The influence of the EU on Britain.
Comments
-
Where I might foresee a problem is that a certain number of politicians arguing for EFTA/EEA membership keep discussing it as a temporary measure for the UK, a staging post on the way to that buccaneering free trading that they want.Henry Irving said:Would seem we'd be better off joining the EEA in April 2019.
Doesn't suit the hard Brexiters as still a "vassal state" and doesn't suit the remainers either as not in the EU but we have Norway style access to the single market, Ireland isn't an issue either but it does give us time to either do a better deal with the EU (unlikely) or sort out 75 trade deals with other countries so we just don't fall off the no deal cliff.
But as very few people and very few MPs want EEA membership May can't politically opt for that.
I think the problem is that a lot of people think "no deal" means carrying on pretty much as we are but with a few longer queues when you go abroad. It actually means and would be better called "no deals". It means we have no trade deals with any country at all.
Neither EFTA, nor the EFTA/EU members who make up the EEA, are, IMHO, at all likely to look favourably on a situation like that, where they would have to put themselves out to suit the UK in its desire for the economic equivalent of a one night stand.1 -
But Corbyn voted remain and subsequently has said he would do so again if there was another vote, I'm not sure it is fair to expect him to tell us the benefits of leaving when he has said he thinks we will be worse off.Henry Irving said:
That was always the problem.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It almost seems like nobody really knows what they want? Everyone knows what they don't want....
I was torn at the time of the vote as the idea of parliamentary sovereignty was attractive but I couldn't see what "leave" would look like. There was lots of talk about about what we'd be leaving behind but no clear picture of where we were going and I don't think it has, over two years on, got any clearer.
If anything it is worse and even pro-brexit people, from Corbyn to Rees-Mogg, can't agree and can't articulate a clear programme that addresses all the issues.
May has an almost impossible job but she is doing it very badly and created some of the mess herself with the general election, the red lines and worst of all the hasty triggering of Article 50 (championed by JC) before she knew or had any agreement within her own party as to what Brexit should be. Hence her "Brexit means Brexit" line. She couldn't say because, she and no one else knew.0 -
We kick the can down the road as May is already hinting. Extend the transition period and carry on going round in circles until the next GE or the Tory hard brexiters grow a spine and try and oust May. But they don't want to manage this mess either and who can blame them. They'd have to be the one's making decisions and squaring circles that no one agrees on. Much easier to say "that's wrong" from the sidelines that actually having a go yourself.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
So where do we go from here? The country is in disarray, very divided and there are a lot of unhappy people about. There is no common consensus on what the Brexit strategy should be and it seems unlikely there ever will be.Henry Irving said:
That was always the problem.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It almost seems like nobody really knows what they want? Everyone knows what they don't want....
I was torn at the time of the vote as the idea of parliamentary sovereignty was attractive but I couldn't see what "leave" would look like. There was lots of talk about about what we'd be leaving behind but no clear picture of where we were going and I don't think it has, over two years on, got any clearer.
If anything it is worse and even pro-brexit people, from Corbyn to Rees-Mogg, can't agree and can't articulate a clear programme that addresses all the issues.
May has an almost impossible job but she is doing it very badly and created some of the mess herself with the general election, the red lines and worst of all the hasty triggering of Article 50 (championed by JC) before she knew or had any agreement within her own party as to what Brexit should be. Hence her "Brexit means Brexit" line. She couldn't say because, she and no one else knew.
Meaningless glib soundbites from our politicians aren't helping.
The only ways to break the impasse as I see it is 1. another referendum on a clear mandate ie "Brexit means exactly this and this is what you are voting for otherwise we remain" or 2. A new centralist party that is remain win a general election.
Brexit can and most likely will happen but it will be painful and hurt a lot of people IMHO. It won't be the apocalypse some predict but some people will lose their jobs and the economy will take a hit. Long term who knows, some people (mostly likely Rees-Mogg et al) will do alright out of it and some industries will benefit but having been promised "it will be the easiest negotiation in history" , "we hold all the cards", "they need us more than we need them" "£350 per week for the NHS" it aint going to be pretty and yes, the labour leader who can not be named is a life long leaver so isn't going to come to the rescue.3 -
A new centrist party will I believe emerge out if the wreckage of Brexit but unfortunately it won’t be anywhere near soon enough to have any impact unless it’s first manifesto it pledges to seek reunion. Years away I’m sorry to say.Henry Irving said:
We kick the can down the road as May is already hinting. Extend the transition period and carry on going round in circles until the next GE or the Tory hard brexiters grow a spine and try and oust May. But they don't want to manage this mess either and who can blame them. They'd have to be the one's making decisions and squaring circles that no one agrees on. Much easier to say "that's wrong" from the sidelines that actually having a go yourself.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
So where do we go from here? The country is in disarray, very divided and there are a lot of unhappy people about. There is no common consensus on what the Brexit strategy should be and it seems unlikely there ever will be.Henry Irving said:
That was always the problem.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It almost seems like nobody really knows what they want? Everyone knows what they don't want....
I was torn at the time of the vote as the idea of parliamentary sovereignty was attractive but I couldn't see what "leave" would look like. There was lots of talk about about what we'd be leaving behind but no clear picture of where we were going and I don't think it has, over two years on, got any clearer.
If anything it is worse and even pro-brexit people, from Corbyn to Rees-Mogg, can't agree and can't articulate a clear programme that addresses all the issues.
May has an almost impossible job but she is doing it very badly and created some of the mess herself with the general election, the red lines and worst of all the hasty triggering of Article 50 (championed by JC) before she knew or had any agreement within her own party as to what Brexit should be. Hence her "Brexit means Brexit" line. She couldn't say because, she and no one else knew.
Meaningless glib soundbites from our politicians aren't helping.
The only ways to break the impasse as I see it is 1. another referendum on a clear mandate ie "Brexit means exactly this and this is what you are voting for otherwise we remain" or 2. A new centralist party that is remain win a general election.
Brexit can and most likely will happen but it will be painful and hurt a lot of people IMHO. It won't be the apocalypse some predict but some people will lose their jobs and the economy will take a hit. Long term who knows, some people (mostly likely Rees-Mogg et al) will do alright out of it and some industries will benefit but having been promised "it will be the easiest negotiation in history" , "we hold all the cards", "they need us more than we need them" "£350 per week for the NHS" it aint going to be pretty and yes, the labour leader who can not be named is a life long leaver so isn't going to come to the rescue.
1 -
Rees Mogg has inherited wealth, but it isn't about making money with him. He believes in the UK having power over its laws. He doesn't want foreigners telling us what we can do and is willing for us to be poorer and for people to lose jobs over it. He is not open about that of course, but he is a complete ................ add your own word here.0
-
I believe the UK has a right to automatic membership of the EEA as it hasn't triggered any article of the EU to leave although that isn't 100% clear. And as it solves, in the short term at least, a lot of issues for the EU 27 they may not push the point too hard.NornIrishAddick said:
Where I might foresee a problem is that a certain number of politicians arguing for EFTA/EEA membership keep discussing it as a temporary measure for the UK, a staging post on the way to that buccaneering free trading that they want.Henry Irving said:Would seem we'd be better off joining the EEA in April 2019.
Doesn't suit the hard Brexiters as still a "vassal state" and doesn't suit the remainers either as not in the EU but we have Norway style access to the single market, Ireland isn't an issue either but it does give us time to either do a better deal with the EU (unlikely) or sort out 75 trade deals with other countries so we just don't fall off the no deal cliff.
But as very few people and very few MPs want EEA membership May can't politically opt for that.
I think the problem is that a lot of people think "no deal" means carrying on pretty much as we are but with a few longer queues when you go abroad. It actually means and would be better called "no deals". It means we have no trade deals with any country at all.
Neither EFTA, nor the EFTA/EU members who make up the EEA, are, IMHO, at all likely to look favourably on a situation like that, where they would have to put themselves out to suit the UK in its desire for the economic equivalent of a one night stand.
https://www.ft.com/content/16b50be8-161c-38d3-83b8-14b04faa95801 -
Sorry, he is and always has been anti-EU.MuttleyCAFC said:
But Corbyn voted remain and subsequently has said he would do so again if there was another vote, I'm not sure it is fair to expect him to tell us the benefits of leaving when he has said he thinks we will be worse off.Henry Irving said:
That was always the problem.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It almost seems like nobody really knows what they want? Everyone knows what they don't want....
I was torn at the time of the vote as the idea of parliamentary sovereignty was attractive but I couldn't see what "leave" would look like. There was lots of talk about about what we'd be leaving behind but no clear picture of where we were going and I don't think it has, over two years on, got any clearer.
If anything it is worse and even pro-brexit people, from Corbyn to Rees-Mogg, can't agree and can't articulate a clear programme that addresses all the issues.
May has an almost impossible job but she is doing it very badly and created some of the mess herself with the general election, the red lines and worst of all the hasty triggering of Article 50 (championed by JC) before she knew or had any agreement within her own party as to what Brexit should be. Hence her "Brexit means Brexit" line. She couldn't say because, she and no one else knew.2 -
He has issues with the EU but he voted remain and has said he still would. Why should he explain why Brexit will benefit us?0
-
Forget it, this will just get sidetracked in another JC is god, no he isn't debate. Final word. Politicians, even JC, lie.2
-
No, it isn't that he is god - you make all sorts of accusations about him - I'm sure you can find enough reasonable ones otherwise it looks like you have the problem. He has publicly said he voted remain and he has also said he would do so again - and you are demanding he explains why Brexit will work along with Rees-Mogg. What is reasonable about that? It is nothing to do with him being great or not. Same thing on the Saudi assassination thread. I get you hate him, but you weaken your argument when you bring him into things that are not applicable.
Agree all politicians lie but why should he explain why Brexit will work even if he did a sneaky one and voted Brexit despite telling us otherwise! - Why make this about Corbyn and lump him in with hard Brexiters. It is about the EU. Let's focus on that!1 - Sponsored links:
-
UK membership of the EEA is by virtue of its membership of the EU, the only other method is for an EFTA member to apply. Look at the way the signatories are listed.Henry Irving said:
I believe the UK has a right to automatic membership of the EEA as it hasn't triggered any article of the EU to leave although that isn't 100% clear. And as it solves, in the short term at least, a lot of issues for the EU 27 they may not push the point too hard.NornIrishAddick said:
Where I might foresee a problem is that a certain number of politicians arguing for EFTA/EEA membership keep discussing it as a temporary measure for the UK, a staging post on the way to that buccaneering free trading that they want.Henry Irving said:Would seem we'd be better off joining the EEA in April 2019.
Doesn't suit the hard Brexiters as still a "vassal state" and doesn't suit the remainers either as not in the EU but we have Norway style access to the single market, Ireland isn't an issue either but it does give us time to either do a better deal with the EU (unlikely) or sort out 75 trade deals with other countries so we just don't fall off the no deal cliff.
But as very few people and very few MPs want EEA membership May can't politically opt for that.
I think the problem is that a lot of people think "no deal" means carrying on pretty much as we are but with a few longer queues when you go abroad. It actually means and would be better called "no deals". It means we have no trade deals with any country at all.
Neither EFTA, nor the EFTA/EU members who make up the EEA, are, IMHO, at all likely to look favourably on a situation like that, where they would have to put themselves out to suit the UK in its desire for the economic equivalent of a one night stand.
https://www.ft.com/content/16b50be8-161c-38d3-83b8-14b04faa9580
Just like the EU, the EEA is a legal construct, I cannot see how, or why, they would allow their rules to be bent purely to provide a temporary solution to suit the UK, without a benefit to the EU and EFTA.
0 -
Yep, I’ll be there. Taking so many of my rights away is unforgivable, I’m not giving up without a fight.MuttleyCAFC said:Who else is going on the march to try to save this country from itself?
1 -
Yes, but for once he's had to compromiseHenry Irving said:
Sorry, he is and always has been anti-EU.MuttleyCAFC said:
But Corbyn voted remain and subsequently has said he would do so again if there was another vote, I'm not sure it is fair to expect him to tell us the benefits of leaving when he has said he thinks we will be worse off.Henry Irving said:
That was always the problem.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It almost seems like nobody really knows what they want? Everyone knows what they don't want....
I was torn at the time of the vote as the idea of parliamentary sovereignty was attractive but I couldn't see what "leave" would look like. There was lots of talk about about what we'd be leaving behind but no clear picture of where we were going and I don't think it has, over two years on, got any clearer.
If anything it is worse and even pro-brexit people, from Corbyn to Rees-Mogg, can't agree and can't articulate a clear programme that addresses all the issues.
May has an almost impossible job but she is doing it very badly and created some of the mess herself with the general election, the red lines and worst of all the hasty triggering of Article 50 (championed by JC) before she knew or had any agreement within her own party as to what Brexit should be. Hence her "Brexit means Brexit" line. She couldn't say because, she and no one else knew.1 -
Has he? Has he called for another referendum or said we should remain? Is he marching at the weekend.McBobbin said:
Yes, but for once he's had to compromiseHenry Irving said:
Sorry, he is and always has been anti-EU.MuttleyCAFC said:
But Corbyn voted remain and subsequently has said he would do so again if there was another vote, I'm not sure it is fair to expect him to tell us the benefits of leaving when he has said he thinks we will be worse off.Henry Irving said:
That was always the problem.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:It almost seems like nobody really knows what they want? Everyone knows what they don't want....
I was torn at the time of the vote as the idea of parliamentary sovereignty was attractive but I couldn't see what "leave" would look like. There was lots of talk about about what we'd be leaving behind but no clear picture of where we were going and I don't think it has, over two years on, got any clearer.
If anything it is worse and even pro-brexit people, from Corbyn to Rees-Mogg, can't agree and can't articulate a clear programme that addresses all the issues.
May has an almost impossible job but she is doing it very badly and created some of the mess herself with the general election, the red lines and worst of all the hasty triggering of Article 50 (championed by JC) before she knew or had any agreement within her own party as to what Brexit should be. Hence her "Brexit means Brexit" line. She couldn't say because, she and no one else knew.
He's laughing at all the remainers who still think he's going support them.1 -
Are you marching?0
-
NornIrishAddick said:
Where I might foresee a problem is that a certain number of politicians arguing for EFTA/EEA membership keep discussing it as a temporary measure for the UK, a staging post on the way to that buccaneering free trading that they want.Henry Irving said:Would seem we'd be better off joining the EEA in April 2019.
Doesn't suit the hard Brexiters as still a "vassal state" and doesn't suit the remainers either as not in the EU but we have Norway style access to the single market, Ireland isn't an issue either but it does give us time to either do a better deal with the EU (unlikely) or sort out 75 trade deals with other countries so we just don't fall off the no deal cliff.
But as very few people and very few MPs want EEA membership May can't politically opt for that.
I think the problem is that a lot of people think "no deal" means carrying on pretty much as we are but with a few longer queues when you go abroad. It actually means and would be better called "no deals". It means we have no trade deals with any country at all.
Neither EFTA, nor the EFTA/EU members who make up the EEA, are, IMHO, at all likely to look favourably on a situation like that, where they would have to put themselves out to suit the UK in its desire for the economic equivalent of a one night stand.
I can't see why they wouldn't support us
1 -
It is amazing what stories have barely been mentioned because they have been overshadowed by Brexit and other bouts of incompetence. My recent 'favourite' has been the claim that the UK govt were the third biggest net spenders on education in the world. It was then exposed that this total included university tuition fees paid for by parents and private school fees, also paid for by parents.Bournemouth Addick said:
In saner times this would be front page news. Well, it's not really news as they've be telling us for ages that if we want a trade deal we will need to scrap some of our current health, food standards and product safety protections.aliwibble said:http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-uk-must-bin-unjustified-food-standards-for-brexit-trade-deal-2018-10
Ah, so the much vaunted US trade deal is likely to require us to accept the presence of maggots, rat-hair and mould in our food. Lovely. And that's before we get on to the risks to our NHS from the US Healthcare megacorps.
In any other time we would be marching with pitch forks and burning branches, instead we don't seem at all surprised.4 -
Steady on.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Seems an even bigger idiot than his son.seth plum said:0 -
What do you expect from Any Answers? It is even worse than Any Questions.NornIrishAddick said:
It shows a similar level of self-awareness of a person ("Dan") who phoned Any Answers on Saturday.se9addick said:
It’s crazy isn’t it, imagine being a member of an organisation called “Get Britain Out” and then being upset that we won’t get the same benefits as when Britain was in!Stig said:
‘This is an insult to our country as well as our joint shared past and the whole Brexit process'. Jayne Adye, Get Britain Out.Chaz Hill said:
The delusional, self-important arrogance amongst a certain strata of Brexiteers is quite simply stunning. We were members of a club where each member was guaranteed instant, unlimited access to the facilities of all other members. After years of dicking the other members about, moaning and whinging about every little thing, we chose to leave that club. Now there is a good chance that one or more of the remaining members may restrict our access to their private facilities. That is not insulting it's a wholly predictable and reasonable response; it's what your grubby organisation encouraged people to vote for you utter cockwomble.
He had said that he had not voted in the Referendum, because he was then living in Germany and could not get registered in time - he would have voted Remain.
He is now living and working in Oslo, and says he would vote Leave if there was another referendum, because he felt that the best candidates should get the job, no matter where they come from.
Asked about what would happen to him once Freedom of Movement was removed , he said he might have to get a visa, though married to a Norwegian, but that he would also get an Irish passport because his mother is from Northern Ireland.
I may have screamed something about a hypocritical numpty at the car radio.0 -
What a prick. Stanley that is1
- Sponsored links:
-
Been out most of the day, but see some of the discussion above about the nature of the land border with the EU. Whether it is a continual fence or some lesser arrangement, or even this impossible technical monitoring, a hard border partly manifests itself in the structures used to challenge transgressions.
How is that to be got round?0 -
Jacob Rees-Moghoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I'm still waiting for an ardent Brexiteer on here to explain who should be leading the negotiations?MuttleyCAFC said:It is pathetic that May is trying to sort out solutions to real problems and seemingly the one positive thing - from her perspective - she got from the meeting i.e. more time to sort out the backstop issue and she has to play it down as it was only a couple of months that we are very unlikely to require. We were told by the EU it was potentially another year FFS! What sort of crap is going on here? If she has to tread on eggshells with her own party we need to try to find a way to give the negotiators some power - that can be by having a clear mandate following a second vote or an election. May weakly stumbling from one internal crisis to another is damaging the country and any deal she gets will be rejected.
If we do have brexit and it turns out only half as bad as predicted - the conservative party will be unelectable for decades. That doesn't make me happy as I have no great desire to live in a poorer country.
5 -
There wont be one. We are continually being told by all sides that a hard border will never, never, never ( Sir Ian Paisley) be built on my watch (TM). If the EU dont want one, The ROI dont want one, the DUP dont wont one & The UK dont wont one.....then who the feck is going to build/implement one ?? The diddy men ??seth plum said:Been out most of the day, but see some of the discussion above about the nature of the land border with the EU. Whether it is a continual fence or some lesser arrangement, or even this impossible technical monitoring, a hard border partly manifests itself in the structures used to challenge transgressions.
How is that to be got round?1 -
Oh.......and Macron got my goat earlier saying that the problem was now a political one ( re TM & her Government)....
no it isn't you french numpty !! Its because years of fighting between 2 sides of Ireland were solved by the GFA......and that Treaty said somthing along the lines of there shouldnt be a border between the 2 countries.
blame Tony Blair.
6 -
You're on fire tonight, golfie!0
-
No hard border no brexit is a good outcome.golfaddick said:
There wont be one. We are continually being told by all sides that a hard border will never, never, never ( Sir Ian Paisley) be built on my watch (TM). If the EU dont want one, The ROI dont want one, the DUP dont wont one & The UK dont wont one.....then who the feck is going to build/implement one ?? The diddy men ??seth plum said:Been out most of the day, but see some of the discussion above about the nature of the land border with the EU. Whether it is a continual fence or some lesser arrangement, or even this impossible technical monitoring, a hard border partly manifests itself in the structures used to challenge transgressions.
How is that to be got round?0 -
Keep this to yourself, but all Treaties, including the Belfast Agreement, are, because they are made between sovereign nations, political.golfaddick said:Oh.......and Macron got my goat earlier saying that the problem was now a political one ( re TM & her Government)....
no it isn't you french numpty !! Its because years of fighting between 2 sides of Ireland were solved by the GFA......and that Treaty said somthing along the lines of there shouldnt be a border between the 2 countries.
blame Tony Blair.
And, whether an exit agreement and/or a future trading relationship will be negotiated between the UK and EU27 (or USA, Australia, Japan, or membership of NAFTA or TPP), because they are negotiated by Governments or groups of Governments, and have to be ratified, they are political. They can only be agreed where the political will, on both sides, is there.
Every moment of the negotiations under Article 50, like Article 50 of TFEU, or TFEU, has been expressly political.
All Macron was doing was stating the bleeding obvious, which can, admittedly, be infuriating.
A bit like Tony Blair can be....5 -
Unless HMRC come from Knotty Ash, probably not.golfaddick said:
There wont be one. We are continually being told by all sides that a hard border will never, never, never ( Sir Ian Paisley) be built on my watch (TM). If the EU dont want one, The ROI dont want one, the DUP dont wont one & The UK dont wont one.....then who the feck is going to build/implement one ?? The diddy men ??seth plum said:Been out most of the day, but see some of the discussion above about the nature of the land border with the EU. Whether it is a continual fence or some lesser arrangement, or even this impossible technical monitoring, a hard border partly manifests itself in the structures used to challenge transgressions.
How is that to be got round?
However, if there is no exit deal, and there cannot be should the UK renege upon its commitment to a backstop for Northern Ireland (and only Northern Ireland), HMRC, the Irish Revenue Commissioners and the EU will have to introduce Customs control infrastructure.
They may not want to, but, unless they are all determined to introduce unilateral free trade (which would place their own industries at a disadvantage, because there would be no requirement for others to reciprocate), the rules of international trade require controls. The only way to avoid the infrastructure, IMHO, is for the EU27 backstop, or a variant thereof, to be accepted and for the UK to remain within the Single Market and the Customs Union. Anything else requires infrastructure, such as BIPs on land crossings.
And, as I may have mentioned before now, the Chief Constable of the PSNI has highlighted, there are clear security risks associated with such infrastructure. It really would not take that much violence to see a return to a militarised border, unless there is a fixed tariff of murdered HMRC staff and the public that is deemed acceptable for Brecit.
And, in passing, the DUP, by its actions, have demonstrated that they couldn't give a flying f**k about the border, to the extent that they are prepared to pass up a once in several lifetimes opportunity to make Northern Ireland incredibly economically attractive in terms if FDI.
They are concerned only with preserving their view of the Union, flegs and all, to the degree that they will reject, out of hand, a political solution that is most likely to preserve that Union, if not exactly in perpetuity, for generations.3 -
golfaddick said:
Oh.......and Macron got my goat earlier saying that the problem was now a political one ( re TM & her Government)....
no it isn't you french numpty !! Its because years of fighting between 2 sides of Ireland were solved by the GFA......and that Treaty said somthing along the lines of there shouldnt be a border between the 2 countries.
blame Tony Blair.
The IRA have won...golfaddick said:Oh.......and Macron got my goat earlier saying that the problem was now a political one ( re TM & her Government)....
no it isn't you french numpty !! Its because years of fighting between 2 sides of Ireland were solved by the GFA......and that Treaty said somthing along the lines of there shouldnt be a border between the 2 countries.
blame Tony Blair.2 -
The Conservative Party seems intent on destroying itself at present - there seems to be no unity. I can't see who can be a viable leader.
0
