In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 2 October 2017 16:43:20 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
We joined the EU of our own free will.

No we joined the EEC have you forgotten already, short term memeory
loss ?

Ah - so we weren't in the EU. I've been misled all along, then.

Nom we joined the EEC, see above the claim is that we joined the EU.
if you can't tell the differnce then that says it all really.

So we left the EEC when it became the EU? Or are you trying to make some
stupid point?

--
*If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends? *

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

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
If we had chosen to stay then I would agree with you. But when the
sequence is:

1. We are going to leave
2. Then we'll make choices to ensure you are worse off

The EU ain't making any choices for the UK. If the UK wishes to leave so
be it.
It's the UK that want to retain some of the goodies of being an EU member.

3. OK, we'll stay.

That's not going to happen.

Then that's being bullied.

No - it's rather like saying to a 3 year old 'if you put your hand in the
fire you'll get burnt' But the child does it anyway.

--
*Dancing is a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire *

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

Dave Plowman wrote:

It's the UK that want to retain some of the goodies of being an EU member.

But free trade deals aren't exclusively available to EU members, the EU
has (or wants) free trade with South Korea, Canada, Japan, etc, etc.

So why *wouldn't* they want one with the UK? Especially as many
obstacles they're making much of, such as customs borders between Eire
and Northern Ireland, would then go away ...

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 21:30 1 Oct 2017, Steve Walker wrote:

On 01/10/2017 14:36, pamela wrote:
On 10:52 1 Oct 2017, tim... wrote:



"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
No the reality is the the EU are a bunch of bullies who
think that by bullying us into terms that are very bad for
us, very good for them we will meekly say "perhaps we
shouldn't leave then" (and then they will turn up the screw
even higher and strip us of our opt outs)

You really need to think this through.

We joined the EU of our own free will. Agreed to all the
rules and regulations, or negotiated an opt out if not to our
taste.

and we have given our notice to leave as required by the rules

and the EU are now trying to re-write these leaving rules to
suit themselves.

Of course that's exactly what they are doing. Did we expect
the EU to apply the rule flexibly such that they were in our
favour? Dream on!

Due to self serving ******s like Farage and his other bully
boys stirring up those who knew no better, 'we' voted to
leave.

Not been thrown out of the club - but said it wasn't for us
anymore.

But now seem to have discovered lots of it was in the
interests of the country as a whole. And like a selfish
toddler want to hang on to what suits us regardless of the
rules of that club.

There will NEED to be a set of future trading rules between us
and the EU after we have left. This is for the benefit of
everyone, EU included.

But the EU seem to think that they don't need to sit down and
discuss this, they got better things to do (apparently).

Don't fret over the EU doing damage to itself. It's quite big
enough to handle that.

FTAOD There is no presumption that the above means that the
end result of the discussion should be specifically beneficial
to the UK [1]. Just that all those little things which NEED
to be sorted out, are sorted out, before the leaving date.

Like any good negotiator, I suspect the EU will make sure those
very things (called "peanuts" in negotiating circles) are not
agreed unless we make significant concessions.

Also, in order to maximise the value to the EU of those
concessions they will delay such discussions until as late as
possible to impress upon the UK that it's staring a loss in the
face. No doubt Brexiteers will squeal.

tim

[1] Except in the sense that it affects a larger portion of
our world trade than it does the EU's world trade, but that is
inevitable - you can't use that fact as a justification for a
country not being able to exercise its right to leave.

Britain has the right to leave the EU and Britain has the right
to bear the consequences of leaving. Meanwhile the EU has the
right not to provide any assistance. It's all part of
realpolitik.

And the fact that the EU would make it as didicult as possible,
so as to discourage others leaving, shows exactly why we need to
leave.

For the most part, the EU was mutually
beneficial for those who were in it.

And then the majority who bothered to vote decided
that the downsides were more important than the upsides,
particularly with the free movement of people within the EU
and the virtually complete lack of any real democracy with
policy decisions the EU makes with unelected unsackable
bureaucrats doing that in the EU.

If the UK chooses to leave then it can not complain that
it is missing out on the advantages of being a member.

Corse it can when all of these don’t miss out and arent members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

If the UK finds it hard to leave

It doesn’t. Its free to make an obscene gesture in the general
direction of the EU and tell them to shove their exit fee where
the sun don’t shine because it doesn’t get a mention in Article
50 or the Treaty of Lisbon either.

then it should have thought twice about that before deciding to go.

It did, and the majority of those who bothered to vote decided they
wanted out anyway. You stupid remoaners get to like that or lump it.

No special deals, no benefits without costs is fair enough,

No its not when all but 3 of these got that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

but deliberately preventing debate of
things that need to be sorted out is not.

Are we honestly and truly expecting the EU to make an effort
to ensure our exit is as nice, easy and painless as possible?

Nope, that they are legally required to do what
Article 50 says they have to do, NEGOTIATE.

We were told my many EU politicians not to expect that.

Pity about what Article 50 requires them to do.

It's time to stop moaning

Yes, its time for you remoaners to stop moaning
and accept the fact that the majority of those who
bothered to vote, voted for Britain to leave the EU.

amd simply accept the situation we have got ourselves into.

So why don’t you with the referendum result, remoaner ?

Cursitor Doom wrote
bert wrote

Which is a good reason for leaving.

Just one among *millions* of excellent reasons! I can't
understand why Dave is being such a misery guts over it.

He's born like it and can't help it. Same with
Labour and unions and the Torys etc etc etc.

I guess he'll change his viewpoint after
we're finally out and the benefits roll in.

Nope, he was too stupid to do that when
the Torys ended up in govt and did that too.

Cant even bring himself to admit that what Thatcher
did with council houses was good for the country either.

Or the ****ing over that the unions got was either.

"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:35:08 +0100, bert wrote:

But once unskilled immigration is under control their wages will rise.
Surely as a good socialist you would welcome that - or are you a true
Marxist **** like McDonnell and Corbyn?

He can't possibly be a Marxist cos he drives a Porsche
and a true Marxist would just take a bus everywhere.

Corbyn and McDonnell dont. All hypocrites.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 21:30 1 Oct 2017, Steve Walker wrote:


And the fact that the EU would make it as didicult as possible,
so as to discourage others leaving, shows exactly why we need to
leave.

For the most part, the EU was mutually beneficial for those who
were in it. If the UK chooses to leave then it can not complain
that it is missing out on the advantages of being a member.

the point is that the EU and the UK DO have a trading relationship

that trading relationship WILL continue once we have left

and FTAOD, it will, be the largest trading partner outside the EU that the
EU have.

That isnt even true now compared with china.

and in order to make that as easy as possible for EVERYONE we need to sit
around the table and discuss the agreements for doing so

Nope, just trade under the WTO rules, like all of the USA, Japan,
Korea, India, Australia, NZ etc etc etc all do with the EU right now.

But they seem to think that they don't need to do that.

Because they don't, particularly when they want to
discourage any others countrys already in the EU
from leaving because that makes the EU look bad.

And the only reasons that I can see why anyone would be so STUPID is
because they think that by doing this we will crawl back and ask to stay
in

The other obvious reason is to discourage any other country from leaving.

(when the will stiff us again by saying "only if you lose all your opt
outs)

I doubt they would be that stupid if Britain changed its mind on leaving.

No deal is as bad for them as it is for us.

Its not bad at all. Trading under the WTO rules works fine
for all of USA, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, NZ etc etc etc.

Sure, a free trade deal would be better,
which is why there are all of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Messing around with the trading WILL cost them mega billions.

Nope, all the trade will continue fine under the WTO rules with
some not very high tariffs newly applying to some of the trade.
Nothing even remotely like mega billions.

That it is a smaller part of their total GDP than ours does not make it an
insignificant amount.

That trade wont stop, it will just be done under the WTO rules.

for every UK lorry stuck in a 12 hour queue to pass customs there will be
a FRENCH lorry stuck in a 12 hour queue to pass customs

That isnt what happens with all the trade under WTO rules with
all of USA, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, NZ etc etc etc.

for every brit with a professions certificate travelling to the EU to
perform his professional work having his qualification queried as valid,
there will be a EU citizen with some professional certificate having his
qualification being queried as valid

That happens already with all of USA, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, NZ etc
etc etc.

for ever Brit turning up at a French Hospital expecting to be covered by
his EHIC card and being turned away, there will be a French citizen
turning up at an UK hospital expecting to be covered by his EHIC card and
being turned away

That happens already with all of USA, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, NZ etc
etc etc.

Just happened with the #2 son of a mate of mine in one of the scandinavian
countrys, completely effortless and completely covered by his travel
insurance.

etc etc

There isnt much else that matters, really just the same thing with schools
for the kids etc.

This isn't about special favours

It's about a continuation of normal life

Which happens fine with all of USA, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, NZ etc
etc etc.

and you think that it's OK for the EU to negotiators to say "not our
problem, you sort it out"

Nothing needs to be sorted out, Britain can do what all
of USA, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, NZ etc etc etc do now.

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 1629216 20171001 211320 Tim Streater wrote:
In article , pamela
wrote:

On 11:28 1 Oct 2017, Huge wrote:

On 2017-10-01, pamela wrote:

[71 lines snipped]

The US, whom we are regularly told is our great ally, didn't
hold back from imposing 220 percent retaliatory tariffs over
Bombardier.

The US used WW2 to destroy Britain as a world power.

I guess you mean the War Debt.

Not only. We used to have significant foreign investments in South
America. Sold to the Yanks for a song for agreement for the Yanks
selling us arms during WW2.

Nope, to pay part of the immense cost of WW2.

Not just South America, all British investments in the USA had to be sold.

That is a bare faced lie. Britain CHOSE to do that to get some money to
spend on arms.

James Harris wrote:

[...]

If we had chosen to stay then I would agree with you. But when the
sequence is:

1. We are going to leave
2. Then we'll make choices to ensure you are worse off
3. OK, we'll stay.

Then that's being bullied.



If you think that the EU is "bullying" us then you must think they are
in a stronger position.

I think they /are/ in a stronger position, albeit not an overwhelming
one. But that's somewhat missing the point.

So much for the claim that "they need us more than we need them". You are
starting to think a little more carefully. Thank you.

Bullying is not about size
or might. It is about an attitude of mind.

Consider that when the Scottish parliament was set up and went off on
its own Westminster was generous to it (probably too generous), helped
it get on its feet, and wanted it to be a success.

By a pro EU Labour government. The voteleavetakecontrol people were as adamantly
opposed to Scottish devolution as they are to voting and HoL reform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotti...ferendum,_1997

Scottish Labour, the SNP, Liberal Democrats, and Scottish Greens
campaigned for a 'Yes' vote for both proposals whilst the
Conservatives opposed both proposals.

Of course,
Westminster was, to quote your words, "in a stronger position". But
Westminster's /attitude/ was not bullying. It was a positive, helpful one.

voteleavetakecontrol's attitude more like grudging acceptance.

Now contrast that with the EU. Look at the negativity we get from it.
Look at what it wants to happen. And think about what kind of
organisation it is.

Its little difference than the stance taken by the betterofftogether campaign in
Scotland. Leave, said George Osborne, but don't expect us to help you - and
forget about using our currency.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-...itics-28399968

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../499/49906.htm

The EU has other problems with politicians such as Geert Wilders and Marine Le
Pen. They have similar inclinations to leave the socialist EU for a free trade
deleriously lovely regulation-free utopia with Marxist evils such as the NHS
firmly banished. Michel Barnier, I suspect, isn't planning any deal that would
help those two wax lyrical day and night about the blissful economic paradise
that awaits those brave and bold enough to leave.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
We joined the EU of our own free will. Agreed to all the rules and
regulations, or negotiated an opt out if not to our taste.

and we have given our notice to leave as required by the rules

and the EU are now trying to re-write these leaving rules to suit
themselves.

Really? How come? May etc doesn't want to simply leave the EU.
She wants to set up a new trade etc deal at the same time.

She would certainly prefer to have one, but knows that Britain
will do fine trading under the WTO rules just like all of USA,
Japan, Korea, India, Australia, NZ etc etc etc do now.

Surely even you have noticed this? The rules for leaving
the EU don't cover this. They cover leaving only. Any
attempt to set up a new deal comes after that.

Article 50 doesn’t say that that comes after, its silent on when it happens.

This was said by the EU from the off.

Another bare faced lie.

But that hasn't stopped May etc trying
to impose her own 'rules' on the EU.

Corse the EU is doing nothing like that with their exit fee that doesn’t
even get a mention in Article 50 or the Treaty of Lisbon either.

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
We joined the EU of our own free will. Agreed to all the rules and
regulations, or negotiated an opt out if not to our taste.

and we have given our notice to leave as required by the rules

and the EU are now trying to re-write these leaving rules to suit
themselves.

Really? How come? May etc doesn't want to simply leave the EU. She wants
to set up a new trade etc deal at the same time.

she wants to agree trading details I agree

but that is to be expected and is not the same thing as a trade deal

the trade deal is a nice to have, but an agreement of trading terms is a
must have - for both sides,

Nope, that's already there, the WTO rules.

and yet the EU seem to think that they can dispense with it.

No they don't, they realise that the WTO rules will apply.

Surely even you have noticed this? The rules for leaving the EU don't
cover this. They cover leaving only.

and they require the parties to sit down and agree terms for separation

No they don't. They also cover where no agreement is reached.

Any attempt to set up a new deal comes after that.

Except that the UK have been offering the EU the carrot that we will be
more amenable to they demands for a divorce payment if they offer us a
free trade deal than if they don't

More fool Britain.

but they seem to think that they should be entitled to the carrot
regardless.

Its just another ambit claim.

This was said by the EU from the off. But that hasn't stopped May etc
trying to impose her own 'rules' on the EU.

I don't believe that she has imposed any rules (she might have tried, but
hasn't succeeded)

She hasn't even tried. The EU has with their exit fee which doesn't
even get a mention in Article 50 or the Treaty of Lisbon.

On 02/10/2017 17:20, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:59:35 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 15:31, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:24:17 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 15:14, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:43:57 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 14:12, pamela wrote:
On 13:04 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/10/17 12:01, pamela wrote:


The negotiation is not just the part where we sit around a
table and banter with one another over tea & biscuits then
leave with handshakes and smiles. Everything is part of the
negotiation and that includes walkouts, threats, brinkmanship,
partisan voting, off the record briefings and so on.

Yes, thats how amateurs negotiate, Business men establish first
that they are not dealing with idiots, and play the game mostly
straight. It saves time and money

The EU aims to win by fair means or foul. The British aim to win
by only fair means.

Who is most likely to win? I'm not asking whose conscience is the
clearest.

Do we want a good deal or not? Are we going to wise up to the
EU's tactics or are we going to moan about the unfair way Johnny
Foreigner played and won the game?

A fair assessment. I would add that the goals are different. The EU has
stated that from their point of view Brexit has to cause diminishment. I
believe them.

Another good reason not to leave the EU.

Sure. Anyone that bullies us should be given in to. No doubt about it.

No, staying in the EU is not giving in.

If we had chosen to stay then I would agree with you. But when the
sequence is:

FSVO "we"

1. We are going to leave
2. Then we'll make choices to ensure you are worse off
3. OK, we'll stay.

Then that's being bullied.

The referendum was very close and recent polls show that the tide has
turned.

How is that related to whether the EU is a bully or not?

BTW, don't rely on polls!



--snip--

Consider that when the Scottish parliament was set up and went off on
its own Westminster was generous to it (probably too generous), helped
it get on its feet, and wanted it to be a success. Of course,
Westminster was, to quote your words, "in a stronger position". But
Westminster's /attitude/ was not bullying. It was a positive, helpful one.

I think they are too generous in this. Scotland can afford to do
things in Scotland that we don't get in England.

But you get the point that the UK wanted to help Scotland - and the EU
is, by contrast, determined that Britain must be made worse off.


Now contrast that with the EU. Look at the negativity we get from it.
Look at what it wants to happen. And think about what kind of
organisation it is.

Much of the negativity comes from the Xenaphobic UK press and certain
UK politicians.

Not in this case.


--
James Harris

On 02/10/2017 18:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
If we had chosen to stay then I would agree with you. But when the
sequence is:

1. We are going to leave
2. Then we'll make choices to ensure you are worse off

The EU ain't making any choices for the UK. If the UK wishes to leave so
be it.
It's the UK that want to retain some of the goodies of being an EU member.

3. OK, we'll stay.

That's not going to happen.

Then that's being bullied.

No - it's rather like saying to a 3 year old 'if you put your hand in the
fire you'll get burnt' But the child does it anyway.

Not at all. The EU's decision that a seceding state must be worse off is
not required by any treaty. It is not part of the EU's rules. It is not
a component of the single market. It is not required by the customs union.

People need to understand this. The EU leaders have made a CHOICE that
the UK must be worse off.


--
James Harris

On 02/10/2017 16:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
A fair assessment. I would add that the goals are different. The EU
has stated that from their point of view Brexit has to cause
diminishment. I believe them.

Another good reason not to leave the EU.

Sure. Anyone that bullies us should be given in to. No doubt about it.

The UK while a member of the EU demanded change for their benefit. The EU
mostly said no.

No. The _EU_ kept pushing for change, not the UK. We joined a tennis
club - which it was at the time. But over time the EU decided it wanted
to play rugby.


--
James Harris

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:24:17 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 15:14, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:43:57 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 14:12, pamela wrote:
On 13:04 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/10/17 12:01, pamela wrote:


The negotiation is not just the part where we sit around a
table and banter with one another over tea & biscuits then
leave with handshakes and smiles. Everything is part of the
negotiation and that includes walkouts, threats, brinkmanship,
partisan voting, off the record briefings and so on.

Yes, thats how amateurs negotiate, Business men establish first
that they are not dealing with idiots, and play the game mostly
straight. It saves time and money

The EU aims to win by fair means or foul. The British aim to win
by only fair means.

Who is most likely to win? I'm not asking whose conscience is the
clearest.

Do we want a good deal or not? Are we going to wise up to the
EU's tactics or are we going to moan about the unfair way Johnny
Foreigner played and won the game?

A fair assessment. I would add that the goals are different. The EU has
stated that from their point of view Brexit has to cause diminishment. I
believe them.

Another good reason not to leave the EU.

Sure. Anyone that bullies us should be given in to. No doubt about it.

No, staying in the EU is not giving in.

If you think that the EU is "bullying" us then you must think they are
in a stronger position.


We voted to leave the EU, can't you grasp this result? Staying in the
EU is for idiots/ you obviously qualify!

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:59:35 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 15:31, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:24:17 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 15:14, Mark wrote:
On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 14:43:57 +0100, James Harris
wrote:

On 02/10/2017 14:12, pamela wrote:
On 13:04 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/10/17 12:01, pamela wrote:


The negotiation is not just the part where we sit around a
table and banter with one another over tea & biscuits then
leave with handshakes and smiles. Everything is part of the
negotiation and that includes walkouts, threats, brinkmanship,
partisan voting, off the record briefings and so on.

Yes, thats how amateurs negotiate, Business men establish first
that they are not dealing with idiots, and play the game mostly
straight. It saves time and money

The EU aims to win by fair means or foul. The British aim to win
by only fair means.

Who is most likely to win? I'm not asking whose conscience is the
clearest.

Do we want a good deal or not? Are we going to wise up to the
EU's tactics or are we going to moan about the unfair way Johnny
Foreigner played and won the game?

A fair assessment. I would add that the goals are different. The EU has
stated that from their point of view Brexit has to cause diminishment. I
believe them.

Another good reason not to leave the EU.

Sure. Anyone that bullies us should be given in to. No doubt about it.

No, staying in the EU is not giving in.

If we had chosen to stay then I would agree with you. But when the
sequence is:

FSVO "we"

1. We are going to leave
2. Then we'll make choices to ensure you are worse off
3. OK, we'll stay.

Then that's being bullied.

The referendum was very close and recent polls show that the tide has
turned.

--snip--

Consider that when the Scottish parliament was set up and went off on
its own Westminster was generous to it (probably too generous), helped
it get on its feet, and wanted it to be a success. Of course,
Westminster was, to quote your words, "in a stronger position". But
Westminster's /attitude/ was not bullying. It was a positive, helpful one.

I think they are too generous in this. Scotland can afford to do
things in Scotland that we don't get in England.

Now contrast that with the EU. Look at the negativity we get from it.
Look at what it wants to happen. And think about what kind of
organisation it is.

Much of the negativity comes from the Xenaphobic UK press and certain
UK politicians.


More Reemoaner lying propaganda.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
If we had chosen to stay then I would agree with you. But when the
sequence is:

1. We are going to leave
2. Then we'll make choices to ensure you are worse off

The EU ain't making any choices for the UK. If the UK wishes to leave so
be it.
It's the UK that want to retain some of the goodies of being an EU member.

3. OK, we'll stay.

That's not going to happen.

Then that's being bullied.

No - it's rather like saying to a 3 year old 'if you put your hand in the
fire you'll get burnt' But the child does it anyway.


More Remoaner propaganda. The UK is happy to leave and use WTO rules.
The civil service is still trtying to avoid the referendum result.

dennis@home wrote:
On 01/10/2017 22:02, bert wrote:

Just what I'd expect from Guardian Independent etc. Exporters don't
pay the import tariff - the overseas customers pay it.

What a simplistic view.
The price is set by the competition.
If we have tariffs on our exports the price will still have to be less
than the competiition so less of the price will end up in the UK and in
effect the exporters have lost the value of the tariffs.

You don't appear to have a clue how this works but claim to.

Wrong, the price is set by the customers willingness to pay.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Only the likes of Ress Mogg and Bioris and Fragae are keeping the
process on the rails.

Ah - the honest business man you revere. Rees-Mogg votes against abortion
but has investments in a company which sells abortion pills. Anything is
OK to him when it involves making money.


Some idiots will believe anything. Try checking your facts not
Socialist opinions.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 01/10/2017 22:02, bert wrote:

Just what I'd expect from Guardian Independent etc. Exporters don't
pay the import tariff - the overseas customers pay it.

What a simplistic view.
The price is set by the competition.
If we have tariffs on our exports the price will still have to be less
than the competiition so less of the price will end up in the UK and in
effect the exporters have lost the value of the tariffs.

You don't appear to have a clue how this works but claim to.

Wrong, the price is set by the customers willingness to pay.

which, with the wrong tariffs, could mean nobody will "buy British".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 02/10/2017 20:31, pamela wrote:
On 20:19 2 Oct 2017, James Harris wrote:

On 02/10/2017 16:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
A fair assessment. I would add that the goals are different.
The EU has stated that from their point of view Brexit has
to cause diminishment. I believe them.

Another good reason not to leave the EU.

Sure. Anyone that bullies us should be given in to. No doubt
about it.

The UK while a member of the EU demanded change for their
benefit. The EU mostly said no.

No. The _EU_ kept pushing for change, not the UK. We joined a
tennis club - which it was at the time. But over time the EU
decided it wanted to play rugby.

I never liked the heavy handed persuasion the EU liked to use but if
you were firm you could opt out of certain areas... just as the UK
did with Schengen and the Euro.

I agree. The UK stood firm on certain points. I'd add passport control,
federalism and the minimum wage. But it backed down on a lot over the
years. In fact, although the UK stood firm against federalism the EU has
become increasingly federal. The EU works as a gradual ratchet. Powers
once handed over, perhaps as part of bargaining for something else,
become permanent.


The idea of a multispeed Europe is set to grow despite the opposition
in the past. Juncker seemed to realise this in his 5 options white
paper.



--
James Harris

charles wrote:
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 01/10/2017 22:02, bert wrote:

Just what I'd expect from Guardian Independent etc. Exporters don't
pay the import tariff - the overseas customers pay it.

What a simplistic view.
The price is set by the competition.
If we have tariffs on our exports the price will still have to be less
than the competiition so less of the price will end up in the UK and in
effect the exporters have lost the value of the tariffs.

You don't appear to have a clue how this works but claim to.

Wrong, the price is set by the customers willingness to pay.

which, with the wrong tariffs, could mean nobody will "buy British".


That's why you have the Chinese subsidiary!

Dave Plowman wrote:

Rees-Mogg votes against abortion but has investments in a company
which sells abortion pills.
I don't really know much about pharmacies in Indonesia, or whether a
stomach ulcer is "nudge wink" code for an unwanted pregnancy, but these
are the pills in question ...

http://www.mims.com/indonesia/drug/info/invitec

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 22:03 1 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 09:20 29 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

On 20:49 28 Sep 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 17:38 27 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

Pamela wrote:


I do hope polite little Britain is truly ready for trade
negotiations where the going can get very rough.

You mean they come in with knuckle dusters? Or what do you
mean? In any case, you may recall that history didn't
start on whatever day it was when the EU took over trade
negotiations. The UK had been doing it for hundreds of
years before that.

British pre-EU trade negotiations tended, more than usual,
to be at the end of an Imperial gun barrel and often
involved dark- skinned subjects of the Empire who had
little say in what their country agreed with London.

Every person is out for themself in a trade negotiation.
Good behaviour may have generated good will but we lost
that when we told the EU we were leaving.

It's time for us to grow up and stop whinging.

It's actually the remoaners who are whinging and throwing up
the phantom problems.

Once boisterous Brexiteers seem a bit subdued these days.
They're complaining about how negotiations aren't going as
well as expected.

No, I'm complaining about how irresponsible the EU is being.

Too bad. It was to be expected.

SO you accept being bullied.

You couldn't predict it?

Another good reason to leave the EU, that’s the way they operate.

dennis@home wrote
bert wrote

Just what I'd expect from Guardian Independent etc. Exporters don't pay
the import tariff - the overseas customers pay it.

What a simplistic view.

You sig is sposed to be last, with a line with just -- on it in front of it.

The price is set by the competition.

Not always. Quite a bit of the time with name brands they charge what they
like.

If we have tariffs on our exports the price will still have to be less
than the competiition so less of the price will end up in the UK

It clearly doesnt work like that with cars, or docos or
TV series or decent single malt scotch, etc etc etc.

and in effect the exporters have lost the value of the tariffs.

It clearly doesnt work like that with cars, or docos or
TV series or decent single malt scotch, etc etc etc.

You don't appear to have a clue how this works but claim to.

Corse you never do anything like that yourself, eh ?

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 01/10/2017 22:02, bert wrote:

Just what I'd expect from Guardian Independent etc. Exporters don't
pay the import tariff - the overseas customers pay it.

What a simplistic view.
The price is set by the competition.
If we have tariffs on our exports the price will still have to be less
than the competiition so less of the price will end up in the UK and in
effect the exporters have lost the value of the tariffs.

You don't appear to have a clue how this works but claim to.

Wrong, the price is set by the customers willingness to pay.

which, with the wrong tariffs, could mean nobody will "buy British".

Unlikely with current quite low tariffs, particularly with higher priced
stuff like a decent single malt scotch etc. Bet they keep buying the best.

And with **** like your cars, they don’t buy them
now anyway, a tariff wont make any difference.

And with aircraft engines, there is unlikely to be any tariff
anyway because the EU doesn’t actually make any that matter.

In article ,
Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

It's the UK that want to retain some of the goodies of being an EU
member.

But free trade deals aren't exclusively available to EU members, the EU
has (or wants) free trade with South Korea, Canada, Japan, etc, etc.

None of which are in Europe, or has a border with a European country. For
an existing deal, you need to look at one which has.

So why *wouldn't* they want one with the UK? Especially as many
obstacles they're making much of, such as customs borders between Eire
and Northern Ireland, would then go away ...

I think you'll find the Irish on both sides of the border are making a
rather bigger song and dance about the results of it being closed again.
As will have to happen with no free trade agreement.

--
*A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kickboxing.

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

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
No - it's rather like saying to a 3 year old 'if you put your hand in the
fire you'll get burnt' But the child does it anyway.

Not at all. The EU's decision that a seceding state must be worse off is
not required by any treaty. It is not part of the EU's rules. It is not
a component of the single market. It is not required by the customs
union.

People need to understand this. The EU leaders have made a CHOICE that
the UK must be worse off.

You don't think the UK being worse off might just be down to leaving the
EU?

It's very simple. Just leave. Any future trade with the EU done under WTO
rules.

Luckily, those in power know this would be economic suicide.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

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

In article ,
James Harris wrote:
On 02/10/2017 16:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
A fair assessment. I would add that the goals are different. The EU
has stated that from their point of view Brexit has to cause
diminishment. I believe them.

Another good reason not to leave the EU.

Sure. Anyone that bullies us should be given in to. No doubt about it.

The UK while a member of the EU demanded change for their benefit. The
EU mostly said no.

No. The _EU_ kept pushing for change, not the UK. We joined a tennis
club - which it was at the time. But over time the EU decided it wanted
to play rugby.

Ah - that one again. All 20 odd countries united to do down the UK.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it.

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

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
More Remoaner propaganda. The UK is happy to leave and use WTO rules.

Doesn't seem to be. Or is your head firmly in the sand?

The civil service is still trtying to avoid the referendum result.

They're probably too busy trying to guess just how we could afford to
'take back control of our borders' under WTO rules. I suppose you could
turn the M20 into a lorry park. Again.

--
He who laughs last, thinks slowest*

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

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 20:19 2 Oct 2017, James Harris wrote:

On 02/10/2017 16:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
A fair assessment. I would add that the goals are different.
The EU has stated that from their point of view Brexit has
to cause diminishment. I believe them.

Another good reason not to leave the EU.

Sure. Anyone that bullies us should be given in to. No doubt
about it.

The UK while a member of the EU demanded change for their
benefit. The EU mostly said no.

No. The _EU_ kept pushing for change, not the UK. We joined a
tennis club - which it was at the time. But over time the EU
decided it wanted to play rugby.

I never liked the heavy handed persuasion the EU liked to use but if
you were firm you could opt out of certain areas... just as the UK
did with Schengen and the Euro.

Not anymore, if you want to join the EU now, you have to sign up for both.

The idea of a multispeed Europe is set to grow despite the opposition
in the past. Juncker seemed to realise this in his 5 options white paper.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes we do. Britain already exports to plenty of other
places than the EU and sends them what they require
when it doesnt match what the EU requires.

Many Brexiters are claiming that the EU is
making things as difficult as possible for
the UK - why should this be any different?

Because the EU needs quite a bit of what Britain
exports to the EU currently, like aircraft engines,
wings, docos, TV series etc and exports a lot of
stuff to Britain like kraut cars etc.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 02/10/17 12:08, pamela wrote:
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.


Yes, we would be by and large.

The EU is a con. Like all socialist government. Give us your money, we
will give a little of it back and spend the rest on ourselves, jobs for
our cronies and propaganda to make you feel we are ****ing wonderful

That isnt how Norway did it. They gave immense amounts
of it back to the only people who matter, the taxpayers.

Generations fall for it every time.

They didnt fall for anything with Norway.

Great.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 02/10/2017 12:01, pamela wrote:

snip
Brexiteers thought we held all the cards and that the negotiations
would quickly come out in our favour. That's naieve. The EU is
not attempting to give the UK a good deal.

That is what Remoaners believe how Brexiters think.

Brexiters think WTO rules are fine.

Brits are famously hopeless at bartering for goods when they're
abroad and now they are proving equally hopeless.

So why bother?

Because a continuation of the current free trade would be useful.

But not worth paying any exit fee to get. Or any ongoing fee like
Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are stupid enough to pay either.

Let March 2019 pass.

We ought to be talking more to other countries in the world.

No need, they are happy to do what is useful to them and Britain.

"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.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 02/10/17 12:14, pamela wrote:
Not only is the UK in a weak position in the EU negotiations but
Theresa May's weak government makes it harder still to get a good
deal. Her weak leadership doesn't help.

She is doing what she is told. She had a massive majority and deliberately
threw it all away in a silly election.

This was deliberate. She was selceted because she is incompetent and her
backers want Brexit to fail.

Only the likes of Ress Mogg and Bioris and Fragae are keeping the process
on the rails.

Clearly completely blotto/drug crazed, again.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , pamela
wrote:

Are we honestly and truly expecting the EU to make an effort to ensure our
exit is as nice, easy and painless as possible? 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.

Lisbon enjoins the EU to have special relationships with its
neighbours. Seems they have a special version of the word "special".

Given that the right to leave is written into the treaties, there's no
good reason at all for them to be arseholes about it.

There is actually, to discourage others from leaving.

That looks bad and ****s the revenue stream.

Unless they are arseholes, of course.

No reason why it can't be both. Or all 3.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 22:02 1 Oct 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 20:49 28 Sep 2017, bert wrote:

In article , pamela
writes
On 17:38 27 Sep 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

Pamela wrote:


I do hope polite little Britain is truly ready for trade
negotiations where the going can get very rough.

You mean they come in with knuckle dusters? Or what do you
mean? In any case, you may recall that history didn't start
on whatever day it was when the EU took over trade
negotiations. The UK had been doing it for hundreds of years
before that.

British pre-EU trade negotiations tended, more than usual, to
be at the end of an Imperial gun barrel and often involved
dark- skinned subjects of the Empire who had little say in
what their country agreed with London.

Every person is out for themself in a trade negotiation.
Good behaviour may have generated good will but we lost that
when we told the EU we were leaving.

It's time for us to grow up and stop whinging.

It's actually the remoaners who are whinging and throwing up
the phantom problems.

Once boisterous Brexiteers seem a bit subdued these days.
They're complaining about how negotiations aren't going as well
as expected.

Everything that needs to be said has been said. We're now
totally bored with remoaners repeating their failed arguments ad
nauseam

The problem now seems to be the Brexiteers moaning about how
unfair the EU is being.

We are in a weak position and we knowingly put ourselves
there.

So waste no more time on it and go WTO - it won't actually
cost us much. I would just leave the NI border open and let
the EU sort it out.

WTO rules are said to cost the UK £6 or 7 billion.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk...o+rules+brexit

Since the referendum Brexiteers know that such surveys are wrong
and can be safely ignored. Bless the little dears.

Just what I'd expect from Guardian Independent etc. Exporters
don't pay the import tariff - the overseas customers pay it.

Does that change estimates which say trading
to WTO rules might cost the UK £6 or 7 billion?

That’s just more lies like the bare faced lie that
the economy will implode if Britain leaves.

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 13:04 2 Oct 2017, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/10/17 12:01, pamela wrote:


The negotiation is not just the part where we sit around a
table and banter with one another over tea & biscuits then
leave with handshakes and smiles. Everything is part of the
negotiation and that includes walkouts, threats, brinkmanship,
partisan voting, off the record briefings and so on.

Yes, thats how amateurs negotiate, Business men establish first
that they are not dealing with idiots, and play the game mostly
straight. It saves time and money

The EU aims to win by fair means or foul.

Yes, but given that Britain is free to make an obscene gesture in the
general direction of the EU and that there is nothing the EU can do
about that if Britain chooses to do that, their aim is irrelevant.

The British aim to win by only fair means.

That’s less clear.

Who is most likely to win?

It aint that binary. Much more likely that Britain will leave
and do fine after it has left, but wont have the complete
free trade that is has with the EU currently and wont be
paying the obscene amount of money to the EU every
year that it currently does, and will be free to decide
for itself which EUians will be allowed to move to Britain.

I'm not asking whose conscience is the clearest.

Do we want a good deal or not?

Depends on how you define a good deal.

Plenty realise that trading under the WTO rules, no
longer sending billions a year to the EU and being
free to decide what EUians are allowed to move to
Britain is not only a good deal, its an excellent outcome.

Whether you agree is irrelevant, the majority of those
who bothered to vote said that’s what they want and
you remoaners get to like that or lump it.

Are we going to wise up to the EU's tactics

Britain has already done that and told Bernier that
there is no mention of any exit fee in Article 50 or
the Lisbon Treaty and to take his demands and
shove them where the sun don’t shine.

or are we going to moan about the unfair way
Johnny Foreigner played and won the game?

The EU wont be winning anything and it aint no game either.

So we have learnt that the EU is run by amateurs.

Quelle surprise!

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 13:41 2 Oct 2017, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , pamela
wrote:

Are we honestly and truly expecting the EU to make an effort to
ensure our exit is as nice, easy and painless as possible? 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.

Lisbon enjoins the EU to have special relationships with its
neighbours. Seems they have a special version of the word
"special".

Given that the right to leave is written into the treaties,
there's no good reason at all for them to be arseholes about it.
Unless they are arseholes, of course.

I don't think the EU is an arsehole but I think they have an
dislike of us and and our ways. We have given them good
reason....

For years Farage has stood in the Euro parliament and openly
insulted other MEPs, commissioners, the president, the European
courts, the Council, and so on. "You're not smiling now" he
gloated in a parliamentary session to a response of emotional
boos. He did his utmost best to be a thorn in their flesh.

Was it wise for Nigel to later call negotiator
Guy Verhofstadt a "raving lunatic"?

Wouldn’t have made any difference if he hadn't done that.

So, is it any surprise the EU now wants some payback?

Doesn’t matter what they want, they aint gunna get it, you watch.

It's no use being all friendly and chummy with Eurocrats because
they are highly accomplished at smiling while sticking the knife in.

Corse Britain has ever ever done anything like that, eh ?

We overconfidently thought we were so much better
placed than those poor Greeks negotiating their bailout.

Corse Britain is much better places, it doesn’t owe billions to EU banks.

We think we can walk away from discussions to let the EU suffer.

Corse Britain can and will if it needs to, you watch.

I'm not so sure!

More fool you. Britain has done it before and will again, you watch. \

Because even a terminal ****wit like May knows
what will happen to her if she caves in to the EU now.

Her stupid spotted feet wouldn’t even touch the
****ing ground and Boris would replace her and
she'd have passed her political useby date forever.