Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

NIMAN wrote: »

[That is shocking.

These 2 need to be named and shamed.

Christopher "Sid" Stevenson & Jennie Andrews:
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/carrickfergus-hotel-releases-statement-after-f-the-pope-and-the-ira-wedding-video-goes-viral-38565981.html

The EU can no more afford a disruptive no deal than Britain can.

While Britain is exposed to the EU by multiples.

The Eurozone is an economic basket case. It's going to take an exceptional effort to stop it slipping once more in to crisis.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I think any review of the situation shows that France was right - Britain's trade imbalance and huge debts made it a marginal prospect at best. Over the following 5 years they adjusted their trade with the US and devalued their currency to a point where their accession was possible.

DeGaulle was also opposed on the basis that he felt the UK was culturally too insular and self-centered to be part of an international community where it wasn't in charge. That the UK had a deep-seated cultural snobbery and distrust about the European mainland.

His own anti-British bias notwithstanding, it's funny that eventually he turned out to be right.

Being heavily biased doesn't mean he was wrong. You're clearly heavily biased, and you're not wrong.

Despite the rose-tinted glasses of history, the relationship between the english and non-english allies in WWII was strained at the best of times. They were united under a common goal of driving back the Nazis, but very little else.

The Anglophone countries saw the European allies as little more than sub-armies under their command rather than actual allies. The Americans in particular grated on DeGaulle by ignoring his existence until it became politically more favourable to be anti-Nazi. Until then they were happy to turn a blind eye.
Churchill was a little wilier - probably due to proximity - but a blatant racist and nationalist wanker, there was no illusion between himself and DeGaulle that they wouldn't be friends if there weren't Nazis to defeat.

De Gaulle was blatantly anti anglophone, but not without explanation.

Like I say though, it's funny that despite the fact that his opposition could have been written off as the ravings of an anti-British old gasbag, the very root of Brexit is this concept that Britain is better than the rest of Europe and deserves better.

Danzy wrote: »

The EU can no more afford a disruptive no deal than Britain can.

Sure they can't!

seamus wrote: »

DeGaulle was also opposed on the basis that he felt the UK was culturally too insular and self-centered to be part of an international community where it wasn't in charge. That the UK had a deep-seated cultural snobbery and distrust about the European mainland.

His own anti-British bias notwithstanding, it's funny that eventually he turned out to be right.

It was a mistake to allow Britain into the EEC. If more time had passed Britain could have eventually come to a Norway/ Switzerland type of arrangement and we would have had none or at least a greatly diminished Eurosceptic movement in Britain.
The personal battle between jaques de lor and Maggie thatcher in the late 1980’s is where this current sh1t show began.
If the UK had not been in the EEC none of that would have happened.

20silkcut wrote: »

Yes Britain’s entry to the EEC was a done deal in 1963 until de Gaulle pulled the rug from under everyone and shocked everyone with his veto.

Macron could quite possibly repeat that history and I’m sure it would be an attractive prospect to emulate de Gaulle and would go down well domestically for him and probably be well supported by other EU members too.

De Gaulle was not isolated after he vetoed Britain’s entry.
The clock was just respectfully played down until his death.
It was widely expected that the Germans would smooth things over in the 60’s for Britain. They didnt. And they won’t now either. Even more so after the events of this summer in the UK. And the increasingly belligerent anti EU rhetoric emanating from Britain.

Didn't Britain start the divide and conquer strategy after the Treaty Of Rome and set up EFTA but then stagnated themselves while the others began to prosper?

tigger123 wrote: »

The EU could absorb a No Deal outcome far easier than the UK. EU is made up of 27 economies. UK is just one.

Its disengenious to present both sides as having the same amount at stake. UK is much further out on a limb.

There is talk that the ECB interest rate might eventually go to minus 3%.

Britain is exposed by multiples to the EU, than they it.

Yet the Eurozone disaster means the EU is very vulnerable despite its slighter exposure.

A normal recession is going to be a significant threat to the Eurozone economy.

Brexit is a local story, whatever it's outcome, the Eurozone problems are a global story and a global risk.

What is going on now in the ECB will radically alter European society for decades to come.

after work shaggin aside, is boris going to fall on this conflict of interest malarky?

quokula wrote: »

He's the new Trump. Controversy, incompetence and blatant unfitness for office only make him stronger in the eyes of the electorate he's targeting.

tax payers money might change that!