murphaph wrote: » Wow. If true then quite shocking really. It would mean Johnson simply does not understand what the SM and CU are.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I am proposing to make it less restrictive and hence easier. No 2 years, no 2 minutes - just ask and you are out on the spot. What could be easier than that?
PTH2009 wrote: » Going on a trip to England on the 8th Nov Is before the 31st Oct or after the best time to change euros into pounds ?
ath262 wrote: » Farage speaking at EU parliament at the moment - cant even listed to him anymore....
ilovesmybrick wrote: » I think the issue is that Johnson is a populist, he has spent years as the class clown as he realised that buffonery made him a popular fellow with the UK voter. Unfortunately that has brought him beyond the limits of his ability, and we have seen how poorly he's equipped to deal with voters on the UK streets confronting him with genuine concerns as he's not able to deal with people not liking him or having a contrary viewpoint that can't be dissuaged with bluster. Now he's coming face to face with serious politicians that he spent years disparaging, insulting, and dismissing for the sake of popularity back in the UK. And they have neither the time nor the patience to put up with his BoJo act.
ElectronVolt wrote: » I encountered a couple of companies that have banned all but absolutely unavoidable travel to the UK for the first week of November. I really don't think the UK media is understanding how serious this is getting. It's still all a parlour game and abstract debate if you read the UK commentary, but it's starting to have very real consequences.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » If you want to accept the trouble (and probable violence) that would go with such surrender of national independence then go for it. I'm 100% certain any such proposal would see Ireland leaving the EU. Or we will have to take an outer orbit with the bloc as an alternative. Like Norway. This could come A LOT sooner than any such treaty though if as I suspect our taxation policies come under attack by the EU. I have given my opinion. Can we return to topic now?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Really, are Iceland - or Switzerland - or Norway - or New Zealand etc casualties? Don't pull this absolute rubbish that we need to be in the EU. We don't. As things stand it's fine but notions of superstate then we need to leave. (and we would leave in my opinion)
Cookie_Monster wrote: » Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Iceland and New Zealand don't have strong national resources actually. Neither does Switzerland. NZ has plenty; oil & gas, coal, gold, gigantic iron sand reserves, forestry, dairy, hydro power...
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Iceland and New Zealand don't have strong national resources actually. Neither does Switzerland.
Bannasidhe wrote: » I am getting the distinct impression from Leavers that I know in the UK that they believe come Oct 31st and a No Deal crash out that the clock will just be magically set back to trade/travel conditions as they were prior to Jan 1973. Try to explain that the UK economy during the intervening years was based on a series of EU trade deals, the Single Market, etc etc and those cannot be either dismissed as of no consequence or ignored as unimportant is... well... insane and it becomes like talking to Vicky Pollard. And that's before we even get onto talking about what the GFA means in real terms. Personally, I think leaving the EU was a very very bad Idea but I can understand how, after decades of misinformation, the UK electorate voted for it by a narrow margin, and if they want to leave then leave them to it. But crashing out without having made any real contingency plans to deal with the very very serious repercussions is utter madness.
reslfj wrote: » Iceland has a 200 nm exclusive fishing zone in almost all directions - remember the cod war. Very much a natural resource. Iceland has agreed zero tariff export quotas with the EU. And Iceland has plenty inexpensive energy from hydro power and from thermal volcanic energy. Aluminium is produced on Iceland using the inexpensive electricity. (Bitcoins etc. are 'mined' in Iceland too,) But Iceland has many private citizens with a large debt (in or from pre 2008 loans in foreign currencies) as a result of the crash of the Icelandic crown. Lars
Cookie_Monster wrote: » NZ has plenty; oil & gas, coal, gold, gigantic iron sand reserves, forestry, dairy, hydro power...
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Really, are Iceland - or Switzerland - or Norway - or New Zealand etc casualties? Don't pull this absolute rubbish that we need to be in the EU. We don't.
The international trade secretary, Liz Truss, is facing calls to resign after admitting the government breached a court order banning the sale of weapons to Saudi Arabia. In a landmark ruling in June, the court of appeal ruled UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia were illegal because they could be used in violations of international law in the conflict in Yemen. Following the ruling, Truss’s predecessor, Liam Fox, pledged to halt Saudi arms sales pending a review. On Monday night, Truss admitted two “inadvertent” breaches of that commitment and apologised to a Commons committee.
J Mysterio wrote: » Corbyn: 'i'll stay neutral and let the people decide'. "Leadership".
VinLieger wrote: » He is absolute garbage. How people still cannot grasp that he wants out of the EU just as much as the ERG, albeit for different but equally selfish reasons imo, I cannot understand
ministers have said they are reluctant to reveal the details of new proposals in advance for fear they will be "rubbished" by the EU.
Enzokk wrote: » In fairness, he can't win. If he back Remain he will be accused of being a leaver and will not be 100% behind the cause - see 2016. If he backs Leave he will be accused of slowing down the Labour response all along and this is proof. He stays neutral, and he lacks leadership. Edit: See above, what position can he take that will not invite any criticism?