Bit cynical wrote: » But, of course, at the same time it is not the UK's job to look after the Irish economy.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » It really isn't, it negotiated all of the UK's trade deals before the EU decided that all negotiation should be in its own hands. This centalisation of agencies is one of the ways in which EU member states have been losing sovereignty.
Infini wrote: » I would counter that the states are hardly losing soviergnty this way more accurately theyre POOLING soviergnty and this has made the EU into the key setter of standards for thrse deals. Also any negotiated deal has to be passed by all 37 various parliments (remember how CETA i think it was nearly got derailed in wallonia was it?) to enter into force. That means theres oversight on these things at national level so these things have to be able pass there Hardly a loss of soviergnty. This is also whats been lost on Brexiteers the whole point is to pool the various agencys into the EU not to give up control but to have these things located all in one olace for coordination. Its alot easier having one agency looking over these areas than 37 of them as well as the fact that it costs far less too.
road_high wrote: » Another thing not being much considered in the mayhem related to your point is the amount of new government bureaucracy the UK is creating by “taking back control” - they’re going to have add a whole new layer of public servants for things whither-to pooled with the EU. Which will surely be an added strain on public finances and loss of competitiveness for the UK economy
road_high wrote: » Not really “taking back control” though is it?! I’d sssumed the EU trade deals were so bad that re negotiation would be a must no 1 priority of brexiters...but it seems putting a Uk sticker over the EU ones will do !
Strazdas wrote: » Brexiteers are clinging to a 1930s or early 1950s version of trade. There were no economic blocs or single markets or mutual recognition of rules and regulation for trade back then. They are trying to return to an era when the EEC / EFTA didn't even exist, but it's a lost cause, as the rest of Europe is trading this way and the UK wants to be some sort of pirate state hovering on the outside and refusing to follow their rules.
The fable of The Ladykillers is a comic and ironic joke about the condition of postwar England. After the war, the country was going through a kind of quiet, typically British but nevertheless historically fundamental revolution. Though few people were prepared to face up to it, the great days of the Empire were gone for ever. British society was shattered with the same kind of conflicts appearing in many other countries: an impoverished and disillusioned upper class, a brutalised working class, juvenile delinquency among the mods and rockers, an influx of foreign and potentially criminal elements, and a collapse of "intellectual" leadership. All of these threatened the stability of the national character. Though at no time did Bill Rose or I ever spell this out, look at the characters in the film. The Major (played by Cecil Parker), a conman, is a caricature of the decadent military ruling class. One Round (Danny Green) is the oafish representative of the British masses. Harry (Peter Sellers) is the spiv, the worthless younger generation. Louis (Herbert Lorn) is the dangerously unassimilated foreigner. They are a composite cartoon of Britain's corruption. The tiny figure of Mrs Wilberforce (Wilberforce was the name of the 19th-century idealist who called for the abolition of slavery) is plainly a much diminished Britannia. Her house is in a cul-de-sac. Shabby and cluttered with memories of the days when Britain's navy ruled the world and captains gallantly stayed on the bridge as their ship went down, her house is structurally unsound. Dwarfed by the grim landscape of railway yards and screaming express trains, it is Edwardian England, an anachronism in the contemporary world. Bill Rose's sentimental hope for the country that he and I saw through fond but sceptical eyes was that it might still, against all logic, survive its enemies. A theme, a message of sorts, one that I felt very attached to. But one that it took quite some time for me to consciously recognise and appreciate.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Wut ? In the 1930's the UK had a quarter of the worlds population tied up in the Empire. A captive audience when it came to trade deals. In the 1950's everyone in Europe was broke and there was rationing so trade volumes were down a tad. The 1950's a lot of Brexiteer's seem so fond of is the Heartbeat version. Not what really happened.I love The Ladykillers classic Ealing comedy. But it is a metaphor for the UK now as much as it was then. You can just see Boris or JRM as the Major. You can see how fear of the "unassimilated" foreigner was manipulated for the vote.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » I can't wait to see the look on their faces when they realise that other countries can cherry pick too.
Infini wrote: » I would counter that the states are hardly losing soviergnty this way more accurately theyre POOLING soviergnty and this has made the EU into the key setter of standards for thrse deals.
Strazdas wrote: » And these were the crowd complaining about money being wasted on too many bureaucrats in the EU. As you say, the UK will have to hire swarms of new civil servants to try and handle the disaster that is Brexit - the whole point of the Single Market is to cut down on bureaucrats and paperwork.
road_high wrote: » Take the European Medicines Agency- a very good organization which has been uk based will have to be replicated in the uk for the uk only- at surely a massive cost, that kind of technical expertise and capacity doesn’t come cheap. Same for a whole plethora of other common policies. The whole thing is insanity for a medium sized nation.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Alternatively, they could just sign up to the relevant EU legislation on the subject but that would be anathema to Brexiteers.
Strazdas wrote: » Britain "won" the war in that it wasn't invaded and was on the winning side but the opinion of most historians and economists is that it came out of WW2 as a big loser. The country virtually bankrupted itself with the war effort and the Empire began to quickly disintegrate.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Actually, a Scottish person has more of a say than an English person as they are overrepresented in the UK parliament. The only reason that you can claim that they do not have a say is because the Referendum was held on a UK wide basis and the majority of the UK voters decided to leave the EU.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » And it also needs to be pointed out that the US forced the UK off the gold standard which doubled the cost of paying back that loan overnight. This after all the UK did during the war, and handing over the crown jewels of technology like radar and how to build an atomic bomb. The former won the war early.
Igotadose wrote: » I don't think the UK gave the US the atomic bomb. I think it was a joint effort and the scientists that had moved to the UK for safety (Szilard?) moved on, but the US footed the bill on the atomic bomb. I've seen numbers estimated like $1bn US in 1945 dollars, probably hundreds-of-billions in todays dollars. Only the US could afford that at the time. The US and UK were allies, sharing radar secrets was the right thing to do, nor do I expect any reciprocity was part of that agreement. Not sure how much it meant ending the war early. That's a discussion for outside this thread..
bilston wrote: » BBC reporting a car bomb in Derry tonight. Thankfully no injuries and I'm not saying it's because of Brexit. But it gives an indication of what could happen if a hard border is enforced on this island.
Folkstonian wrote: » Which historians, out of interest, believe that Britain came out of the Second World War as a big loser? Britain paid a huge price in men and money, but there was no easy way to defend itself from Nazi Germany. That’s not the same as losing.
NIMAN wrote: » Hard to blame this on Brexit. Its just a bunch of scumbags with deluded notions and too much time on their hands.
Irishmale0399 wrote: » Dont get me wrong...no time for this type of sh1t......Irish/Northern Irish people have moved on. But could this be lets say......professionally trained people??? Could this be a warning to those in London to help TM get her deal over the line??? An inside job??? Wouldnt be the first time the British government have done it.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Also expect the German car exporters to be more focused on the US than the UK.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Because we cannot negotiate trade details until we know on what basis we are negotiating. If, for example, the EU and UK decided to be in a customs union then all negotiations with other countries would have to start again. Nevertheless, the UK has recruited some negotiators although they have not been used in the talks so far. Up to now, May and Oily Robbins have controlled the UK negotiations and they are both Remainers and incompetent.
Sam Russell wrote: » I think that is called a Pyrrhic Victory. The UK lost their computer industry, the aircraft industry, their nuclear industry and their empire. They became the US poodle because they believed that they had a 'special relationship' that meant they did as they were told.
Imreoir2 wrote: » No. There is no need to assume conspiracy when there are much more likely and straightforward culprits.
