On 17 Dec 2018 at 3:58pm bored2 wrote:
I get the impression that the longer this clown show has gone on, the more MPs and ministers are starting to look to avoid blame rather than do anything decisive or constructive. Corbyn and Labour being prime examples. It may be clever party politics according to all the talking heads and I've heard 'never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake' enough times to last me a life.
Now a 'no deal' that was talked of as being utterly ridiculous and damaging by both sides during the referendum has become the default position. MPs who campaigned for leave won't admit they lied about what is possible so instead blame the EU for not giving us a better deal.
Excuse the ramble but boils down to, if there was a vote, no deal or no Brexit, which way would leave voters lean? All of those I know who support it would go for no deal!
On 17 Dec 2018 at 5:54pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Great, then those hard brexiteers can confidently vote for a hard brexit on WTO rules. For those who don't, they can support either remain or Mays deal. Simples. We now know precisely what we are voting for given that options are on the table from the EU. Probably end up 33% 3 ways knowing how divided the electorate are on this issue.
On 17 Dec 2018 at 10:15pm Bert wrote:
Surely, didn't everybody realise the 'nice' EU were NEVER going to offer a favourable leaving deal ? If they did there would be a queue of wealthier country's wanting to leave too, see the recent unrest in several of them. So a WTO is the viable option, we can the offer the EU the terms we get now and if they didn't offer them back, that will show them for what they are. Likewise with EU citizens here. I'm sure Green Sleeves will have something to add.
On 17 Dec 2018 at 10:58pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Clearly you can't leave EU membership without losing some of the benefits, and it would seem counter intuitive to be otherwise. It doesn't make the EU a malevolent entity, it's just looking after its own interests as Britain, hopefully, does the same. The problem is we can't have it all. Compromises have to be met and mainly by us as the leaving "party", and we simply can't absorb financial hits as well as 27 countries combined can. Brexiteers are naive to think Britain holds all the ace cards - it's an utterly misplaced sense of British exceptionalism, that is almost laughable, as well as totally obnoxious. The British empire is over, praise the lord.
On 18 Dec 2018 at 1:00am king of sussex wrote:
Post Brexit Trade Negotiations
UK: Hi US, do you mind if we do a trade deal?
US: What have you got?
UK: Well our lead exports are pharmaceuticals and machinery
US: Machinery? We make that stuff here
UK: What about a 60 million strong market for US goods?
US: Do they buy guns?
UK: No, mostly illegal
US No deal then.
UK: Thankfully weíre a sovereign country again, we can change the laws as WE want - so consider it done. Can we export to you now?
UK: What about the pharmaceuticals?
US: Yíall still got that NHS over there?
UK: Would you prefer we didnít?
US: Arenít you glad you donít have to bow to EU laws
On 18 Dec 2018 at 9:40am bored2 wrote:
Interesting Bert. If we offer them the same deal that means we have to adhere to their regulations on products as well. We'd follow a common rule book even if we aren't part of EU.
This has been slammed by leave politicians as making us a rule taker and hinders are ability to freely negotiate new trade deals. Seems a good way to avoid unnecessary economic damage but the leave politicians aren't behind it. Ministers resigned over this proposal including David Davis so it's unlikely to get approved in a parliament vote.
'Will show the EU for what they are' you say. They are fine with this approach but It is our own politicians blocking it. Give MS Caulfield a ring.
On 18 Dec 2018 at 10:03am Bert wrote:
There's nothing wrong with thei EU safety standards etc. So why change for change sake ? I have rung Maria and told her to stick to her guns, she's doing a great job !!
On 18 Dec 2018 at 11:41am bored2 wrote:
Bert, you have it backwards, Maria is not in favour of a common rulebook. She also resigned over it back in July. She is actively against what you think is a good idea.
On 18 Dec 2018 at 11:59am Tom Pain wrote:
Will we be part of the globalist EU or the globalist WTO? Tant pis. Oh how multicultural of me.
On 18 Dec 2018 at 1:05pm Green Sleeves wrote:
What's actually wrong with being a globalist? I don't see negative connotations in the same way as being a "nationalist". Seems far more forward thinking and progressive, less narrow minded.
On 18 Dec 2018 at 1:17pm bored2 wrote:
@Tom Pain. Or Global Britain as the Consevatives are sort of maybe still in favour of?
On 18 Dec 2018 at 3:21pm Clifford wrote:
Green Sleeves wrote: 'What's actually wrong with being a globalist? I don't see negative connotations in the same way as being a "nationalist".'
The EU has 6% of the world's population. The EU is 'Euro-nationalist', not globalist.
On 18 Dec 2018 at 5:21pm Fluffy wrote:
Globalisation as advocated by Blair and Tories and EU has got us where we are. Read up on it as canít be bothered to go into it here but basically only benefits the elite. Global economics and politics has wider implications than tradí Labour v Tory lines. Wake up and educate yourselves, that includes you greensleeves
On 18 Dec 2018 at 8:46pm Tom Pain wrote:
No Fluffy, globalization is progressive you know-- destroying countries in the Middle East and stealing everything that isn't nailed down. Nationalism is bigoted, defending yourself from predatory global corporations that want to steal everything etc. That reminds me-- Iran's next for the chop. Isn't progress wonderful.
On 19 Dec 2018 at 2:56am Green Sleeves wrote:
Not all "globalists" share the same vision as Tony Blair or chief executives of oil companies. Most just want to avoid the myopia of nationalism and the consequences of it.
On 19 Dec 2018 at 11:15am Tom Pain wrote:
I agree with you,most people have a positive attitude to the world. The trouble is that those like Blair and multinational executives have somewhat more influence than us keyboard warriors. They are the ones pushing globalism and their job is to make profits; the social consequences are not part of their remit. Nationalism with all it's drawbacks is,at present, the only force that can counter this tendency. It's a shame that our government seems to care not a jot for the majority of British people. That's why the majority voted for Brexit and what caused the gilet jaune movement in France.
On 19 Dec 2018 at 12:15pm bored2 wrote:
Globalism (or globalization) is the understanding or creation of connections across the globe. It isn't about war or oil or everyone losing national identities. The wars are the result of the UK and USA pretending that Iraq was involved in 9/11, stretching the truth and starting a war. That is nothing to do with globalization.
The globalization you're complaining about is a specific part of it (neoliberalism) that is being exploited and abused by certain people for their own ends. To pretend this is all that globalism is would be the same as me saying that nationalism is just for a way of allowing loud mouth racists to enjoy the run of the country. Both are people being selfish, unpleasant idiots. They don't define the ideal.
Clifford, what's EU-nationalism? There seems to be a disconnect between that and your regular comments about it being a neoliberalist (globalist) organization that doesn't value it's own citizens?
On 20 Dec 2018 at 6:39pm Clifford wrote:
bored2 - are you saying that the present UK nation state is not neo-liberal in its policies? The EU is a wider state project.