well the EU hand is somewhat strengthened by Trumps assertion that the EU comes before the UK in any trade deals. He likes deals and likes doing big deals does old Donny and he can try and get more US exports if he can trade with 27 states rather than just one which means the EU have that card in their hand already.
Text book strawman, can't overturn Obamacare therefore tells fibs in the UK about 'United States stands ready to forge a new trade agreement'
The table below suggests that the UK has been exporting quite a bit to the USA and China whilst being in the EU.And this was in London at a session he had flown over for - his words were totally unambiguous.
Why do people think that everything has to be done in a serial fashion - can major nations not multi-task?
So read your own post back - and try to have an open mind.......
Ask yourself why the vast majority of those on here do not take from your post that you take a certain delight that there is an potential event that will be good for the EU's position and negative for the UK's???
I say vast majority - as there are a few members of the club.
Yeah, I can understand that you say that, but can you understand when someone else reads your post it is likely that they will draw the conclusion you seem to:I take no delight at all in being led into the abyss
Time to put your cock on the block mate, tell us what your 'red lines' are and if they are crossed whether this will challenge your ( so called) 'patriotism'.Yeah, I can understand that you say that, but can you understand when someone else reads your post it is likely that they will draw the conclusion you seem to:
"............take a certain delight that there is an potential event that will be good for the EU's position and negative for the UK's" ???
The sort of statement you would normally expect to find from someone that takes "....no delight at all in being led into the abyss", are ones of anxiety and concern, things such as:
"I have been really anxious since 23/06 and nothing May has done as made me feel any more confident. It's getting real now with the negotiations about to start and this news from the US only adds to my concerns..........."
you might even expect something added like:
".......still come on the UK - lets get this sorted and May, you cow, stop making me so fucking nervous, I only have so much hair.........."
You know the sort of thing - statements that fully expressed your concerns - blame the person that you hold most responsible but demonstrate that you want the best for the UK
I am not wanting to put words in your mouth, just sort of 'holding up a mirror' so that you can see how you could come across to others - deep down I know that you put the interests of the UK ahead of those of the EU.
Serious question: What have we not been exporting to the US and Chiba that we will be free to export following our release from the yoke of EU oppression?
I agree - that's fair enough.Time to put your cock on the block mate, tell us what your 'red lines' are and if they are crossed whether this will challenge your ( so called) 'patriotism'.
"A stronger mandate to act robustly! That is meaningless and you know it."
Fumble I am not always sure you know what you are saying - hence my post earlier about your inconsistencies on Representative Democracy - I am absolutely certain you do not know how/what I think and say - apart from the way you want to interpret things which were not intended. It was a sentence of 6 letters - all made perfect sense.
I think that you are in the same place as bluethrunthru on the GE thread.
I just commented to him:
"You might not like it - you might well hate it - and I can understand that. It must very frustrating when you hold the views you do.
May is going to win and possibly/probably secure all the other aspects, apart from negotiating Brexit, that she wants to - all without having to do some tub-thumping campaigning - very frustrating."
You must be screaming inside your head - after all these months of trying to assure yourself that 'anytime now' the nation will turn against Brexit - and yet.........
Trying to convince us all about when the Corbyn/Labour principles come to the fore the electorate will flock........... oops
But look on the bright side - after all your protestations about why the referendum vote went wrong - which have all been running a bit low on substance recently, not long from now you will have the opportunity to explain to us how the GE all went wrong - a change is as good as a rest and all that.
It would still be on a minority of the electorate - more than the 25% who voted for them in 2015 but hardly the will of the people.Excellent post.
You either believe in democracy or you don't, in my opinion. You can't just champion it when it suits you.
If the Tories are returned with a 100 seat majority then the will of the British people have spoken and they have their mandate.
I just see it as obfuscation TBF.
I live in the here and now of 2017 in the UK. I get it - a sensible decision has been made by the UK government about a GE - in the here and now. Issues for you, IMO, is that it pulls the rug from under your hopes for the coming months/years.
Therefore it has to be compared to Erdogan, Morsi - etc.
Obfuscation - it is more convenient than running around screaming in frustration
But Fumble - I have read posts from you and others who are strong advocates of Remain speak out loudly about how we are in a representative democracy and how Parliament must have final word etc.
If, following the GE, the UK population has returned a larger majority for the PM - in the full knowledge that she is entering into the negotiations and seeking a stronger mandate to act robustly - is that not exactly representative democracy in action.
Or are you just selective and that is only what you want when the loading in the commons is in favour of Remain?
Excellent post.
You either believe in democracy or you don't, in my opinion. You can't just champion it when it suits you.
If the Tories are returned with a 100 seat majority then the will of the British people have spoken and they have their mandate.
But the laws governing fixed term Parliaments were introduced because it was a better form of democracy. A much needed step towards true democtratisation of the Parliamentary democracy in the UK. A form of democacy that forced the Government to act in the interests of the people at all times and not to act in their own self interest at the expense of the country and the people.
Theresa May has refued to act in the best intersets of the people, and has instead acted (priimarily) in her own selfish intersest and (secondarily) in the interests of the backers of a soft Brexit.
Less than six years and two mandate periods after the introduction of the fixed term parliament act she has thrown it on the scrap heap. Clearly her decision has degraded and depreciated democracy in Britain. Having taken a much needed step forward to a more democtatic UK, which May voted for in the Commons, she has now decided that it is expedient for her to act in her own self interest and to hell with democracy.
As @Damocles states, you either believe in democracy, or you don't. May, @mcfc1632 and @Damocles clearly don't, or if we are being kind, have a very weak grasp of the concept.
Yes, that's about the strength of it. Labour have been weak and ineffectual, it's MP's know why, Jezza is the culprit,What sort of ill thought out bullshit is this?
May fully complied with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. She took her election to Parliament which overwhelmingly passed it and decided that they'd run.
You see somebody who is your political opponent complying with British law in order to form a Government as "undemocratic". This is why you're an authoritarian in sheep's clothing. You hate it because they had the wrong colour tie on.
You seem like an intelligent young person.
Perhaps you could respond to the Len Rum open invitation to Brexiters to be a little more specific about what they want from the final settlement with the EU , do you have any 'red lines' that should not be crossed, what if the Govt. did cross them, would you protest/object and would that be a dereliction of your patriotic duty?
Answers on a post card please to:
Len Rum
Lounge and bar
The non conformist society
Neasden
Copy to mcfc1632.
Your red line of us leaving the EU will not be crossed , however the concessions you indicate we could agree to will mean that we will be an associate member of the EU in all but name.Len, as mentioned in an earlier post, I seem to see things differently to you and that will be reflected in this answer
I guess when you were asking this question you were seeking/expecting to hear examples of Red Lines described in terms such as, no immigration, no involvement with the ECJ, not a penny going to Brussels, access to the single market etc.
The debate on here and generally in the wider press and public, seems to be about topics such as access to the single market, ending FOM etc. Of course the terms soft and hard Brexit are frequently used. I view these outputs as simply consequences of where the negotiations may(or may not) take us and, more negatively, I see the attempt to keep the focus on them as just more of the cynical Remainer machinations that have been going on for months as they continue 'the fight'. It is a type of Project Fear - trying to keep the negative consequences of Leaving high in the public conscious.
As an example, you would be forgiven for thinking that May is absolute that the UK must leave the single market - in some kind of 'hard-liner' stance. The fact is that it is not the UK mandating that position - it is the EU, through their insistence that FOM must be accepted. It is the same with most of the key themes/consequences that are being badged under the title of Hard-Brexit. It is repeatedly the case that positions are hardening through the EU's intransigence, not the UK's and we have to adapt accordingly.
So my answer to your question is that I am seeking the outcome of leaving the EU - fully and in a manner that demonstrates that it is complete and not vulnerable to becoming some form of 'associate member'. I do not want any version of membership, whether it comes with opt-outs or not - I simply want us to have fully left the EU.
How I describe the 'outcome' of having left the EU is through total freedom to control all key areas, such as borders, money and laws - essentially all the rights and freedoms of an independent nation. I wish to see the UK as free of the EU hegemony as any other nation such as Australia, the US etc. with any links only what we have decided to put in place - always fully under our control.
I am resolute in my view that the EU is a failing model and that should the UK continue to be tied to it through any form of membership then we will be in a downward spiral until we are dragged, through increasing integration, into the collective.
There are not really any Red lines for me so long as the government pursues a path to achieve a complete and clear separation. Achieving an outcome of 'actually' leaving the EU is essentially my only Red Line and I am willing to make almost any level of compromise/sacrifice so long as that is achieved.
Money - I have previously said this is a big area of leverage for us, but I would pay a lot to get away from the EU. I would go as far as to committing our contributions for the next 7 years - so long as that commitment was set against things securely negotiated in our favour and not just us being 'mugged' - such as 'we have to pay a divorce bill first.
ECJ - We must 'for all intents and purposes' be free of the jurisdiction of the ECJ and free to make our own laws - that said I am not unwilling to see if there are indeed some areas where it makes practical sense for there to be some form of compliance/equivalence
Immigration - like most I am sure, what I want is control. It is not a question of 'tens of thousands' - I see that as a cheap Remainer attempt to try and wed Brexit to Cameron's silly measure and brand Leave voters as being all about immigration. It is about having full control. I then do not care if the immigration continues at 300k pa - because it must mean that this is what we are selecting for reasons to support our economy. Indeed, continued high levels of immigration in a world where we have full controls could be welcomed as it should logically be driven by the needs of our economy and therefore reflect the health of that economy and thereby also mean that the money is there to fund the required improvements to infrastructure.
No - for me there is not a list of bullets to give you as Red Lines - I simply want to look back in a few years and to see that we have left - clearly - and I would pay a high price for that because it would be worth it in the long run.
So, as I have said in a number of posts previously, for me success in the negotiations would look like either:
a) We jointly agree a framework that sees the UK on a pre-determined track towards fully exiting the EU with agreements (solid principles) in place on how key areas, such as trade, will be undertaken. For this I would be happy to see the UK commit to support the EU with a good deal of money - on a tapering basis over, lets say 7 years, or
b) Should we, through the EU's intransigence, be unable to gain their 'acceptance' of the fact that we are indeed leaving (they have not accepted that fact yet!!) and they continue to play the hardball approach that their 'Negotiating Mandate' represents, then we 'crash out' early(taking our money with us) - accepting the full consequences of that.
A lot of Remainers will bleat about this 2nd option being the hardest of hard Brexits - but what pisses me off is their lack of ability to appropriately apportion the blame. It is clearly set out in the A50 note and many other pronouncements that we wish to have an excellent working relationship with the EU and will consider monetary support to them. It is the EU that are seeking to force the UK into what would be effectively continued membership. A bit like the Remainers on here - until the EU find it within themselves to accept that we are definitely leaving then progress is likely to be difficult.
May's decision to call the election, on the assumption that she secures and increased majority, should really help. Hopefully it will extinguish what has been up to now the EU's expectation that the decision to Leave will be undermined from within the UK and all they have to do is play hardball and drag the process out.
I think that the Remainers should review the EU's negotiating mandate - it is so totally one-sided and reflects an attitude of - the 'UK must lose' in every area. They will probably lap it up, but for me it is a clear demonstration of the status the UK 'enjoys' within the EU and the contempt to which the UK is held - all we are good for is our money.
I would much rather crash out and have a couple of decades rebuilding than to continue to be contemptuously milked and dragged along into full integration for generations to come.
This is our one chance - unexpected as it was - we need to take it cleanly and fully and allow compromises that could lead to us being sucked back in.