Brexit - Post Match Reaction

yes that's the EU's wishes. they'd love us to just sign that lot off. In that figure I assume we should have the grants approved to our nation for the period,needs to be credited back. I also recall that in our period of time the EU has purchased many assets, and we should be reimnbursed ur share of the property assets.Like any divorce , the house comes into the pot.

Ever the optimist then, Nick

Indeed. This really interesting thread from the inside of the 27's talks among themselves shows they're sensitive to that. And it's not because they take seriously a 'no deal' jihadist grabbing power from May and threatening to shoot the British economy in the head as a 'bargaining tool'. It's because they worry that, as useless as May, Davis, et al, are, the thought of going all the way back to square one this late in the game is just too tiresome.

 

https://twitter.com/alexebarker/status/921426504482828288

 

It took all of 90 seconds for the 27 to come to the conclusion that the British had not made enough progress on the divorce settlement: nothing whatsoever of worth on the Irish question, a little but inadequate progress on citizens' rights, and nowhere near enough progress on the financial settlement.

 

Just to take the financial settlement, this is how bad the May regime is. Four months ago, the EU produced a position paper proposing a methodology for calculating the settlement figure. Here it is in full, for the enthusiasts:

 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/essential-principles-financial_settlement_en_0.pdf

 

What has been the May regime's response? Nada. Absolutely nothing - in four months. It's not as if the civil service is bad at producing responses - that's its bread and butter. It's that there is no political direction to get this done - no agreement in Cabinet for a 'position' to take and defend.

 

But as bad as that is, it's still better than the utterly unhinged approach proposed by the leading jihadists. Patrick Minford is routinely trolleyed out to support their idea that we should all be prepared to default to WTO-only rules. It's so appealing to simpletons that it's been trotted out often enough by the jihadists on here.

 

How many countries actually do this in the real world? One: Mauritania. A place with a tiny, broken economy...and quite a few jihadists.

 

Perfect!

 

 

 

Exactly.

The EU have stated their position. May has made an offer. The EU obviously reject that but dont come back with a counter proposal. The EU hold their line and state the UK have not made sufficient progress. How about they make some 'progress'??

I see the EU not budging from their position and the UK having to meet their demands. Its no different to an emotionally manipulate wife that always gets what she wants, whilst allowing the husband to think he has a bit of negotiating power, when he clearly doesnt.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

The problem is the lack of negotiation from the EU. Generally for a negotiation to be a negotiation, there has to be movement on both sides.

 

The EU have stated their position. May has made an offer. The EU obviously reject that but dont come back with a counter proposal. The EU hold their line and state the UK have not made sufficient progress. How about they make some 'progress'??

 

I see the EU not budging from their position and the UK having to meet their demands. Its no different to an emotionally manipulate wife that always gets what she wants, whilst allowing the husband to think he has a bit of negotiating power, when he clearly doesnt.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

It’s unclear what May has offered -for instance, whether she has provided a detailed, transparent methodology for calculating what it she views is the UK’s financial obligations.

Either way, it shouldn’t be forgotten that it’s the UK that wants to leave the EU. The EU has made its position clear from day one: if the UK thinks it’s unreasonable (which is fair enough), the onus is on it to come up with an offer -and any subsequent counteroffer which the EU will find acceptable. The EU obviously feels it has the leverage to hold out longer for its preferred valuation which is what any stronger party, seeking to maximise its interests, would do in its position.

The mistake of the UK has been to delude itself about the strength of its position and misunderstand the nature of the exercise. As Pascal Lamy, former Director General of the WTO, astutely observes, this is not a negotiation; rather it is a process to be managed to minimise harm. Yet the UK still thinks it can buy something or carve out concessions with the money it has to pay.

It’s unclear what May has offered -for instance, whether she has provided a detailed, transparent methodology for calculating what it she views is the UK’s financial obligations.

 

Either way, it shouldn’t be forgotten that it’s the UK that wants to leave the EU. The EU has made its position clear from day one: if the UK thinks it’s unreasonable (which is fair enough), the onus is on it to come up with an offer -and any subsequent counteroffer which the EU will find acceptable. The EU obviously feels it has the leverage to hold out longer for its preferred valuation which is what any stronger party, seeking to maximise its interests, would do in its position.

 

The mistake of the UK has been to delude itself about the strength of its position and misunderstand the nature of the exercise. As Pascal Lamy, former Director General of the WTO, astutely observes, this is not a negotiation; rather it is a process to be managed to minimise harm. Yet the UK still thinks it can buy something or carve out concessions with the money it has to pay.

For an organisation that tries to seem fair, they certainly don't play a fair game.

Perhaps they are hoping like a lot of us , the British people see the madness of Brexit and ask for a revote. Personally I would be uncomfortable going back on it, but I'm sensing there is quite a lot of regret on the middle ground, that they voted out. Duck hunter etc would argue for it even if we crashed and burned.

I assume the EU can just play down the clock and get the result in injury time.

For an organisation that tries to seem fair, they certainly don't play a fair game.

Perhaps they are hoping like a lot of us , the British people see the madness of Brexit and ask for a revote. Personally I would be uncomfortable going back on it, but I'm sensing there is quite a lot of regret on the middle ground, that they voted out. Duck hunter etc would argue for it even if we crashed and burned.

Nothing suggests they’re deliberately playing down the clock, though I agree Article 50 which the UK helped draft is structured in a way to make life difficult for the leaving party. They’ve already opened informal, internal discussions about transitional arrangements and a future deal, so will be ready to hit the ground running in December, should the UK make sufficient progress on the divorce bill. Let’s see what happens if the UK makes an offer in the range of €40-60bn, though I get the sense that things will be kept hush hush.

More news doing the rounds this morning:

https://www.ft.com/content/ffd4f30e-b80a-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83ffa852

"Theresa May has told MPs she is waiting for the EU to decide what future relationship it wants with the UK"

Even on planet Brexitstan where the laws of gravity do not apply, one wonders how this works: May is now expecting the EU to do the heavy lifting and draw up exit plans for the UK?

Reports that May has postponed a Cabinet discussion on the UK's future relationship with the EU until after the New Year -such is the division and paralysis at the heart of government- only add to the royal farce and clusterf**k that is emerging.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/23/uk-likely-to-end-up-with-canadian-style-deal-warns-michel-barnier

Given the UK's redlines- it looks like the country is on course for a Canada-type deal. Lord P, of course, would be delighted, though he hasn't got a Scooby what such an arrangement would mean for non-tariff barriers, rules of origin requirements and ever-so-important trade in services.

Finally Jihadi John (Misselbrook) might be interested to know the latest noises coming out from Liam Fox's magical mystery tourbus.

https://www.ft.com/content/80c54f28-b7e2-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83ffa852

A prospective UK-US trade deal, it appears, has hit another stag. With the UK appearing to stand firm on agricultural standards (see Michael Gove's interventions on the subject), allies of Mr Fox are now suggesting that a trade deal for goods might be of "little value" -and that the focus should move to the services sector. However, some civil servants believe this is smoke and mirrors as a UK-US services deal would be extremely difficult to achieve.

Per one civil servent: "The EU has had an extraordinary amount of difficulty penetrating*US*services markets in recent years and, frankly, it’s hard to see why*Britain*would do any better.*America*doesn’t want competition from our financial services or our lawyers and accountants". It’s not only the EU that “does” protectionism.

Keep believing, suckers.

yes that's the EU's wishes. they'd love us to just sign that lot off. In that figure I assume we should have the grants approved to our nation for the period,needs to be credited back. I also recall that in our period of time the EU has purchased many assets, and we should be reimnbursed ur share of the property assets.Like any divorce , the house comes into the pot.

The plot thins.

What on earth does all this mean? What 'figure' are you talking about? What is it that 'they'd love us to sign off on'? What 'grants'? What 'period'? How did we 'purchase' assets, and what might they be? And what the bejesus does 'the house come into the pot' actually mean in ordinary language?

The plot thins.

 

What on earth does all this mean? What 'figure' are you talking about? What is it that 'they'd love us to sign off on'? What 'grants'? What 'period'? How did we 'purchase' assets, and what might they be? And what the bejesus does 'the house come into the pot' actually mean in ordinary language?

Assets not purchased by us, but paid for by us, such as...

- the £36 billion worth of property and cash???

- or maybe the £56 billion of capital held by the European Investment bank???

- or maybe the 42,500 bottles of premium plonk, valued at around £15 million???

This list is not exhaustive, but there's enough above for you to take your pick

The plot thins.

 

What on earth does all this mean? What 'figure' are you talking about? What is it that 'they'd love us to sign off on'? What 'grants'? What 'period'? How did we 'purchase' assets, and what might they be? And what the bejesus does 'the house come into the pot' actually mean in ordinary language?

It’s a shame remoaners like you aren’t as vociferous towards the other side of the coin. How about the EU publish the exact figure they want as part of this so called divorce bill, is it €49 billion, $50 billion, $100 billion, they don’t seem to know. And how about they account for every red cent of that money. The British Government should pay every penny that they’re legally accountable for, not a penny more , not a penny less. Not newspaper leaks, not national Politicians opinion, they should publish their settlement figure and the reasoning behind it for everyone to see.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It’s a shame remoaners like you aren’t as vociferous towards the other side of the coin. How about the EU publish the exact figure they want as part of this so called divorce bill, is it €49 billion, $50 billion, $100 billion, they don’t seem to know. And how about they account for every red cent of that money. The British Government should pay every penny that they’re legally accountable for, not a penny more , not a penny less. Not newspaper leaks, not national Politicians opinion, they should publish their settlement figure and the reasoning behind it for everyone to see.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This isn't some tinpot transaction to buy a house or some fertiliser. The figure is less important than agreeing the methodology by which to calculate it (e.g. what's included, what's not over what period). Once a methodology is agreed, it'll be relatively easy to derive a figure. The EU has published what it sees as its preferred methodology (though I'm sure more detailed versions exist).

This isn't some tinpot transaction to buy a house or some fertiliser. The figure is less important than agreeing the methodology by which to calculate it (e.g. what's included, what's not over what period). Once a methodology is agreed, it'll be relatively easy to derive a figure. The EU has published what it sees as its preferred methodology (though I'm sure more detailed versions exist).

Does it say what share of the assets we will get?

Assets not purchased by us, but paid for by us, such as...

 

- the £36 billion worth of property and cash???

- or maybe the £56 billion of capital held by the European Investment bank???

- or maybe the 42,500 bottles of premium plonk, valued at around £15 million???

 

This list is not exhaustive, but there's enough above for you to take your pick

Where did you get this figure - I must say your understading of banking and the capital structure of multilateral financial institutions is incredibly naive, Balders.

Do educate yourself and read the following, in particular the comments.

https://www.ft.com/content/72e67940-0d7e-11e7-b030-768954394623

Does it say what share of the assets we will get?

What's been published publicly are principles for the upfront gross settlement rather than the complete methodology. But all the internal estimates do appear to take account of the UK's share of assets. And invariably the upfront payment will be bigger than the long-term net bill.

Christ, is this thread still wheezing along, I'd expected it to expire months ago. It's like waiting for a hated relative with an aggressive terminal disease to finally do the decent thing, but years later they're still hanging on by their fingernails.

Where did you get this figure - I must say your understading of banking and the capital structure of multilateral financial institutions is incredibly naive, Balders.

 

Do educate yourself and read the following, in particular the comments.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/72e67940-0d7e-11e7-b030-768954394623

From your article:

So what is the value of the UK’s investment in the EIB? According to the institution’s 2015 financial statements, the EIB’s reserves consist of paid-up capital from the member states of €21.7bn, plus a further €41.6bn of accumulated profits. That comes to a total of €63.3bn. .

The article seems to support my £56bn figure.... as €63.3 @ 1.12 €:£ = £56bn

(OK this is made up of capital and accumulated profit, but we still own a share of that).

This isn't some tinpot transaction to buy a house or some fertiliser. The figure is less important than agreeing the methodology by which to calculate it (e.g. what's included, what's not over what period). Once a methodology is agreed, it'll be relatively easy to derive a figure. The EU has published what it sees as its preferred methodology (though I'm sure more detailed versions exist).

Does it say anything about the forum that will have ultimate jurisdiction in the settlement of any disputes about the amount?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/michael-bloomberg-brexit-is-stupidest-thing-any-country-has-done-besides-trump/ar-AAu0csA?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartanntp

Saw that. As for the disgraceful behaviour by the Conservative whip yesterday, May should have sacked him and another example of why she is under so much pressure within the party. Would have set some ground rules with her Brexit fringe, starting with the Foreign Office, and helped the normal members of the party. Respect people's views on Brexit overall but some of her ministers and MPs are living in dreamland, whilst May and Hammond are trying to sort out an arrangement that works for UK jobs, which the nutcases, including the tabloids, have forgotten about in their xenophobic frenzy.

Does it say what share of the assets we will get?

It doesn't need to. Member states make up the EU. They all own a share of various assets, and these are usually clearly stated. With the EIB, for example, the UK is a 12% stakeholder.

Why don't you - and Lord Pony - actually read the document?

It doesn't need to. Member states make up the EU. They all own a share of various assets, and these are usually clearly stated. With the EIB, for example, the UK is a 12% stakeholder.

 

Why don't you - and Lord Pony - actually read the document?

I have more important things to do that’s why I asked dip sh!t.

I have more important things to do that’s why I asked dip sh!t.

You're right. Those reading lessons aren't cheap.

You're right. Those reading lessons aren't cheap.

Wow! All I did was ask someone a question and I get this playground abuse. Cracking stuff - reading lessons! PMSL - you’re a really funny guy.

There are some serious tossers on this place, I guess these sort of forums are a magnet for loners and saddos with nothing better to do.

Wow! All I did was ask someone a question and I get this playground abuse. Cracking stuff - reading lessons! PMSL - you’re a really funny guy.

 

There are some serious tossers on this place, I guess these sort of forums are a magnet for loners and saddos with nothing better to do.

This from someone who uses the word "dipsh it" as a form of abuse.

This from someone who uses the word "dipsh it" as a form of abuse.

He started with the attitude, I'm just joining in. Who's Lord Pony anyway?

Who's Lord Pony anyway?

AKA Ducky.

AKA Mullah of the SaintsWeb Brexitaliban

AKA Mullah of the SaintsWeb Brexitaliban

Indeed. And on that point, it seems the Times takes its inspiration from the Saintsweb remoaner wing. Here's David Aaronovitch in today's print edition:

"A report from the Henry Jackson Society was released this week looking , among other things, at why converts to Islam were more likely to be radicalised, and I found myself thinking of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. The first was unsure which way he'd jump till 2016 and the other didn't want a referendum at all. And now they're black-turbanned Brexiteers...They...are the true enemy within."

Which makes our lot the Sally Jones of Brexit Jihadism.

Given his efforts a few pages ago, did Jihadi John take the Britain: Best at Inventing course?

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/university-of-life-strongly-biased-towards-brexit-20171026138038

Beyond parody

Given his efforts a few pages ago, did Jihadi John take the Britain: Best at Inventing course?

 

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/university-of-life-strongly-biased-towards-brexit-20171026138038

 

Beyond parody

I wonder if the University of Life received one of those letters from that Tory Whip.

So, please explain this to me, because I'm an ignorant Brexiteer. We invest £3 billion in the European Investment Bank in 1973, which itself invests in infrastructure projects in the EU. EIB stopped funding UK projects in June of this year, but today we find that we have to wait until 2054 to get our investment back, today worth over €10 billion and consisting an equity interest of 16% of the bank.

At least Lloyds paid the UK taxpayer back and the £3.2 billion we lent the ungrateful Irish when they were in the cr@p in 2010 gets repaid by 2021. Still, I'm sure the EU **** suckers on this forum will think it's perfectly reasonable.

Meanwhile, Catalonia leaves the EU overnight......

I see that David Davis has lost yet another senior member of his 'team'. Baroness Anelay (if that's not misspelt), the DExEU minister of state in the House of Lords has just resigned.

That means Davis has lost two ministers, his permanent secretary and a special advisor - all in the space of a few months.

Things seem to be very going well. Very well indeed.

Meanwhile, Catalonia leaves the EU overnight......

Err, no it doesn't.

I see that David Davis has lost yet another senior member of his 'team'. Baroness Anelay (if that's not misspelt), the DExEU minister of state in the House of Lords has just resigned.

 

That means Davis has lost two ministers, his permanent secretary and a special advisor - all in the space of a few months.

 

Things seem to be very going well. Very well indeed.

"To lose one Minister might be considered as misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness". ( Apologies to Oscar Wilde ).

"To lose one Minister might be considered as misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness". ( Apologies to Oscar Wilde ).

So I wonder what losing three ministers looks like? I forgot to include one of the resignees.

That department is in absolute chaos, as you'd expect from a secretary of state who, in the words of his own ideological supporters, is 'as thick as mince'.

Still, tick tock.

Barnier is doing his best to chivy along a May/Davis coalition of indolence and incompetence by pointing them towards the only option open to them: Norway. As this is both the most sensible (it's achievable in something like the time) and most stupid (paying into the EU with no influence) option, it'll have the added benefit of tearing the Tories to shreds while fulfilling the 'mandate'.

Happy days!

Barnier is doing his best to chivy along a May/Davis coalition of indolence and incompetence by pointing them towards the only option open to them: Norway. As this is both the most sensible (it's achievable in something like the time) and most stupid (paying into the EU with no influence) option, it'll have the added benefit of tearing the Tories to shreds while fulfilling the 'mandate'.

 

Happy days!

...if you want a speedy US trade deal, Trump adviser warns

A great article in the Telegraph yesterday.

Britain must avoid too much compromise with the EU over the Brexit divorce deal if it wants a speedy free trade agreement with the US, one of President Donald Trump’s most senior advisers has said. Wilbur Ross, the US commerce secretary, said that a trade deal with Britain could be signed within months of Brexit, brushing aside claims that it could take 10 years for an agreement to be reached. But Mr Ross said there would be problems if the UK retained the current EU-wide bans on chlorinated chicken and genetically-modified food.

Mr Ross accused Brussels of imposing higher tariffs than the US across the “vast majority” of traded goods – including a 10 per cent charge on cars, compared to America’s 2.5 per cent – and trying to enforce its regulatory codes on third countries rather than allowing an open global system. “While the EU talks a lot of free-trade rhetoric, it is really quite protectionist,” he said. He vowed to avoid “tit-for-tat” bargaining when it came to negotiating a trade deal with Britain but left no doubt that there would be trouble if the UK signed up to core elements of EU ideology deemed most aggravating in Washington, not least the EU curbs on chlorinated chickens and – far more important – genetically modified foods.

He said: “The EU rules are not science-based. This could potentially create problems with us. What happens will be very much conditioned by the terms of the departure agreement between the UK and the EU.” He told The Daily Telegraph: “Any trade deal is important but especially one with a country with whom we have such intense relations as we do with the UK, from a geopolitical, military, and a commercial point of view. Our two economies have $1.2 trillion invested in each other. That is a very big number.”

I think the US administration has had the EU worked out, as a protectionist cabal, rather than a free market. I also think that a free trade deal with the US is already lined up and modelled on NAFTA, leading our negotiators to string the EU along to save us the divorce bill.

Screw them, I say and bring on GMO's and cheaper food...

...if you want a speedy US trade deal, ..

You can have one, on the USA's selfish and protectionist terms.

...if you want a speedy US trade deal, Trump adviser warns

 

A great article in the Telegraph yesterday.

 

 

 

I think the US administration has had the EU worked out, as a protectionist cabal, rather than a free market. I also think that a free trade deal with the US is already lined up and modelled on NAFTA, leading our negotiators to string the EU along to save us the divorce bill.

 

Screw them, I say and bring on GMO's and cheaper food...

Long time, no hear, Jihadi John. The break doesn't appear to have done you any good, mind you. Still as clueless and zealous as ever.

You do realise that Michael Gove and now Liam Fox have already publicly stated that the UK won't be accepting chlorinated chicken or scrapping EU food standards regulation, effectively kiboshing your cute little fantasy.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4865924/liam-fox-admits-defeat-in-his-row-with-michael-gove-over-chlorinated-chicken/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/07/fox-says-public-wont-accept-lower-food-standards-in-chlorinated-chicken-row

Never mind that in critical areas such as services, the US is far more protectionist than the EU and the UK has zero hope of replacing high levels of access to the single market with similar generous access to the US market for services.

All this underlines a deeper point that halfwits like yourself miss. Boil away the bluff and sweet-nothings, Ross message is ultimately a blunt warning: the UK has little freedom to choose or remake global regulation in its own image; rather to get a trade deal, the UK, as the junior partner, will have to take it up the sinkhole and accept others rules and regulations.

Such is the joy of taking back control.

You can have one, on the USA's selfish and protectionist terms.

Exactly. Ask Bombardier what they think of dealing with the US.

John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State under Eisenhower) is said to have made the candid quote, “The United States of America does not have friends; it has interests.”

Cheaper food that will accompany Brexit will benefit the poor, far more than the barista loving, restaurant dwelling, cheap labour reliant, liberal elite, who can afford to support political experiments like the EU.

As a member of the EU, the UK has become accustomed to artificially high food prices. Prior to entry into the European Economic Community in 1973 (before Britain had to accept high tariffs on non-EU imports) food prices were 40 per cent lower. Even the OECD has conceded that the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy still adds 17 per cent to our food bills. Among the most unreasonable tariffs on non-EU produce are the 54 per cent tariff on dairy products, the 31 per cent tariff on sugar and the 22 per cent tariff on cereals.

Cheaper food that will accompany Brexit will benefit the poor, far more than the barista loving, restaurant dwelling, cheap labour reliant, liberal elite, who can afford to support political experiments like the EU.

Why not go the whole hog and start developing Soylent Green. Hanging the 'cheaper' tag on food of otherwise questionable safety is not a strong point in favour of accepting US trade domination.

Cheaper food that will accompany Brexit will benefit the poor, far more than the barista loving, restaurant dwelling, cheap labour reliant, liberal elite, who can afford to support political experiments like the EU.

Will cheaper food necessarily accompany Brexit, Jihadi John?

Is the UK prepared to unilaterally reduce trade barriers when doing so will reduce the bargaining power and leverage it has to make other countries open up their markets?

Are you comfortable with wiping out significant sections of UK agriculture and manufacturing -and a large increase in wage inequality that would accompany full liberalisation? Of course, halfwits like yourself in your staggeringly shoddy and confused reasoning fail to understand that cheap labour (bad) and cheap imports (good) are simply two sides of the same coin.

Are you ready to pay higher taxes to subsidise those who lose out from these processes because there like night follows day there will be a political backlash and adjustment costs?

Do you realise that the gains from eliminating tariffs, while obviously beneficial in some respects, are generally overstated as producer price levels do not only reflect differences in tariff levels but also differences in tastes and quality? If not, you're not alone as fellow members of the death cult like Patrick Minford commit the same mistake.

What about all the other impacts of Brexit that are likely to hurt the poor?

In short, there are no cases where an industrialised country has ever implemented full unilateral liberalisation because its pure ivory towers fantasy.

Talk about an elite indulging in wishful economic experiemnts.

Still there'll be lots of jobs in tourism and food hospitality pal.

Generally overstated? That's not a term we find used very often on this thread.

Looks like John Misselbrook is on the wrong side, even among his own.

So much for a bonfire of regulation, the precautionary principle and all those other supposedly protectionist measures by the EU.

The UK will back a total ban on insect-harming pesticides in fields across Europe

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/09/uk-will-back-total-ban-on-bee-harming-pesticides-michael-gove-reveals

I am so bored by the economic arguments because both sides just treat examples in isolation and use them in petty arguments.

The truth is that nobody really knows and both sides have their own agendas. The truth is, do you believe in a sovereign UK democracy, or do you want your country and your children to be governed by European bureaucrats.

That was the only certainty anyone should have voted on.

The truth is, do you believe in a sovereign UK democracy, or do you want your country and your children to be governed by European bureaucrats.

 

That was the only certainty anyone should have voted on.

I respect what must have been herculean efforts to avoid all of the many explanations over the past year or so of how the EU works.

You can make arguments grounded in fact for both remaining and leaving. This isnt one of them.

I respect what must have been herculean efforts to avoid all of the many explanations over the past year or so of how the EU works.

 

You can make arguments grounded in fact for both remaining and leaving. This isnt one of them.

In your opinion, most obviously don’t share it.

In your opinion, most obviously don’t share it.

Not a strong suit of yours as you’re thick as mince but care to provide evidence that the UK is governed by EU bureaucrats? Also care to provide evidence that the UK will simultaneously enjoy national sovereignty, democracy and integrated global trade once outside of the EU (guess you’ve never heard of Dani Rodrik’s work http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/06/the-inescapable.html)?

In your opinion, most obviously don’t share it.