prebennorholm wrote:

because Brexit is not a hot issue within EU27

I think that is not true, Brexit is a hot topic within the EU27 and hurts the EU27 on several levels. But I agree that is will impact Brittain more.

Well, it is not a hot issue in france as I have a bad to get timely news in french. Our media seems to be obsessed with Macron and forget all the other topics.

Does make you wonder why those in the UK remain camp are fighting so hard.......

par13del wrote:

Does make you wonder why those in the UK remain camp are fighting so hard.......

Because it's them heading to the crapper, not the French or Germans.

Over here it's months since Brexit doesn't make a headline. Unless you live in Ireland Brexit is secondary to each country own problems.

Dutchy wrote:

I think that is not true, Brexit is a hot topic within the EU27 and hurts the EU27 on several levels. But I agree that is will impact Brittain more.

In Britain, an army of civil servants is now at work on every aspect of the Brexit negotiations. But while Britain’s negotiating position is the subject of intense — and public — political wrangling, French administrators have enjoyed the freedom to prepare in quasi-secret, met by public indifference. In other words, Brexit became a technocratic challenge — of precisely the sort at which France excels.

Just an article posted today as a confirmation to dutchy

https://www.politico.eu/article/france- ... r-no-deal/

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

As for Barnier, is he wrong to point out that Brexit daftness (e.g. Boris comparing the EU to Hitler's Germany) has eroded UK-EU solidarity writ large, which by definition includes common threats like terrorism?

You mean like those streets in France named for IRA member Bobby Sands?

Great solidarity considering all the effort we made to liberate them from that jumped up Austrian corporal. Then again considering how incompetent the information sharing between French and Belgian police was two years ago, maybe Barnier should be looking a little closer to home before saying such things shouldn't he?

I daresay your responses are becoming predictable.

- Don't know how many Bobby Sands streets there are in France, but I'm going to guess that, as in most countries, streets are named municipally and not by national authorities? Can't see how some eccentric town naming a street after an apparently internationally popular figure speaks to solidarity at the nation-state level. Would you prefer the French government outlawed the right of towns or cities to name streets as they wish? After all, there's a monument to him in Sydney, and the New Jersey legislature voted to honour him. Do you interpret that as Australia and the US demonstrating their disregard for solidarity with the UK?

- I admire many British WWII military leaders, so I'll put this as gently as I can: Britain did not liberate France or Europe during WWII. That is simply a matter of fact. Without the Commonwealth, US and Soviet Union, there would have been no liberation. Britain did not win WWII; the Allies did. And they included Europeans - even Frenchmen - in their ranks.

- "Jumped up Austrian Corporal". Says it all. I can think of a great many ways to criticize him, but pointing to his rank, and the degree to which he is "jumped up" relative to it, aren't among them. Your words do, however, lend credence to those who think Brexit was driven by a desire to return to the past. Complete, evidently, with that very British class system that thinks the most notable thing about a genocidal maniac is that he was a lowly corporal who should have "known his place" but had the temerity to behave in a "jumped up" manner. Would you have used a similar tone/words if he was a...I don't know ... an aristocratic field marshal? I don't think so. The "classism" is strong with you and your ilk.

- I trust you are intellectually honest enough to recognize the obvious difference between a cooperative approach being undermined by incompetence and, you know, just walking away while hurling the odd insult. Sure the Belgians and French can do a better job. But at least they're trying to work together. Which is a damn sight better than the Brexit wet dream of walking away at any cost.

In any event, we need to move past the constant reversion to Nazi Germany. The European project writ large was created to consign that kind of hyper nationalistic sentiment to the past. In that sense, Brexit may well end up on the wrong side of history.

ElPistolero wrote:

The European project writ large was created to consign that kind of hyper nationalistic sentiment to the past.

Well that's been an abject failure hasn't it?

Maybe if they'd just stuck to being a trade body. By the way, do you ever cringe at all these hyper-Euro nationalists going on about being a "citizen" of Europe? It's almost like they think the EU is an actual state. OH WAIT MAYBE THAT'S BEEN THE PLAN ALL ALONG!

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

It's almost like they think the EU is an actual state. OH WAIT MAYBE THAT'S BEEN THE PLAN ALL ALONG!

Seriously? It was spelled black on write since the first Treaty and you sill ask that? The only topic not solved yet is which form of superstate...

A rather interesting and, I think, balanced article from the BBC here which with some irony describes the efforts of "Brexin" in the 1960s compared with those of "Brexit".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42165383

par13del wrote:

Does make you wonder why those in the UK remain camp are fighting so hard.......

Well for once the EU appears to respect democracy. You have voted to leave, it's done.

As for Brexit not being a hot topic in non UK news, the EU is rarely a hot topic anyway, people find it too complex. Lately it was all about the herbicide Glyphosate, and even EU specialists had trouble explaining how the decision would eventually be taken. Now that it has been taken it's a mess in France because the government disagrees, and it's a mess in Germany because a single man voted against his government's position, hurting talks for a coalition in the process (and the relationship with France).

Olddog wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

I think that is not true, Brexit is a hot topic within the EU27 and hurts the EU27 on several levels. But I agree that is will impact Brittain more.

In Britain, an army of civil servants is now at work on every aspect of the Brexit negotiations. But while Britain’s negotiating position is the subject of intense — and public — political wrangling, French administrators have enjoyed the freedom to prepare in quasi-secret, met by public indifference. In other words, Brexit became a technocratic challenge — of precisely the sort at which France excels.

Just an article posted today as a confirmation to dutchy

https://www.politico.eu/article/france- ... r-no-deal/

And these technocrats are very good at getting what they want, regardless of what their hierarchy (top administrators, ministers, the president) want. We're seeing it right now with some of Macron's promises being derailed by these technos. Since Macron himself is one of them, it could end up badly, with some heads rolling.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

The European project writ large was created to consign that kind of hyper nationalistic sentiment to the past.

Well that's been an abject failure hasn't it?

Maybe if they'd just stuck to being a trade body. By the way, do you ever cringe at all these hyper-Euro nationalists going on about being a "citizen" of Europe? It's almost like they think the EU is an actual state. OH WAIT MAYBE THAT'S BEEN THE PLAN ALL ALONG!

If I'm in trouble in a non EU country I can enter any embassy of an EU country and will be taken care of. I can travel to, live in, work, get married, vote, create a company, in any EU country, without having to ask anything to anybody.

Checks many boxes of what being a citizen means. Of course in the UK you like being "subjects" apparently.

Let the real fun begin:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rds-brexit

The EU is exploring the inclusion of a “punishment clause” in any future trade deal with the UK to allow Brussels to slap tariffs on key British exports to the bloc if the UK government seeks to gain a commercial advantage by lowering regulatory standards.

In a move that would torpedo the post-Brexit plans of the British cabinet’s key Brexiters, any significant attempts by Whitehall to lower regulatory costs to British businesses in one part of the economy could be met by tariffs from Brussels on another.

An attempt to grab a larger share of the world market in aluminium, for example, by loosening regulation and reducing production costs in the UK could provoke a punitive tariff on British beef sales to the EU, a sector on which thousands of jobs rely.
Ireland will have final say on progress of Brexit talks, says EU
Read more

In a leaked letter to the prime minister last month, key pro-Brexit ministers Michael Gove and Boris Johnson suggested that the UK could overhaul regulations in some sectors after leaving the bloc “to give the UK big advantages over EU members”.

A senior Conservative said: “Brexiters within the cabinet, and within the party, are pushing for divergence, and see it as a priority for the end state.”

But the Guardian understands that the EU intends to ensure there are heavy constraints on any attempt by the British government to diverge from the current regulatory system in any free trade deal.

The shadow trade secretary, Barry Gardiner, said: “Clearly the EU does not trust the assurances that UK ministers have given about maintaining social, environmental and workplace rights and standards. They think the UK is likely to pursue a deregulatory race to the bottom.

“Such a punishment clause as the EU appears to be contemplating would be hard to reconcile with the rules based system of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to which both we and the EU are committed.”

The revelation exposes how difficult the coming discussions are likely to be should the negotiations widen this month to take in trade. While keen to develop a wide-ranging free trade agreement with the UK, the EU is determined to protect its economic interests and ensure regulatory standards are maintained.

If the UK leaves the EU they will become competitors, nothing shocking there, rational folks on all sides knew this once the vote came in, who really wants a competitor?
What prevents the EU from implementing such policies against China, Japan, USA, India or any non-EU country?

You don't get it. The UK brexiters were touting how they will screw the EU after the brexit, trying to establish competition thru deregulation at EU door. It seem they did no realize that the EU could write down in all trade agreements the sanctions already envisioned for theses cases. Read the full article, not just the part I quoted to comply with net ethic

I did read the entire article, just chose to focus on the fundamentals of the whole issue versus just trade.
The UK Brexiters are not in charge, if they were no one would be talking about Soft Brexit, Transition Period, ECJ being given a role in the UK legal system after exit, 40 - 100 billion pounds for divorce bill, multi-year transition period etc etc etc. all we would be on is the UK going over the cliff and the EU watching them fall. The EU position has been consistent from day one, 4 pillars or nothing, why the Remainers who have been in the EU for 40+ years do not know that is beyond me, they like the current PM keep talking about some special relationship which does not have the 4 pillars, if I have any criticism of the EU it is their pandering to them by saying the UK should define what it is that they want as if the EU is willing to accept anything other than what they already have, which is the 4 pillars.

If the UK leave the EU they become a third country who then has to negotiate a trade treaty / agreement, the EU does this now with many other nations, as some have stated before, a hard break would be much cleaner than the confusion taking place now, since the referendum did not bring about a true change in government, you have infighting in the UK so no clear strategy can emerge.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

The European project writ large was created to consign that kind of hyper nationalistic sentiment to the past.

Well that's been an abject failure hasn't it?

Maybe if they'd just stuck to being a trade body. By the way, do you ever cringe at all these hyper-Euro nationalists going on about being a "citizen" of Europe? It's almost like they think the EU is an actual state. OH WAIT MAYBE THAT'S BEEN THE PLAN ALL ALONG!

Has it?

Two hypernationalism driven world wars in 25 years followed by peace for 70 years. War in Europe looks more remote than ever. Doesn't strike me as a failure.

As for the rest, even trade bodies have standard-setting procedures, regulations and enforcement measures. These are all attributes of organizations, and states are organizations. There are bound to be similarities. Why do you find this surprising? Also, EU citizenship is a 'thing' insofar as EU citizens benefit from certain privileges and legal protections that non-EU citizens do not get.

That aside, you're also apparently unaware of the difference between civic nationalism and hyper/muscular nationalism. EU nationalism, to the extent it exists, belongs in the former category. The Brexit no matter the cost approach belongs in the latter.

I'm under the impression that you don't actually understand the concepts and terms you're employing. Maybe consider reading up on them.

Funny negotiations today !

, What negotiations are they,because as I see it negotiations are roughly a bit of give and take on both sides, but this is just the EU demanding things and if the UK doesn't agree to them completely then nothing progresses

vc10 wrote:

, What negotiations are they,because as I see it negotiations are roughly a bit of give and take on both sides, but this is just the EU demanding things and if the UK doesn't agree to them completely then nothing progresses

Today's negotiations between the British PM, the DUP and Tory Brexiteers.

Which negotiations are you referring to?

vc10 wrote:

What negotiations are they,because as I see it negotiations are roughly a bit of give and take on both sides, but this is just the EU demanding things and if the UK doesn't agree to them completely then nothing progresses

Yeah, vc10, I think you are right. This isn't really "negotiations", at least not according to your definition of negotiations.

A few days ago The Guardian wrote:

A senior EU official told the Guardian: “There have been threats, and so there will be safeguards. This is not a case of two equal blocs that will have to accommodate with one another and will have to find ways to manage divergence. If they want access to single market, they will have to comply with EU laws.”

It would have been better if The Guardian had told that two years ago, before the referendum 23 months ago. Now it comes as a surprise for the British people.

When the UK has made up their mind what they want, then there can be negotiations about practical things such as sequence and speed of implementation of various issues, but that's it.

There is no way 27 EU countries will agree upon bending their principles only because one country leaves the union.

prebennorholm wrote:

It would have been better if The Guardian had told that two years ago, before the referendum 23 months ago. Now it comes as a surprise for the British people.

They were told that, if they bothered to listen to any respectable analyst, intellectual or expert. If they bothered to listen to people who knew what they were talking about and tried to tell them why leaving the EU would be a disaster, in which they tried to tell the public multiple times prior to the vote. The problem however is 52% of the voting public decided to listen to UKIP, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express and the "Take Our Country Back!" mob. And it's paying dividends, isn't it? With the DUP now calling the shots in negotiations May's position leaks incredibly weak. If it wasn't weak enough already negotiating with a partner 7 times larger than you. I think either the UK are going to have to agree to a Norway-style arrangement where they agree to the EU's policies and freedoms of movement in order to gain access to the single market, or they get totally shut out and accelerate the descent into economic decline.

I think that the only solution left is a a referendum in NI, asking the people where they want the border. I bet the DUP will fight against that vote.

Vic, look what I posted some time ago: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1367873&p=19778677&hilit=gorilla#p19778677

We will not be leaving the EU.

Interesting link from the BBC on the status and the effects of the deal.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-42231497

As it relates to who the people actually listened to on the effect of Brexit, all the government experts, EU, business interest and still they did not listen. So I ask the question, is anyone listening to the people and what they want, did they vote to leave the EU because they were uneducated, not given a more simple choice or just wanted to leave?

*RANT*

Oh well, the problem for the people who voted to leave the EU are unfortunately significantly more likely to be less educated and will be hit the hardest. The problem is that these people wanted to find someone to blame instead of getting up and understanding what to do with themselves to make their own lives better, the EU actually protected the people who voted to leave and they will suffer because of it, suffer because they think somehow the system of government in the UK actually cares more for them than the EU government does, that somehow the government will be more likely to care for you if its based in Westminster than in Brussels, that somehow if you can use lbs instead of kg to swindle grannies out of money on their vegetables it will be a better country to live in but actually somehow the real reason for people voting to leave the EU is that that mistakenly believed that our borders were "open" and that brown people are the scourge of the earth they didn't bother to look that we actually have to use a passport to get into and out of the UK and that anyone who is currently a passport holding citizen of the EU will not be suddenly banned from traveling here and that if they were criminals who we didn't want here we could have stopped them anyway and if they were using the NHS that doctors have the ability to charge their country of origin for the care given but now they think if we are out of the EU that the doctors will suddenly care about doing the paperwork where previously they didn't. Can you imagine the uproar if the NHS refused to care for a war veteran because he didn't have his passport to prove he was British.

Its OK though because we'll have less EU red tape... OH SHIT!!! we won't we'll have EU red tape AAANNNNNDDDD UK red tape.

It's OK though because we'll be free of EU bureaucracy .... OH NO! Heathrow isn't bureaucracy then....

Lets go back to the 50's when things were all rosey, I think a vote on weather we should remove the central heating from all leave voters and give them an unreliable car and let them work with asbestos and lower their life expectancy.. as long as you can be racist in public its all fine.

Fucking numpties!

Ironically those who voted to remain are more likely to be more highly educated and will be able to weather the storm much better.

One last thing, we do still make stuff in the UK, if your idea of manufacturing is limited to ships and steel then you need to catch up with the modern world.

*Rant over*

Fred

Where I am lost with most of this is that no one goes around calling Boris Johnson the lovable ex-mayor of London, if the UKIP had so much power and influence over the UK citizens why is it that they did not have a good number of seats in parliament, if they could get 17 million+ to support their views in the referendum, are we to believe that those views were only offered to the public then and not before or after?

Another flip side, the people go to the polls to vote for their local politicians who went around the community giving their views, party platform and stating what it is they intend to do when they get elected, why would the people not believe that they have their best interest at heart and that they care more about them than the politicians in Brussels, are UK politicians so far in bed with economic and foreign interest that they abandon their people?

On the education front, is the disparity in high school education between private and public schools so great, the old saying that an educated consumer is the best is really only fiction....when it comes to wanting to direct the population, a less educated population is easier to control, so in the UK example of Brexit, who was really pulling the strings on Brexit?

par13del wrote:

Where I am lost with most of this is that no one goes around calling Boris Johnson the lovable ex-mayor of London, if the UKIP had so much power and influence over the UK citizens why is it that they did not have a good number of seats in parliament

Because of first past the post.

On any proportional system (like most European countries have) they would have got a sizeable representation in Westminster.

flipdewaf wrote:

Ironically those who voted to remain are more likely to be more highly educated and will be able to weather the storm much better.

Not from what I've witnessed.

flipdewaf wrote:

Oh well, the problem for the people who voted to leave the EU are unfortunately significantly more likely to be less educated and will be hit the hardest. The problem is that these people wanted to find someone to blame instead of getting up and understanding what to do with themselves to make their own lives better, the EU actually protected the people who voted to leave and they will suffer because of it, suffer because they think somehow the system of government in the UK actually cares more for them than the EU government does, that somehow the government will be more likely to care for you if its based in Westminster than in Brussels, that somehow if you can use lbs instead of kg to swindle grannies out of money on their vegetables it will be a better country to live in but actually somehow the real reason for people voting to leave the EU is that that mistakenly believed that our borders were "open" and that brown people are the scourge of the earth they didn't bother to look that we actually have to use a passport to get into and out of the UK and that anyone who is currently a passport holding citizen of the EU will not be suddenly banned from traveling here and that if they were criminals who we didn't want here we could have stopped them anyway and if they were using the NHS that doctors have the ability to charge their country of origin for the care given but now they think if we are out of the EU that the doctors will suddenly care about doing the paperwork where previously they didn't. Can you imagine the uproar if the NHS refused to care for a war veteran because he didn't have his passport to prove he was British.

Its OK though because we'll have less EU red tape... OH SHIT!!! we won't we'll have EU red tape AAANNNNNDDDD UK red tape.

It's OK though because we'll be free of EU bureaucracy .... OH NO! Heathrow isn't bureaucracy then....

So what you're basically saying is the same as this:

https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/9 ... 1285768192

What some contributors to that twitter convo seem to miss in the whole debate about the UK leaving and continuing to trade with the EU is that there are only two ways to trade with the EU, as a member in the EU or a non-member outside of the EU, and this does not include Norway. Norway lives and functions based on EU rules, regulations and laws not only related to trade but to their way of life. I honestly think that they have a bad deal, since they have to live by and comply with all EU mandates, why do they not have representation at the table, is the dues that much higher, and yes in the lead up to Brexit they had articles where folks in Norway said they did not want to become full members, I honestly see no difference between a member living under EU mandates and Norway living under EU mandates. Trade deals that Norway negotiate with other countries still have to be approved by the EU and be in compliance, so why not be members, what do they have now that they will loose if they become a full member?

Clearest sign so far that Remain is carrying the day and the UK will stay in the EU, and yes I know it is the Daily Mail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -deal.html

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Ironically those who voted to remain are more likely to be more highly educated and will be able to weather the storm much better.

Not from what I've witnessed.

What have you witnessed?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

So what you're basically saying is the same as this:
https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/9 ... 1285768192

No what I'm saying is that people are too easy to find a scapegoat to blame rather than take responsibility for their own shortcomings and understanding why they are not succeeding in life, instead they ruin it for everyone. We aren't so intertwined in the affairs that we cannot get out, we want to stay intertwined in the affairs so we still have some impact in our largest overseas trading market, the UK isn't going to go around claiming territory by stocking flags in it any more, those days are over. Its people who want something for nothing and are to quick to look elseware.

Fred

scbriml wrote:

If you have to get into a fight with a dog, would you rather fight a labrador (Corbyn) or a rottweiler?

I'll call our cat "Doginator" into action for both

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Ironically those who voted to remain are more likely to be more highly educated and will be able to weather the storm much better.

.

Not from what I've witnessed.

And that is why a sufficient sample size is important in statistics.

So what you're basically saying is the same as this:

https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/9 ... 1285768192

No one is telling the UK that strings can be cut, they are only saying that there are limits to how freely you can chose which strings you want to keep in place if you don't cut them all. Some are bundle deals, and those are take it or leave it.

But I guess the EU position would only be fair if the accommodated all UK wishes without asking anything in return except reciprocity.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Ironically those who voted to remain are more likely to be more highly educated and will be able to weather the storm much better.

.

And that is why a sufficient sample size is important in statistics.

I'd like some statistics on change of mind "Wählerwanderung" . IMHO more interesting than the absolute numbers.

Well numbers can be funny, more persons voted for the Tories in the last election than the previous (referendum not included) but since they lost seats, that is viewed as a change of mind indication on Brexit since thay are regarded as the party of Brexit, go figure.

Speaking as an Irish person, the events of this week have been a huge embarrassment for the UK government. They nearly had something which was workable and would benefit NI, but the DUP - that civilised, enlightened and open minded lot - blew a gasket and threatened to pull out of the government. I can't help wondering if that was a turning point, because it must have caused many observers and politicians (and those who are both!) to realise that it's going to be impossible to satisfy all of Britain's goals in these negotiations. I find it quite amazing that those who were virtually silent when the sum of £50BN was mentioned were so strident over the past few days when the negotiations with Ireland and the proposed solution to the border issue were deemed to be a threat to the union (i.e. the UK).

Just think of that ... FIFTY BILLION and the effect that will have on the UK economy, on spending right across the board (remember Farage promising that getting out of the EU would save £300m a year for the NHS, during the referendum?) ... not much comment. But ...

A common-sense deal which works well for the NI economy and people ... oh no, can't have that; it threatens the sovereignty of the UK. What planet are these people on! (Let's not forget that a hard border across 300mi of NI and the manpower to staff it will cost billions - coming out of an economy already reeling from having to pay £50bn).

So, my prediction is this: the UK will fall during the first quarter of 2018. Either the DUP will pull out, May will be removed or May will finally concede that the Brexit project is unworkable and announce a second referendum (or a combination of all three). Frankly, I don't see the third option happening, but with all of the divisions in the UK government and the continuing issue over the Irish border, I just don't see the govt going full term.

The election will be a rout for the Tories . Corbyn will be PM, either with a Labour majority, or supported by the Lib Dems. Now, the business community hates Corbyn, BUT they may warm to him when he announces the second referendum. The full horror and the economic cost of Brexit is now becoming clear; the referendum will be a bitter one, but by stating clearly the costs (not just financial, but social and strategic), I think yes will win. It will help that the voting age for the referendum will be lowered to 16 (which is not unreasonable, given that the younger generation will be severely affected by a "no" vote; it's very reasonable to give young people a say on something which will affect them a great deal more than the older generation).

Of course, there's a fair amount of wishful thinking in that, BUT as things look to me now, you can make a parallel between Brexit and a famous ship which was built in Northern Ireland. When the Brexit vote first happened, people knew something was wrong, but like the Titanic, it was that things would work out ok ... "nothing to worry about, Madam; the ship's probably thrown a propeller". Now, the lifeboats have been launched and the water is washing over the bow; Mr Andrews the designer has just told Captain May that "she will sink - it's a mathematical certainty" ... However, in this alternative reality, the Titanic has a reverse gear. Otherwise, the tail is going to be vertical by the end of the year. (And for the romantics among you, Jack and Rose elope to Dublin and live happily ever after )

I have a good news for you Kaitak, the infamous 50 billion will change nothing as it is the money UK is already spending and committed to spend until all is closed.

It is not some new money.

Only the DUP found the magic money tree and that billion pound was moved just for them.

If I recall the 50 billion was offered only if we got a free trade area as the cost of paying our outstanding dues to the EU comes to far less.

The DUP objected because as a junior partner in this coalition they seemed not to have been consulted on a subject close to their interest. Why well perhaps because the Irish government insisted that they were not informed. You have to accept that this deal smelt more of a move to try and unite the two halves of Ireland rather than anything to do with the EU

Farage never suggested that 350 million a day would benefit the NHS it was Boris . He might of believed the NHS would benefit but he never put a figure to it

Vc10, as I posted numerous times, and that you can read on any newspaper that is not the Sun or one of the Dailies Garbage, it does not work that way.

The UK has nothing to "offer". There will be commitments to recognize, and THEN, the talks could move to the next phase.

It is a strange idea that you could buy a trade with the EU.....

vc10 wrote:

If I recall the 50 billion was offered only if we got a free trade area as the cost of paying our outstanding dues to the EU comes to far less.

The DUP objected because as a junior partner in this coalition they seemed not to have been consulted on a subject close to their interest. Why well perhaps because the Irish government insisted that they were not informed. You have to accept that this deal smelt more of a move to try and unite the two halves of Ireland rather than anything to do with the EU

Farage never suggested that 350 million a day would benefit the NHS it was Boris . He might of believed the NHS would benefit but he never put a figure to it

It was the bus of the Brexiteers, which included Farage, he is thoroughly implicated in this, he never spoke out against this in public.

Olddog wrote:

Vc10, as I posted numerous times, and that you can read on any newspaper that is not the Sun or one of the Dailies Garbage, it does not work that way.

The UK has nothing to "offer". There will be commitments to recognize, and THEN, the talks could move to the next phase.

It is a strange idea that you could buy a trade with the EU.....

But as I have said before t, he EU demand for money is not written in stone it is the EU estimate of what we owe a figure that has varied from between 60 to 100 billion
Now the UK understanding is that we owe somewhere between 20 and 30 billion. So now it seems the EU is willing to settle for 50 billion so how reliable was their original figure and what did the original range represent

As to the UK having nothing to offer perhaps you should ask the German , French and Italian car makers as yes they produce nice cars but UK customers can buy nice cars else where, Ask the German railways who own most of the UK railways and bus companies, Ask the French who own quite a large chunk of UK utilities. Ask the Italian agriculture companies and so it goes on. Yes our exports to Europe will be hit , but it is not a one way system.

kaitak wrote:

It will help that the voting age for the referendum will be lowered to 16 (which is not unreasonable, given that the younger generation will be severely affected by a "no" vote; it's very reasonable to give young people a say on something which will affect them a great deal more than the older generation).

So 16 year olds can't buy booze, tobacco or be tried as adults for crimes but we think they should be able to vote?

Maybe three year olds should be allowed to vote. After all, the decisions made over things like this affect them don't they?

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

kaitak wrote:

It will help that the voting age for the referendum will be lowered to 16 (which is not unreasonable, given that the younger generation will be severely affected by a "no" vote; it's very reasonable to give young people a say on something which will affect them a great deal more than the older generation).

So 16 year olds can't buy booze, tobacco or be tried as adults for crimes but we think they should be able to vote?

That is why 16 year old can vote in some countries..... but people in retirement should of cause be excluded, after all they are dying out. Why give them a chance to salt the fields.....

Maybe three year olds should be allowed to vote. After all, the decisions made over things like this affect them don't they?

Age of consent is 16, at the time you make real hard decisions about the next 20+ years of your life and another life, you may very well vote.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

... but people in retirement should of cause be excluded, after all they are dying out. Why give them a chance to salt the fields.....

A rising issue. With the age distribution getting more and more lopsided.
Lots of people that vote for things they never will have to work for.
( actually the reverse: clamoring and voting for more pensions ... )

vc10 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Vc10, as I posted numerous times, and that you can read on any newspaper that is not the Sun or one of the Dailies Garbage, it does not work that way.

The UK has nothing to "offer". There will be commitments to recognize, and THEN, the talks could move to the next phase.

It is a strange idea that you could buy a trade with the EU.....

But as I have said before t, he EU demand for money is not written in stone it is the EU estimate of what we owe a figure that has varied from between 60 to 100 billion
Now the UK understanding is that we owe somewhere between 20 and 30 billion. So now it seems the EU is willing to settle for 50 billion so how reliable was their original figure and what did the original range represent

As to the UK having nothing to offer perhaps you should ask the German , French and Italian car makers as yes they produce nice cars but UK customers can buy nice cars else where, Ask the German railways who own most of the UK railways and bus companies, Ask the French who own quite a large chunk of UK utilities. Ask the Italian agriculture companies and so it goes on. Yes our exports to Europe will be hit , but it is not a one way system.

Of course it's not written in stone, that's why there's a negotiation about it.

The myth of "they need us more than we need them" has been debuked time and again. Re-read this thread from the start, every promise from the Leave brigade has turned out to be wrong, everything the Remain camp said it would happen in case leave won has turned out to be right... and Brexit hasn't even happened yet.

Here's a sobering read about the state of the "negotiations"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-a-barrel

tommy1808 wrote:

but people in retirement should of cause be excluded, after all they are dying out. Why give them a chance to salt the fields.....

So it's OK for the youth to salt it but not the people who spent their lives working and paying towards it?

Gee, you'd fit in great during the Cultural Revolution in China. Either that or you're a very crap comedian.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

Gee, you'd fit in great during the Cultural Revolution in China. Either that or you're a very crap comedian.

Hmmm?

I think you'll find that the anti-expert/"have had enough of experts" and anti-intellectual Brexiteer core is a lot more aligned with Cultural Revolution ideology.

You know, the same lot who believe that highly educated Judges doing their jobs are "enemies of the people".

Glass house, my friend.

Or were you trying your hand at comedy?

vc10 wrote:

As to the UK having nothing to offer perhaps you should ask the German , French and Italian car makers as yes they produce nice cars but UK customers can buy nice cars else where,

But against higher cost due to either higher transportation costs or higher import duties or less economies of scale as UK cars become too expensive in Europe. Then again, the UK apparantly never studied the effects of the Brexit thus one cannot blame them.

vc10 wrote:

Ask the German railways who own most of the UK railways and bus companies, Ask the French who own quite a large chunk of UK utilities. Ask the Italian agriculture companies and so it goes on. Yes our exports to Europe will be hit , but it is not a one way system.

We all know that the EU countries will be hit (some more than others), but the hit will be less than in the UK. Unless the UK drastically changes foreign ownership rules (which is doubtfull as this would hurt the UK economy even more) many business don't have much to fear. Moreover, the EU27 is already preparing for a hard Brexit and thus businesses will start adepting and the governance will be in place should a hard Brexit happen. This will soften the impact.

Does anyone consider that the folks who voted leave knew the economic effect but thought that having the ability to have English Politicians and Judges make laws /rules / regulations that govern their daily lives was a price they were willing to pay, or do we believe that the only persons complaining now about the economic hit are the Brexiters?

LJ wrote:

Unless the UK drastically changes foreign ownership rules (which is doubtfull as this would hurt the UK economy even more)

If the UK leaves the EU would that not mean that all EU companies domiciled in the UK are foreign and if any tax incentives are given to them to "aid" them in staying, does that mean that the EU will be penalizing themselves for violating their own rules?
Would that not open up the UK market to other non-EU countries, since the EU will want to ensure that the UK as well as the EU companies are punished?