Page 213 of 235 FirstFirst ... 113163203211212213214215223 ... LastLast
Results 10,601 to 10,650 of 11734

Thread: Post EU - The Way Forward

  1. #10601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John B View Post
    Yes you are right there are other deals but not if you don't want Free Movement Single Market Customs Union and No Hard Border in Ireland which is what Mrs May said you wanted

    My Point is that there was no agreed Description of What Brexit it was going to be .

    You may think it is easy embracing Brexit but if you do not understand its consequences you find yourself in the position we are today

    Article 50 should have been delayed whilst it was decided what we actually want to happen after we leave the EU it is so complicated because our prosperity and security has evolved in the last 40 years.

    I respect you want to leave the EU but changing significantly how we interact and trade with the rest of the world is in the opinion of many of our Allies very risky and will lead to serious problems within our country.

    WTO rules maybe the answer but who actually knows lots think it will but most trade people think it will be a disaster.
    I know it seems like a small thing but asking EU importing and exporting businesses to stop and start new processes in relation to customs and excise is a right pain the arse - it's great for people like me who look to define and solve these issues, but for businesses it costs money, takes time and creates disruption. If we go out with No Deal and go onto WTO rules, there's pain point number one. If we then negotiate to go onto a Canada or Norway deal, there's pain point number 2, within a year or two. It sounds small, but it's uphaul and a pain in the arse.

  2. #10602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Duckhunter View Post
    David Trimble, who won a Nobel peace prize for his work on the GFA profoundly disagrees. In fact he is taking legal action because the WA contrivances the GFA, as it leaves NI without representation.

    So on one side we have Nobel prize winning politician that negotiated the GFA and on the other side we have clever **** on football forum. Not surprisingly, I’m going with Trimble on this one.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    So what does Trimble reckon will happen on March 29th then? What is his end game solution, because I am sure the Government/EU would love to hear it as it will remove the need for the Backstop.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    Do the ROI or EU impose a hard border in contravention of the GFA?
    Does it though?

    Not according to the Brussels Broadcasting Cooperation. They stated the following.

    What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?

    A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

    During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

    Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of emoving those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

    The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

    The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

    That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #10604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Duckhunter View Post
    Does it though?

    Not according to the Brussels Broadcasting Cooperation. They stated the following.

    What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?

    A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

    During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

    Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of emoving those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

    The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

    The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

    That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    But with a hard border it could well lead to a rise in violence as they can no longer move freely across the border, which could result in a return to militarisation of the border.

  5. Default

    Taking a step back....Can I ask what might be a daft question or two (just for a change)....?

    Why were the negotiations between the UK and EU split into 2 mutually exclusive parts in the first place? Isn't that the root cause of the problem here? i.e. the backstop is an attempt to bridge the gap between a withdrawal agreement and a future trading agreement. Wouldn't it have been much more logical to have crafted both agreements in parallel and concluded them both at the same time, thus removing the need to bridge the troublesome gap between the two with this backstop insurance thingamajig?

    I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of: "there isn't enough time between the triggering of Article 50 and the deadline (2 years?) built into the Article wording to conclude both negotiations".... but....if that is the answer, doesn't it suggest that Article 50 was poorly written in the first place? Logically, surely it would be better for Article 50 to give sufficient time for both a withdrawal agreement and future trading agreement to be drawn up together, rather than setting what seems like an arbitrary timeframe to scupper this happening?

    Dunno.... Just me thinking out loud, as per usual, and not really knowing much about the mechanics and logistics of the whole Article 50 malarkey....
    Last edited by trousers; 07-02-2019 at 11:05 AM.

  6. #10606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trousers View Post
    Can I ask what might be a daft question or two (just for a change)....?

    Why were the negotiations between the UK and EU split into 2 mutually exclusive parts in the first place? Isn't that the root cause of the problem here? i.e. the backstop is an attempt to bridge the gap between a withdrawal agreement and a future trading agreement. Wouldn't it have been much more logical to have crafted both agreements in parallel and concluded them both at the same time, thus removing the need to bridge the troublesome gap between the two with this backstop insurance thingamajig?

    I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of: "there isn't enough time between the triggering of Article 50 and the timescale (2 years?) built into the Article wording to conclude both negotiations".... but....if that is the answer, doesn't it suggest that Article 50 was poorly written in the first place? Logically, surely it would be better for Article 50 to give sufficient time for both a withdrawal agreement and future trading agreement to be drawn up rather than setting what seems like an arbitrary timeframe to scupper this happening?

    Dunno.... Just me thinking out loud, as per usual, and not really knowing much about the mechanics and logistics of the whole Article 50 malarkey....
    They are two different things though - one is dealing with the legal framework or extracting ourselves from a number of very complex treaties, and the financial, legal and humanitarian result of these. The trading deal part of the withdrawal agreement is actually a bit of a misnomer IMO as it's only an interim before the proper negotiations begin.

    These then feed into and shape the type of trading deal we can negotiate with the EU after that.

    Don't forget that Article 50 was written in a way to try to get people NOT to invoke it - and the EU never really saw it being invoked. It is poorly written, but it won't be superseded as it is such a barrier to leaving. The issue was May and the Government didn't understand what they wanted or needed before they invoked it. If they'd have sat back and thought about it then we wouldn't be hurtling towards leaving without a withdrawal agreement.

    The Backstop agreement is just a start to the issue with the Irish border. The problem is unless we are in the customs union - which is one of May's red lines - the backstop will permanently be in place because there is no technological advancement that allows us to deal with split customs without having a hard border. It's creating an issue now, and it will create an issue in the future negotiations as well as there is no solution to it.

    That's how I understand it anyway.
    Last edited by Unbelievable Jeff; 07-02-2019 at 11:13 AM.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable Jeff View Post
    They are two different things though - one is dealing with the legal framework or extracting ourselves from a number of very complex treaties, and the financial, legal and humanitarian result of these. The trading deal part of the withdrawal agreement is actually a bit of a misnomer IMO as it's only an interim before the proper negotiations begin.

    These then feed into and shape the type of trading deal we can negotiate with the EU after that.
    Yeah, I get that they are separate entities, I just don't get why they can't both be negotiated before leaving the EU...

    In other words, why not this timeline:

    AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU

    Instead of this timeline:

    AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS

    ?
    Last edited by trousers; 07-02-2019 at 11:20 AM.

  8. #10608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trousers View Post
    Yeah, I get that they are separate entities, I just don't get why they can't both be negotiated before leaving the EU...

    In other words, why not this timeline:

    AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU

    Instead of this timeline:

    AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS

    ?
    Because until we Leave the EU we cannot start negotiating our own trade deals - it's in our interests to leave quicker.

    But as said above, Article 50 is poorly written, but that's how leaving the EU works...

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable Jeff View Post
    Because until we Leave the EU we cannot start negotiating our own trade deals
    I thought we could negotiate trade deals but just not sign them until we've left? I could well be mistaken on that understanding though (again, first time for everything! )

  10. #10610

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Duckhunter View Post
    Does it though?

    Not according to the Brussels Broadcasting Cooperation. They stated the following.

    What does the Good Friday Agreement say about a hard border?

    A lot less than you might think. The only place in which it alludes to infrastructure at the border is in the section on security.

    During the Troubles there were heavily fortified army barracks, police stations and watchtowers along the border. They were frequently attacked by Republican paramilitaries.

    Part of the peace deal involved the UK government agreeing to a process of emoving those installations in what became known as "demilitarisation".

    The agreement states that "the development of a peaceful environment... can and should mean a normalisation of security arrangements and practices."

    The government committed to "as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements in Northern Ireland, consistent with the level of threat".

    That included "the removal of security installations". That is as far as the text goes.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I mean no disrespect, but this page contains pages and pages of diatribe and opposing opinion. I've no interest in getting into long drawn out debate. I'm interested in what it is actually said will happen with the Irish border on 29/3 if we crash out without a deal which as things stand will happen.

    Will Britain impose a hard border?
    If not, will the ROI?
    If not, will the EU?

    My understanding is that nothing has been said re the options above, or an alternative. Thus, by default, nothing will in fact happen. If there's text which clarifies I'd be grateful to be referred to it.

  11. #10611

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trousers View Post
    I thought we could negotiate trade deals but just not sign them until we've left? I could well be mistaken on that understanding though (again, first time for everything! )
    Sorry, I think I used the wrong language - we cannot formally negotiate and sign any trade deals.

    I guess we'll see what Liam Fox has got up his sleeve on the 29th March...

  12. #10612

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    10,930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    I mean no disrespect, but this page contains pages and pages of diatribe and opposing opinion. I've no interest in getting into long drawn out debate. I'm interested in what it is actually said will happen with the Irish border on 29/3 if we crash out without a deal which as things stand will happen.

    Will Britain impose a hard border?
    If not, will the ROI?
    If not, will the EU?

    My understanding is that nothing has been said re the options above, or an alternative. Thus, by default, nothing will in fact happen. If there's text which clarifies I'd be grateful to be referred to it.
    I think both sides are hoping that there will be a last minute arrangement that finesses this problem. I don't know if either has a clear view of what that might be, but in some way that particular can will be hoofed along the highway so that nobody has to take the 'blame'. Perhaps everybody is just waiting to wake up on March 30th to see in the sky falls in.

  13. #10613

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    Now, let me see. I can't for the life of me see where I suggested that a Canada +++ deal was legally on the table. I don't see anywhere where I suggested that the withdrawal agreement wouldn't be required either. Perhaps you will be kind enough to show me where I said either. It's hard to take your insufferable arrogance seriously when you you attack somebody's opinion for being what you want it to be, instead of what it is.
    Shurlock deosn't seem able to show me where I said either of those things in an earlier post. Instead, all I've got in response are the usual insults and him going off in tangents onto other things, in order to distract interest away from answering the question.

  14. #10614

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    I think both sides are hoping that there will be a last minute arrangement that finesses this problem. I don't know if either has a clear view of what that might be, but in some way that particular can will be hoofed along the highway so that nobody has to take the 'blame'. Perhaps everybody is just waiting to wake up on March 30th to see in the sky falls in.
    That's probably right but if nothing will actually happen from 30/3 if there's no backstop, it makes the EU's lack of flexibility on the backstop issue a farce. In May's shoes I'd call their bluff - be sensible on the backstop or it defaults to no deal and we won't impose a border. The ROI won't implement one.

  15. Default Post EU - The Way Forward

    Quote Originally Posted by trousers View Post
    Yeah, I get that they are separate entities, I just don't get why they can't both be negotiated before leaving the EU...

    In other words, why not this timeline:

    AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU

    Instead of this timeline:

    AGREE WITHDRAWAL TERMS >>>> LEAVE EU >>>> AGREE FUTURE TRADING TERMS

    ?
    Because A50 was deliberately written to 1. Discourage countries from leaving and 2. Give EU the upper hand when it came to negotiating the future. Lord Kerr who drafted it has admitted as much, it was never meant to be used.

    The sequencing of talks was something the UK couldn’t argue with apart from one important element. There is an argument to be made that the NI border should have been part of the future PD than the WD. The border between Spain & Portugal certainly would have been had the Portuguese been the ones leaving. Surely logic dictates that until you know the future relationship, you don’t know what border requirements are needed. Ireland have a veto on the future relationship so there’s absolutely no reason why we couldn’t have gone into an extendable transition period without the need for a backstop. Agreeing that was May & Robbins biggest error (and they’ve made plenty).

    But we are where we are and some sort of fudge around the temporality of the BS will probably be enough to get a deal done.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  16. #10616

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    17,868
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    Shurlock deosn't seem able to show me where I said either of those things in an earlier post. Instead, all I've got in response are the usual insults and him going off in tangents onto other things, in order to distract interest away from answering the question.
    Les it’s been explained to you that Canada+++ could never be offered as an alternative to May’s deal. Youve failed to explain how the UK could have left the single market and the customs union, gone for a FTA like Canada+++ and failing that trade on WTO terms on March 29 because it’s a nonsequitur. Tough luck pal

  17. #10617

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    17,868
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I thought this blog has Les and the other gullible grunted and activists down to a tee.

    http://peterjnorth.blogspot.com/2019...-hell.html?m=1

    That’s what sheep do.

  18. #10618

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    2,620

    Default

    Just out of interest, what is the point of endless debate about a) article 50 which has actually been invoked thus debate makes no difference, and b) potential trade deals in circumstances where the only issue is the deal to exit on 29/3 so that we have continuity and then breathing space to look at future deals? I'm staggered that there is 213 pages on this!!

  19. #10619

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    17,868
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    Just out of interest, what is the point of endless debate about a) article 50 which has actually been invoked thus debate makes no difference, and b) potential trade deals in circumstances where the only issue is the deal to exit on 29/3 so that we have continuity and then breathing space to look at future deals? I'm staggered that there is 213 pages on this!!
    Eh?

  20. #10620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    Just out of interest, what is the point of endless debate about a) article 50 which has actually been invoked thus debate makes no difference, and b) potential trade deals in circumstances where the only issue is the deal to exit on 29/3 so that we have continuity and then breathing space to look at future deals? I'm staggered that there is 213 pages on this!!
    We're just debating it - sharing knowledge on a very complex area where very few of us have all the answers.

  21. Default

    Looks like lawyers Herbert Smith Freehills agree with my earlier post that the NI border could have been included in the PD rather than the WD.

    Most papers picked up their analysis that it’s illegal under international law because it has no unilateral withdrawal mechanism, but I also notice they claim it breaks EU law regarding A50. They claim it’s “illegal as a matter of EU law” because A50 only allows the conclusion of an agreement that deals with separation issues, not agreements setting out a future relationship.

    To my my knowledge that’s 3 legal challenges to the BS.

    Trimble taking legal action because their will be no NI representation, which breaks the GFA.

    Illegal treaty because there’s no unilateral withdrawal mechanism.

    Is illegal under A50 because its part of a future relationship.

    I’m not saying any of these will be successful, but it may just ramp up the pressure to change the Backstop.




    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  22. #10622

    Default

    Apparently the news are reporting that over a trillion has left the UK in the last 6months!! The damage this is doing to our nation due to Brexit. It seems that for our financial services to get a licence to trade in the Eu have to transfer their assets there. Frankfurt is stripping us bare. What a death by a 1000 cuts. Self harm of a nation

  23. #10623

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    P-Tr boundary
    Posts
    3,549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    I'm perfectly content trading on WTO terms.
    I’ll bet you are. Remind me what it is you trade exactly?

  24. #10624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable Jeff View Post
    Scotland will 100% go for independence.

    A vote for Brexit was a vote for the breakup of the United Kingdom.

    Make Britain, sorry, England, great again.
    That is the irony of all this, people who voted out are I believe more patriotic and nationalist, but their vote is what is going to tear apart what they worship

  25. #10625

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    17,868
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldNick View Post
    That is the irony of all this, people who voted out are I believe more patriotic and nationalist, but their vote is what is going to tear apart what they worship
    What does this mean? patriotic = nationalist?

  26. #10626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    What does this mean? patriotic = nationalist?
    Probably my bad wording, more likely to wave the Union Jack, I suppose

  27. #10627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trousers View Post
    Taking a step back....Can I ask what might be a daft question or two (just for a change)....?

    Why were the negotiations between the UK and EU split into 2 mutually exclusive parts in the first place? Isn't that the root cause of the problem here? i.e. the backstop is an attempt to bridge the gap between a withdrawal agreement and a future trading agreement. Wouldn't it have been much more logical to have crafted both agreements in parallel and concluded them both at the same time, thus removing the need to bridge the troublesome gap between the two with this backstop insurance thingamajig?

    I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of: "there isn't enough time between the triggering of Article 50 and the deadline (2 years?) built into the Article wording to conclude both negotiations".... but....if that is the answer, doesn't it suggest that Article 50 was poorly written in the first place? Logically, surely it would be better for Article 50 to give sufficient time for both a withdrawal agreement and future trading agreement to be drawn up together, rather than setting what seems like an arbitrary timeframe to scupper this happening?

    Dunno.... Just me thinking out loud, as per usual, and not really knowing much about the mechanics and logistics of the whole Article 50 malarkey....
    Trade agreements tkae typically 7 years as a minimum to negotiate and members of the EU cannot negotiate their own trade agreements therefore we have to leave before we can begin negotiating. Unofficial talks can take place but these are as good as worthless.

    You are right that Article 50 should never have been invoked until we were all agreed what we wanted and where we wanted to be. Whether the new EU anti money-laundering directives have any bearing on the rush to leave is open to debate.

  28. #10628

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sunny Shirley
    Posts
    1,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trousers View Post
    I thought we could negotiate trade deals but just not sign them until we've left? I could well be mistaken on that understanding though (again, first time for everything! )
    Don't worry about it.

    Liam Fox promised to sign 40 trade deals the second after we leave the EU. I'm sure that we have every confidence in him going by his record so far (he's managed one in two and a half years).

  29. #10629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldNick View Post
    That is the irony of all this, people who voted out are I believe more patriotic and nationalist, but their vote is what is going to tear apart what they worship
    "The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war."

    Sydney J. Harris

  30. #10630

    Default

    Edit

  31. #10631

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    8,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Unbelievable Jeff View Post
    I know it seems like a small thing but asking EU importing and exporting businesses to stop and start new processes in relation to customs and excise is a right pain the arse - it's great for people like me who look to define and solve these issues, but for businesses it costs money, takes time and creates disruption. If we go out with No Deal and go onto WTO rules, there's pain point number one. If we then negotiate to go onto a Canada or Norway deal, there's pain point number 2, within a year or two. It sounds small, but it's uphaul and a pain in the arse.
    What David Cameron told us about our 'deal' with the EU:


    "WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LEAVE?

    Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs. The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world.

    Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market. But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that – less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU.

    No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:
    • follow EU rules over which they have no real say
    • pay into the EU
    • accept EU citizens living and working in their country

    A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force.[1]"

    To me, this sounds like a prediction come true. Note the threat of 'less access' to the SM. NOWHERE does the leaflet say that Brexit means leaving the SM or the CU.

    [1] FROM: "Why the government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK" - with references 2016

    The rest of the text correctly predicts all the actual effects of a Leave vote. There are no lies in it. Or Project Fear.

  32. #10632

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    10,930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldNick View Post
    That is the irony of all this, people who voted out are I believe more patriotic and nationalist, but their vote is what is going to tear apart what they worship
    And GM classes all remainers as 'traitors'. Personally, if the end game of Brexit is to risk tearing the Union apart, I know who the more traiterous group are.

  33. #10633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John B View Post
    What David Cameron told us about our 'deal' with the EU:


    "WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LEAVE?

    Voting to leave the EU would create years of uncertainty and potential economic disruption. This would reduce investment and cost jobs. The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world.

    Some argue that we could strike a good deal quickly with the EU because they want to keep access to our market. But the Government’s judgement is that it would be much harder than that – less than 8% of EU exports come to the UK while 44% of UK exports go to the EU.

    No other country has managed to secure significant access to the Single Market, without having to:
    • follow EU rules over which they have no real say
    • pay into the EU
    • accept EU citizens living and working in their country

    A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force.[1]"

    To me, this sounds like a prediction come true. Note the threat of 'less access' to the SM. NOWHERE does the leaflet say that Brexit means leaving the SM or the CU.

    [1] FROM: "Why the government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK" - with references 2016

    The rest of the text correctly predicts all the actual effects of a Leave vote. There are no lies in it. Or Project Fear.
    That's a very fair prediction of what has happened.

  34. #10634

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    P-Tr boundary
    Posts
    3,549

    Default Post EU - The Way Forward

    Anybody checked out the official government advice on EU travel? It’s great fun.

    Driving in the EU and EEA from 29 March 2019
    In the event that there is no EU Exit deal, the government will seek to put in place new arrangements for EU and EEA countries to recognise UK driving licences when people are visiting, for example on holiday or business trips. Until such arrangements are in place, UK driving licence holders may need an IDP in addition to their UK driving licence to drive when visiting EU and EEA countries

    Each EU and EEA country will decide if they require a foreign driver to have an IDP, in addition to a driving licence, to legally drive in their country.

    In some circumstances you may need more than one IDP. For example, when driving through France (1968 IDP) to Spain (1949 IDP).
    Rules for passports
    you may need to renew your passport earlier than planned. Some passports with up to 15 months validity remaining may not be valid for travel.
    The rules for travel to most countries in Europe change if the UK leaves the European Union (EU) with no deal.

    After 29 March 2019:
    If you renewed a passport before it expired, up to 9 extra months may have been added to your new passport’s expiry date. Any extra months on your passport over 10 years may not count towards the 6 months that should be remaining for travel to most countries in Europe.
    Last edited by Plastic; 07-02-2019 at 11:10 PM.

  35. #10635

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John B View Post
    What David Cameron told us about our 'deal' with the EU:
    LOL. £9 million of pro EU propaganda paid for out of our taxpayers money. And not even included in the Remain campaign budget. Nice one Dave.

    And of course Dave told everybody during the actual Referendum Campaign on more than one occasion that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and leaving the customs union.

    And despite all his best efforts to scare us, we still voted to leave.

  36. #10636

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    10,930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    LOL. £9 million of pro EU propaganda paid for out of our taxpayers money. And not even included in the Remain campaign budget. Nice one Dave.

    And of course Dave told everybody during the actual Referendum Campaign on more than one occasion that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and leaving the customs union.

    And despite all his best efforts to scare us, we still voted to leave.
    Because most people voting leave didn't give two hoots about the SM or the CU, if they understood what they are. They mostly voted leave because of their personal views on immigration.

  37. #10637

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    WHAT?! The "land of the free?" Whoever told you that is your enemy!
    Posts
    17,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldNick View Post
    That is the irony of all this, people who voted out are I believe more patriotic and nationalist, but their vote is what is going to tear apart what they worship
    I read the other day that a poll of English voters showed, that when asked, those who voted remain generally identify as British those who voted leave generally identified as English.

    English leave voters are more likely to wave a St George cross than a Union Jack and probably aren't bothered if the Scots do one.



    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

  38. #10638

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    Because most people voting leave didn't give two hoots about the SM or the CU, if they understood what they are. They mostly voted leave because of their personal views on immigration.
    People voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Whether it was one, or all of those things that persuaded somebody to vote to leave the EU, is up to them.

    But nothing could be more pointless than arguing about the semantics of the debate which concluded well over two years ago with the referendum result, when we are now under 50 days away from leaving, with or without a deal.

  39. #10639

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doddisalegend View Post
    I read the other day that a poll of English voters showed, that when asked, those who voted remain generally identify as British those who voted leave generally identified as English.

    English leave voters are more likely to wave a St George cross than a Union Jack and probably aren't bothered if the Scots do one.



    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

    I identify as English, follow England all over the world, and voted to remain. I agree I'm probably in the minority from that group.

  40. #10640

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    WHAT?! The "land of the free?" Whoever told you that is your enemy!
    Posts
    17,773

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LGTL View Post
    I identify as English, follow England all over the world, and voted to remain. I agree I'm probably in the minority from that group.
    Of course there will be exceptions to the general rule. I voted Remain and always considered myself British rather than English. For me English, Welsh, Scottish was mostly just something you used for friendly sports banter. Personally I'd hate to see the UK break up.

    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

  41. #10641

    Default

    [QUOTE=Wes Tender;2712570]
    Last edited by OldNick; 08-02-2019 at 09:49 AM.

  42. #10642

    Default

    People voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Whether it was one, or all of those things that persuaded somebody to vote to leave the EU, is up to them.

    But nothing could be more pointless than arguing about the semantics of the debate which concluded well over two years ago with the referendum result, when we are now under 50 days away from leaving, with or without a deal.[/QUOTE]Wes I dont think they did. I think that most didnt really have much knowledge of what it entailed. They were too interested in Celebrity Love island and EastEnders to research. The 350m to the NHS, the Africans being washed up on the beaches of Italy where it seemed it would never end (on BBC news every night leading up to the vote, then not at all after the referendum the reports stopped)
    Taking back control of our borders means passport booths and the extra time getting to and from Europe, how can that be good? I remember when we had border control pre the open ones and we were getting loads of illegal immigrants then.
    The leavers have done untol damage to our nation, which is the irony as they thought they were saving it.

  43. #10643

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,066

    Default

    OldNick Wes I dont think they did. I think that most didnt really have much knowledge of what it entailed. They were too interested in Celebrity Love island and EastEnders to research. The 350m to the NHS, the Africans being washed up on the beaches of Italy where it seemed it would never end (on BBC news every night leading up to the vote, then not at all after the referendum the reports stopped)
    Taking back control of our borders means passport booths and the extra time getting to and from Europe, how can that be good? I remember when we had border control pre the open ones and we were getting loads of illegal immigrants then.
    The leavers have done untold damage to our nation, which is the irony as they thought they were saving it.
    The damage that may or may not be caused by Brexit is totally unknown. Where many Remoaners are predicting Armageddon, there are substantial fears within the EU that we will make a resounding success of it. Apparently we have been quietly beavering away in the background planning our future policies to make us a really attractive destination for inward investment to boost our economy post-Brexit.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...an-kick-start/

  44. #10644

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    queing for a pie at half time
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    People voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Whether it was one, or all of those things that persuaded somebody to vote to leave the EU, is up to them.

    But nothing could be more pointless than arguing about the semantics of the debate which concluded well over two years ago with the referendum result, when we are now under 50 days away from leaving, with or without a deal.
    I kind of agree with you. I really agonised about my vote. I spent most of the election period considering the implications for trade and prosperity, and a week out from the vote, I realised that not only did I not have a clue, but neither did anyone else really either. So I thought, I’m just going to vote based on who I see myself as being. I’m proud that our island has defended itself from conquest for nearly a thousand years, and of our more recent tradition of democracy. But the more powerful thing in me is clinging to the common cause of humanity, and a curiosity and respect for other, particularly European, nationalities. Strangely this is despite great enthusiasm for American culture. I detest nationalism, and the politics of self interest. I have loved the European project. Always will. If you asked me to vote again a thousand times, I would vote the same way.

    This is actually what separates the two sides; modern religions. On one side a coalition of greens and liberals as humanists. On the other, a coalition of nationalists, which is wholly unfair to generally label as racists. These sides are utterly irreconcilable. You might as well try to get humanity to coalesce around one monotheistic religion, or even a single sexuality.

    The oddest thing is people not being able see the fundamental nature of this. The remainers who publicly still argue about the economic effect, or lorry queues ffs. Respect to their motives, and courage in the face of considerable hostility, but do they still think they can change even one mind? I don’t think so. This thread sums it all up so beautifully.

    Your side “won”, so we will have to get on with it. Remainers shouldn’t despair. Nationalism will be a dying force, ultimately. Human history has repeatedly been about coalescence into larger and larger societies. It’s just in our make up as a natural force. But moreover I think, a mass of tiny variables will begin to act against the larger variable that is Brexit, to compensate, and render the destination pretty much unchanged anyway. I will speculate that shangri-la is probably not just around the next corner. People never want to blame themselves, so without the EU as scapegoat, something else will be found. Maybe Brexit itself. Thankfully not a committed remainers problem.

  45. Default Post EU - The Way Forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    And of course Dave told everybody during the actual Referendum Campaign on more than one occasion that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and leaving the customs union.

    And despite all his best efforts to scare us, we still voted to leave.
    This pony about the leaders of Brexit having “no plan” is also wide of the mark. People really should read Tim Shipmans excellent book which is neutral but full of factual accounts by people who were there, of what actually happened in each camp.

    During the debates the Leave campaign were attacked, not for having no plan, but for their plan. Angela Eagle in particular was tasked with attacking their plan during the big debate. Osborne & Cameron were sent onto Marr to attack their plan and the Remain campaign thought Leave had made a fundamental error that would cost them the vote. The error (in their eyes) , was setting out their plans for a post Brexit UK, out of the SM & CU. Shipman writes that Remain decided to go hard on this so everybody knew this was Leaves “plan”. They really thought by forcing Leave to reveal their plan, that would swing it. Of course the same people wanting this plan highlighted and attacked are now saying there was no plan.

    Whether the plan they had was workable or acceptable is another question, as is whether the public paid any attention or based their vote on it. By as far as possible in a referendum, a plan was mapped out by Leave leaders. Admittedly it was grudgingly dragged out of them, as they really didn’t want to campaign on too many specifics, but the Remain camp have gone from congratulating themselves on forcing the plan out into the open , to denying the existence of one.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Lord Duckhunter; 08-02-2019 at 11:19 AM.

  46. #10646

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bath
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    People voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. Whether it was one, or all of those things that persuaded somebody to vote to leave the EU, is up to them.

    But nothing could be more pointless than arguing about the semantics of the debate which concluded well over two years ago with the referendum result, when we are now under 50 days away from leaving, with or without a deal.
    So you now claim to speak for all leave voters. A number (6) of leave voting friends of mine who voted for a number of reasons but in the main they voted as a protest, 5 of the 6 would now change their vote as they acknowledge they did not fully appraise themselves fully of the facts, so the oft stated leaver slogan “we knew what we were voting for” is PONY

  47. #10647

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bath
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by colehillsaint View Post
    I kind of agree with you. I really agonised about my vote. I spent most of the election period considering the implications for trade and prosperity, and a week out from the vote, I realised that not only did I not have a clue, but neither did anyone else really either. So I thought, I’m just going to vote based on who I see myself as being. I’m proud that our island has defended itself from conquest for nearly a thousand years, and of our more recent tradition of democracy. But the more powerful thing in me is clinging to the common cause of humanity, and a curiosity and respect for other, particularly European, nationalities. Strangely this is despite great enthusiasm for American culture. I detest nationalism, and the politics of self interest. I have loved the European project. Always will. If you asked me to vote again a thousand times, I would vote the same way.

    This is actually what separates the two sides; modern religions. On one side a coalition of greens and liberals as humanists. On the other, a coalition of nationalists, which is wholly unfair to generally label as racists. These sides are utterly irreconcilable. You might as well try to get humanity to coalesce around one monotheistic religion, or even a single sexuality.

    The oddest thing is people not being able see the fundamental nature of this. The remainers who publicly still argue about the economic effect, or lorry queues ffs. Respect to their motives, and courage in the face of considerable hostility, but do they still think they can change even one mind? I don’t think so. This thread sums it all up so beautifully.

    Your side “won”, so we will have to get on with it. Remainers shouldn’t despair. Nationalism will be a dying force, ultimately. Human history has repeatedly been about coalescence into larger and larger societies. It’s just in our make up as a natural force. But moreover I think, a mass of tiny variables will begin to act against the larger variable that is Brexit, to compensate, and render the destination pretty much unchanged anyway. I will speculate that shangri-la is probably not just around the next corner. People never want to blame themselves, so without the EU as scapegoat, something else will be found. Maybe Brexit itself. Thankfully not a committed remainers problem.
    Excellent post, thoughtful and insightful

  48. #10648

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    12,066

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moonraker View Post
    So you now claim to speak for all leave voters. A number (6) of leave voting friends of mine who voted for a number of reasons but in the main they voted as a protest, 5 of the 6 would now change their vote as they acknowledge they did not fully appraise themselves fully of the facts, so the oft stated leaver slogan “we knew what we were voting for” is PONY
    I refer you to my second sentence which you quoted above.

  49. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender View Post
    I refer you to my second sentence which you quoted above.
    I was asked whether or not I wanted to leave the EU and I voted to leave. I must have forgotten to fill in the answer to the question of why and there wasn't enough space of the ballot paper anyway.

  50. #10650

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Near Exeter
    Posts
    4,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by colehillsaint View Post
    I kind of agree with you. I really agonised about my vote. I spent most of the election period considering the implications for trade and prosperity, and a week out from the vote, I realised that not only did I not have a clue, but neither did anyone else really either. So I thought, I’m just going to vote based on who I see myself as being. I’m proud that our island has defended itself from conquest for nearly a thousand years, and of our more recent tradition of democracy. But the more powerful thing in me is clinging to the common cause of humanity, and a curiosity and respect for other, particularly European, nationalities. Strangely this is despite great enthusiasm for American culture. I detest nationalism, and the politics of self interest. I have loved the European project. Always will. If you asked me to vote again a thousand times, I would vote the same way.

    This is actually what separates the two sides; modern religions. On one side a coalition of greens and liberals as humanists. On the other, a coalition of nationalists, which is wholly unfair to generally label as racists. These sides are utterly irreconcilable. You might as well try to get humanity to coalesce around one monotheistic religion, or even a single sexuality.

    The oddest thing is people not being able see the fundamental nature of this. The remainers who publicly still argue about the economic effect, or lorry queues ffs. Respect to their motives, and courage in the face of considerable hostility, but do they still think they can change even one mind? I don’t think so. This thread sums it all up so beautifully.

    Your side “won”, so we will have to get on with it. Remainers shouldn’t despair. Nationalism will be a dying force, ultimately. Human history has repeatedly been about coalescence into larger and larger societies. It’s just in our make up as a natural force. But moreover I think, a mass of tiny variables will begin to act against the larger variable that is Brexit, to compensate, and render the destination pretty much unchanged anyway. I will speculate that shangri-la is probably not just around the next corner. People never want to blame themselves, so without the EU as scapegoat, something else will be found. Maybe Brexit itself. Thankfully not a committed remainers problem.
    That's way too well considered, balanced and articulated to possibly have a place on this thread.

    Or to appear in the hysterical press and HoC as well in the discourse.

    Well done though, and if more people thought like this I'd be more confident of people acting like adults and compromising so the vote is respected but economic damage is limited.

    Healing the geographical and demongraphic schisms Cameron has opened up will take generations however, if ever at all.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •