Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
"chequers"
The Chequers plan is rubbish, I have yet to hear anyone of any political persuasion think it is a good or even workable proposal, and yet the media is spinning it as if we should all be on tenterhooks to see if our dear leader can pull it off against EU adversity.
What is needed is either a completely different plan (enter Boris?) or no deal at all.
Would you agree?
What is needed is either a completely different plan (enter Boris?) or no deal at all.
Would you agree?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.No ai would not agree.
Boris is past history. He missed his opportunity, and his stock amongst Tory MPs (who can elect him) is very low. Boris’ hard brexit plan would be totally dismissed by the EU.
When the chequers Plan was revealed I said that the EU would bat it back wanting changes, and that after some last minute quibbling, there would be an agreement. I still stand by that, that is how it will pan out.
Boris is past history. He missed his opportunity, and his stock amongst Tory MPs (who can elect him) is very low. Boris’ hard brexit plan would be totally dismissed by the EU.
When the chequers Plan was revealed I said that the EU would bat it back wanting changes, and that after some last minute quibbling, there would be an agreement. I still stand by that, that is how it will pan out.
We do 45% of our trade with the EU. If we walk away without working out how future trade will work, then we risk losing it all. If we do not honour our obligations that we signed up to, and leave without paying them, then no one will trust us again in the future. Doing a midnight flit is not really an option in the 21st Century.
"Gung-Ho!" sounds exiting, but it should be possible among grown-ups to find a mutually beneficial arrangement - and "Chequers" ain't it. The Brits shouldn't cut off their nose to spite their face, but but the EU negotiator (trying to make a name for himself 'cos he wants J.C.Junker's job next) Barnier, has tried at every step to be unhelpful and obstructive, to teach the 'miscreants' a lesson for fear of contagion within the EU dream.
Everything you might want to know about the UK's trade with the EU is on here;
https:/ /fullfa ct.org/ europe/ uk-eu-t rade/ The graph showing the balance of trade with Germany alone is quite staggering and it is in their interests alone, that there should be a sensible outcome.
Everything you might want to know about the UK's trade with the EU is on here;
https:/
The question is, what really are our obligations. The EU wants continued contribution to that which we were involved in as members, but being an ex-member is a different situation.
Staying part of and continuing to contribute to projects that benefit us isn't so bad, but continuing to pay for that which is part of a club to which we no longer belong, and which the contract didn't stipulate continuing to contrnute after leaving, isn't reasonable.
We are leaving anyway IF our politicians are to be believed, so 'flit' doesn't come into it. These negotiations are about future trade relationships and saying, "No", to bad deals and leaving without agreement is perfectly honorable.
What isn't honorable is demanding unreasonable criteria that would leave us in the EU in all but name, as the EU would continue to make rules we'd be forced to obey. The sensible conclusion from the "discussions" so far is that the EU should be the party untrusted in the future.
The UK, on the other hand, is likely to be seen as the weak push-over in the future, given May's record so far. That might change slightly if we feel forced to go for no deal.
Staying part of and continuing to contribute to projects that benefit us isn't so bad, but continuing to pay for that which is part of a club to which we no longer belong, and which the contract didn't stipulate continuing to contrnute after leaving, isn't reasonable.
We are leaving anyway IF our politicians are to be believed, so 'flit' doesn't come into it. These negotiations are about future trade relationships and saying, "No", to bad deals and leaving without agreement is perfectly honorable.
What isn't honorable is demanding unreasonable criteria that would leave us in the EU in all but name, as the EU would continue to make rules we'd be forced to obey. The sensible conclusion from the "discussions" so far is that the EU should be the party untrusted in the future.
The UK, on the other hand, is likely to be seen as the weak push-over in the future, given May's record so far. That might change slightly if we feel forced to go for no deal.