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.
Water John wrote: » Her tour is aimed at the public putting pressure on their MPs to reduce the number voting against the Deal. If she can keep the differential low, even while losing, that will determine future direction. So, the differential is what everyone is watching.
RobMc59 wrote: » She seems to be in denial-the flack she's taking and still persisting with the same plan despite not one agreeing with her is ridiculous.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Why would EFTA allow Britain to join on a temporary basis? There is nothing for them to gain and Norway has already said they would be against temporary membership. Also, it's not a simple matter of signing up - it would take a year to sort out the legalities. It also requires acceptance of the four freedoms and doesn't fully address the Irish border question.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Of course, NI SoS has always been the UK equivalent of a Mongolian ambassador role - Tom King, Peter Brooke and Shaun Woodward, anyone?
igCorcaigh wrote: » I have to feel sorry for TM. Well, as sympathy for Tories goes.
serfboard wrote: » Yeah - even the Scottish Tories aren't in favour of her deal.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » A laughable Daily Mail poll question: "Would staying in the EU be humiliating?"http://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1067543861134848000
Peregrinus wrote: » France has six "overseas countries and territories" which are in a special relationship with the EU, though not part of it. Spain has one. The UK has thirteen.
prinzeugen wrote: » Where are the thirteen UK territories on the back of a €50 note? And the French territories are EU members. They use the Euro and EU citizens don't require a visa to visit them. You should really check that one out..
Anthracite wrote: » Um...you've been proven completely wrong on this. Best to move on, I'd suggest.
prinzeugen wrote: » I suggest you should read..https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_member_state_territories_and_the_European_Union Sorry for upsetting the echo-chamber with facts. " According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, both primary and secondary European Union law applies automatically to these territories, with possible derogations to take account of their "structural social and economic situation (...) which is compounded by their remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, economic dependence on a few products, the permanence and combination of which severely restrain their development".[4] All form part of the European Union customs area, however some fall outside of the Schengen Area and the European Union Value Added Tax Area." 6 French, 1 Spanish, 2 Portuguese, Zero British.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » What is your point?
trellheim wrote: While the EU project causes many problems for member states ( see EU Army and increased Federalism , long list, take your pick) somehow the other 27 don't have a problem staying in. If a condition of staying in was driving on the right ( for example - I was going to say Schengen but rolled back from that lol ) can be the screeching from the Dail would be long and loud . But would we leave the EU over it ? Also leaving with no say and becoming a rule taker - and no matter what anyone says I just cant see them getting a fabulous trade deal cos why doesnt Norway get that ?
McGiver wrote: » EU army and federalism aren't problems but solutions And they are theoretical and hypothetical respectively as of now. And EFTA members in fact have their own FTAs, but what is important, and I mentioned it in the past, is that EFTA members are de iure (LI, NI, IS) and de facto (CH) part of the EEA and their regular regimes are aligned with the EU via the EEA. So they can make FTAs but these FTAs are highly aligned to the EU regulatory regime not undermining it or diverging from it. Whereas UK would like diverge and create their own regulatory regime, which would be expected to be generally looser than that of the EU - and that's the problem.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Just in case anyone was wonderingFood warehouses 'almost full' ahead of Brexit Which leaves the question of what will happen to the less prepared companies with four months to go.
prinzeugen wrote: I can predict that the EU will tell Ireland that it must join Schengen in Britex+2 years.
prinzeugen wrote: » Considering the amount of fresh food brought in by air these days.. Not much. Warehouses would be full at this time of year anyway. Its called Christmas!!
McGiver wrote: » RoI was prevented from joining Schengen by the UK. As long as there is a border on the island of Ireland with NI staying in the UK and hence out of the Schengen, RoI cannot and will not join Schengen. Next.
Hurrache wrote: » You're missing the point as to why the warehouses are full.
prinzeugen wrote: » Yes I forgot the world is going to end. No food etc. People will survive. Did it before. The only people in trouble will be the ones that survive on imported food. Ie Lidl and Aldi shoppers!
Hurrache wrote: » I don't recall the world ending before.
Peregrinus wrote: » I'm not sure why you think that depiction on the back of the €50 note is signficant. The thirteen UK-related territories that have a relationship with the EU are: Gibraltar; Man; Channel Islands; Akrotiri and Dhekelia; Bermuda; Cayman Islands; Turks and Caicos Islands; British Virgin Islands; Anguilla; Montserrat; St Helena; Falkland Islands; Pitcairn Island. The French: Polynésie française; Nouvelle-Calédonie; Wallace et Futuna; St-Barthélemy; St-Pierre-et-Miquelon; Terres australes et antarctiques françaises. The Spanish: Ceuta y Mellila. The territories depicted on the €50 note are not colonial or dependent territories or "French and Spanish colonies", as you claim. They are integral parts of EU member states. They are shown for the same reason as, e.g., Orkney and the Shetlands are shown.
