Can't remember where I got this from but this graphic is a very handy way to check on the different EU/European organisations and associations and who is in what. Note that it does not put Norway in the Single Market. I understand that Norway's EFTA membership allows it to have negotiated wide ranging agreements with the Single Market members. But it's not in the Single Market, hence my difficulty with VAT from there, and the continuing ability of the Norwegian government to ensure its citizens pay £8 for a beer.
WTF! I thought I had seen the worst of the current batch of Labour politicians. No. The MP they put up for Newsnight tonight had the charisma and intelligence of a dog turd.
It shouldn't come as a surprise though. Corbyn lost a no confidence vote by 172 to 40 but refused to resign. He has to select his front bench from those 40 barrel scrapings left over. All very well to say he was elected by the party members but he actually has to work with MPs, the vast majority of whom think he is utter jank.
The bottom line is that the EU has to try to get its deal though - it is its deal as well as May's so it will do what it can to support her. But if we had a referendum, it would be likely we would not leave and that is its preferred position. it wouldn't scupper that and effectively have no deal. This is posturing, and it is a time for us Remainers to grow a pair. The prize is worth it.
The US are already our biggest single country trading partner and we currently have a trade surplus with them. The only thing I can think of that would be the basis of a formal free trade deal with the US would be them wanting to remove that surplus in our favour and replace it with a surplus in their favour.
I really don't get how this supposedly wonderful and liberating future free trade deal with the US will do us any favours whatsoever.
The U.K. leaving the EU is damaging to the EU too. To think that there won’t be a unanimous sigh of relief if the UK asked to revoke A50 is highly unlikely.
Could London remain a member of the European Union, if the rest of the UK were to continue on the path of leaving the EU?
Sometimes, when you're stuck in an intractable negotiation, you have to think the unthinkable. An out-of-the-ordinary suggestion can result in an urgent coming-together of opposing ideas and culminate in an agreement.
So, where we have a single "deal" that is suggested as the best way forward for the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that fails to meet the objectives of most of the people and regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, surely there is a demand for a new way of thinking. Forcing the whole of the UK to adopt a unified deal that's against its collective interest forces a tension that looks likely only to be released by breaking up the Kingdom.
Scotland doesn't want Brexit. Northern Ireland doesn't want Brexit. It's unarguable, therefore, that Brexit is not in the interest of Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's harmful to their prospects and its diametrically opposed to their stated aspiration in the referendum. Yet, the UK requires the population of those two nations to go along with the "will" of a group of people, the majority of whom don't have their best interests at heart. Why wouldn't they want to exit the UK instead of exiting the EU?
Scotland may want to stay in the EU more than they want to stay in the UK. Indeed, two referenda seem to prove that point. Scotland voted 55% to remain in the UK; 62% to remain in the EU.
Northern Ireland may want to retain their unfettered links with the rest of their island more than they want to remain as part of a non-EU UK. East Londonderry voted to remain. Mid Ulster voted to remain. West Tyrone voted to remain. Fermanagh and South Tyrone voted to remain. Newry and Armagh voted to remain. South Down voted to remain. Every part of Northern Ireland that has a border with Ireland voted not to put up borders.
London voted to remain. 60:40.
So why don't we give these voters exactly what they voted for? Why don't we allow Northern Ireland to remain in a union with both Europe and the rest of the United Kingdom? Why don't we give Scotland what they demanded - membership of the EU and membership of the UK? Why don't we give London what it voted for - continued benefit, security, clarity and stability of membership of the EU? And why don't we give Wales and the rest of England what they voted for - independence from the EU - and grant them even more: their own independence and opportunities that come with no longer being hindered by governance from Westminster?
If the UK were to be changed from an association of four nations to an association of London, Northern Ireland and Scotland, then the UK (comprising just those places) could remain in the EU and the rest of the (former) UK would get all the independence they voted for, and then some.
Two points worth mentioning. Some people might baulk at geographically-disparate and autonomous locations being part of one country within the EU. But those people might want to reflect on other locations which are already part of the EU: the Aland Islands, Büsingen, Canaries, Channel Islands, Heligoland, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, Mount Athos, Réunion, Saint-Martin.
And some people might wonder whether a country comprising London, Northern Ireland and Scotland would be "big" enough. Well, with a GDP of more than $800bn, we would be the sixth-biggest economy in the EU.
A slimmed-down UK comprising three locations fully aligned with EU values and demonstrating they want to be in - and contribute to the success of - the EU remaining in the EU. And Wales, along with provincial England cutting their own, desired path of independence from the EU. Everyone gets what they want.
Genuinely wonder what the mood of the UK will be the day it officially leaves the EU, if there will actually be any celebrations or if at least half the people will be disillusioned with the decision to leave and the people who actually voted for it thinking it's probably not a clear enough break. Hard to think of a historical parallel of such a momentous occasion that could be met with such disappointment. Who, if any, will actually be celebrating on the day?
Chippy.
Mate I can only echo what Stig said a few pages back. Chippy doesn’t post on this thread anymore and I appreciate that you might mean this in a light hearted way and as a bit of banter but if we could please try not to bring up other posters unnecessarily that would be much appreciated. This thread still has the potential to become very combustible very quickly. To try and keep it civil I think it’s important we don’t try and wind up those with alternate views to our own
I’m not having a pop at you just using this as a reminder that we don’t want things to descend into silliness again - cheers
I appreciate that, but Chippy still LOL's at everything he doesn't agree with, and has LOL'ed at my financial losses and CharltonMadrid's (I think it was he) potential problems regarding his non-EU spouse. So maybe he should be a bit more thoughtful with his amusement at the predicament of others?
Genuinely wonder what the mood of the UK will be the day it officially leaves the EU, if there will actually be any celebrations or if at least half the people will be disillusioned with the decision to leave and the people who actually voted for it thinking it's probably not a clear enough break. Hard to think of a historical parallel of such a momentous occasion that could be met with such disappointment. Who, if any, will actually be celebrating on the day?
Chippy.
Mate I can only echo what Stig said a few pages back. Chippy doesn’t post on this thread anymore and I appreciate that you might mean this in a light hearted way and as a bit of banter but if we could please try not to bring up other posters unnecessarily that would be much appreciated. This thread still has the potential to become very combustible very quickly. To try and keep it civil I think it’s important we don’t try and wind up those with alternate views to our own
I’m not having a pop at you just using this as a reminder that we don’t want things to descend into silliness again - cheers
I appreciate that, but Chippy still LOL's at everything he doesn't agree with, and has LOL'ed at my financial losses and CharltonMadrid's (I think it was he) potential problems regarding his non-EU spouse. So maybe he should be a bit more thoughtful with his amusement at the predicament of others?
I take it on board mate, thanks for bringing to my attention
Meanwhile, although it is not strictly Brexit focused this clip of Boris Johnson lifted from the BBC doc, The Foreign Office, will make you cry with both laughter and utter despair.
Is there anyone left on this thread who wishes to offer any word of defence for this steaming pile of excrescence?
Could London remain a member of the European Union, if the rest of the UK were to continue on the path of leaving the EU?
Sometimes, when you're stuck in an intractable negotiation, you have to think the unthinkable. An out-of-the-ordinary suggestion can result in an urgent coming-together of opposing ideas and culminate in an agreement.
So, where we have a single "deal" that is suggested as the best way forward for the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that fails to meet the objectives of most of the people and regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, surely there is a demand for a new way of thinking. Forcing the whole of the UK to adopt a unified deal that's against its collective interest forces a tension that looks likely only to be released by breaking up the Kingdom.
Scotland doesn't want Brexit. Northern Ireland doesn't want Brexit. It's unarguable, therefore, that Brexit is not in the interest of Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's harmful to their prospects and its diametrically opposed to their stated aspiration in the referendum. Yet, the UK requires the population of those two nations to go along with the "will" of a group of people, the majority of whom don't have their best interests at heart. Why wouldn't they want to exit the UK instead of exiting the EU?
Scotland may want to stay in the EU more than they want to stay in the UK. Indeed, two referenda seem to prove that point. Scotland voted 55% to remain in the UK; 62% to remain in the EU.
Northern Ireland may want to retain their unfettered links with the rest of their island more than they want to remain as part of a non-EU UK. East Londonderry voted to remain. Mid Ulster voted to remain. West Tyrone voted to remain. Fermanagh and South Tyrone voted to remain. Newry and Armagh voted to remain. South Down voted to remain. Every part of Northern Ireland that has a border with Ireland voted not to put up borders.
London voted to remain. 60:40.
So why don't we give these voters exactly what they voted for? Why don't we allow Northern Ireland to remain in a union with both Europe and the rest of the United Kingdom? Why don't we give Scotland what they demanded - membership of the EU and membership of the UK? Why don't we give London what it voted for - c dearontinued benefit, security, clarity and stability of membership of the EU? And why don't we give Wales and the rest of England what they voted for - independence from the EU - and grant them even more: their own independence and opportunities that come with no longer being hindered by governance from Westminster?
If the UK were to be changed from an association of four nations to an association of London, Northern Ireland and Scotland, then the UK (comprising just those places) could remain in the EU and the rest of the (former) UK would get all the independence they voted for, and then some.
Two points worth mentioning. Some people might baulk at geographically-disparate and autonomous locations being part of one country within the EU. But those people might want to reflect on other locations which are already part of the EU: the Aland Islands, Büsingen, Canaries, Channel Islands, Heligoland, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, Mount Athos, Réunion, Saint-Martin.
And some people might wonder whether a country comprising London, Northern Ireland and Scotland would be "big" enough. Well, with a GDP of more than $800bn, we would be the sixth-biggest economy in the EU.
A slimmed-down UK comprising three locations fully aligned with EU values and demonstrating they want to be in - and contribute to the success of - the EU remaining in the EU. And Wales, along with provincial England cutting their own, desired path of independence from the EU. Everyone gets what they want.
Right?
I'd go with this if I could vote for it! Stopping free movement around the UK would also solve problems of congestion and overstretched services far more effectively than leaving the EU.
Not sure what would happen to the football leagues though. Eufa don't like competitions across countries except when they organise it. Or maybe it's actually the fa that are to blame for this and we would get new leagues forming across Europe to rival the big five.
Just daydreaming in my hotel room ! None of this will happen.
Could London remain a member of the European Union, if the rest of the UK were to continue on the path of leaving the EU?
Sometimes, when you're stuck in an intractable negotiation, you have to think the unthinkable. An out-of-the-ordinary suggestion can result in an urgent coming-together of opposing ideas and culminate in an agreement.
So, where we have a single "deal" that is suggested as the best way forward for the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that fails to meet the objectives of most of the people and regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, surely there is a demand for a new way of thinking. Forcing the whole of the UK to adopt a unified deal that's against its collective interest forces a tension that looks likely only to be released by breaking up the Kingdom.
Scotland doesn't want Brexit. Northern Ireland doesn't want Brexit. It's unarguable, therefore, that Brexit is not in the interest of Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's harmful to their prospects and its diametrically opposed to their stated aspiration in the referendum. Yet, the UK requires the population of those two nations to go along with the "will" of a group of people, the majority of whom don't have their best interests at heart. Why wouldn't they want to exit the UK instead of exiting the EU?
Scotland may want to stay in the EU more than they want to stay in the UK. Indeed, two referenda seem to prove that point. Scotland voted 55% to remain in the UK; 62% to remain in the EU.
Northern Ireland may want to retain their unfettered links with the rest of their island more than they want to remain as part of a non-EU UK. East Londonderry voted to remain. Mid Ulster voted to remain. West Tyrone voted to remain. Fermanagh and South Tyrone voted to remain. Newry and Armagh voted to remain. South Down voted to remain. Every part of Northern Ireland that has a border with Ireland voted not to put up borders.
London voted to remain. 60:40.
So why don't we give these voters exactly what they voted for? Why don't we allow Northern Ireland to remain in a union with both Europe and the rest of the United Kingdom? Why don't we give Scotland what they demanded - membership of the EU and membership of the UK? Why don't we give London what it voted for - c dearontinued benefit, security, clarity and stability of membership of the EU? And why don't we give Wales and the rest of England what they voted for - independence from the EU - and grant them even more: their own independence and opportunities that come with no longer being hindered by governance from Westminster?
If the UK were to be changed from an association of four nations to an association of London, Northern Ireland and Scotland, then the UK (comprising just those places) could remain in the EU and the rest of the (former) UK would get all the independence they voted for, and then some.
Two points worth mentioning. Some people might baulk at geographically-disparate and autonomous locations being part of one country within the EU. But those people might want to reflect on other locations which are already part of the EU: the Aland Islands, Büsingen, Canaries, Channel Islands, Heligoland, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, Mount Athos, Réunion, Saint-Martin.
And some people might wonder whether a country comprising London, Northern Ireland and Scotland would be "big" enough. Well, with a GDP of more than $800bn, we would be the sixth-biggest economy in the EU.
A slimmed-down UK comprising three locations fully aligned with EU values and demonstrating they want to be in - and contribute to the success of - the EU remaining in the EU. And Wales, along with provincial England cutting their own, desired path of independence from the EU. Everyone gets what they want.
Right?
I'd go with this if I could vote for it! Stopping free movement around the UK would also solve problems of congestion and overstretched services far more effectively than leaving the EU.
Not sure what would happen to the football leagues though. Eufa don't like competitions across countries except when they organise it. Or maybe it's actually the fa that are to blame for this and we would get new leagues forming across Europe to rival the big five.
Just daydreaming in my hotel room ! None of this will happen.
I just can't bring myself to trust Corbyn, it's just seems so very Borislike where he had two letters written and sought out whichever furthered his own advancement and to hell with the country, to sweep in at the last moment feels so opportunistic
Could London remain a member of the European Union, if the rest of the UK were to continue on the path of leaving the EU?
Sometimes, when you're stuck in an intractable negotiation, you have to think the unthinkable. An out-of-the-ordinary suggestion can result in an urgent coming-together of opposing ideas and culminate in an agreement.
So, where we have a single "deal" that is suggested as the best way forward for the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that fails to meet the objectives of most of the people and regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, surely there is a demand for a new way of thinking. Forcing the whole of the UK to adopt a unified deal that's against its collective interest forces a tension that looks likely only to be released by breaking up the Kingdom.
Scotland doesn't want Brexit. Northern Ireland doesn't want Brexit. It's unarguable, therefore, that Brexit is not in the interest of Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's harmful to their prospects and its diametrically opposed to their stated aspiration in the referendum. Yet, the UK requires the population of those two nations to go along with the "will" of a group of people, the majority of whom don't have their best interests at heart. Why wouldn't they want to exit the UK instead of exiting the EU?
Scotland may want to stay in the EU more than they want to stay in the UK. Indeed, two referenda seem to prove that point. Scotland voted 55% to remain in the UK; 62% to remain in the EU.
Northern Ireland may want to retain their unfettered links with the rest of their island more than they want to remain as part of a non-EU UK. East Londonderry voted to remain. Mid Ulster voted to remain. West Tyrone voted to remain. Fermanagh and South Tyrone voted to remain. Newry and Armagh voted to remain. South Down voted to remain. Every part of Northern Ireland that has a border with Ireland voted not to put up borders.
London voted to remain. 60:40.
So why don't we give these voters exactly what they voted for? Why don't we allow Northern Ireland to remain in a union with both Europe and the rest of the United Kingdom? Why don't we give Scotland what they demanded - membership of the EU and membership of the UK? Why don't we give London what it voted for - continued benefit, security, clarity and stability of membership of the EU? And why don't we give Wales and the rest of England what they voted for - independence from the EU - and grant them even more: their own independence and opportunities that come with no longer being hindered by governance from Westminster?
If the UK were to be changed from an association of four nations to an association of London, Northern Ireland and Scotland, then the UK (comprising just those places) could remain in the EU and the rest of the (former) UK would get all the independence they voted for, and then some.
Two points worth mentioning. Some people might baulk at geographically-disparate and autonomous locations being part of one country within the EU. But those people might want to reflect on other locations which are already part of the EU: the Aland Islands, Büsingen, Canaries, Channel Islands, Heligoland, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, Mount Athos, Réunion, Saint-Martin.
And some people might wonder whether a country comprising London, Northern Ireland and Scotland would be "big" enough. Well, with a GDP of more than $800bn, we would be the sixth-biggest economy in the EU.
A slimmed-down UK comprising three locations fully aligned with EU values and demonstrating they want to be in - and contribute to the success of - the EU remaining in the EU. And Wales, along with provincial England cutting their own, desired path of independence from the EU. Everyone gets what they want.
Right?
This is similar to thoughts I had recently.
NI, London, Gibraltar, Scotland all overwhelmingly voted Remain. All, to varying degrees, are more impacted by Brexit and our EU membership than most other parts of the country. And they have all been frozen out of any discussion on how Brexit will shape up, and their concerns roundly ignored or kicked into the long grass by a government more concerned with placating Little Englanders than acting in the national interest.
Kent voted to Leave by a slightly wider margin than the rest of the country but I wonder if Kent would have voted the way it did had it known that the Government were planning on betraying it, ignoring its concerns and interests and secretly planning to turn it into a giant lorry park without listening to any objections?
The parts of the UK that will be worst affected by Brexit have been totally ignored by this government. What a shameful state of affairs.
Comments
Formidable...
https://brexitfacts.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/27/response-to-coverage-of-the-uks-ability-to-strike-a-trade-deal-with-the-us-when-we-leave-the-eu/
I really don't get how this supposedly wonderful and liberating future free trade deal with the US will do us any favours whatsoever.
Trump can do one.
Sometimes, when you're stuck in an intractable negotiation, you have to think the unthinkable. An out-of-the-ordinary suggestion can result in an urgent coming-together of opposing ideas and culminate in an agreement.
So, where we have a single "deal" that is suggested as the best way forward for the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that fails to meet the objectives of most of the people and regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, surely there is a demand for a new way of thinking. Forcing the whole of the UK to adopt a unified deal that's against its collective interest forces a tension that looks likely only to be released by breaking up the Kingdom.
Scotland doesn't want Brexit. Northern Ireland doesn't want Brexit. It's unarguable, therefore, that Brexit is not in the interest of Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's harmful to their prospects and its diametrically opposed to their stated aspiration in the referendum. Yet, the UK requires the population of those two nations to go along with the "will" of a group of people, the majority of whom don't have their best interests at heart. Why wouldn't they want to exit the UK instead of exiting the EU?
Scotland may want to stay in the EU more than they want to stay in the UK. Indeed, two referenda seem to prove that point. Scotland voted 55% to remain in the UK; 62% to remain in the EU.
Northern Ireland may want to retain their unfettered links with the rest of their island more than they want to remain as part of a non-EU UK. East Londonderry voted to remain. Mid Ulster voted to remain. West Tyrone voted to remain. Fermanagh and South Tyrone voted to remain. Newry and Armagh voted to remain. South Down voted to remain. Every part of Northern Ireland that has a border with Ireland voted not to put up borders.
London voted to remain. 60:40.
So why don't we give these voters exactly what they voted for? Why don't we allow Northern Ireland to remain in a union with both Europe and the rest of the United Kingdom? Why don't we give Scotland what they demanded - membership of the EU and membership of the UK? Why don't we give London what it voted for - continued benefit, security, clarity and stability of membership of the EU? And why don't we give Wales and the rest of England what they voted for - independence from the EU - and grant them even more: their own independence and opportunities that come with no longer being hindered by governance from Westminster?
If the UK were to be changed from an association of four nations to an association of London, Northern Ireland and Scotland, then the UK (comprising just those places) could remain in the EU and the rest of the (former) UK would get all the independence they voted for, and then some.
Two points worth mentioning. Some people might baulk at geographically-disparate and autonomous locations being part of one country within the EU. But those people might want to reflect on other locations which are already part of the EU: the Aland Islands, Büsingen, Canaries, Channel Islands, Heligoland, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique, Mayotte, Mount Athos, Réunion, Saint-Martin.
And some people might wonder whether a country comprising London, Northern Ireland and Scotland would be "big" enough. Well, with a GDP of more than $800bn, we would be the sixth-biggest economy in the EU.
A slimmed-down UK comprising three locations fully aligned with EU values and demonstrating they want to be in - and contribute to the success of - the EU remaining in the EU. And Wales, along with provincial England cutting their own, desired path of independence from the EU. Everyone gets what they want.
Right?
Is there anyone left on this thread who wishes to offer any word of defence for this steaming pile of excrescence?
Not sure what would happen to the football leagues though. Eufa don't like competitions across countries except when they organise it. Or maybe it's actually the fa that are to blame for this and we would get new leagues forming across Europe to rival the big five.
Just daydreaming in my hotel room ! None of this will happen.
NI, London, Gibraltar, Scotland all overwhelmingly voted Remain. All, to varying degrees, are more impacted by Brexit and our EU membership than most other parts of the country. And they have all been frozen out of any discussion on how Brexit will shape up, and their concerns roundly ignored or kicked into the long grass by a government more concerned with placating Little Englanders than acting in the national interest.
Kent voted to Leave by a slightly wider margin than the rest of the country but I wonder if Kent would have voted the way it did had it known that the Government were planning on betraying it, ignoring its concerns and interests and secretly planning to turn it into a giant lorry park without listening to any objections?
The parts of the UK that will be worst affected by Brexit have been totally ignored by this government. What a shameful state of affairs.