kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
Folkstonian wrote: » Of course you do. Not sure there is much evidence that the people who really matter are slowly coming round to the idea though. MPs seem very entrenched in their positions on both sides of the house. We’ll see what happens
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Surely simply leaving the border open on the UK side in the event of no deal would mean they would not be able to do free trade deals - with anyone? Yet this seems to be their argument - "we won't put one up, let Ireland/EU do it".
FrancieBrady wrote: » When you have the likes of A. Foster going totally against the views of Farming and Business interests you can see how diverged those in politics are. I see that gap closing tbh, and a heavy sigh of relief as it goes through parliament. The last 2 years has been a **** show of British political arrogance meeting the reality of who they actually are on a European stage never mind a world one. Adjustment coming up for them. May is just the conduit for that.
Strazdas wrote: » It's an absolutely valid point and I agree with her - what she's not adding though is it has been caused by Vote Leave and the Brexiteers
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? Remain a member of the European Union [ ] Leave the European Union [ X ]
Strazdas wrote: » True : they're trying to return to 1973
LeinsterDub wrote: » In practice however the WTO moves so slowly it would be years before it could be enforced.
Strazdas wrote: True : they're trying to return to 1973 but not realising the whole of the world and Europe has moved on and changed since then. They could only "take back control" if Europe was frozen in time and still looked how it looked in 1973.
fash wrote: » cryptocurrency wrote: » Britain have been humiliated on the world stage by the communist EU. The UK is a permanent seat holder of the UN Security Council and is getting humiliated like this. They have only one real course of action to save face here and the credibility as a power on the world stage and that’s to get rid of May, go for a no deal and severe security ties with the EU citing the unfriendly threats they’ve made to them. A few months of military brinkmanship would seen see the EU offer a simple free trade deal. Please explain how the proposed agreement is not a massive victory for the UK: Access to the Customs Union with unprecedentedly limited rules, which GB can leave at any time it chooses simply limiting the SM/CU to Northern Ireland; Precedent setting inclusion of future trade agreement aspects into the Withdrawal agreement; Precedent setting minimal checks for access to the SM (currently between NI and GB - but possible between UK and SM); It can even get NI out of the SM/CU by coming up with any other solution which will achieve a soft border and got the EU to concede that it must make good faith efforts to agree such a solution and that it subject to third party determination outside issues of EU law; There is even the possibility that the UK can engineer a situation to dump NI (which let us not forget is a parasite which costs significantly more than the red bus NHS promise) onto the EU if it wants; Special status for Northern Ireland allowing privileged access to the SM which will undoubtedly lead to greater FDI; A "settlement of accounts" which is a fraction of what the EU wanted and that spread out over years; and No more freedom of movement. Seriously, why this that not considered an spectacular victory by the UK as opposed to "humiliation"? I understand that Boris etc. wants to pretend it is bad to allow him to boo from the sidelines and why the DUP, but why otherwise is it considered bad?
cryptocurrency wrote: » Britain have been humiliated on the world stage by the communist EU. The UK is a permanent seat holder of the UN Security Council and is getting humiliated like this. They have only one real course of action to save face here and the credibility as a power on the world stage and that’s to get rid of May, go for a no deal and severe security ties with the EU citing the unfriendly threats they’ve made to them. A few months of military brinkmanship would seen see the EU offer a simple free trade deal.
First Up wrote: » Yeah, they should grab it with both hands. Can't understand what MP's were whinging about in the Commons this week.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » In 1973, the UK was in the poo.
fash wrote: » First Up wrote: » Yeah, they should grab it with both hands. Can't understand what MP's were whinging about in the Commons this week. And of note: “neutral Brexiter” David Allen Green also notes that it is not a bad document from a UK perspective (yesterday’s posting on jackofkent.com ). From my perspective the winners of the WA are: 1. Ireland 2. UK With last place going to the EU (and I am sure you can break that down further).
Igotadose wrote: » David Davis actually does sometimes do something. He's written an editorial for thehill.com, begging for a trade deal once Brexit's happened.https://thehill.com/opinion/international/417257-now-is-the-chance-for-america-to-strike-free-trade-deal-with-britain (of course, it's not 'now', it's once Brexit 'happens' whenever that is). I wonder if there can be official negotiations prior to then...
Oafley Jones wrote: » “We’re desperate for a quick deal” is an interesting strategy when it comes to getting your way in trade negotiations.
RobMc59 wrote: » The reality of what the UK's position on the European stage is - one of the major countries on the top table alongside France and Germany-and if the UK comes to its senses that can stay the same..
An Ciarraioch wrote: » According to the Sundays, Davis and Johnson plan to join forces, seven names will be put in the hat when the confidence vote is held, and there are proposals for a Norway Brexit if May's deal is defeated:http://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1063913551025397760
An Ciarraioch wrote: » According to the Sundays, Davis and Johnson plan to join forces, seven names will be put in the hat when the confidence vote is held, and there are proposals for a Norway Brexit if May's deal is defeated
briany wrote: » Norway deal? If you're a Brexiteer, then that's even worse than the current proposal, surely. At least the current deal restricts immigration. Maybe I'm being cynical, but I believe that controlling immigration was the primary thrust of the whole thing among ordinary British Brexit voters.
gimli2112 wrote: » You can't negotiate with that mentality
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » A Norway Brexit has the advantage that it's an existing template. And they get some control. It has the slight disadvantage that there'd be a Hard Border and the UK would have to accept the four freedoms , including Freedom of Movement. Details here. In addition to the normal EU fees Norway also pays a lot of money to the EU for use by the Eastern Countries. And Norway is in Schengen. I'm still not convinced that the EEA would let the UK join the club because they are too big and too different. An independent Scotland would be a much better fit.
