|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 17, 2018 22:04:51 GMT
I don't see anything in there that I wouldn't expect in your average public servants contract, although the two year thing is a bit draconian. I'd be surprised if something similar doesn't exist for offices in the UK government, such as Speaker of the Commons etc, and in most countries in the world. Certainly it's not dissimilar to the type of text the POTUS has to read when they are sworn in. I don't think it is quite the same, Particularly with it being a sworn oath.....I do recall it being used to censure....and don't forget that the EU isn't a country (as in your comparison) , it's a trading block...so we are led to believe Nothing there to get upset about. The 2 year thing is actually (sort of) a good thing. It's intended to stop commissioners lining up comfy jobs for themselves using the direct influence of their positions. Of course, there are other ways to do the same thing, but this stops it being painfully obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 17, 2018 22:08:17 GMT
I don't think it is quite the same, Particularly with it being a sworn oath.....I do recall it being used to censure....and don't forget that the EU isn't a country (as in your comparison) , it's a trading block...so we are led to believe Nothing there to get upset about. The 2 year thing is actually (sort of) a good thing. It's intended to stop commissioners lining up comfy jobs for themselves using the direct influence of their positions. Of course, there are other ways to do the same thing, but this stops it being painfully obvious. Yes I get that Partick, but I remember hearing it being used to stop criticism of the EU... admittedly I can't remember exactly...but I assure you that I am not upset about it |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 17, 2018 22:19:12 GMT
Nothing there to get upset about. The 2 year thing is actually (sort of) a good thing. It's intended to stop commissioners lining up comfy jobs for themselves using the direct influence of their positions. Of course, there are other ways to do the same thing, but this stops it being painfully obvious. Yes I get that Partick, but I remember hearing it being used to stop criticism of the EU... admittedly I can't remember exactly...but I assure you that I am not upset about it Glad to hear it. I've decided not to get upset at stuff these days. Just observe with a wry smile! Edit: even when my bridge partner of the day no bids a take out double. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 17, 2018 22:23:01 GMT
And until that trade deal is struck (let’s say 5 years if we are optimistic but obviously many of the things you say “control” over would likely form part of that trade agreement so a level of control will be lost on them to strike the deal most likely), what do you think should happen? Given how things have gone, since eEU has not negotiated in good faith and May is a deceitful Remainer then we should have planned for a no deal Brexit from the outset. The Referendum was about democracy and Sovereignty, being in or out of the EU. A deal is another matter. So given where we are now we should leave with no deal, so presumably under WTO rules. And no I don't have all the answers to that effect Northern Ireland...but to deliver BREXIT as fully as possible I would listen / implement those who seem to have the answer by means of technology and try, if it is necessary, to improve the border issues as we move on. The Irish issue should not prevent Brexit. My question that started this part of the debate was about pragmatic practicalities....what would you like to see NOW given we are where we are..... clearly for me that's BREXIT... leaving without a deal. We have not got time to renegotiate s " Norway" style deal. I thought you may say that. I won’t get into any debate on wanting no deal. But I do think the EU would be delighted if we changed position to join the EEA and I think the non-EU EEA nations would be delighted too, having us as a member to help their position. What I think we can all agree on is what we currently have a big fat mess! |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 17, 2018 22:24:51 GMT
So what happens if it gets voted down in the Commons? Leaving the EU on the 29th March is primacy legislation and enshrined in International Law. In the absence of an agreed deal we leave without a deal. No Deal/WTO/Clean Brexit call it what you like. Another name for it is economic, diplomatic and political disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 17, 2018 22:43:18 GMT
Leaving the EU on the 29th March is primacy legislation and enshrined in International Law. In the absence of an agreed deal we leave without a deal. No Deal/WTO/Clean Brexit call it what you like. Another name for it is economic, diplomatic and political disaster. But for who? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 17, 2018 22:48:37 GMT
Another name for it is economic, diplomatic and political disaster. But for who? Our nation |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 17, 2018 22:54:03 GMT
Possibly. It would, without doubt, be an economic, diplomatic and political disaster for the EU. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 17, 2018 22:56:41 GMT
Possibly. It would, without doubt, be an economic, diplomatic and political disaster for the EU. If that were true, we would be the ones dictating terms as we would have the position of strength in the negotiations. Without a shadow of a doubt, that is not the case. It wouldn’t be good for the EU. It would be much worse for us for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 17, 2018 22:56:48 GMT
Possibly. It would, without doubt, be an economic, diplomatic and political disaster for the EU. What's your preference, Partick? Has it changed? |
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Nov 17, 2018 23:35:38 GMT
Possibly. It would, without doubt, be an economic, diplomatic and political disaster for the EU. If that were true, we would be the ones dictating terms as we would have the position of strength in the negotiations. Without a shadow of a doubt, that is not the case. It wouldn’t be good for the EU. It would be much worse for us for obvious reasons. You are almost as naive as the negotiating team that have cobbled together this shambles we are left with. We were in a position of strength at the start of negotiations yet somehow the establishment have managed to reduce us to this fucking mess. We are the 5th largest economy in the world and we are begging basket case countries to cut us a deal. May should hang her head in shame. |
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Nov 18, 2018 0:47:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 3:50:53 GMT
" leave.EU a far right nationalist group" haha what a load of crap. Lazy journalism. And if you would like to talk about foreign intervention how about one potus Obama sticking his ore in with disinformation claiming we'd be put at the back of the que and also merkle who was specifically told not to comment on brexit as it would only increase and serve the cause of a leave vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 3:55:05 GMT
Think he hits the nail on the head here. It seems as though we are surrendering to the might of the EU rather than standing for what is right. It's at times like this when we need a strong and stubborn pm like Churchill or even thatcher. Not this weak joke of a pathetic excuse for pm at the moment.
Former Australian PM Tony Abbott...
"It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny.
Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get.
The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence.
But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy?
A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe.
Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are.
Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers.
Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain.
Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership.
Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere).
UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum.
As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it."
Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015
|
|
|
|
Post by 3putts on Nov 18, 2018 5:05:44 GMT
Think he hits the nail on the head here. It seems as though we are surrendering to the might of the EU rather than standing for what is right. It's at times like this when we need a strong and stubborn pm like Churchill or even thatcher. Not this weak joke of a pathetic excuse for pm at the moment. Former Australian PM Tony Abbott... "It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny. Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get. The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence. But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy? A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe. Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are. Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers. Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain. Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership. Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere). UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum. As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it." Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015 devalue the £ you must be fukin jokin it is already at an alltime low, we are currently giving away anything we manufacture [which isn't that much] and as we import more than we export that will mean our deficit will grow. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 6:23:27 GMT
If we're so bothered about the strength of the £ let's be fair and look at it historically, the British Pound reached an all time high of 2.86 in December of 1957 which would be pre EEC, and a record low of 1.05 in February of 1985 whilst inside the EEC.
If I was totally honest I think we would feel a short term pain whilst the markets adjust to no deal with the European Union. In the long run however we would thrive, of that I'm certain.
Just more knicker wetting from remain.
|
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 18, 2018 7:36:15 GMT
Think he hits the nail on the head here. It seems as though we are surrendering to the might of the EU rather than standing for what is right. It's at times like this when we need a strong and stubborn pm like Churchill or even thatcher. Not this weak joke of a pathetic excuse for pm at the moment. Former Australian PM Tony Abbott... "It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny. Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get. The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence. But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy? A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe. Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are. Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers. Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain. Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership. Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere). UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum. As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it." Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015 The part where he says "there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions." would probably see this plan dubbed as Brino. Interestingly, would Leave voters on here take a no deal if it involved the freedom of movement continuing? |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 18, 2018 8:06:43 GMT
Think he hits the nail on the head here. It seems as though we are surrendering to the might of the EU rather than standing for what is right. It's at times like this when we need a strong and stubborn pm like Churchill or even thatcher. Not this weak joke of a pathetic excuse for pm at the moment. Former Australian PM Tony Abbott... "It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny. Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get. The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence. But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy? A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe. Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are. Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers. Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain. Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership. Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere). UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum. As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it." Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015 The part where he says "there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions." would probably see this plan dubbed as Brino. Interestingly, would Leave voters on here take a no deal if it involved the freedom of movement continuing? Yes |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 18, 2018 8:26:04 GMT
Think he hits the nail on the head here. It seems as though we are surrendering to the might of the EU rather than standing for what is right. It's at times like this when we need a strong and stubborn pm like Churchill or even thatcher. Not this weak joke of a pathetic excuse for pm at the moment. Former Australian PM Tony Abbott... "It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny. Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get. The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence. But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy? A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe. Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are. Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers. Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain. Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership. Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere). UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum. As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it." Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015 The part where he says "there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions." would probably see this plan dubbed as Brino. Interestingly, would Leave voters on here take a no deal if it involved the freedom of movement continuing? The devil would be in the detail. Gordonsbamk/ Abbott does say with a few conditions. This would have to be thought through. Obviously what conditions, who and how are they monitored / administered. I couldn't go through all the conditions myself, before you ask, but I could agree with the principle...in theory a lorry driver taking goods in or out would and should be having free movement....but the idea that ( eventually, if not totally the case now) we should be working towards freemovment across the country of Europe should not be the case ( despite the intentionally unworkable redtrictions of Article 45).... Obviously I am not aware of the situation in respect of Australia/ New Zealand or Canada/ USA but Abbott seems to think that he knows what he is talking about.... perhaps we should at least listen to him ( obviously we have the additional problem of the Irish border question...and of course the EU will exploit that as far as possible).....You pick one aspect of what he says, possibly looking for negatives but basically he is saying that we've lost any sort of self belief and courage as a nation, emasculated and he cannot fathom out how such a country is scared to death to reassert its independence and sovereignty....and of course Remainers take refuge in the fear. So to answer your question ..yes, probably |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 18, 2018 8:59:42 GMT
The part where he says "there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions." would probably see this plan dubbed as Brino. Interestingly, would Leave voters on here take a no deal if it involved the freedom of movement continuing? The devil would be in the detail. Gordonsbamk/ Abbott does say with a few conditions. This would have to be thought through. Obviously what conditions, who and how are they monitored / administered. I couldn't go through all the conditions myself, before you ask, but I could agree with the principle...in theory a lorry driver taking goods in or out would and should be having free movement....but the idea that ( eventually, if not totally the case now) we should be working towards freemovment across the country of Europe should not be the case ( despite the intentionally unworkable redtrictions of Article 45).... Obviously I am not aware of the situation in respect of Australia/ New Zealand or Canada/ USA but Abbott seems to think that he knows what he is talking about.... perhaps we should at least listen to him ( obviously we have the additional problem of the Irish border question...and of course the EU will exploit that as far as possible).....You pick one aspect of what he says, possibly looking for negatives but basically he is saying that we've lost any sort of self belief and courage as a nation, emasculated and he cannot fathom out how such a country is scared to death to reassert its independence and sovereignty....and of course Remainers take refuge in the fear. So to answer your question ..yes, probably Mainly I concentrated on that bit because the rest of it seemed to be a dream ticket for those people who consider no deal to be the best way forward. I thought it would be interesting to see if they would accept everything minus one fairly big caveat. Cheers for the response. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 18, 2018 9:01:25 GMT
Possibly. It would, without doubt, be an economic, diplomatic and political disaster for the EU. What's your preference, Partick? Has it changed? My preference is a deal that respects the vote to leave. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 18, 2018 10:13:26 GMT
Think he hits the nail on the head here. It seems as though we are surrendering to the might of the EU rather than standing for what is right. It's at times like this when we need a strong and stubborn pm like Churchill or even thatcher. Not this weak joke of a pathetic excuse for pm at the moment. Former Australian PM Tony Abbott... "It’s pretty hard for Britain’s friends, here in Australia, to make sense of the mess that’s being made of Brexit. The referendum result was perhaps the biggest-ever vote of confidence in the United Kingdom, its past and its future. But the British establishment doesn’t seem to share that confidence and instead looks desperate to cut a deal, even if that means staying under the rule of Brussels. Looking at this from abroad, it’s baffling: the country that did the most to bring democracy into the modern world might yet throw away the chance to take charge of its own destiny. Let’s get one thing straight: a negotiation that you’re not prepared to walk away from is not a negotiation — it’s surrender. It’s all give and no get. When David Cameron tried to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership, he was sent packing because Brussels judged (rightly) that he’d never actually back leaving. And since then, Brussels has made no real concessions to Theresa May because it judges (rightly, it seems) that she’s desperate for whatever deal she can get. The EU’s palpable desire to punish Britain for leaving vindicates the Brexit project. Its position, now, is that there’s only one ‘deal’ on offer, whereby the UK retains all of the burdens of EU membership but with no say in setting the rules. The EU seems to think that Britain will go along with this because it’s terrified of no deal. Or, to put it another way, terrified of the prospect of its own independence. But even after two years of fearmongering and vacillation, it’s not too late for robust leadership to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. It’s time for Britain to announce what it will do if the EU can’t make an acceptable offer by March 29 next year — and how it would handle no deal. Freed from EU rules, Britain would automatically revert to world trade, using rules agreed by the World Trade Organization. It works pretty well for Australia. So why on earth would it not work just as well for the world’s fifth-largest economy? A world trade Brexit lets Britain set its own rules. It can say, right now, that it will not impose any tariff or quota on European produce and would recognise all EU product standards. That means no border controls for goods coming from Europe to Britain. You don’t need to negotiate this: just do it. If Europe knows what’s in its own best interests, it would fully reciprocate in order to maintain entirely free trade and full mutual recognition of standards right across Europe. Next, the UK should declare that Europeans already living here should have the right to remain permanently — and, of course, become British citizens if they wish. This should be a unilateral offer. Again, you don’t need a deal. You don’t need Michel Barnier’s permission. If Europe knows what’s best for itself, it would likewise allow Britons to stay where they are. Third, there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions. Only for work, not welfare. And with a foreign worker’s tax on the employer, to make sure anyone coming in would not be displacing British workers. Fourth, no ‘divorce bill’ whatsoever should be paid to Brussels. The UK government would assume the EU’s property and liabilities in Britain, and the EU would assume Britain’s share of these in Europe. If Britain was getting its fair share, these would balance out; and if Britain wasn’t getting its fair share, it’s the EU that should be paying Britain. Finally, there’s no need on Britain’s part for a hard border with Ireland. Britain wouldn’t be imposing tariffs on European goods, so there’s no money to collect. The UK has exactly the same product standards as the Republic, so let’s not pretend you need to check for problems we all know don’t exist. Some changes may be needed but technology allows for smart borders: there was never any need for a Cold War-style Checkpoint Charlie. Irish citizens, of course, have the right to live and work in the UK in an agreement that long predates EU membership. Of course, the EU might not like this British leap for independence. It might hit out with tariffs and impose burdens on Britain as it does on the US — but WTO rules put a cap on any retaliatory action. The worst it can get? We’re talking levies of an average 4 or 5 per cent. Which would be more than offset by a post-Brexit devaluation of the pound (which would have the added bonus of making British goods more competitive everywhere). UK officialdom assumes that a deal is vital, which is why so little thought has been put into how Britain might just walk away. Instead, officials have concocted lurid scenarios featuring runs on the pound, gridlock at ports, grounded aircraft, hoarding of medicines and flights of investment. It’s been the pre-referendum Project Fear campaign on steroids. And let’s not forget how employment, investment and economic growth ticked up after the referendum. As a former prime minister of Australia and a lifelong friend of your country, I would say this: Britain has nothing to lose except the shackles that the EU imposes on it. After the courage shown by its citizens in the referendum, it would be a tragedy if political leaders go wobbly now. Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe. Like so many of Britain’s admirers, I want to see this great country seize this chance and make the most of it." Tony Abbott served as Prime Minister of Australia from 2013 to 2015 The part where he says "there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions." would probably see this plan dubbed as Brino. Interestingly, would Leave voters on here take a no deal if it involved the freedom of movement continuing? The freedom of movement he is talking about here is pretty much how 99% of the rest of the world works, if you have a job or job offer and can support yourself, you are allowed to go and work in that country. |
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Nov 18, 2018 10:46:59 GMT
The part where he says "there should continue to be free movement of people from Europe into Britain — but with a few conditions." would probably see this plan dubbed as Brino. Interestingly, would Leave voters on here take a no deal if it involved the freedom of movement continuing? The freedom of movement he is talking about here is pretty much how 99% of the rest of the world works, if you have a job or job offer and can support yourself, you are allowed to go and work in that country. Correct and if Blair and Brown had followed this idea instead of just opening the door to any Eu citizens regardless of there intent to work or not Than we would probably have seen a different outcome to the referendum I would of still voted out as my vote was never about free movement |
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Nov 18, 2018 11:04:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 18, 2018 12:09:47 GMT
I think that she is trying to make the point ( badly) that we would effectively still be IN and not have those things/ MEPS during the " transition" period. It did remind me of this however |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Nov 18, 2018 12:15:13 GMT
I can't find where Selymar actually says this but what Raab says does not seem to be disputed.
The effect on the EUof the UK genuinely leaving would be such that I honestly believe that those in charge of the EU will not stop at anything as long as they can blame the chaos/ unrest/ disruption on BREXIT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2018 12:28:19 GMT
Guy Verhofstadt in his latest rant demanding more power to the EU, ask yourself one question, does this remind you of anyone? I wonder who will be the first to feel the rath of the German-Franco army, maybe the V4 Poland Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia. |
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Nov 18, 2018 12:47:54 GMT
Lest we forget:
|
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 18, 2018 12:49:12 GMT
Guy Verhofstadt in his latest rant demanding more power to the EU, ask yourself one question, does this remind you of anyone? I wonder who will be the first to feel the rath of the German-Franco army, maybe the V4 Poland Czech Republic Hungary and Slovakia. Yes I saw this yesterday run this as an advert back to back with the EU army speech and Leave won't need a bus this time  |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 18, 2018 12:55:14 GMT
The freedom of movement he is talking about here is pretty much how 99% of the rest of the world works, if you have a job or job offer and can support yourself, you are allowed to go and work in that country. Correct and if Blair and Brown had followed this idea instead of just opening the door to any Eu citizens regardless of there intent to work or not Than we would probably have seen a different outcome to the referendum I would of still voted out as my vote was never about free movement Yes my reasons are the same as yours I think but it is interesting that one of the few things the wankdrawal agreement does seem to end is the freedom of movement yet about 98% of leave voters dont seem to care about this its almost like what we were told was supposedly the main reason for us all voting leave is bollocks or something. |
|
