We are now being flogged the proposition that in order to move from a deep preferential agreement - the supranational political, juridical and enforcement aspects of high you deplore, but which gives you much the best trading terms with the bloc, above all in the sectors in which you are highly competitive - to a less deep, but normal EU preferential agreement which gives you substantially better access than WTO terms, the best route is to go all the way out to WTO terms first. Because that will give you the whip hand in negotiations with a bloc for which the absence of any preferential deal covers a vastly lower proportion of its trade than it does of yours. And the bloc would therefore come begging for a new preferential deal, drop completely its demand for the backstop, accept that technological and administrative solutions to the border suffice, when they have repeatedly previously made clear they cannot, and settle for much less than the money that the U.K. Prime Minister had already agreed to pay if she got an acceptable Withdrawal Agreement – which she now publicly agrees she has. This stuff would make snake oil salesmen blush.
We are left with the bizarre spectacle of Brexiteers, many of whom used to argue that exiting to Norwegian or Swiss style destinations would be a vast improvement on remaining in the EU, because these were vibrant Parliamentary democracies whose peoples had bravely spurned European political integration in favour of free trading relationships from outside, arguing that if the U.K. now “escaped” only to such a destination, it would be a terrible betrayal. It would be “Brexit in Name Only”, as bad as or worse than, the Prime Minister’s lousy deal, and a triumph for the “deep state” that has been wanting to sabotage Brexit from the outset.
marieholmfan wrote: » Airbus should not leave England without repaying all launch aid received for the past 30 years. The UK should make clear that declarations of economic war against a NUCLEAR power are very very unwise.
Leroy42 wrote: » And now we have Tory MP's calling for nationalisation of factories, which thought they were totally against and what they hate so much about Corbyn. Yesterday we had JRM calling for the closing of parliament if a vote didn't go they way he liked, so sovereignty up to a point I suppose. The the collective idea seems to be that democracy in the form of voting is actually undemocratic!
CrabRevolution wrote: » Seems similar to another (now banned) poster who reckoned that the USA and UK were "well within their rights" to invade the countries of the EU because of brexit.
Seth Brundle wrote: » It needs more leading CEOs to follow up with similar comments.
But that bold approach has more than paid off. The A320 went on to establish Airbus on the global stage, and force its rivals to up their game. And with 30 years and over 8,000 deliveries behind it, the little twinjet has more than repaid the early faith of the supporting governments many times over, thanks to that clause requiring a levy on each sale.
REPAYABLE LAUNCH INVESTMENT 17. Repayable Launch Investment is a government initiative to provide financial risk-sharing investment in the design and development of civil aerospace projects in the United Kingdom. It is designed to address the unwillingness of capital markets to fund projects with high product development costs, high technological and market risks and long pay back periods on investment. Government investment is repayable at a commercial rate of return, usually through levies on sales of the product. Launch Investment is only available to the civil aerospace sector.
Tell me how wrote: » One of Theresa May's biggest mistakes was appointing people like David Davis, Boris Johnson to key roles in her government at the outset of negotiations while people like Rogers, with extensive experience of the EU were pushed to the sidelines and alienated because what they were saying was unpalatable.
prawnsambo wrote: » So if they pay back all the money they got, will you let them go without nuking them? On a serious note, there's talk of companies who located in the UK because of their EU membership, suing the government for losses incurred that are directly associated with brexit because it's a clear breach of undertakings made to attract them there in the first place.
Akrasia wrote: » Airbus should sue the British government for unilaterally changing the terms under which they traded. Airbus invested billions in production facilities that would become useless the moment Britain crash out of the EU. If Britain leaves the EU Customs Union and Single Market, their courts will be clogged up for years with corporations suing them for the financial losses associated with their decision change the fundamental trading platform of the UK
josip wrote: » I would assume that in that case, although the referendum was only advisory, it would still be used as the UK's defending argument?
Deleted User wrote: » Brexit is a direct result of the popularity of social media which keeps you in a bubble and feeds you only what you want to hear whether it be true or not.
eggman100 wrote: » That's because you don't understand that staying in under the current 'deal' is not leaving at all, you seem to not understand the reasons why we voted to leave the corrupt EU. We also never voted for any kind of deal, we voted to leave the entire EU and this was all explained in Camerons pamphlet of doom about all the terrible things that would happen if we left the ECJ,customs union etc. It was all BS of course as has been proven because none of these terrible things have happened that we were told would do, just for voting to leave. The EU economy is going down the toilet, the UK doing well and record low unemployment - we were were told millions would loose jobs, complete BS again of course. Ireland should follow us out if you don't want to pay for Greece bailout MK2 plus Italy and Spain. How about also governing yourselves instead of Ireland being like a county council of your masters in EU government?
Enzokk wrote: » The DUP is not the UK Government nor should 10 votes decide policy for the whole country.
UK chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond has pulled out of a key Davos panel on Thursday morning to discuss the future of Europe, on which the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar is appearing. The updated schedule for the World Economic Forum panel says that Mr Varadkar will be joined by Dutch counterpart Mark Rutte and Polish prime minister Mateusz Morawiecki. The issue of the Northern Ireland backstop is expected to feature on the panel, at a time when British prime minister Theresa May is seeking to secure approval for her withdrawal agreement.
robinph wrote: » One of the main UK Airbus, and the associated Rolls Royce engines, sites being right in the middle of one of constituencies for a full on Brexit supporting MP, who recently had an affair with another MP and they call the resulting sprog "Brexit" as it was born around the time of the referendum. The major employer in his constituency that will not operate out side of the EU, and he's still convinced that Brexit is a good thing.
Enzokk wrote: » I think you will find that Airbus has paid back all the RLI already. In fact the aid they have received for models like the A320 is still being paid a long time after the original amount has been settled because that is the way they were structured, that as long as deliveries still continue that there will be levy on each one. Seeing that the A320 alone has a backlog of about 6000 aircraft it is clear that there are two winners here. The clue is in the official name, Repayable Launch Aid.OPINION: A320 has repaid faith of Airbus - and governments2 The Aerospace Industry Quite clearly it was a mistake, but if you had "Remainers" in charge of the negotiations then the Brexiters would only blame them for not delivering the promised land of the referendum campaign. By putting those who brought about Brexit in charge you lay the blame at their door as well.
Tell me how wrote: » I'd say that was intentionally to show that the rest of the world is moving on and is not interested in eternally dealing with the UK and their issues.
For both Leave and Remain voters, Ireland was often entirely absent, as was Africa.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I'm inclined to disagree. Older people are more likely to vote than younger people and are also less likely to hold social media accounts. I'd say decades of negativity, vitriol and deceit have done more for Brexit than echo chambers.
MarkHenderson wrote: » No it's a direct result of creating have's and have not's in a society. You leave a lot of people behind and this is the reuslt.
As I said before, the Tories need those 10 votes to remain in Government.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7562dda32a4e3622cfd3a800d8bc4294.svg)
