May to properly report on the results of the previous Brexit negotiations in her homeland. “You have to play and speak the same way as you do in London,” said Michael Roth (SPD) on the sidelines of an EU ministerial meeting in Brussels. He was “somewhat surprised” that what the British government said in Brussels was “a little different” to what was said in London.

Roth hinted that May had given May the impression that Britain only had to pay the Brexit final bill to the EU if there was a deal on a trade agreement.

From an EU point of view, however, this does not correspond to the deal that May received at the end of last week in Brussels. It stipulates that the agreements on the final invoice will result in a legally binding withdrawal agreement which is independent of the trade agreement desired by the United Kingdom.

Many Tories insist that the UK should only pay its “Brexit bill”, costing £35bn to £39bn according to May yesterday, only if it gets a free trade deal.

Yesterday May (here) and Davis Davis (here) both insisted that payments were conditional on the UK getting a Brexit deal. But they have not always been 100% clear about which deal they are talking about because there will be at least two deals.

There will be a withdrawal agreement, potentially agreed in the autumn. And at some point after Brexit the UK and the EU may sign a proper trade deal. The UK-EU deal agreed last week tied the “Brexit bill” payments to the withdrawal agreement, not the trade deal further down the line.

But, as May told MPs yesterday, the withdrawal agreement is meant to take into account “the framework for the future relationship”. So it should contain a broad commitment to a trade deal of some kind, although almost certainly not the details. In draft guidelines the European council says the bit covering trade will be a “political declaration” - which is quite different from a 2,000-page trade document. That is what the UK will be getting for its £39bn.

UltimoTiger777 · Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:18 pm

par13del wrote:
This is what I am trying to understand, if being in the EEA/EFTA means having the 4 pillars, abiding by all EU rules / mandates, paying into the EU but having no seat at the EU decision table, why not just be a member, what is the advantage of the Norway model?

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/e ... c-features

I think this guy sums it up better than I ever could:

http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/ ... g-eea.html

par13del · Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:04 pm

Yeah but even he is fixated on the EU being the primary trading partner of the UK, nothing about the UK not wanting the ECJ to have legal jurisdiction, nothing about not having the 4 pillars, all he is focused on is trade. As long as the other items which were also a part of the leave vote are not addressed the conversation will always be lopsided. We still have project fear that without the ECJ the UK will start rounding up folks, executing, all manner of things as if they are incapable of making laws which are fair and just.

The harsh reality as it has always been is that if the UK wants to be free of the Commission, the 4 pillars, ECJ etc there can only be a hard Brexit and trading with the EU as a third country, anything else they may as well continue as members of the EU and contribute to it progression.

Any special deal / relationship / FTA whatever the EU offers will have the 4 pillars, ECJ and Commissions as they all come together, there is no picking what you like in relation to those, its a take it or leave it deal, also been so and always will be, why those Remainers who say they support Brexit do not accept this simple truth is puzzling at best.

Olddog has stated it best, soft Brexit is an illusion.

UltimoTiger777 · Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:58 pm

You would be amazed how flexible politicians can be.

More importantly as I said, even if the ECJ retained some influence, being in EFTA allows us to start making our own trade deals rather letting the EU do it for us.

par13del · Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:16 pm

It would mean freedom of movement and no control of the borders, it may also not be smooth sailing, Norway is presently the big fish and may not want a bigger fish in their pond. Interesting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ssociation

https://www.euractiv.com/section/agricu ... upervisor/

UltimoTiger777 · Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:13 pm

If I'm being really honest, I can live with freedom of movement. Since the UK and Ireland are island states, there's no such thing as "No borders" for us anyway other than the divide between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Anyone we don't want coming in can just be stopped at a port or airport when they fly/sail in. It's not like they can just drive back and forth at will like a certain Norwegian terrorist did when he considered buying guns in the Czech Republic.

prebennorholm · Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:04 pm

par13del wrote:
This is what I am trying to understand, if being in the EEA/EFTA means having the 4 pillars, abiding by all EU rules / mandates, paying into the EU but having no seat at the EU decision table, why not just be a member, what is the advantage of the Norway model?

The advantage of the Norway model is that they save a lot of airline tickets Oslo-Brussels and back. Instead they phone their position to Stockholm or Copenhagen and let their Scandinavian colleagues talk for them. This gives one less vote on hard decisions. But it doesn't matter since decisions are normally made as fair compromises when all aspects have been analyzed.

About EEA and EFTA. We cannot just write EEA/EFTA as if it was the same thing:

EFTA is an organization consisting of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. An organization which is independent of the EU. If Britain wants to become an EFTA member, then they should apply for membership. The EU has no influence on that.

EEA consists of 31 countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and the 28 EU countries, but not Switzerland. Naturally the EU has the long arm here.

Some 20 years ago Switzerland applied for EEA membership, but at a public referendum 50.3% said no. The Swiss government then made a copy and paste of the EEA treaty and made it a bi-lateral agreement between Switzerland and the EU.

Seen from my desk, then "soft Brexit" means that the UK is an EEA member. Sort of "EU Member Light". It's not needed to be EFTA member for that, but as things are at present in Europe, then it is probably very practical to be an EFTA member when entering EEA. But has the UK ever asked EFTA whether they want to accept the UK as a new member state? I don't know, just asking.

EFTA is a small club of four countries with a total population roughly identical to London city. Four rather unique countries. When Iceland fully recovers from the GFC, then they are likely the four richest countries in the developed world. They have their own rather unique interests. I'm not convinced that they are eager to accept a new dominating member which will have some 80% of the total EFTA population.

prebennorholm · Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:08 am

UltimoTiger777 wrote:
If I'm being really honest, I can live with freedom of movement. Since the UK and Ireland are island states, there's no such thing as "No borders" for us anyway other than the divide between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Anyone we don't want coming in can just be stopped at a port or airport when they fly/sail in. It's not like they can just drive back and forth at will like a certain Norwegian terrorist did when he considered buying guns in the Czech Republic.

Dear U-Tiger, you ignore that RoI is an EU member. They accept the "Polish plumber" the same way as Germany accepts a Dutch plumber.

RoI isn't a Schengen country, so the Polish plumber has to show his valid passport when entering Ireland. But the Polish plumber has all rights of an EU citizen in RoI.

With no border between NI and RoI, and no sort of red tape in the Irish Sea, how are you gonna keep the Polish plumber out of the UK?

And that's what Brexit is all about. To keep the Polish plumber out of the UK.

Funny thing is that this goal has already been reached. Polish plumbers have mostly left the UK due to the plummeting (sorry!) exchange rate of the UK pound, as he found greener grass elsewhere in the EU.

And back to your example: With no borders except passport control, how are you gonna stop an Irish guy as crazy as your Norwegian example? And prevent him from bringing his imported gun into the UK?

Back to the gun from Czech Rep. to Norway. If it is too easy to bring illegal weapons from Czech Rep. to Norway, I don't know, but assuming it is: To me you see that as a Norwegian problem. I see it as a Czech problem, and an EU problem. If the Czechs can't solve that themselves, then it is the duty of the EU to help them. Such developments cost money, and that's one reason why we have an EU budget, and why we all have to pay to the EU to make things work and improve where needed.

UltimoTiger777 · Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:46 am

prebennorholm wrote:
And that's what Brexit is all about. To keep the Polish plumber out of the UK.

I could have swore it was about leaving the European Union. Ballot paper didn't mention anything about Polish plumbers to me. Maybe I misread it?

In any case I'm thinking more along the lines of those people who might for example have convictions for serious crimes in their country of origin rather than those who come here to fix leaky pipes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01 ... sentenced/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36652565

prebennorholm wrote:
And back to your example: With no borders except passport control, how are you gonna stop an Irish guy as crazy as your Norwegian example? And prevent him from bringing his imported gun into the UK?

Because....

1-The UK and Ireland have very stringent firearm laws to begin with and it would be more difficult to smuggle in weapons from abroad due to them being islands. Oh it could happen and indeed, has happened but I'd hedge my bets that it's easier to get a gun from Russia through into France for example via the land than it is to get one from Italy to Ireland via the sea.

2-We already had the "Irish guy as crazy as your Norwegian" example. It was called the Troubles. Could have easily been avoided if hard line Unionists in the 60s had supported Terrance O'Neil as Northern Ireland's Prime Minister rather than undermining him and his attempts to build bridges between the two communities.

I believe at one point in the 1990s an IRA sniper team was actually positioned OVER the border in the Irish Republic while picking off British soldiers. Even a barbed wire fence won't stop a high velocity round fired from the right vantage point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Arm ... %80%931997)

prebennorholm wrote:
I see it as a Czech problem, and an EU problem. If the Czechs can't solve that themselves, then it is the duty of the EU to help them. Such developments cost money, and that's one reason why we have an EU budget, and why we all have to pay to the EU to make things work and improve where needed.

The Czech Republic has more liberal firearm laws than some other EU states. What one persons sees as a "problem", another might see as the fundamental right of Czech people to have the means to defend themselves especially given the Nazi and Soviet occupations of the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_ ... h_Republic

JJJ · Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:27 am

UltimoTiger777 wrote:
[
The Czech Republic has more liberal firearm laws than some other EU states.

So does Norway for that matter. That particular guy you mention discovered it was easier to get the guns he used locally than elsewhere.

He had to purchase bigger ammunition clips through mail order in the US, though.

Every European country has less stringent gun laws than Britain, actually.

UltimoTiger777 · Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:40 am

JJJ wrote:
UltimoTiger777 wrote:
[
The Czech Republic has more liberal firearm laws than some other EU states.

So does Norway for that matter. That particular guy you mention discovered it was easier to get the guns he used locally than elsewhere.

He had to purchase bigger ammunition clips through mail order in the US, though.

Every European country has less stringent gun laws than Britain, actually.

You're not wrong. The UK Olympic shooting team can't even practice on the UK mainland, they have to go to places like Switzerland, France etc to practice.

Bit stupid when you consider that after they made the laws so draconian that gun crime spiked.

prebennorholm · Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:20 am

UltimoTiger777 wrote:
The Czech Republic has more liberal firearm laws than some other EU states. What one persons sees as a "problem", another might see as the fundamental right of Czech people to have the means to defend themselves especially given the Nazi and Soviet occupations of the country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_ ... h_Republic

U-Tiger, this link provided by you clearly states that the Czech Republic passed the EU Firearms Directive back in 2002.

If there still are implementation problems (I haven't heard about such problems), then there is first a Czech problem to solve ASAP, or if help is needed, then assistance from the EU.

Czechoslovakia historically was a firearms country. But from 1939 until 1990 there was mostly death penalty for possession of illegal non-registered firearms. Except for Sudeten-German SS and Wehrmacht members. Sudeten-Germans were all ethnically cleansed out of Czechoslovakia in 1945-46.

UltimoTiger777 · Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:46 am

I'm pretty sure a foreign body helping to take guns off people there isn't going to endear them to the EU is it?

prebennorholm · Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:32 am

Dear U-Tiger, before you post those long links you should maybe read them yourself. Quote from your latest link:

For example, in 2010, a Norwegian terrorist, incited by reports of British newspapers describing Prague as "being the most important transit site point for illicit weapons in Europe", found himself unable to obtain any in the country when preparing for the 2011 Norway attacks.

What's the conclusion? "Incomplete" reporting by a UK paper? If so, hardly a surprise.

It also tells about a Polish terrorist who couldn't get a gun in Czech Rep. (living 45 miles from the border), but finally got one in Belgium.

It seems like those special warnings about Czech Rep. and guns are "real fake news", not "fake fake news".

L410Turbolet · Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:35 am

prebennorholm wrote:

If there still are implementation problems (I haven't heard about such problems), then there is first a Czech problem to solve ASAP, or if help is needed, then assistance from the EU.

Why do you feel compelled to comment on something you quite obviously have no clue about?

prebennorholm wrote:
Czechoslovakia historically was a firearms country. But from 1939 until 1990 there was mostly death penalty for possession of illegal non-registered firearms.

????? See above.

Aesma · Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:39 am

UltimoTiger777 I read your long link, it seems the guy and you are on a similar page, Brexiters because of "red tape" affecting your liberal economic views. I don't think you're representative of the average Brexiter, who seems to want less free trade, more protectionism, etc.

Also the guy is basically saying "we can screw the EU by doing this and that", not trying to win points with us here.

94717 · Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:59 am

Eu has accepted to go to phase 2 under the following terms;

Davis Davis rule; If the agreed terms in phase 1 cannot be changed (can someone lock this guy up?)

UK is expected to present its vision of trade agreement until March when negotiations starts.

Negotiations will be until October, meaning half a year for something normally taking 7 years.

from march 2019 and 2 years UK will stay in the common market and obey all rules of EU including new EU rules without veto or influence with possibility for extension. No negotiations with third country about free trade agreements.

Is it possible to have a agreement until October?

Is this the deal that Brexit UK wanted?

Dutchy · Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:48 pm

Wow harsh. So does this mean we will see the final Brexit in 2021?

Good to see that Brittian has finally got to show their cards and what kind of relationship they want. The question which deal is gonna be made is still on grasp.

prebennorholm · Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:29 am

olle wrote:
Is this the deal that Brexit UK wanted?

1) 48% didn't want Brexit.

2) 52% wanted an unspecified number of different Brexits.

If things had been as simple as "what Brexit UK wanted", then.....

Now the line judge has signalled "corner", and we wait two years extra preparing for the corner kick. It was likely way less than 52% who wanted exactly that.

Aesma · Sun Dec 17, 2017 3:02 am

I wonder if the two years won't be used to continue negotiating some matters instead of just preparing for the final exit.

Dutchy · Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:32 am

Aesma wrote:
I wonder if the two years won't be used to continue negotiating some matters instead of just preparing for the final exit.

Probably.

par13del · Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:01 pm

No final exit, my opinion only, the UK will get what Boris say they do not want, a state of the EU. The power play will see the UK worse off than if they had remained a member, a much more controller state.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-42381986

Let's be real here, who needs a two year transition period, and if the end game is alignment with the EU rules and regulations what purpose does the transition actually do or mean?
The EU is fighting to ensure countries all over the world have the same tax regime, but Boris thinks that with seamless trade between the UK and the EU they would allow a Singapore type country on their doorstep where they have the power of regulations?
Still don't understand how he supported the last give back, but time will tell.

tommy1808 · Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:56 pm

par13del wrote:
The EU is fighting to ensure countries all over the world have the same tax regime, but Boris thinks that with seamless trade between the UK and the EU they would allow a Singapore type country on their doorstep where they have the power of regulations?
Still don't understand how he supported the last give back, but time will tell.

Alignment of tax and trade rules is a very global undertaking, not EU specific.

Best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:14 am

The Uk needs to have the balls to go for the complete and hard Brexit. It is this or they will be vassal state to Germany and France.

Dutchy · Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:45 am

seahawk wrote:
The Uk needs to have the balls to go for the complete and hard Brexit. It is this or they will be vassal state to Germany and France.

Or have the balls to have another referendum, which might turn out that they will stay (but their negotiation position will be gone within the EU, no more special exceptions)

par13del · Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:18 am

Dutchy wrote:
Or have the balls to have another referendum, which might turn out that they will stay (but their negotiation position will be gone within the EU, no more special exceptions)

Well, personally a couple observations on this:
1. Even if the UK had another referendum today, their rebate is gone. Article 50 was activated and is not coming back.
2. The City of London as the financial capital of the EU is gone even if they return to the EU, the question is how long it will take or how fast
3. Since the politicians in the UK allowed the people a vote after all such previous instances revealed that the people are incapable of making informed decisions
the EU faith in UK politicians are diminished, even though they are using the politicians to ensure no Brexit, at least they can use them to a greater EU benefit.
4. Name one thing that the UK politicians have been able to negotiate with the EU since Article 50 was activated?

A state of the EU or a complete break is what is in the offering, those in the UK who think that things will go back to what they were before are delusional, if they thought that previously hey fought hard for investments in the UK, imagine what is one the horizon. The EU believes it was betrayed by those in the UK who voted leave, and whether we want to accept it or not, things will never go back to what they were.

Time will tell but based on history and human nature, its not going to be good for the UK in the long run, even with a hard Brexit, those remainers in the camp will always believe that the EU is their salvation and will not make or fight for the hard decisions required of a smaller country going independent.

mmo · Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:46 am

seahawk wrote:
The Uk needs to have the balls to go for the complete and hard Brexit. It is this or they will be vassal state to Germany and France.

Spoken like a true believer! Can't wait to hear the complaining when the UK is reduced to a third world country by the exit! Glad I left when I did.....

Aesma · Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:49 pm

par13del wrote:
2. The City of London as the financial capital of the EU is gone even if they return to the EU, the question is how long it will take or how fast

You never know, the UK could join the Euro, than that would help the City.

par13del · Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:42 pm

Even if they do, the EU will be taking steps to ensure that the UK's importance in the finances of the EU are diminished, joining the Euro will only increase their control and make it easier to move financial resources to countries more closely aligned with the closer integration. The politicians in the UK think it is about preserving the City's place in the financial world of the EU, on the EU side it is about removing or greatly diminishing the "risk", which one do you think will hold sway?
The so called influence of the City has so far not meant anything in these negotiations, yes a part of that has to do with the UK remain camp, but the other part is the willingness of the EU to bite the short term bullet to move services, and I am not talking about those that are mandated to be domiciled in a member state.
Third countries will have to start getting used to the UK not being the major entry point for financial services into the EU, I do not expect it to happen overnight, but I suspect by the time the two or however long the transition period takes, the writing will be seen on the wall and the recriminations will start.

seahawk · Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:22 pm

mmo wrote:
seahawk wrote:
The Uk needs to have the balls to go for the complete and hard Brexit. It is this or they will be vassal state to Germany and France.

Spoken like a true believer! Can't wait to hear the complaining when the UK is reduced to a third world country by the exit! Glad I left when I did.....

I believe the Brexit was a huge mistake, but when you do it, you either do it completely or not at all. Britain had a strong position in the EU with many special deals and even a rebate for the membership fee. Any new solution will probably mean much less influence for a little less money, or about the same money for less influence.

mmo · Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:50 pm

As I wrote previously, Brexit was the main reason I left the UK. The "majority" voted for it and I hope it is a very "hard brexit". It's want they wanted and they will regret their decision. It only proved, in my opinion, the 52% which voted to leave are out of touch with reality.

LAH1 · Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:33 pm

mmo wrote:
As I wrote previously, Brexit was the main reason I left the UK. The "majority" voted for it and I hope it is a very "hard brexit". It's want they wanted and they will regret their decision. It only proved, in my opinion, the 52% which voted to leave are out of touch with reality.

And it's exactly your kind of "hoping" that makes remainers wonder if they made the right decision. Your wishing what can only be bad for the 48% ( not an inconsiderate number) doesn't help their view of a Europe they wish to remain in.

par13del · Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:33 pm

Well we know it won't be a hard Brexit so the majority who voted for it will not get their wish, it is probably going to be worse than full membership or out totally. Out totally they can attempt to compete while maintaining all their independence, in partially will see a much reduced UK whose main attribute in the early years will be funding which will decrease as their importance decreases.

par13del · Mon Dec 18, 2017 5:40 pm

One has to wonder what was already agreed to get the talks to this point, especially related to the Irish border, does agricultural goods not flow over the open border, do the rules not specify how crop could be grown etc etc etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -plan.html

Dutchy · Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:31 pm

par13del wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Or have the balls to have another referendum, which might turn out that they will stay (but their negotiation position will be gone within the EU, no more special exceptions)

Well, personally a couple observations on this:
1. Even if the UK had another referendum today, their rebate is gone. Article 50 was activated and is not coming back.
2. The City of London as the financial capital of the EU is gone even if they return to the EU, the question is how long it will take or how fast
3. Since the politicians in the UK allowed the people a vote after all such previous instances revealed that the people are incapable of making informed decisions
the EU faith in UK politicians are diminished, even though they are using the politicians to ensure no Brexit, at least they can use them to a greater EU benefit.
4. Name one thing that the UK politicians have been able to negotiate with the EU since Article 50 was activated?

A state of the EU or a complete break is what is in the offering, those in the UK who think that things will go back to what they were before are delusional, if they thought that previously hey fought hard for investments in the UK, imagine what is one the horizon. The EU believes it was betrayed by those in the UK who voted leave, and whether we want to accept it or not, things will never go back to what they were.

Time will tell but based on history and human nature, its not going to be good for the UK in the long run, even with a hard Brexit, those remainers in the camp will always believe that the EU is their salvation and will not make or fight for the hard decisions required of a smaller country going independent.

1. Yes, indeed, except when all remaining members agree and that will not be without compromises from the UK side. So they are worse off then they are now. The consequence of triggering article 50.
2. Probably yes, even if the UK would adopt the Euro. The outside world is viewing the UK differently by now. The consequence of triggering article 50. It might be coming back though, London is still one great place to live.
3. What do you mean? I think the EU don't want a referendum in countries (period). They haven't forgotten all the referenda in various countries. First, they need to make the EU more beneficial to the common men to make it more relevant for most people.
4. None probably.

par13del · Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:05 pm

On point 3, the UK politicians gave the people a vote, that was a no no. As most of them are pro-EU the result of the vote created the massive conflict now taking place in the UK as no one expected the citizens to vote leave. As with the first defeat of the TM government in the house last week, the EU were full of praise on parliament taking back control as the Remain side finally got a vote going their way, not sure how important that is since nothing was or has gone the UK's side in any negotiations with the EU. As long as they continue to be a divided house versus the singular 27 nations the outcome will always be bad no matter how close they stay to the UK. Bad as in comparison to what they had before the leave vote.

mmo · Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:23 pm

LAH1 wrote:
mmo wrote:
As I wrote previously, Brexit was the main reason I left the UK. The "majority" voted for it and I hope it is a very "hard brexit". It's want they wanted and they will regret their decision. It only proved, in my opinion, the 52% which voted to leave are out of touch with reality.

And it's exactly your kind of "hoping" that makes remainers wonder if they made the right decision. Your wishing what can only be bad for the 48% ( not an inconsiderate number) doesn't help their view of a Europe they wish to remain in.

I would argue my decision makes the Brexiteers wonder if they made the right decision. The remainers don't have a view as the Brexiteers have made it very clear they want leave at ALL costs. If the political parties gave one hoot, they would have no issues with another binding referendum. But as TM has said, the voters have made their chioce. Albeit on a non-binding referendum.

UltimoTiger777 · Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:03 am

mmo wrote:
Spoken like a true believer! Can't wait to hear the complaining when the UK is reduced to a third world country by the exit! Glad I left when I did.....

All the flavours in the world and you choose to be salty. What a shame.

Although I somehow doubt we'll be reduced to a third world country. Perhaps you're thinking of the technicalities of being a "third country" in terms of trading with the EU.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net