On 04/10/17 19:55, pamela wrote:
On 21:56 3 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes

.....


Are we honestly and truly expecting the EU to make an effort to
ensure our exit is as nice, easy and painless as possible?
No because those in charge of the negotiations don't give two
hoots about the well being of the EU citizens.

We were told my many EU politicians not to expect that. It's
time to stop moaning amd simply accept the situation we have
got ourselves into.

Well you're the one doing all the moaning.

The only moaning is from Brexiteers who are increasingly
frustrated that gettinga good deal isn't as easy as they had been
promising everyone. Poor dears.

ON your planet, not mine.

The moaning from brexiteers is that we are shilly shallying around
pretending we will get a deal when everyone knows the EU cannot afford
to give us one, so the negiotiaons are all show trial virtue signalling
and posturing for the Community.


It's shades of Donald Trump saying, "Who would have thought health
care coud be so complicated?"

No, its shades of Alexander and the Gordian knot

Just leave now,. stop paying, and sort out the trade deal afterwards


Hearing the wails and moans of Brexit is almost an entertainment
and I hope for more in the next year or two. Schadenfreude can be
such fun.


Hearing the moans of remoaners is not entertaining, its sad, its
sickening and its frightening to see how brainwashed and naive they are.

To those of us who have lived in the reeal world, run businesses, done
practical stuff, negotiated big contracts etc.


--
Theres a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On 04/10/2017 21:53, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/10/17 16:05, charles wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2017-10-04, charles wrote:

[43 lines snipped]


The question is "how do you keep an open border between the Irish
Republic & Northern Ireland when you are not in a customs union?"

And the answer, obvious to anyone with a brain is, you can't.

but the Northern Ireland Peace agreement signed by the British
Government requires an open border

*shrug* signed with whom?

the Irish Government for a start

Nothing to stop us leaving the border open. It is then the EU's problem
how to police it.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Well you're the one doing all the moaning.

The only moaning is from Brexiteers who are increasingly
frustrated that gettinga good deal isn't as easy as they had been
promising everyone. Poor dears.

Odd isn't it? The EU is a dreadfully inefficient bureaucracy, and is like
a fully loaded container ship at full speed - takes ages to react to
anything, we're told.

Yet they were ready for Brexit negotiations with the UK - while the UK
floundered.

And so much for them needing us more than we need them.

To date, they've done all the running. With little indication that will
change.

Brexiteers remind me of English football supporters. 'We are going to win
the world cup'

--
*WHY IS IT CALLED TOURIST SEASON IF WE CAN'T SHOOT AT THEM?

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

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 04/10/2017 18:35, charles wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2017-10-04, charles wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2017-10-04, charles wrote:

[43 lines snipped]

The question is "how do you keep an open border between the Irish
Republic & Northern Ireland when you are not in a customs union?"

And the answer, obvious to anyone with a brain is, you can't.

but the Northern Ireland Peace agreement signed by the British
Government requires an open border

You are aware of the "constitutional" tradition that no Parliament can
bind any of its successors, right?

so, the government will renege on any treaty saying - "oh that was the
last government's idea"?

If something has to give, something will give.

Or, as that nice Mr Blair was fond of saying, we'll find a 'third way',
like shifting the 'hard border' to the island of Great Britain.

Personally, I'd be all in favour of selling Northern Ireland off to the
highest bidder.

After all, what have the Northern Irish ever done for us?

Oh, just a few details like troops used in various wars etc.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Huge
wrote:
On 2017-10-04, charles wrote:

[43 lines snipped]


The question is "how do you keep an open border between the Irish
Republic & Northern Ireland when you are not in a customs union?"

And the answer, obvious to anyone with a brain is, you can't.

but the Northern Ireland Peace agreement signed by the British
Government requires an open border

And given that something has changed, that is no longer possible.

but Ireland believes it is

They are completely irrelevant.

- which explains the problems with the "negotiations"

Its just more EU bull****, trying to make it too hard to leave.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 04/10/17 19:17, Hankat wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 03/10/17 01:31, Hankat wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news On 02/10/17 12:06, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 21:10:57 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 04:42:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 11:26 30 Sep 2017, tim... wrote:

--snip--
and our goods are to their specs.

They already are, so thats a complete yawn.

Until they change the specs and we will have no say in these when
outside the EU.

Then we change the product. Just as we would for product sent to any
other non-EU country.

This is trivially unimportant; stop trying to pretend it's a major
issue.

Neither you nor I know whether this will be a major issue. Many
Brexiters are claiming that the EU is making things as difficult as
possible for the UK - why should this be any different?


Becasue trade cuts both ways.

We could for example, insisr that all imported cars come with a
diamond encrusted vanity mirror, but not locally made ones.

Nope, not possible under WTO rules.

Oh but it is.

Nothing in the WTO says that products dont have to comply to local
regulations.

The WTO rules dont allow that sort of 'regulation' that only applies
to imports and not to locally made ones.

Easy enough to bend

Impossible actually.

All cars is the UK must be upoholstered in British made leather.

Not possible under WTO rules.

Export of british leather is forbidden

Not possible under WTO rules.

Thats how the EU does it pretty much.

Like hell it does. Anyone is free to import cars made in other than
the EU and plenty do just that. The only thing they have to do is
pay the tariff when they do that and that is fine under WTO rules.

What isnt possible under WTO rules is punitive tariffs that apply
only to cars coming from the EU, it has to apply to all imports.

Manufacturesrs dream up a new prodct thta will nmeet regulaqtins that dont
exist yet, and develop it, and then te regulatin gets applied and
suddenlyt certain EU manufactures have t5e pridyuct readyt, and t5e far
east does not.

Not possible under WTO rules.

Or that local regualtins can be waived for some homegrown manufacturers.

That isnt allowed under the WTO rules.

Sure is under EU rules.

Nope.

Example: All UK chickens must be reared 'humanely'

Irrelevant to trade. The WTO rules apply to trade for some weird reason.

May have something to do with what the letter T is for.

All EU chickens are suppised to be reared 'humanely' BUT certain eastern
european countries were granted exemptions till they could 'catch up' and
'build humane chicken housing'.

Still irrelevant to TRADE.

Of course, since they can undercut UK producers, they have no incentive to
comply, so the exemption is still in force.

The EU started its existence as a *protected* trade area to protect
European coal and steel from the rest of the world.

Before the current WTO rules existed.

Then it moved on to protect French agriculture, and then German
manufacturing.

Perfectly acceptable under the WTO rules, as long as the same
tariff applies regardless of where the competitive imports come
from in the absence of a trade agreement with that country.

It is still a protected trade area.

Perfectly acceptable under WTO rules.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 04/10/17 19:20, Hankat wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 03/10/17 10:15, pamela wrote:
We can't insist the EU trades with us under terms which we
identify as the ones we would like.

We can.

In terms of our imports.

We can set what terms we like.

Not under the WTO rules Britain can't.

If we wanted to be spiteful we could resuce imports from the EU to a
trickle ad buy suff from elsewhere.

No WTO member can do that under the WTO rules.

The EU does.

No it does not. ALL it can do is have very high tariffs that
apply to all imports in that category and even then, some
choose to pay the tariff anyway to import what they want.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 04/10/17 19:21, Hankat wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 03/10/17 12:35, Mark wrote:
Which shows bullying works that's how classic bullying works.
No. There are many reasons for the change on opinions, one of which
was all the lies told by the brexit campaigners.


Actially more people are in favour of leaving now that at the time of
the referendum.


Bullying works...to make people more resolved to have nothing to do
with bullies.

Hitler tried to bully us.

No, he lied about what he would do.

And *then* bullied us.

Nope, did what he always intended to do, and suffered the
consequences that he was told he would get if he did that.

He in fact tried to get Britain to agree to disagree once war had
been declared and Germany did quite well up to Dunkirk etc.

Britain chose to have none of that for various reasons.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 04/10/17 11:24, pamela wrote:
On 11:18 4 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/10/17 10:15, pamela wrote:
We can't insist the EU trades with us under terms which we
identify as the ones we would like.

We can.

In terms of our imports.

We can set what terms we like.

If we wanted to be spiteful we could resuce imports from the EU
to a trickle ad buy suff from elsewhere.

Okay, we can insist but we can't force the EU into doing what we
insist.

Yes, in certain cases we can.
Once we are sovereign, we can control what comes into this country, and
who, and what price they have to pay.

And there would be nothing the EU could do except impose similar
restrictions.

I fully expect they will. Taking us back to the 1940s in terms of
political relaitinships.

The EU mst insit that Britain gets a *worse* deal than the rest of the
world.

==

Exactly! It is afraid if we have an easy ride, other countries will feel it
could be easy for them to escape too.

Some club when the members have to be held by fear.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

In article ,
Ophelia wrote:
Exactly! It is afraid if we have an easy ride, other countries will
feel it could be easy for them to escape too.

Really? How many have had a referendum on it? Or are you simply guessing -
a common thing with brexiteers. Both france and Germany have had recent
elections. With pro EU parties winning.

Some club when the members have to be held by fear.

There are already countries outside the EU who have a deal with it.
Norway, etc.

If the UK got a better one, they would want it too.

It really is simple. If we don't want to be part of the club, walk away.
But we apparently still want to use some of the club facilities. So they
hold all the aces.

Take your head out of the sand and try working out what the UK would do if
the positions were reversed.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

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

Ophelia wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 04/10/17 11:24, pamela wrote:
On 11:18 4 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 03/10/17 10:15, pamela wrote:
We can't insist the EU trades with us under terms which we
identify as the ones we would like.

We can.

In terms of our imports.

We can set what terms we like.

If we wanted to be spiteful we could resuce imports from the EU
to a trickle ad buy suff from elsewhere.

Okay, we can insist but we can't force the EU into doing what we
insist.

Yes, in certain cases we can.
Once we are sovereign, we can control what comes into this country, and
who, and what price they have to pay.

And there would be nothing the EU could do except impose similar
restrictions.

I fully expect they will. Taking us back to the 1940s in terms of
political relaitinships.

The EU mst insit that Britain gets a *worse* deal than the rest of the
world.

==

Exactly! It is afraid if we have an easy ride, other countries will
feel it could be easy for them to escape too.

In other words the type of approach addopted by "project fear" in the Scottish
indyref:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Together_campaign)

In March 2014 the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats ruled
out a currency union between the UK and an independent Scotland.
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne stated that "If Scotland
walks away from the UK, it walks away from the pound."

On 23 June 2013, in an article marking the campaign's first
anniversary, the Sunday Herald claimed that "Privately, some inside
Better Together even refer to the organisation as Project Fear"

Some club when the members have to be held by fear.


The EU cannot, and should not, countenance a utopian Brexit offshore tax haven
(where employment rights are non-existent, animal welfare abolished, ultra
laissez-faire banking speculators and gamblers free-for all encouraged ) getting
unfettered access to the Single Market whilst moonlighting as the fifty-first
state of the Land of the Free.

The UK would not put up with Scotland doing it. Neither should the EU.

It seems to be a tad hypocritical to denounce a club and its rules, leave, but
then demand continued use its playing fields and sports facilities without
having to pay a penny.

On 05/10/17 14:41, pamela wrote:
On 21:58 3 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 01:52 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/10/17 23:06, pamela wrote:
For the most part, the EU was mutually beneficial for those
who were in it.

Only the politicians, Frech Farmers and German car makers
Everyne else got a **** deal

In that case we shouldn't worry if we get no concessions in
these negotiations because, according to what you wrote, we will
still be better off.

Great.

Well yes, because we could subsidise all our exports to the EU
and still be better off.

Dp you have any links or cites to support that? I would be
interested to see them.

Why?
Can't you think for yourself?

Oh. No. I forgot. You are a lefty-recieved-wisdom-remoaner and you
believe what people tell you.

As long as they work at the Beeb or write for the Guardian

Bless!



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Well yes, because we could subsidise all our exports to the EU
and still be better off.

Dp you have any links or cites to support that? I would be
interested to see them.

Why? Can't you think for yourself?

Oh. No. I forgot. You are a lefty-recieved-wisdom-remoaner and
you believe what people tell you.

As long as they work at the Beeb or write for the Guardian

Bless!

There must be some data to prove or disprove the claim that "we can
subsidise all our exports to the EU and still be better off."

It's not a thought experiment.

That Turnip thinks selling things below cost long term is a good business
model does rather explain why he ceased trading.

--
*The best cure for sea sickness, is to sit under a tree.

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

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 16:55 5 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/10/17 14:41, pamela wrote:
On 21:58 3 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 01:52 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/10/17 23:06, pamela wrote:
For the most part, the EU was mutually beneficial for those
who were in it.

Only the politicians, Frech Farmers and German car makers
Everyne else got a **** deal

In that case we shouldn't worry if we get no concessions in
these negotiations because, according to what you wrote, we
will still be better off.

Great.

Well yes, because we could subsidise all our exports to the EU
and still be better off.

Dp you have any links or cites to support that? I would be
interested to see them.

Why? Can't you think for yourself?

Oh. No. I forgot. You are a lefty-recieved-wisdom-remoaner and
you believe what people tell you.

As long as they work at the Beeb or write for the Guardian

Bless!

There must be some data to prove or disprove the claim that
"we can subsidise all our exports to the EU and still be better off."

No need for any subsidy for aircraft engines,
wings, docos, TV series, the best single malt
scotch etc etc etc or financial services in spades.

And no data yet given Britain is still in the EU.

It's not a thought experiment.

But there is no data to do the proving or disproving.

The most it can ever be at the moment is speculation/prediction.

In article , pamela
writes
On 21:58 3 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 01:52 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/10/17 23:06, pamela wrote:
For the most part, the EU was mutually beneficial for those
who were in it.

Only the politicians, Frech Farmers and German car makers
Everyne else got a **** deal

In that case we shouldn't worry if we get no concessions in
these negotiations because, according to what you wrote, we will
still be better off.

Great.

Well yes, because we could subsidise all our exports to the EU
and still be better off.

Dp you have any links or cites to support that? I would be
interested to see them.
www.google.com
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 16:55 5 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/10/17 14:41, pamela wrote:
On 21:58 3 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 01:52 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/10/17 23:06, pamela wrote:
For the most part, the EU was mutually beneficial for those
who were in it.

Only the politicians, Frech Farmers and German car makers
Everyne else got a **** deal

In that case we shouldn't worry if we get no concessions in
these negotiations because, according to what you wrote, we
will still be better off.

Great.

Well yes, because we could subsidise all our exports to the EU
and still be better off.

Dp you have any links or cites to support that? I would be
interested to see them.

Why? Can't you think for yourself?

Oh. No. I forgot. You are a lefty-recieved-wisdom-remoaner and
you believe what people tell you.

As long as they work at the Beeb or write for the Guardian

Bless!

There must be some data to prove or disprove the claim that "we can
subsidise all our exports to the EU and still be better off."

Yes there is - or was. So long ago I cant' be bothered to go looking
again for someone who seems to have just woken up to Brexit and wants to
go over all the old arguments again and again. I don't really care if
you believe it or not.
It's not a thought experiment.

--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 21:16 7 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 16:55 5 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/10/17 14:41, pamela wrote:
On 21:58 3 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 01:52 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/10/17 23:06, pamela wrote:
For the most part, the EU was mutually beneficial for
those who were in it.

Only the politicians, Frech Farmers and German car makers
Everyne else got a **** deal

In that case we shouldn't worry if we get no concessions in
these negotiations because, according to what you wrote, we
will still be better off.

Great.

Well yes, because we could subsidise all our exports to the
EU and still be better off.

Dp you have any links or cites to support that? I would be
interested to see them.

Why? Can't you think for yourself?

Oh. No. I forgot. You are a lefty-recieved-wisdom-remoaner and
you believe what people tell you.

As long as they work at the Beeb or write for the Guardian

Bless!

There must be some data to prove or disprove the claim that "we
can subsidise all our exports to the EU and still be better
off."

Yes there is - or was. So long ago I cant' be bothered to go
looking again for someone who seems to have just woken up to
Brexit and wants to go over all the old arguments again and
again. I don't really care if you believe it or not.

Maybe it's worth checking in case the data has changed and the idea
is no longer true. It doesn't have a ring of truth about it.
Then go and check it and come back and cite somewhere which says it is
not true.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 21:14 7 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 21:58 3 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 01:52 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 01/10/17 23:06, pamela wrote:
For the most part, the EU was mutually beneficial for those
who were in it.

Only the politicians, Frech Farmers and German car makers
Everyne else got a **** deal

In that case we shouldn't worry if we get no concessions in
these negotiations because, according to what you wrote, we will
still be better off.

Great.

Well yes, because we could subsidise all our exports to the EU
and still be better off.

Dp you have any links or cites to support that? I would be
interested to see them.

www.google.com

There's nothing there. I suppose you couldn't find anything either.
Go to google groups archive, find my original post which will contain
the citation you seek. I'm not really bothered whether you accept it or
not. The referendum is over - you lost.
--
bert