Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[devilish]

Only when it becomes a discussion between the two women leaders Angela and Theresa and they can 'spin a tale' between them, which they are both capable of doing. It will have to look marginally that Merkel has won, to retain her position of authority astride the EU, she can show at least she has secured 'big money' pay-outs from Britain, well into the next decade and should any other EU country try to complain she will say "OK you have to make up the shortfall if Britain leaves with out paying anything".

Theresa will come back to Britain saying sorry folks tried my best and look I've got everything we asked for, our all our cherished freedoms and I have preserved our ability to sell into and buy from the EU... but..the problem is it was pointed out that if we leave with 'no deal', we will ruin Europe if we pull out completely. So we are a rich nation and now we have best of both worlds, sell anywhere to anybody anytime we wish and all its going to cost us is £XYZB over twenty years, if you think that's a failure, I will step down as party leader and PM and hand over to...AGGHH!

PS if it does turn out like this, it could all have been avoided if Junker had done the deal with Cameron... the two casualties with be Theresa in Britain and CJ Junker in the EU, both will need to fall on their swords!

Let me give you an example of how the EU works. Malta had (and in some way still has) a huge irregular immigration problem something the pro EU lackey PN couldn’t possibly sort. I still remember the outrage Malmstrom caused when she came to Malta to basically tell us to suck it up.
Anyway, at one point there was a change in government and the labour party took over. Few months later I started working in a ministry so I had some idea of what was going on behind the scene. We were concerned that the new PM (a former Eurosceptic) could use it to reopen the EU membership debate. Instead he totally took us off guard by patiently built support with Italy, Spain and Greece and put forward a very strong case about it. In few years, Germany opened its borders to immigrants, an immigration deal with Turkey (and Libya) was signed, mandatory burden sharing had been approved and soon enough it will be rolled in.

Germany is a big player but it became so mainly because it patiently built the support needed to become one. It certainly won’t be screwing Europe just to appease the UK demands especially since there’s the single market’s integrity in place. If the EU allows the UK to get unrestricted access to the single market (goods and services) without FOM then rest assured that there will be others who would want that same deal as well. That include countries like Norway and Denmark + others like the US or China. That's also the same reason why the EU couldn't give in to Cameron

I think that the UK will fulfil its financial commitments in exchange of a transitional deal. That will balance ‘Brussels’ books and will give the UK the time it needs to try and seal deals with the WTO and countries such as the US etc. After that it will all depend on Boris and Fox ability to sign meaningful trade deals. If they succeed then the UK can afford settling down for a CETA like deal. If not then considering the Brexiters ‘incompetence’ then the UK will have no choice but to go into an EFTA/EEA agreement (which is still leaving the union as specified by the Brexit referendum but its not the Brexit a big chunk of Brexiters wanted)

That explains why an incompetent but highly ambitious Boris would rather resign then take that challenge. As foreign secretary he really risks of being singled out of why the UK had to settle for an EFTA agreement despite Brexit.

 

[devilish]

You are not really paying attention are you?

The US needs our defence spending to provide a bulwark in Europe, and all the rest are behind with their payments and France is still arguing about the 2% of GDP required, we need a good economy to provide a decent '2%'contribution to NATO's defence.
If the USA ditches us because we are somehow not going to have influence in Europe and refuse to gives us preferred trading nation status, then their First line of Defence against Russia will suddenly get thinner.

Seriously? Do you think the US needs the UK's military prowess?

Also have you noticed that Trump doesn't see Russia as a problem at all? He might have a soft spot for the UK but he certainly doesn't give two hoots about Europe. In fact he would most probably, pulled the plug out of Nato if someone hasn't told him that he would give the EU (something he hates) the perfect excuse to raise their own army and become totally independent from US influence.

I mean imagine what would happen if a truly military independent EU is able to sort things out with its neighbour and who knows maybe China as well. These 3 unions combined might even decide to put a stop on the US warmongering through heavy sanctions. I know that its sounds crazy but this thing is already happening (not in the EU but in Turkey). If Serbia joins the EU then Putin will finally has a strong voice in Europe as well at a time when the US has just lost theirs.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Oh how could you.. the shame of it.. I wouldn't bring back Nani if he was gold plated (like his reported statue in his hallway!)

Sorry, it was actually a poster called Bringnaniback who hasn't posted in the Brexit forums since around the referendum time but he was full of conspiracy theories. You reminded me of him.
He was a disciple of some anti-EU extremist and amongst his theories were that the EU would disintegrate at any moment, the USD and the Euro would cease to exist imminently. Amongst other things like the earth was flat and there is no gravity

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The Brexit campaign reminds me of a middle aged man who had been in a relationship for quite some time. His wife is pregnant and the couple had been arguing a lot lately because she expects him to do more in the house.

One fine day, two mates (lets call them Paul and Stanley) takes him to a top model party which is filled with beautiful young ladies in their early 20s. Stanley starts telling him stories he read about them. Some wouldn’t mind being involved in threesomes while others just want to settle down with a rich guy and they wouldn’t care whom their bf bangs as long as he eventually come home. All these girls are financially independent, they earn way more than the middle aged guy which means that they will probably afford him not working. This sea of opportunity is available to him but only if he becomes single.

Paul on the other hand counters to that by saying that these girls are probably out of his league. if the guy leaves his wife for them then she will probably not wantto have anything to do with him and will use every leverage against him to take him to the cleaners. Not to forget that his reputation will be ruined after that and people will be extra careful when dealing with him.

Stanley dismisses Paul concerns by saying that this is all project fear and there's plenty of fuel left in their friend's tank to get what he wants. He assures him that considering his wife’s situation there’s a big possibility that he could seal a new bold and mutually beneficial relationship with her where she basically pay all the mortgage they both agreed to pay and still allow him to sleep with her in exchange of him visiting her every now and then. Being a single mother can be lonely at times and loneliness is a cruel thing. Considering all the top models around him to keep him busy she will need him more then he needs her right? All he has to do is to reassure her that he’s leaving her not her bedroom. If she can find a cheap gym, then he might even pay for her gym subscription because its within his interest to have a fit courtesan to sleep with every now and then.

This was written tongue in cheek and of course the names are purely co-incidential. Having said that if this guy is full of himself and pretty frustrated with his wife then god knows what he will choose.

I have gotten to the point where I'm not sure what is most depressing leaving the EU or having to wade through another analogy.

 

[devilish]

I have gotten to the point where I'm not sure what is most depressing leaving the EU or having to wade through another analogy.

It was meant as a bit of a joke to lighten the mood. Please dont kill me

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Is your name bill?

 

[JPRouve]

You are not really paying attention are you?

The US needs our defence spending to provide a bulwark in Europe, and all the rest are behind with their payments and France is still arguing about the 2% of GDP required, we need a good economy to provide a decent '2%'contribution to NATO's defence.
If the USA ditches us because we are somehow not going to have influence in Europe and refuse to gives us preferred trading nation status, then their First line of Defence against Russia will suddenly get thinner.

France is still arguing? https://donnees.banquemondiale.org/indicateur/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

 

[The Outsider]

Don’t you think that the US economy is big enough not to give two hoots about the British economy? I mean we’re talking here of an economic and military superpower who didn’t thought twice to pull the plug out of a historical trade deal with most of Europe. Texas alone is 3 times the size of the UK.

Don’t take me wrong I am confident that the US will offer the UK a trade deal. However economy of scale will weight greatly here. Trump might have a soft spot towards the UK however even his powers have limits. He will have to sell that trade deal to congress (most are heavily influenced by lobbyists) at a time when the PE will be at the door. Orange guy has promised that America will always be first to him. He better deliver on that.
I don’t think that the US is devious by nature. The problem with US policy is its own political parties. On one side you’ve got the Republicans who tend to be pro British, pro Israel, pro war and pro capitalism. At the other side of the spectrum you’ve got the Democrats who seem to be pro Europe, pro environment etc. Now the EU had sucked up Obama a bit too much and is now paying the price. There’s nothing to suggest that if Trump loses the next PE, the UK won’t end up in the same situation the EU is now. As they say, the US remembers (or was it the North?)

I think the US would want a deal, for me as simple as no tariffs at either end of trade.
One of the big factors is that the US is financially in trouble the Brics are starting to do bilateral deals without using the dollar.
What we have in our favour is that our troops have stood with the US and we have voted with them in the UN. Both these points should weigh in our favour, if it comes to harsh words.

We need to be careful we don't appear to upset the American people who are some of our biggest tourists. We will want to keep that source of foreign income.

 

[rcoobc]

We need to be careful we don't appear to upset the American people who are some of our biggest tourists. We will want to keep that source of foreign income.

Not laughing at you, just makes me laugh that no one applied the same logic to the EU

 

[The Outsider]

Germany is a big player but it became so mainly because it patiently built the support needed to become one. It certainly won’t be screwing Europe just to appease the UK demands especially since there’s the single market’s integrity in place. If the EU allows the UK to get unrestricted access to the single market (goods and services) without FOM then rest assured that there will be others who would want that same deal as well. That include countries like Norway and Denmark + others like the US or China. That's also the same reason why the EU couldn't give in to Cameron

I think that the UK will fulfil its financial commitments in exchange of a transitional deal. That will balance ‘Brussels’ books and will give the UK the time it needs to try and seal deals with the WTO and countries such as the US etc. After that it will all depend on Boris and Fox ability to sign meaningful trade deals. If they succeed then the UK can afford settling down for a CETA like deal. If not then considering the Brexiters ‘incompetence’ then the UK will have no choice but to go into an EFTA/EEA agreement (which is still leaving the union as specified by the Brexit referendum but its not the Brexit a big chunk of Brexiters wanted)

Fair point about the EU needing to be seen to be harsh on the UK, we have the larger military in our favour though that does concern me as I can some Ukrainian nutcase dragging us into a potential nuclear conflict with Russia.

What might work instead of an upfront exit bill is if we agree not to impose tariffs on EU imports let allow the EU to apply a tariff for UK exports say 2% to be renegotiated in 5 years. Obviously this would need to be run by UK exporters to determine likely impact and whether a subsidy to offset this should be applied.

 

[The Outsider]

Not laughing at you, just makes me laugh that no one applied the same logic to the EU

Agree that might take a hit though judging by Southern and Eastern European economies that is likely to be low. Also do many Germans or French come for tourism?

 

[rcoobc]

Agree that might take a hit though judging by Southern and Eastern European economies that is likely to be low. Also do many Germans or French come for tourism?

More French people come to the uk than americans, though the Americans spend more.

 

[MoskvaRed]

I think the US would want a deal, for me as simple as no tariffs at either end of trade.
One of the big factors is that the US is financially in trouble the Brics are starting to do bilateral deals without using the dollar.
What we have in our favour is that our troops have stood with the US and we have voted with them in the UN. Both these points should weigh in our favour, if it comes to harsh words.

We need to be careful we don't appear to upset the American people who are some of our biggest tourists. We will want to keep that source of foreign income.

The UK will always be the junior partner to the US due to the relative sizes of the two countries. I am not anti-American by any means but what I don't get with Brexiteers is the outrage over "Brussels" (i.e. a formal system of pooled sovereignty where the UK had a very big say) but, with Uncle Sam, it's "You want us to jump? How high?". If you accept that the UK is not big enough to stand in glorious isolation in the modern world and you have to make a choice, then surely it's better to be with your neighbours (over whom you have some control) than relying on a distant, global power for whom, while you might have some sentimental value, you are ultimately fairly low on their list of global priorities?

 

[Sweet Square]

The UK will always be the junior partner to the US due to the relative sizes of the two countries. I am not anti-American by any means but what I don't get with Brexiteers is the outrage over "Brussels" (i.e. a formal system of pooled sovereignty where the UK had a very big say) but, with Uncle Sam, it's "You want us to jump? How high?". If you accept that the UK is not big enough to stand in glorious isolation in the modern world and you have to make a choice, then surely it's better to be with your neighbours (over whom you have some control) than relying on a distant, global power for whom, while you might have some sentimental value, you are ultimately fairly low on their list of global priorities?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Agree that might take a hit though judging by Southern and Eastern European economies that is likely to be low. Also do many Germans or French come for tourism?

More importantly in the 12 months to June 2017 over 26 million visitors came from the EU whereas less than 5 million came from North America, who was it you didn't want to upset again.

 

[JPRouve]

The UK will always be the junior partner to the US due to the relative sizes of the two countries. I am not anti-American by any means but what I don't get with Brexiteers is the outrage over "Brussels" (i.e. a formal system of pooled sovereignty where the UK had a very big say) but, with Uncle Sam, it's "You want us to jump? How high?". If you accept that the UK is not big enough to stand in glorious isolation in the modern world and you have to make a choice, then surely it's better to be with your neighbours (over whom you have some control) than relying on a distant, global power for whom, while you might have some sentimental value, you are ultimately fairly low on their list of global priorities?

It is a strange dynamic because Europe values the UK far higher than the US do. Ultimately the US only care about themselves because they are big enough to only care about themselves, anyone deluded enough to think that they have a special bond with the US will ultimately look silly.

 

[rcoobc]

More importantly in the 12 months to June 2017 over 26 million visitors came from the EU whereas less than 5 million came from North America, who was it you didn't want to upset again.

It's a funny world.

 

[Stanley Road]

More importantly in the 12 months to June 2017 over 26 million visitors came from the EU whereas less than 5 million came from North America, who was it you didn't want to upset again.

The ones that spend more

 

[JPRouve]

The ones that spend more

That would mean the EU.

 

[Rightnr]

I laughed a lot because this is so true. These arguments feel so familiar to me and this is why I see Europe as my home.

 

[africanspur]

The UK will always be the junior partner to the US due to the relative sizes of the two countries. I am not anti-American by any means but what I don't get with Brexiteers is the outrage over "Brussels" (i.e. a formal system of pooled sovereignty where the UK had a very big say) but, with Uncle Sam, it's "You want us to jump? How high?". If you accept that the UK is not big enough to stand in glorious isolation in the modern world and you have to make a choice, then surely it's better to be with your neighbours (over whom you have some control) than relying on a distant, global power for whom, while you might have some sentimental value, you are ultimately fairly low on their list of global priorities?

It is very interesting to have read my kids history books while they were growing up.

I feel the way that recent European history is taught in a way where the silly squabbling kids of Europe need aloof parent UK to come in and sort out their mess. It is not a partnership of equals. But of one distant country . I've always felt that some British people, regardless of any valid or invalid arguments for the EU, have always struggled to come to terms with the idea that Europe could dictate anything to us. How could the silly central Europeans from those tiny, insignificant countries with their ridiculous accents, ever tell us what to do?

I don't think this is an issue when we're dealing with a superpower.

I'd be interested to know if history is taught in the same way for other European countries that have recently been superpowers (esp France and Germany but I guess also Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands for example).

 

[The Outsider]

The UK will always be the junior partner to the US due to the relative sizes of the two countries. I am not anti-American by any means but what I don't get with Brexiteers is the outrage over "Brussels" (i.e. a formal system of pooled sovereignty where the UK had a very big say) but, with Uncle Sam, it's "You want us to jump? How high?". If you accept that the UK is not big enough to stand in glorious isolation in the modern world and you have to make a choice, then surely it's better to be with your neighbours (over whom you have some control) than relying on a distant, global power for whom, while you might have some sentimental value, you are ultimately fairly low on their list of global priorities?

People wanting freedom from Brussels is because we feel we have had little say in things, no argument about the US being the bigger partner. Re us going alone we are bigger than both Australia and NZ combined by population which seems to make a mockery that we could not be successful going alone.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The UK will always be the junior partner to the US due to the relative sizes of the two countries. I am not anti-American by any means but what I don't get with Brexiteers is the outrage over "Brussels" (i.e. a formal system of pooled sovereignty where the UK had a very big say) but, with Uncle Sam, it's "You want us to jump? How high?". If you accept that the UK is not big enough to stand in glorious isolation in the modern world and you have to make a choice, then surely it's better to be with your neighbours (over whom you have some control) than relying on a distant, global power for whom, while you might have some sentimental value, you are ultimately fairly low on their list of global priorities?

How much does the UK pay America to have a trade deal that we are currently in credit with like we are with the rest of the world?

How much do we pay the EU to have a trade deal with that we are in deficit to the tune of 68 billion pounds a year and then there are extra strings which force the UK to accept a huge potential downside risk?

You can argue the balancing point and I would agree but honestly, I don't get why people don't look at the numbers and think Brexit might have a broader helicopter view of reality.

I worry equally about what happens next and being wrong to vote remain and labour.

 

[The Outsider]

The ones that spend more

Good point yet don't we want both. Some will always come as we now have mixed relationships, others to see things like the Rosetta stone and others because they will still work here, yes we will not ask everyone to leave!

TBF, I don't think many will come for the food, even if we still have regional delicacies like Cornish pasties, Spotted Dick or Jellied eels.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

More importantly in the 12 months to June 2017 over 26 million visitors came from the EU whereas less than 5 million came from North America, who was it you didn't want to upset again.

The ones we don't upset by being ourselves?

 

[MoskvaRed]

People wanting freedom from Brussels is because we feel we have had little say in things, no argument about the US being the bigger partner. Re us going alone we are bigger than both Australia and NZ combined by population which seems to make a mockery that we could not be successful going alone.

Australia is even more in bed with the US than the UK is. At least we stayed out of Vietnam, and I don't recall a UK PM ever calling himself the US's deputy sheriff like John Howard did. Economically, unlike the UK, it has a huge amount of mineral resources ready to be dug up and shipped to China. And, most pertinently to all these debates about country A or country B standing alone, these countries have not developed their economies over the last 40 years around being part of the economic community and then single market. It is possible to extract ourselves and build a new model but, beyond Trump-style waffle, I have yet to hear any convincing argument why this huge and risky undertaking is worth the time, effort and sacrifices that will inevitably be required.

 

[MoskvaRed]

How much does the UK pay America to have a trade deal that we are currently in credit with like we are with the rest of the world?

How much do we pay the EU to have a trade deal with that we are in deficit to the tune of 68 billion pounds a year and then there are extra strings which force the UK to accept a huge potential downside risk?

You can argue the balancing point and I would agree but honestly, I don't get why people don't look at the numbers and think Brexit might have a broader helicopter view of reality.

I worry equally about what happens next and being wrong to vote remain and labour.

That trade deficit will still exist in some way or other unless by some miracle the UK manufactoring sector can turn the clock back. In fact it will now probably widen as it becomes more difficult to export goods and services into the huge market on our doorstep. In any case, even if you reduce the leave/remain argument to a simple matter of the membership fee (and I find that too simplistic), potential savings will be whittled down by the increase in bureaucracy needed to set up and run the new system if we are not to have "lorries backed up at Dover". And, for me, the most over-looked point is the opportunity cost. The government should be focused on the big challenges of the present and near future - overhauling the education system, funding health care for an ageing population, how to deal with increased automation. Instead, the focus of the government and civil service will be dominated by how to reinvent this particular wheel.

 

[I Believe]

Seriously? Do you think the US needs the UK's military prowess?

No, but it needs Britain to contribute its spending towards NATO defence. If we don't meet our 2% commitment the financial burden falls on the Americans and with Trump in charge and his 'relaxed view' about Russia, he won't think twice about ditching the defence, of certain states in Europe. The Baltic states and other East European Countries are hoping like mad that Britain outside the EU, will still continue to contribute to the overall NATO budget at the same rate and won't do a new deal with the US which just affects the defence of Western Europe only.

 

[I Believe]

France is still arguing

Yes as I understand it, something to do with its Air force and its loan of fighter jet to others in NATO, not being taken into consideration, seems to make a fair point really?

(By the way if you want to engage in conversations with me son, I would rather you say what you have to say and don't refer me to a third source, much oblige.)

 

[Kentonio]

People wanting freedom from Brussels is because we feel we have had little say in things, no argument about the US being the bigger partner. Re us going alone we are bigger than both Australia and NZ combined by population which seems to make a mockery that we could not be successful going alone.

The difference is what kind of stature and influence you want the UK to actually have. Neither Australia or NZ punch anywhere near the UK's weight either economically or on the world stage. Some of that comes from population size and location, but a lot of it comes from historical power and diplomatic influence. Obviously Britain could cut itself off from the EU (and the US if it chose) and still be a significant economy, but it would be a much less significant economy than it is currently, and the effect on our global influence would be greatly reduced. That's the big threat of Brexit, and its not just the 'still thinking we're a superpower' idea that a lot of people on the left think. That influence gives us a huge amount of power regarding trade and diplomatic dealings with other countries, and benefits British people greatly.

 

[I Believe]

Sorry, it was actually a poster called Bringnaniback who hasn't posted in the Brexit forums since around the referendum time but he was full of conspiracy theories. You reminded me of him.
He was a disciple of some anti-EU extremist and amongst his theories were that the EU would disintegrate at any moment, the USD and the Euro would cease to exist imminently. Amongst other things like the earth was flat and there is no gravity

Oh I see, nothing to do with the footballer?

Well I can declare hand on heart I am not the afore mentioned Bringnaniback! If he stopped posting since the referendum, perhaps he's proved his point (if he had one) about the result of the Referendum?
Yes, conspiracy theories are great, aren't they? However there has to be some elements in them that are just about believable, otherwise they don't work. I'm well into my dotage now (maybe you can tell??) but in my life, truth has often turned out to be stranger than fiction.

Conspiracies sell books, make good TV documentaries, sometimes film thrillers? They make people think, if only for a few seconds then say "Nah that can't be true... can it? And where would Fake News be now without them and the past master Donald Trump, he's worth the entrance money on his own!

I suppose my most extreme conspiracy theory would be, that Britain will withdraw from the EU, Germany will take over as the European Superpower (in the guise of the EU), deals will be done that keep, lets be fair the only two countries that currently keep the EU afloat financially happy with each other and together will ensure the peace in Europe for the next half century!

Its far fetched of course, but consider this, for the past century, give or take, Britain has sided with France against Germany in terrible conflicts, all agree that cannot be repeated, so this time it looks like it will be France and Germany against Britain, but in an economic conflict, where unless Macron can do what he promises and raise France up to a modern state, that gets to grips with its left leaning Unions etc., then Germany will rule the roost in the EU and Germany will co-operate with Britain to their mutual advantage.

Think about that one Paul?

 

[devilish]

I think the US would want a deal, for me as simple as no tariffs at either end of trade.
One of the big factors is that the US is financially in trouble the Brics are starting to do bilateral deals without using the dollar.
What we have in our favour is that our troops have stood with the US and we have voted with them in the UN. Both these points should weigh in our favour, if it comes to harsh words.

We need to be careful we don't appear to upset the American people who are some of our biggest tourists. We will want to keep that source of foreign income.

every country would want to make a deal with the UK. Whether that deal will be beneficial to the UK is a completely difficult cup of tea. Most will try to capitalise on the UK's relatively small size, its inexperience in signing trade deals, its lack of trade deals already in place, its wobbly government and its desperation in signing trade deals. Its not hatred or lack of friendship but business.

That's why the UK needs to prepare itself well. A long transitional period will give it the necessary time it needs to sign trade deals and, if things go wrong, plan for a plan B. The EFTA deal isn't that horrible

 

[Kentonio]

where unless Macron can do what he promises and raise France up to a modern state, that gets to grips with its left leaning Unions etc., then Germany will rule the roost in the EU and Germany will co-operate with Britain to their mutual advantage.

A modern state? That would be the same France that after the Brexit vote overtook Britain as the 5th largest economy? The same France that has higher worker productivity than Britain despite its 'left leaning unions etc'? Why exactly do you think a country with a higher standard of worker rights and living standards than the UK would want to follow us down the path of zero hour contracts, shitty working conditions and massive corporate power?

 

[Kentonio]

Its not hatred or lack of friendship but business.

As De Gaulle aptly put it, "No nation has friends only interests". People need to remember that.

 

[devilish]

Fair point about the EU needing to be seen to be harsh on the UK, we have the larger military in our favour though that does concern me as I can some Ukrainian nutcase dragging us into a potential nuclear conflict with Russia.

What might work instead of an upfront exit bill is if we agree not to impose tariffs on EU imports let allow the EU to apply a tariff for UK exports say 2% to be renegotiated in 5 years. Obviously this would need to be run by UK exporters to determine likely impact and whether a subsidy to offset this should be applied.

Its not about being harsh its about preserving the integrity of the single market.

Let put the ball in the UK court. Imagine if there's hard brexit. One find day Scotland decides to leave the UK and join the EU. However, its planning to do it in a bold new way, were it basically cherry picks between the two deals. The idea behind is to sell EU products to UK market on a cheap (ie no tariffs etc) and viceversa. Any UK companies interested in exploiting this loophole must move their operations to Scotland and pay all their taxes there.

Now do you think that Westminster will accept that?
Do you think that any refusal can ever be interpreted as harsh or cruel?

We both know the answer to that.

The single market exist because everyone has the same level of playing field which include the 4 freedoms and the ECJ. It cant open its door wide to a third country who isnt governed by such rules/regulations else it risks to create a loophole were other third countries can dump its products and services on cheap through the UK. Such situation would create an environment were it wouldn't even be worth be an EU member and that will destroy the Union forever

What I believe will happen is that the UK will settle its bill in exchange for a transitional period. The EU will will balance the books and the UK will be given some breathing space to think and sign trade deals. Thanks to that the UK will also leave the EU in an amicable way. That means that it would be too weird to knock the door again if the voters/economy push the government into a rethink

 

[devilish]

No, but it needs Britain to contribute its spending towards NATO defence. If we don't meet our 2% commitment the financial burden falls on the Americans and with Trump in charge and his 'relaxed view' about Russia, he won't think twice about ditching the defence, of certain states in Europe. The Baltic states and other East European Countries are hoping like mad that Britain outside the EU, will still continue to contribute to the overall NATO budget at the same rate and won't do a new deal with the US which just affects the defence of Western Europe only.

I think Nato is on buying time. The US interests has shifted East rather then West + Europe is getting increasingly frustrated with the US dictating its military policy.

 

[711]

Oh I see, nothing to do with the footballer?

Well I can declare hand on heart I am not the afore mentioned Bringnaniback! If he stopped posting since the referendum, perhaps he's proved his point (if he had one) about the result of the Referendum?
Yes, conspiracy theories are great, aren't they? However there has to be some elements in them that are just about believable, otherwise they don't work. I'm well into my dotage now (maybe you can tell??) but in my life, truth has often turned out to be stranger than fiction.

Conspiracies sell books, make good TV documentaries, sometimes film thrillers? They make people think, if only for a few seconds then say "Nah that can't be true... can it? And where would Fake News be now without them and the past master Donald Trump, he's worth the entrance money on his own!

I suppose my most extreme conspiracy theory would be, that Britain will withdraw from the EU, Germany will take over as the European Superpower (in the guise of the EU), deals will be done that keep, lets be fair the only two countries that currently keep the EU afloat financially happy with each other and together will ensure the peace in Europe for the next half century!

Its far fetched of course, but consider this, for the past century, give or take, Britain has sided with France against Germany in terrible conflicts, all agree that cannot be repeated, so this time it looks like it will be France and Germany against Britain, but in an economic conflict, where unless Macron can do what he promises and raise France up to a modern state, that gets to grips with its left leaning Unions etc., then Germany will rule the roost in the EU and Germany will co-operate with Britain to their mutual advantage.

Think about that one Paul?

It's interesting about unions. Off the top of my head I would have gone along with France being heavily unionised, because they do have some high-profile strikes of course, but it turns out France actually has less than half the percentage of workers in unions compared to the UK, and far less than Germany too. I'm not sure whether this is good, bad or irrelevant mind, just sharing my own misconception.

 

[JPRouve]

It's interesting about unions. Off the top of my head I would have gone along with France being heavily unionised, because they do have some high-profile strikes of course, but it turns out France actually has less than half the percentage of workers in unions compared to the UK, and far less than Germany too. I'm not sure whether this is good, bad or irrelevant mind, just sharing my own misconception.

It's an important fact and you should also know that it's always the same groups and sub groups that organize strikes. They pre-organize them, we all know about it and we don't care about them because they don't represent the vast majority of people. Just take the current strikes, they were supposed to happen no matter who win the elections and no matter what they do, it's just ridiculous. Also only one union isn't working with the government on the labour reform, the CGT like always.

 

[PedroMendez]

It's interesting about unions. Off the top of my head I would have gone along with France being heavily unionised, because they do have some high-profile strikes of course, but it turns out France actually has less than half the percentage of workers in unions compared to the UK, and far less than Germany too. I'm not sure whether this is good, bad or irrelevant mind, just sharing my own misconception.

Where did you read this number? Imo its far off (should be between 5-10%). France has a lower % of workers being in unions compared to most European countries, but the unions in different countries follow very different traditions. E.g. in Swiss, Germany or northern Europe unions work much closer with companies and are far less confrontational. The idea is to some extend that the most important work of unions is not happening on the street but by improving companies from within without much fuss.
In France unions are far less cooperative and consequently their work is much more focused on applying pressure. Despite being smaller (in numbers), they have larger capabilities to mobilize protest.

 

[711]

Where did you read this number? Imo its far off (should be between 5-10%). France has a lower % of workers being in unions compared to most European countries, but the unions in different countries follow very different traditions. E.g. in Swiss, Germany or northern Europe unions work much closer with companies and are far less confrontational. The idea is to some extend that the most important work of unions is not happening on the street but by improving companies from within without much fuss.
In France unions are far less cooperative and consequently their work is much more focused on applying pressure. Despite being smaller (in numbers), they have larger capabilities to mobilize protest.

A 10-second google of course:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=u...&ei=b7TDWbrZAcHOgAaOsoBA#imgrc=S3-u7Pc0wWHSxM:

I didn't go into it further because Forbes require your adblocker to be turned off and I generally can't be arsed with that.

I don't know if my first post was misleading, I meant the percentage of workers in unions in France is less than half the percentage of workers in unions in the UK, which at 11.2 to 24.7 I take it to be.