On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 17:41:59 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Of course. Each country wants the very best deal it can get. For itself.

So no trade will ever be done then.

That's why you need skilled negotiators.

Well done sherlock, we haven't any have we, only Germany have them.



Up to the other country to do that too. Which is why, as I keep on
saying, you don't do it with a handshake over a pint. It takes many
years.

and after I think 7 years this has failed I've heard it something
germnay didn't like.

The US trying its usual trick of bullying a settlement, more like.

yes they are so we now know that NOT all trade deals are a good thing.
The bigger a trade blck gets the more bullyiong goes on and the further it gets from the original idea of group trading for teh good of the group.


Which is why the EU has become to large and unfit for the purpose it was
originaly set up for which was to make sure that no single country could
gain the upper hand.

That might make some sense to you, I suppose.

And to most inteligent people, but others think that the bigger the block the better.
So why don't we set uop a whole world trade agreement rather than EU have one USA, Russia, commonwealth etc...


Be interesting to see just how we get on without it if and when we leave.
As the reasons for joining all those years ago are still as valid today as
then.

Apparently we joined the EEC NOT the EU and we joined with 10 countries NOT 27.
So the T&Cs have changed.


But at least we'll have 'taken back control' as England sinks down the
world pecking order.

If it does.