https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution

On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution


We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU
requirements, including control of immigration, that we can no longer
guarantee once we leave.

--
--

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote
harry wrote

https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution

We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be imposed
upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of the single
market.

How odd that all but 3 of these managed that fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

While in, we had several exemptions from EU requirements, including
control of immigration, that we can no longer guarantee once we leave.

Corse Britain can guarantee that stuff by not accepting anything it doesnt
want.

In article , Rod Speed
wrote:
Nightjar wrote
harry wrote

https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution

We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market.

How odd that all but 3 of these managed that fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

While in, we had several exemptions from EU requirements, including
control of immigration, that we can no longer guarantee once we leave.

Corse Britain can guarantee that stuff by not accepting anything it
doesn‘t want.

trouble is that we might not get things we want under those circumstances

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article , Rod Speed
wrote:
Nightjar wrote
harry wrote

https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution

We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market.

How odd that all but 3 of these managed that fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

While in, we had several exemptions from EU requirements, including
control of immigration, that we can no longer guarantee once we
leave.

Corse Britain can guarantee that stuff by not accepting anything it
doesn‘t want.

trouble is that we might not get things we want under those circumstances

We're seeing various trade negotiations in trouble - like between the US
and EU. Canada and the east.

But plenty leavers think we will have no trouble making new agreements
with everyone. Perhaps with Mars...

--
*The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on my list.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

charles wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar wrote
harry wrote

https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution

We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions
will be imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to
continue to be part of the single market.

How odd that all but 3 of these managed that fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

While in, we had several exemptions from EU requirements, including
control of immigration, that we can no longer guarantee once we leave.

Corse Britain can guarantee that stuff by not accepting anything it doesn't
want.

trouble is that we might not get things we want under those circumstances

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements
all did. And given that Britain leaves them all for dead economically
except for South Korea, and has some stuff the EU can't do without
like aircraft engines and wings and docos and drama, there is no reason
why it has to agree to anything it doesn't want with immigration.

Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution



We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU
requirements, including control of immigration, that we can no longer
guarantee once we leave.

When we leave, we control immigration by definition.

On 30-Aug-16 11:30 AM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution



We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU
requirements, including control of immigration, that we can no longer
guarantee once we leave.

When we leave, we control immigration by definition.

We already have complete control over immigration. The terms of our
membership of the EU guarantee that we have to opt in to EU immigration
rules for them to apply to us. Once we leave, we have no control over
what the EU may require of us if we wish to stay within the single market.

--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
news
On 30-Aug-16 11:30 AM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution



We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU
requirements, including control of immigration, that we can no longer
guarantee once we leave.

When we leave, we control immigration by definition.

We already have complete control over immigration.

Not with immigration from the EU, Britain has no control over that what so
ever.

The terms of our membership of the EU guarantee that we have to opt in to
EU immigration rules for them to apply to us.

That has already happened.

Once we leave, we have no control over what the EU may require of us if we
wish to stay within the single market.

How odd that all but 3 of these did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 14:54:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 11:24:56 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,


We're seeing various trade negotiations in trouble - like between the US
and EU. Canada and the east.

It was a pretty **** deal from what I;'ve heard from other sources,
such as insiting we buy drugs from the USA even if we didn't need them.
Thre were plenty of oppersition to TTIP

Of course. Each country wants the very best deal it can get. For itself.

So no trade will ever be done then.


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.
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.


But plenty leavers think we will have no trouble making new agreements
with everyone. Perhaps with Mars...

Yes we will.

Why do you think it is easier making agreements with 27 countries than
just an agreement between two countries ?

Because an exporter wants the biggest market it can get. 27 countries in a
package are just that. And if they share rules on such things, it
shouldn't take as long as 27 individual deals.

But just one country disagreeing via a veto can halt anything.



Cabn yuo explain this POV as I just don't understand it. It;s bad enough
negotiating a price on anything when a couple is involed let alone a
grouop of 27.

Why do you think it's easier to get an agreement between 27 countries
than just between 2 ?

We might be able to get a deal with some tiny country easily. But tiny
countries don't do much trade.

A small country like the USA you mean.
The EU wasn't negotiating with a tiny country the USA isn't a tiny country.

Of course without knowing exactly where it failed....


Regarding teh agreement with Mars, do you think it will be easier
negitiating with just those on Amrs or shoud we discuss our trade with
plutotins and vensians and every otheer body in the solar system.

Not if Pluto and Mars already have a deal. Ours would have to fit in with
that.

Why ?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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

--
*He's not dead - he's electroencephalographically challenged

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Its all very difficult. In a way its like the unification of germany but
writ large with people who don't even have the same culture or language as
anyone else.
What to do?
Evacuate one of the member states and put them all there?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution


We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be imposed
upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of the single
market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU requirements,
including control of immigration, that we can no longer guarantee once we
leave.

--
--

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:
On 30-Aug-16 11:30 AM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution




We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU
requirements, including control of immigration, that we can no longer
guarantee once we leave.

When we leave, we control immigration by definition.

We already have complete control over immigration.


Please explain EU immigrants then? Still spouting Remoan proaganda?

On 30/08/16 17:54, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 30-Aug-16 11:30 AM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution




We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU
requirements, including control of immigration, that we can no longer
guarantee once we leave.

When we leave, we control immigration by definition.

We already have complete control over immigration.


Please explain EU immigrants then? Still spouting Remoan proaganda?

Even the non EU immigrants we cant really stop at our borders f9r 'human
rights' reasons - rights that the EU tends to insist upon




--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 30-Aug-16 5:54 PM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 30-Aug-16 11:30 AM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution




We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU
requirements, including control of immigration, that we can no longer
guarantee once we leave.

When we leave, we control immigration by definition.

We already have complete control over immigration.


Please explain EU immigrants then? Still spouting Remoan proaganda?

I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants. However, if we want
to stay in the single market, don't expect any change to their freedom
of movement.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 30/08/16 18:17, Nightjar wrote:
I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants.

Holy crap. You really drank the kool-aid didn't you?

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

Huge wrote:
On 2016-08-30, wrote:

On 30-Aug-16 5:54 PM, Capitol wrote:

Nightjar wrote:

On 30-Aug-16 11:30 AM, Capitol wrote:

Nightjar wrote:

On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:

https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution




We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU
requirements, including control of immigration, that we can no longer
guarantee once we leave.


When we leave, we control immigration by definition.

We already have complete control over immigration.


Please explain EU immigrants then? Still spouting Remoan proaganda?

I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants.

Jesus, those goalposts must be nearly supersonic.



I like it!

whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

We're seeing various trade negotiations in trouble -
like between the US and EU. Canada and the east.

It was a pretty **** deal from what I;'ve heard from other sources,

Yes.

such as insiting we buy drugs from the USA even if we didn't need them.

That was never part of it.

Thre were plenty of oppersition to TTIP

Yes. But there was plenty of opposition to the EEC too.

But plenty leavers think we will have no trouble making
new agreements with everyone. Perhaps with Mars...

Yes we will.

Why do you think it is easier making agreements with 27
countries than just an agreement between two countries ?

Because the deal can be different with each country instead
of just the one deal with any one of the 27 countrys having
a veto on the deal.

Cabn yuo explain this POV as I just don't understand it.

No surprises there...

It;s bad enough negotiating a price on anything
when a couple is involed let alone a grouop of 27.

The deal isnt on price.

Why do you think it's easier to get an agreement
between 27 countries than just between 2 ?

See above.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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.

Nope, Britain is free to trade under the WTO rules.

And has the skilled negotiators too, they were the
ones that have always been involved in the WTO.

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.

Its actually the reverse, the US doesn’t care currently until
it becomes clear who the new Prez is, because Hitlary has
never been keen on any agreement and its unlikely that
that fool Trump has even considered the question at all.

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.

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.

Bull**** they are given how the EEC has morphed over
time and it has become clear that the eurozone can't work
and will require one hell of a bailout in a desperate attempt
to delay the inevitable failure of the common currency.

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

Britain has been doing that for centurys now.

You get to like that or lump it.

Brian Gaff wrote

Its all very difficult. In a way its like the unification of germany but
writ large with people who don't even have the same culture or language as
anyone else.

Just like when all those unspeakable Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Romans,
Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, Jews etc etc etc showed up.

What to do?

Same as when all those unspeakable Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Romans,
Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, Jews etc etc etc showed up.

Evacuate one of the member states and put them all there?

Didn’t even work for the Mongols.

Nightjar wrote
harry wrote

https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution

We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be imposed
upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of the single
market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU requirements,
including control of immigration, that we can no longer guarantee once we
leave.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 30-Aug-16 5:54 PM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 30-Aug-16 11:30 AM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:
https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution




We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU
requirements, including control of immigration, that we can no longer
guarantee once we leave.

When we leave, we control immigration by definition.

We already have complete control over immigration.


Please explain EU immigrants then? Still spouting Remoan proaganda?

I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants.

They are anyway.

However, if we want to stay in the single market, don't expect any change
to their freedom of movement.

How odd that all but 3 of these managed it fine and Norway
wanted it anyway, regardless of what the EU wanted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 14:54:25 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 11:24:56 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,


We're seeing various trade negotiations in trouble - like between the US
and EU. Canada and the east.

It was a pretty **** deal from what I;'ve heard from other sources,
such as insiting we buy drugs from the USA even if we didn't need them.
Thre were plenty of oppersition to TTIP

Of course. Each country wants the very best deal it can get. For itself.

So no trade will ever be done then.


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. 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.


But plenty leavers think we will have no trouble making new agreements
with everyone. Perhaps with Mars...

Yes we will.

Why do you think it is easier making agreements with 27 countries than
just an agreement between two countries ?

Because an exporter wants the biggest market it can get. 27 countries in a
package are just that. And if they share rules on such things, it
shouldn't take as long as 27 individual deals.

But just one country disagreeing via a veto can halt anything.



Cabn yuo explain this POV as I just don't understand it. It;s bad enough
negotiating a price on anything when a couple is involed let alone a
grouop of 27.

Why do you think it's easier to get an agreement between 27 countries
than just between 2 ?

We might be able to get a deal with some tiny country easily. But tiny
countries don't do much trade.

A small country like the USA you mean.
The EU wasn't negotiating with a tiny country the USA isn't a tiny country.

Of course without knowing exactly where it failed....

I think it is failing because no-one in the EU really wanted the TTIP
deal except us: and we sort of opted out of long term EU planning
recently.




Regarding teh agreement with Mars, do you think it will be easier
negitiating with just those on Amrs or shoud we discuss our trade with
plutotins and vensians and every otheer body in the solar system.

Not if Pluto and Mars already have a deal. Ours would have to fit in with
that.

Why ?


--

Roger Hayter

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article , Rod Speed
wrote:
Nightjar wrote
harry wrote











https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...r-distribution

We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market.

How odd that all but 3 of these managed that fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

While in, we had several exemptions from EU requirements, including
control of immigration, that we can no longer guarantee once we
leave.

Corse Britain can guarantee that stuff by not accepting anything it
doesn€˜t want.

trouble is that we might not get things we want under those circumstances

We're seeing various trade negotiations in trouble - like between the US
and EU. Canada and the east.

The pending trade agreements were used by remainers to justify staying
in.
But plenty leavers think we will have no trouble making new agreements
with everyone. Perhaps with Mars...

We can't do any worse than the EU.
--
bert

In article , Nightjar
writes
On 30-Aug-16 5:54 PM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 30-Aug-16 11:30 AM, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 29-Aug-16 7:57 AM, harry wrote:

https://www.apnews.com/ed56e6f1643e4...09/Merkel-reje
cts-Muslim-migrant-ban,-urges-fair-distribution




We haven't left yet and we don't yet know what conditions will be
imposed upon us if, as is probable, we wish to continue to be part of
the single market. While in, we had several exemptions from EU
requirements, including control of immigration, that we can no longer
guarantee once we leave.

When we leave, we control immigration by definition.

We already have complete control over immigration.


Please explain EU immigrants then? Still spouting Remoan proaganda?

I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants. However, if we
want to stay in the single market, don't expect any change to their
freedom of movement.

We want change to the freedom of movement. If that means we have to pay
tariffs of c3% so be it, but the EU will have to accept that we will
also impose similar tariffs on their exports to us. If they have any
thought for the well being of their own citizens they will accept that
free trade is beneficial and to be encouraged. However the ideologists
at the top of the EU will sacrifice anything for their "principles".

--
bert

On 30-Aug-16 6:27 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/08/16 18:17, Nightjar wrote:
I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants.

Holy crap. You really drank the kool-aid didn't you?


An isolationist like you may view people from the next village as
foreigners, but I embrace the concept of a unified Europe. I don't see
any real difference between a Pole living in London and a Scot or a
Liverpudlian living there.

--
--

Colin Bignell

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.

On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 18:27:07 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/08/16 18:17, Nightjar wrote:
I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants.

Holy crap. You really drank the kool-aid didn't you?

He's right, there are NO immigrants on this planet.

On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 20:09:32 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

We're seeing various trade negotiations in trouble -
like between the US and EU. Canada and the east.

It was a pretty **** deal from what I;'ve heard from other sources,

Yes.

such as insiting we buy drugs from the USA even if we didn't need them.

That was never part of it.

I'm sur it was part of their idea of free trade.


Thre were plenty of oppersition to TTIP

Yes. But there was plenty of opposition to the EEC too.

That was in the early 70s and those oppositions were over come or ignored for the so called better good at the time.

Now it';s a new era what worked 50 years ok might not work today or in 50 years time.


But plenty leavers think we will have no trouble making
new agreements with everyone. Perhaps with Mars...

Yes we will.

Why do you think it is easier making agreements with 27
countries than just an agreement between two countries ?

Because the deal can be different with each country instead
of just the one deal with any one of the 27 countrys having
a veto on the deal.

That's why it's best to deal with just one country at a time.


Cabn yuo explain this POV as I just don't understand it.

No surprises there...


that you can't explain it, no suprise there.

Plealse explain why the TTIP deal is failing then.



It;s bad enough negotiating a price on anything
when a couple is involed let alone a grouop of 27.

The deal isnt on price.

So what is it on ?

whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
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.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

Britain does in fact have plenty of them and that is who do most
of the negotiating involved in the WTO and quite a bit of what
the EU does too, just because they speak english and even you
should have noticed that most of the rest of the world does too.

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.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

The bigger a trade blck gets the more bullyiong goes on

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

and the further it gets from the original idea
of group trading for teh good of the group.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

The EU is in fact one of the biggest trade blocs around and there was
**** all bullying involved with setting up the trade bloc side of it.

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...

That is what the WTO is about, stupid.

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.

With the agreement of the participant countrys when it changed.

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

If it does.

No if about it, its been doing that for centurys now.

On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 22:01:59 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

..

A small country like the USA you mean.
The EU wasn't negotiating with a tiny country the USA isn't a tiny country.

Of course without knowing exactly where it failed....

I think it is failing because no-one in the EU really wanted the TTIP
deal except us: and we sort of opted out of long term EU planning
recently.

and of course this took the EU 7 years to work out or to get this far.

Now if anyone wants to pay ne a full EU wage for 7 years to enable me to work out what colour toilet we should use ......

On 31-Aug-16 11:06 AM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 18:27:07 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/08/16 18:17, Nightjar wrote:
I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants.

Holy crap. You really drank the kool-aid didn't you?

He's right, there are NO immigrants on this planet.

I have my suspicions about the little green bloke next door.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 20:24:34 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

We're seeing various trade negotiations in trouble - like between
the US and EU. Canada and the east.

It was a pretty **** deal from what I;'ve heard from other sources,
such as insiting we buy drugs from the USA even if we didn't need
them. Thre were plenty of oppersition to TTIP

Of course. Each country wants the very best deal it can get. For
itself.

So no trade will ever be done then.

Even you should have noticed that there is no trade deal between the EU
and the USA and yet lots of trade between them.

Yes I have noticed and I've mentioned it many times including when I have
ordered Apple products over the last 20+ years but we've never had a
trade deal with them. So explain why we need a trade deal with anyone ?
We were trading 1000s of years before the EU existed.

we don't NEED a trade deal unless we don't want import duties imposed on
goods we are trying to sell. You might have noticed than a great many US
products cost the same, or sometimes less, in dollars as they do in pounds.
That's because the UK imposes import duty. Buy something direcxt from the
USA and you will find that out on a personal basis.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article , Nightjar
writes
On 30-Aug-16 6:27 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/08/16 18:17, Nightjar wrote:
I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants.

Holy crap. You really drank the kool-aid didn't you?


An isolationist like you may view people from the next village as
foreigners, but I embrace the concept of a unified Europe.
Why stop at Europe?
I don't see any real difference between a Pole living in London and a
Scot or a Liverpudlian living there.


--
bert

On 31/08/16 12:48, bert wrote:
In article , Nightjar
writes
On 30-Aug-16 6:27 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/08/16 18:17, Nightjar wrote:
I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants.

Holy crap. You really drank the kool-aid didn't you?


An isolationist like you may view people from the next village as
foreigners, but I embrace the concept of a unified Europe.
Why stop at Europe?
I don't see any real difference between a Pole living in London and a
Scot or a Liverpudlian living there.

Well language would be a start.

The Pole probably speaks English ;-)






--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 31/08/16 12:37, charles wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 20:24:34 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

We're seeing various trade negotiations in trouble - like between
the US and EU. Canada and the east.

It was a pretty **** deal from what I;'ve heard from other sources,
such as insiting we buy drugs from the USA even if we didn't need
them. Thre were plenty of oppersition to TTIP

Of course. Each country wants the very best deal it can get. For
itself.

So no trade will ever be done then.

Even you should have noticed that there is no trade deal between the EU
and the USA and yet lots of trade between them.

Yes I have noticed and I've mentioned it many times including when I have
ordered Apple products over the last 20+ years but we've never had a
trade deal with them. So explain why we need a trade deal with anyone ?
We were trading 1000s of years before the EU existed.

we don't NEED a trade deal unless we don't want import duties imposed on
goods we are trying to sell. You might have noticed than a great many US
products cost the same, or sometimes less, in dollars as they do in pounds.
That's because the UK imposes import duty. Buy something direcxt from the
USA and you will find that out on a personal basis.

...when you get hit by import duty, a charge for paying it by the
courier, and VAT added to the processing charge, and the whole shebang.

$100 of bits cost me £120 by the time that loot had been sorted.

China ships by post and lies about the value. Which is why I import from
china and not from the USA.

Don't even ask about exporting to the EU. BTDTGTTS.

Parcels that simply never arrive, parcels that arrive crushed beyond
recognition with wheel marks over them Not just the odd one, but in some
countries, pretty much ALL the time.


The so called free market is a a total joke.





--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Plealse explain why the TTIP deal is failing then.

Because one or both can't agree terms. Simples.

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Yes I have noticed and I've mentioned it many times including when I
have ordered Apple products over the last 20+ years but we've never had
a trade deal with them. So explain why we need a trade deal with anyone
? We were trading 1000s of years before the EU existed.

Not been following the news? Apple's head office is apparently in Eire.
Part of the EU.

Given your favourite company seems to love the EU, why not you too?

--
*A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
Yes I have noticed and I've mentioned it many times including when I
have ordered Apple products over the last 20+ years but we've never
had a trade deal with them. So explain why we need a trade deal with
anyone ? We were trading 1000s of years before the EU existed.

we don't NEED a trade deal unless we don't want import duties imposed on
goods we are trying to sell. You might have noticed than a great many
US products cost the same, or sometimes less, in dollars as they do in
pounds. That's because the UK imposes import duty. Buy something
direcxt from the USA and you will find that out on a personal basis.

Don't think our Dave quite understands the nature of trade these days.

Apple may be thought of as being a US company - but most if not all of
their products ain't made there. It would be odd if all of them were sent
to the US before being exported to their final destination. And given
their stupidly high prices, import duties could easily be hidden in the
retail cost anyway.

--
*I love cats...they taste just like chicken.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 31/08/16 12:48, bert wrote:
In article , Nightjar
writes
On 30-Aug-16 6:27 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/08/16 18:17, Nightjar wrote:
I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants.

Holy crap. You really drank the kool-aid didn't you?


An isolationist like you may view people from the next village as
foreigners, but I embrace the concept of a unified Europe.
Why stop at Europe?
I don't see any real difference between a Pole living in London and a
Scot or a Liverpudlian living there.

Well language would be a start.

The Pole probably speaks English ;-)

LOL






--
bert

On Wednesday, 31 August 2016 11:50:17 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 31-Aug-16 11:06 AM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 August 2016 18:27:07 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/08/16 18:17, Nightjar wrote:
I don't consider other EU citizens to be immigrants.

Holy crap. You really drank the kool-aid didn't you?

He's right, there are NO immigrants on this planet.

I have my suspicions about the little green bloke next door.


Your just being racists.