Political relations between UK-EU

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Citizen of Legoland said:
Are you saying people were arguing that Spain would not throw out immigrants even when they had failed to follow the correct process to allow them to remain? I find that hard to believe.
Click to expand...


The important bit (for me and many others) is the requirement to provide evidence of Medical Insurance ..... most of the people who emigrate to Spain are retired and elderly. This means that many have pre existing medical conditions which the insurance companies wont cover... this means that you not only have to shell out a fortune for the policy to begin with (and it doesn't get cheaper as you get older) but you have to have enough in the bank account to cover you for any excess and to make sure that you can afford to pay for any pre existing illness that may reappear.

Gove lied.
 
Was watching an old episode of Yes Minister yesterday and one scene seemed quite prescient.

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
 
west didsblue said:
Was watching an old episode of Yes Minister yesterday and one scene seemed quite prescient.

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
Click to expand...
Saw it and was going to post it in here if I could find it on YouTube.
That program was so ahead of it’s time.
 
FT have been doing a lot of work into the struggles of British trade to EU, especially in the food and drink sector, which can be summed up as...

‘Business after Brexit: a tale of red tape, higher costs and relocation into the Single Market’

To compound the struggles of our exporters, EU exporters keep getting the breaks

‘Govt delays implementation of wine certificates on wine imports from EU till Jan 2022’ @BBC

The UK Govt is working tirelessly to shaft UK industry and help EU industry export to the UK. This is not how it is meant to fucking work.
 
BobKowalski said:
FT have been doing a lot of work into the struggles of British trade to EU, especially in the food and drink sector, which can be summed up as...

‘Business after Brexit: a tale of red tape, higher costs and relocation into the Single Market’

To compound the struggles of our exporters, EU exporters keep getting the breaks

‘Govt delays implementation of wine certificates on wine imports from EU till Jan 2022’ @BBC

The UK Govt is working tirelessly to shaft UK industry and help EU industry export to the UK. This is not how it is meant to fucking work.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure.

In a perverse way our only leverage with the EU is as a consumer.
 
The perfect fumble said:
I'm not so sure.

In a perverse way our only leverage with the EU is as a consumer.
Click to expand...

To a large extent, yes.

And that ‘leverage’ means we keep delaying the same customs regime to EU companies that applies to our exporters, which is frustrating for them as they are hoping that by applying the same costs and restrictions to EU companies it will push both sides to work at reducing them.

So, the EU gets the benefit of a soft transition period and the UK prioritises UK consumers over BrItish exporters.

Yet, at some point the UK has to implement these costs and restrictions, unless it ultimately moves to reduce them by accepting close alignment with the EU a year or so from now. Not that any of this helps British trade, but then helping British trade doesn’t seem to be a top priority for the British Govt :)
 
Vic said:
Yes it is. Sod businesses, and the trade deficit, so long as British consumers don't notice any difference in the shops.
Click to expand...

Just so.

Johnson cannot allow prices to rise too quickly (they will rise over time) and he can't allow any visible shortages or supply chain disruption that impacts consumers, everything must appear as business as usual for Waitrose shoppers.

The buffoon has said so many outlandish things that it becomes difficult to recall them all, but two should be remembered

1. "Fuck business"...
Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson wasn't going to allow petty bourgeois considerations to get in the way of his political destiny.

2. "Prosecco"....
Carlo Calenda, an Italian economics minister, said it was insulting that Johnson had told him during a recent meeting (November 2016) that Italy would grant Britain access to the EU’s single market “because you don’t want to lose prosecco exports”.
“He basically said: ‘I don’t want free movement of people but I want the single market,’” he told Bloomberg. “I said: ‘No way.’ He said: ‘You’ll sell less prosecco.’ I said: ‘OK, you’ll sell less fish and chips, but I’ll sell less prosecco to one country and you’ll sell less to 27 countries.’

And so it has come to pass.

Johnson assumed the loss of the UK market was his ace in the hole. Brussels would give us everything we wanted because we were such a voracious consumer of EU goods. He was not alone in this delusion, the little englanders in here said the same.

Johnson was wrong, it wasn't his winning card, the EU was not brought to heel, we were.

Nevertheless, he still has that tatty card, it ain't his ace in the hole but it's all he's got.
 
Last edited:
BobKowalski said:
To a large extent, yes.

And that ‘leverage’ means we keep delaying the same customs regime to EU companies that applies to our exporters, which is frustrating for them as they are hoping that by applying the same costs and restrictions to EU companies it will push both sides to work at reducing them.

So, the EU gets the benefit of a soft transition period and the UK prioritises UK consumers over BrItish exporters.

Yet, at some point the UK has to implement these costs and restrictions, unless it ultimately moves to reduce them by accepting close alignment with the EU a year or so from now. Not that any of this helps British trade, but then helping British trade doesn’t seem to be a top priority for the British Govt :)
Click to expand...

Johnson is difficult to second guess.

He could be trying to trigger a no deal Brexit.

He could be kicking everything in to the long grass on the assumption these things solve themselves over time.

He has no clue.

Either ways we're fucked.
 
Vic said:
Yes it is. Sod businesses, and the trade deficit, so long as British consumers don't notice any difference in the shops.
Click to expand...
They will, we've had our summer prices through for ice cream and chocolates, both 10-15 % rises due to raw materials isuues from Europe. so will be passed on to our customers in the summer.
 
BobKowalski said:
To a large extent, yes.

And that ‘leverage’ means we keep delaying the same customs regime to EU companies that applies to our exporters, which is frustrating for them as they are hoping that by applying the same costs and restrictions to EU companies it will push both sides to work at reducing them.

So, the EU gets the benefit of a soft transition period and the UK prioritises UK consumers over BrItish exporters.

Yet, at some point the UK has to implement these costs and restrictions, unless it ultimately moves to reduce them by accepting close alignment with the EU a year or so from now. Not that any of this helps British trade, but then helping British trade doesn’t seem to be a top priority for the British Govt :)
Click to expand...
Consumers carry more voting weight than exporters, they're trying to get through to 2024 without shit hitting the fan employment wise in exports and price wise in the shops if you ask me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top