Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Another Europhile Calling Brexiteers Stupid"
68 Answers
Of course this bloke has never been elected into Politics. How the hell did he get into the House of Lords? Oh yes, he helped write the Lisbon Treaty! That says it all.
http://
http://
Answers
We became the worlds fifth biggest economy in spite of being part of Europe, think what we could do without
22:56 Sat 19th Nov 2016
"And how do you think that (leaving without any agreement) will leave us in the eyes of our European trading partners NJ?"
It takes two to reach an agreement (or fail to do so), Zacs and should the negotiations fail it will reflect badly on both sides. I'm not saying for one minute that no sort of deal will be cobbled together. I'm sure it will. But there seems to be undue emphasis on these negotiations which somehow gives the impression that our leaving is conditional on their success. It is not.
It takes two to reach an agreement (or fail to do so), Zacs and should the negotiations fail it will reflect badly on both sides. I'm not saying for one minute that no sort of deal will be cobbled together. I'm sure it will. But there seems to be undue emphasis on these negotiations which somehow gives the impression that our leaving is conditional on their success. It is not.
Well, you asked how leaving without any agreement will look in the eyes of our trading partners, Zac. I wasn’t waffling on because I think you have to consider, when answering that, why and how the agreement failed to materialise and specifically who was to blame for the failure.
However, so as not to be accused of waffling, I imagine if our partners considered our intransigence caused the failure they’d probably think about as much of us as they do now – that we had an absolute cheek having the temerity to want to leave and that we must be punished for doing so.
If they believed the failure was their fault they’d probably think about as much of us as they do now – that we had an absolute cheek having the temerity to want to leave and that we must be punished for doing so.
If they believed the failure was the fault of both sides they’d probably think about as much of us as they do now – that we had an absolute cheek having the temerity to want to leave and that we must be punished for doing so.
Quite whether they would cut off their noses to spite their faces is debateable. I would hope that common sense would prevail and that childishness would be reined in. But you never know. The important point is that whatever the situation at the end of the negotiations, one thing not for negotiation is our leaving. I want to see a proper leaving – a complete and absolute break. Personally I don’t really care all that much what our “partners” think of us. There are plenty more fish in the sea should they get the hump. I’m more concerned with seeing the results of the referendum implemented. And that should not be conditional or dependent on the success or otherwise of the negotiations.
However, so as not to be accused of waffling, I imagine if our partners considered our intransigence caused the failure they’d probably think about as much of us as they do now – that we had an absolute cheek having the temerity to want to leave and that we must be punished for doing so.
If they believed the failure was their fault they’d probably think about as much of us as they do now – that we had an absolute cheek having the temerity to want to leave and that we must be punished for doing so.
If they believed the failure was the fault of both sides they’d probably think about as much of us as they do now – that we had an absolute cheek having the temerity to want to leave and that we must be punished for doing so.
Quite whether they would cut off their noses to spite their faces is debateable. I would hope that common sense would prevail and that childishness would be reined in. But you never know. The important point is that whatever the situation at the end of the negotiations, one thing not for negotiation is our leaving. I want to see a proper leaving – a complete and absolute break. Personally I don’t really care all that much what our “partners” think of us. There are plenty more fish in the sea should they get the hump. I’m more concerned with seeing the results of the referendum implemented. And that should not be conditional or dependent on the success or otherwise of the negotiations.
I understand international business perfectly well, Zacs. But…
There were only two options on the referendum paper: “Remain” or “Leave”. There were no half solutions, no half in half out, no “Norwegian model”, no “Leave but remain in the Single Market”. Nothing like that at all. The country voted to Leave. The country must now accept that all of the advantages of EU Membership (such that they are) will be lost and all the advantages of leaving will be gained. Only if the EU agrees to retain some aspects of membership by mutual agreement will they be retained. But the UK should not entertain any compromises which involve any conditions being imposed on it which would curtail its right to determine its own affairs. Business in particular (since you mention it) will have to adapt to this new order. Since 80% of UK businesses have no dealings with other EU countries whatsoever, this should not be too difficult. The other 20% will have to sort themselves out. There is no earthly reason, for instance, why a condition of free trade should be the free movement of people. Other countries manage to trade freely with each other perfectly well without it (most would probably laugh at the suggestion) and it is utter nonsense to suggest that the two are interdependent. It has nothing to do with trade and is simply an ideological principle devised by the Euromaniacs in their futile quest for Federal State. If the price of free trade is free movement then the UK should simply say “no thanks, we’ll pay our 4% under WTO rules”.
It really has nothing to do with principles. The country was asked whether it considered the price of EU Membership worth paying and it decided it did not. If the referendum result is to be implemented then leaving means we leave and that’s that.
There were only two options on the referendum paper: “Remain” or “Leave”. There were no half solutions, no half in half out, no “Norwegian model”, no “Leave but remain in the Single Market”. Nothing like that at all. The country voted to Leave. The country must now accept that all of the advantages of EU Membership (such that they are) will be lost and all the advantages of leaving will be gained. Only if the EU agrees to retain some aspects of membership by mutual agreement will they be retained. But the UK should not entertain any compromises which involve any conditions being imposed on it which would curtail its right to determine its own affairs. Business in particular (since you mention it) will have to adapt to this new order. Since 80% of UK businesses have no dealings with other EU countries whatsoever, this should not be too difficult. The other 20% will have to sort themselves out. There is no earthly reason, for instance, why a condition of free trade should be the free movement of people. Other countries manage to trade freely with each other perfectly well without it (most would probably laugh at the suggestion) and it is utter nonsense to suggest that the two are interdependent. It has nothing to do with trade and is simply an ideological principle devised by the Euromaniacs in their futile quest for Federal State. If the price of free trade is free movement then the UK should simply say “no thanks, we’ll pay our 4% under WTO rules”.
It really has nothing to do with principles. The country was asked whether it considered the price of EU Membership worth paying and it decided it did not. If the referendum result is to be implemented then leaving means we leave and that’s that.
I wouldn't know, Zacs.
There has been enough damage done to the UK by over-reliance on "experts" spouting on about the benefits of our membership of the EU and how critical it is for our wellbeing. Once again only today the CBI (you may remember them - they suggested that it would be disastrous for the UK to stay out of the euro and more recently stated that there would be immediate and catastrophic consequences for the UK economy should we vote to leave the EU) stated that should Brexit be a sudden "cliff edge" event (albeit one with at least two years' notice to move back from the edge) they could see trade and business "grinding to a halt as UK companies find themselves in a compliance No Man's Land."
So if it's all the same, I'll take opinion from places such as the LSE with a rather large block of salt.
There has been enough damage done to the UK by over-reliance on "experts" spouting on about the benefits of our membership of the EU and how critical it is for our wellbeing. Once again only today the CBI (you may remember them - they suggested that it would be disastrous for the UK to stay out of the euro and more recently stated that there would be immediate and catastrophic consequences for the UK economy should we vote to leave the EU) stated that should Brexit be a sudden "cliff edge" event (albeit one with at least two years' notice to move back from the edge) they could see trade and business "grinding to a halt as UK companies find themselves in a compliance No Man's Land."
So if it's all the same, I'll take opinion from places such as the LSE with a rather large block of salt.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.