Wow BJ eviscerates the EU!!!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

True I agree 100% with you, I don't think we've ever had the acceptance from the start as opposed to the domestic main parties fighting it out that's the difference, whatever the deal it could be made of gold & diamond encrusted some of the remainers wouldn't like it, whatever the circumstances some people just didn't want to leave the European Union & will never ever accept the democratic wish of the majority, it's the lack of acceptance I'm pointing out & will continue to do so.

They were never meant to lose, it was a forgone conclusion that they'd win.

All of us non-degree holding oiks were meant to vote for the continuation of our EU membership.

[bfcmik]

True I agree 100% with you, I don't think we've ever had the acceptance from the start as opposed to the domestic main parties fighting it out that's the difference, whatever the deal it could be made of gold & diamond encrusted some of the remainers wouldn't like it, whatever the circumstances some people just didn't want to leave the European Union & will never ever accept the democratic wish of the majority, it's the lack of acceptance I'm pointing out & will continue to do so.

That 'lack of acceptance' is what you have got wrong. The result of the 2016 referendum was accepted however querying the rightness of the decision and a fear of the outcomes of Brexit is a totally acceptable political stance - it is exactly the same as accepting the result of the 2019 GE but querying the rightness of the decision and a fear of the possible outcomes is a proper political stance. That's genuine democracy in action. Changing your mind when the pros and cons have been determined is also a proper democratic right.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

That 'lack of acceptance' is what you have got wrong. The result of the 2016 referendum was accepted however querying the rightness of the decision and a fear of the outcomes of Brexit is a totally acceptable political stance - it is exactly the same as accepting the result of the 2019 GE but querying the rightness of the decision and a fear of the possible outcomes is a proper political stance. That's genuine democracy in action. Changing your mind when the pros and cons have been determined is also a proper democratic right.

If it was accepted as you claim, why have there been numerous attempts to get another vote held?
The confirmatory vote, but also with changing the options.

Remain, leave with deal, leave with no deal.
There was a concerted effort to get this type of vote held so they could split the leave vote.

Remain always seemed to be a requirement for any additional vote.

Yes we accept GE votes, we don't however insist on another one straight away the majority of the time, we at least let the winners govern.

[NewClaret]

True I agree 100% with you, I don't think we've ever had the acceptance from the start as opposed to the domestic main parties fighting it out that's the difference, whatever the deal it could be made of gold & diamond encrusted some of the remainers wouldn't like it, whatever the circumstances some people just didn't want to leave the European Union & will never ever accept the democratic wish of the majority, it's the lack of acceptance I'm pointing out & will continue to do so.

Think this will be true to the end of time. I say this as someone who voted remain, that some will just never accept the decision or acknowledge benefits when they arrive.

Oddly enough, I don’t think most remainers cared so much about being in the EU before the referendum. It’s only become so divisive after the referendum.

[Paul Waine]

Yes, but Australia weren’t part of the EU so the comparison is useless. It’s disingenuous to pretend no deal is anything but that. And perhaps people are thinking no deal is bad because it is (according to every economic forecast available).

Nice bit of spin Paul - Mr Campbell would be proud of you !!

It’s a big coincidence that as we approach the very real prospect of no deal that the government suddenly give it a name. They could have chosen the Venus Deal or maybe the Uranus deal - they all mean the same thing.....no deal. But by the very nature of giving it a country name there will be no doubt a large number of people who will assume it is a deal and just slightly different trade terms to Canada or Norway deal.

Right I need to go back to work though I have thought of an excuse for those days I go golfing and don’t get any work done and my wife comes home and asks me what I’ve been working on today....”The Australian contract love’

Hi martin, Hi TVC15,

I don't think it is disingenuous to speak in terms that people can relate to and understand, it's what we all do all the time. It's also what all politicians aim to do - and, I'd hope that everyone is able to get through this "short hand" to the reality behind it.

To give another example, we've seen on this mb - and, it's only a repetition if what has been heard from the politicians: the Dec-2019 "oven ready deal" - which was (just) the deal to withdraw from the EU has, ever since 31st Jan, been re-purposed as a criticism of the challenges in reaching agreement between the UK and EU on the future trading relationship. Anyone who understood where we were in Jan this year, knows that "over ready" only referred to the withdrawal agreement and 31st Jan.

However, let's aim for some more positive thoughts, rather than argue about what has already past. I think it's safe to say that we all wish for good relations between the UK are the EU going forward - even if at the end of the transition period, trade is only able to continue under WTO terms - the same terms as Australia currently trades with the EU.

If I was involved in the EU, I'd be proposing that the Lisbon Treaty is "re-opened" and the sections that are missing from Article 50 are now inserted. These would deal with the terms of withdrawal of any member state choosing to leave and extend to defining the trade relationship between the ex-member state and the EU post that member state's departure. Putting this language in place now, when it could be any one of the 27 existing EU members that was following the leave path, rather than dealing with the specifics of an identified departing member state will allow the EU to focus on the terms that would best suit the EU and the departing member state, as if each of the 27 were considering how they would like their own country to be treated if they were the one to leave. I'd make the argument that such an approach would strengthen the EU and make it less likely that any member state would want to leave - and not from fear of any negative consequences from leaving, but rather because a permanently extended "hand of friendship" between the EU and any ex-member state will make the EU a better grouping of nations - and, if the member states so wished, strengthen the long term prospects of a future Federal Union of European States.

However, for the UK, at the present time, we are where we are. If I was a UK politician I'd look to strengthen the relationship between the UK and EU, while seeking to progress the UK as an independent state within a diverse world.

[martin_p]

Hi martin, Hi TVC15,

I don't think it is disingenuous to speak in terms that people can relate to and understand, it's what we all do all the time. It's also what all politicians aim to do - and, I'd hope that everyone is able to get through this "short hand" to the reality behind it.

To give another example, we've seen on this mb - and, it's only a repetition if what has been heard from the politicians: the Dec-2019 "oven ready deal" - which was (just) the deal to withdraw from the EU has, ever since 31st Jan, been re-purposed as a criticism of the challenges in reaching agreement between the UK and EU on the future trading relationship. Anyone who understood where we were in Jan this year, knows that "over ready" only referred to the withdrawal agreement and 31st Jan.

However, let's aim for some more positive thoughts, rather than argue about what has already past. I think it's safe to say that we all wish for good relations between the UK are the EU going forward - even if at the end of the transition period, trade is only able to continue under WTO terms - the same terms as Australia currently trades with the EU.

If I was involved in the EU, I'd be proposing that the Lisbon Treaty is "re-opened" and the sections that are missing from Article 50 are now inserted. These would deal with the terms of withdrawal of any member state choosing to leave and extend to defining the trade relationship between the ex-member state and the EU post that member state's departure. Putting this language in place now, when it could be any one of the 27 existing EU members that was following the leave path, rather than dealing with the specifics of an identified departing member state will allow the EU to focus on the terms that would best suit the EU and the departing member state, as if each of the 27 were considering how they would like their own country to be treated if they were the one to leave. I'd make the argument that such an approach would strengthen the EU and make it less likely that any member state would want to leave - and not from fear of any negative consequences from leaving, but rather because a permanently extended "hand of friendship" between the EU and any ex-member state will make the EU a better grouping of nations - and, if the member states so wished, strengthen the long term prospects of a future Federal Union of European States.

However, for the UK, at the present time, we are where we are. If I was a UK politician I'd look to strengthen the relationship between the UK and EU, while seeking to progress the UK as an independent state within a diverse world.

Do you think that terming not getting a trade deal with the EU ‘no deal’ is difficult to understand? I’m not sure it could be any clearer! Do you think the term ‘Australian type deal’ is an attempt to clarify or obfuscate given that a large majority of the population won’t know what the Australian relationship with the EU is?

[aggi]

Think this will be true to the end of time. I say this as someone who voted remain, that some will just never accept the decision or acknowledge benefits when they arrive.

Oddly enough, I don’t think most remainers cared so much about being in the EU before the referendum. It’s only become so divisive after the referendum.

Similarly, most people didn't care about leaving before the referendum and then for some people the EU was suddenly responsible for everything that's gone wrong in the UK for the past 40 years.

I agree some people will never accept the result but I think for most the issue is that the "upshot" of leaving is becoming increasingly unclear. It's all about making it less bad than it could be rather than better than it was at the moment. You can see why people aren't getting behind it (although it's a bit bizarre to try and blame those people for it being bad).

[Burnley Ace]

I can't say I've seen anything where No Deal is as good as the current deal so would be interested in any links to something like that.

You misunderstood (it’s the lack of capitals) there is no deal that would be as good, economically, as being a member.

[aggi]

You misunderstood (it’s the lack of capitals) there is no deal that would be as good, economically, as being a member.

Ah yes, entirely different meaning now I've seen that.

[TVC15]

Hi martin, Hi TVC15,

I don't think it is disingenuous to speak in terms that people can relate to and understand, it's what we all do all the time. It's also what all politicians aim to do - and, I'd hope that everyone is able to get through this "short hand" to the reality behind it.

To give another example, we've seen on this mb - and, it's only a repetition if what has been heard from the politicians: the Dec-2019 "oven ready deal" - which was (just) the deal to withdraw from the EU has, ever since 31st Jan, been re-purposed as a criticism of the challenges in reaching agreement between the UK and EU on the future trading relationship. Anyone who understood where we were in Jan this year, knows that "over ready" only referred to the withdrawal agreement and 31st Jan.

However, let's aim for some more positive thoughts, rather than argue about what has already past. I think it's safe to say that we all wish for good relations between the UK are the EU going forward - even if at the end of the transition period, trade is only able to continue under WTO terms - the same terms as Australia currently trades with the EU.

If I was involved in the EU, I'd be proposing that the Lisbon Treaty is "re-opened" and the sections that are missing from Article 50 are now inserted. These would deal with the terms of withdrawal of any member state choosing to leave and extend to defining the trade relationship between the ex-member state and the EU post that member state's departure. Putting this language in place now, when it could be any one of the 27 existing EU members that was following the leave path, rather than dealing with the specifics of an identified departing member state will allow the EU to focus on the terms that would best suit the EU and the departing member state, as if each of the 27 were considering how they would like their own country to be treated if they were the one to leave. I'd make the argument that such an approach would strengthen the EU and make it less likely that any member state would want to leave - and not from fear of any negative consequences from leaving, but rather because a permanently extended "hand of friendship" between the EU and any ex-member state will make the EU a better grouping of nations - and, if the member states so wished, strengthen the long term prospects of a future Federal Union of European States.

However, for the UK, at the present time, we are where we are. If I was a UK politician I'd look to strengthen the relationship between the UK and EU, while seeking to progress the UK as an independent state within a diverse world.

Hi Paul

You’re over complicating this in my view.
The point I was making is simple - calling it the ‘Australian Deal’ is pure and utter spin....and you know it is.
It’s leaving with no deal - and I’m not even debating the rights and wrongs of leaving with no deal versus any kind of deal.
I’m saying that it’s the government trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes - because they know that they can. It’s a cynical move and nothing to do with left or right politics as I believe all political parties are capable of this.
It is what it is - but let’s not try and defend it. The government and lots of their followers seem happy with no deal so go with the courage of their convictions rather than snide moves like this - disingenuous is exactly the right word for it.

[Paul Waine]

Do you think that terming not getting a trade deal with the EU ‘no deal’ is difficult to understand? I’m not sure it could be any clearer! Do you think the term ‘Australian type deal’ is an attempt to clarify or obfuscate given that a large majority of the population won’t know what the Australian relationship with the EU is?

I'm going for clarify, martin - on the basis that it lets people know that there is at least one other country that also has the same "deal" relationship with the EU - and, it's a country they will have some knowledge of.

Based on the sometimes heard descriptions of "no deal" where there will be food shortages, pharma shortages etc etc etc, it is most likely helpful for some to know that "no deal" doesn't mean that we will never trade with Europe and we will still be able to visit from one country to another.

And, I hope it's not mischievous of me to suggest it's a safe bet that there are more people who know something about Australia than there are people who know about WTO.

[Paul Waine]

Similarly, most people didn't care about leaving before the referendum and then for some people the EU was suddenly responsible for everything that's gone wrong in the UK for the past 40 years.

I agree some people will never accept the result but I think for most the issue is that the "upshot" of leaving is becoming increasingly unclear. It's all about making it less bad than it could be rather than better than it was at the moment. You can see why people aren't getting behind it (although it's a bit bizarre to try and blame those people for it being bad).

Hi aggi, could you accept that the EU will be better off without the UK as a member state - on the basis that what the dominant member states of the EU wanted and what the UK wanted, whilst an EU member state were often in conflict? The euro, for example, may now have better opportunity to succeed without the UK being a member state of the EU (recognising that the UK was always outside the eurozone group).

[martin_p]

I'm going for clarify, martin - on the basis that it lets people know that there is at least one other country that also has the same "deal" relationship with the EU - and, it's a country they will have some knowledge of.

Based on the sometimes heard descriptions of "no deal" where there will be food shortages, pharma shortages etc etc etc, it is most likely helpful for some to know that "no deal" doesn't mean that we will never trade with Europe and we will still be able to visit from one country to another.

And, I hope it's not mischievous of me to suggest it's a safe bet that there are more people who know something about Australia than there are people who know about WTO.

You are being mischievous yes as it not about knowing about Australia but knowing on what basis they trade with the U.K. In no sense does talking about any sort of deal when there is no deal make anything clearer and you’re intelligent enough to know that.

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul

You’re over complicating this in my view.
The point I was making is simple - calling it the ‘Australian Deal’ is pure and utter spin....and you know it is.
It’s leaving with no deal - and I’m not even debating the rights and wrongs of leaving with no deal versus any kind of deal.
I’m saying that it’s the government trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes - because they know that they can. It’s a cynical move and nothing to do with left or right politics as I believe all political parties are capable of this.
It is what it is - but let’s not try and defend it. The government and lots of their followers seem happy with no deal so go with the courage of their convictions rather than snide moves like this - disingenuous is exactly the right word for it.

Hi TVC15, only saw your post after I'd made my reply to martin. As you may read, I don't see it as the government trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with the "Australian" description. Always difficult, of course, in politics - and the aim is most likely to shift the balance of opinion around the margins - just like those with alternative views are aiming to do the same for their own side.

I don't know whether what I'm saying is defending it, or merely, seeking to give it a context. "No deal" may be similarly inaccurate and misleading - unless you know what those two little words mean in this context.

[aggi]

Hi aggi, could you accept that the EU will be better off without the UK as a member state - on the basis that what the dominant member states of the EU wanted and what the UK wanted, whilst an EU member state were often in conflict? The euro, for example, may now have better opportunity to succeed without the UK being a member state of the EU (recognising that the UK was always outside the eurozone group).

It's possible, although personally I don't think losing a strong country will make it better. I think the "conflict" has been exaggerated, it's not the case that all of the member countries are aligned with the EU except the UK, there is plenty of disagreement with all of the member countries. When you look down into votes it's very rare that the UK wasn't in agreement with the rest of the EU.

The eurozone may well be more successful but whether that is of benefit to the EU as a whole is a more nuanced issue.

[NewClaret]

Similarly, most people didn't care about leaving before the referendum and then for some people the EU was suddenly responsible for everything that's gone wrong in the UK for the past 40 years.

I agree some people will never accept the result but I think for most the issue is that the "upshot" of leaving is becoming increasingly unclear. It's all about making it less bad than it could be rather than better than it was at the moment. You can see why people aren't getting behind it (although it's a bit bizarre to try and blame those people for it being bad).

I’d disagree on that mate. I think there were some very outspoken anti-EU folk pre-referendum. Farage made (several) political parties out of it & presumably a good career. I think it was that “noise” that led to the referendum.

I have several mates that had never expressed any views on Europe that are now fully signed up members of the European Unionists brigade, despite not uttering a pro-EU word to me beforehand.

I think the remain campaign was poor and, to an extent, complacent. You can’t exude blame from the EU either since they may have been more helpful to Cameron in his initial renegotiations. Following that the Tories have been very poor, the other political parties have been obstructive and the EU perhaps a little unhelpful too (entitled to stand their ground but unrealistic on what we will agree).

But after this cluster there will be benefits.

[Jakubclaret]

Think this will be true to the end of time. I say this as someone who voted remain, that some will just never accept the decision or acknowledge benefits when they arrive.

Oddly enough, I don’t think most remainers cared so much about being in the EU before the referendum. It’s only become so divisive after the referendum.

I know, it's a shame because if it was accepted we could all embark upon a sensible discussion, while some people on here are in denial it's absolutely impossible.

[dsr]

So fishing rights weren't an issue with a country 4,000 miles away but are with a country 20 miles away. Would you like to hazard a guess why that is?

Is there ever a point that you don't miss? The point is that fishing rights don't impact on a trade agreement. The two should not be linked.

[Devils_Advocate]

Is there ever a point that you don't miss?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Is there ever a point that you don't miss? The point is that fishing rights don't impact on a trade agreement. The two should not be linked.

Screenshot_20201019_225025_com.android.chrome.jpg (370.18 KiB) Viewed 1693 times

Fishing rights sound like they should be a private matter between the owners and UK gov?

[aggi]

Is there ever a point that you don't miss? The point is that fishing rights don't impact on a trade agreement. The two should not be linked.

Why not?

I know you like to pretend that everything is incredibly simple and all we need is a one page agreement saying Free trade 4ever, IDST but that's not really the reality of how these things work.

[Paul Waine]

So fishing rights weren't an issue with a country 4,000 miles away but are with a country 20 miles away. Would you like to hazard a guess why that is?

Hi aggi, you posted the above early Sunday morning - I've just seen it now. Can you explain why 20 miles v 4,000 miles makes a difference? Yes, I know the first is a lot shorter distance than the latter. Is there a law that touches on this issue of proximity? Neighbourliness? Trading relationships? Do we care about the people in the countries that border our own, but not those that live further away?

[aggi]

I’d disagree on that mate. I think there were some very outspoken anti-EU folk pre-referendum. Farage made (several) political parties out of it & presumably a good career. I think it was that “noise” that led to the referendum.

I have several mates that had never expressed any views on Europe that are now fully signed up members of the European Unionists brigade, despite not uttering a pro-EU word to me beforehand.

I think the remain campaign was poor and, to an extent, complacent. You can’t exude blame from the EU either since they may have been more helpful to Cameron in his initial renegotiations. Following that the Tories have been very poor, the other political parties have been obstructive and the EU perhaps a little unhelpful too (entitled to stand their ground but unrealistic on what we will agree).

But after this cluster there will be benefits.

Agreed that there were some very outspoken anti-EU folk but it was a very small fraction of the population (single figures percentages). I also know people who hadn't expressed views on Europe previously but are now very pro-EU but most people take what they have for granted until it gets taken away, that's human nature. I didn't bother getting an EU passport until after Brexit, it wasn't something I had to consider previously.

I don't think many will disagree about the remain campaign being poor and complacent. Leave pulled no punches and played to win (although I'd argue they were also complacent with absolutely no plan what they were going to do afterwards, which we're still suffering now).

[aggi]

Hi aggi, you posted the above early Sunday morning - I've just seen it now. Can you explain why 20 miles v 4,000 miles makes a difference? Yes, I know the first is a lot shorter distance than the latter. Is there a law that touches on this issue of proximity? Neighbourliness? Trading relationships? Do we care about the people in the countries that border our own, but not those that live further away?

Well, I'd mainly say that French fishermen are more likely to want to fish in waters 10 miles away from them rather than 4,000 miles away. There's a huge difference in costs between the two which would render the latter uneconomic for most.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

. I didn't bother getting an EU passport until after Brexit, it wasn't something I had to consider previously.

I'm going to assume you're talking about dual nationality here, because that's the only way you'd get an "EU" passport.

Can I ask, did you get one for work reasons or personal?

I'm entitled to dual nationality with an EU member, but I don't see the need to claim it and get said passport.

[Siddo]

I think the thread title needs to be changed to Betty Boothroyd eviscerates the prime minister

[aggi]

I'm going to assume you're talking about dual nationality here, because that's the only way you'd get an "EU" passport.

Can I ask, did you get one for work reasons or personal?

I'm entitled to dual nationality with an EU member, but I don't see the need to claim it and get said passport.

Yep.

Both. I travel a fair bit with work (at least I did) so it may simplify matters there but the main reason was so that my child could get the same, have the right to work in the EU, etc.

[Paul Waine]

Well, I'd mainly say that French fishermen are more likely to want to fish in waters 10 miles away from them rather than 4,000 miles away. There's a huge difference in costs between the two which would render the latter uneconomic for most.

So, it's the lower cost of travelling to fish in the waters in a country nearby that makes the difference? Does "it is lower cost" apply in any other situations? Could you argument to be the justification for saving costs by nipping over the garden fence and gathering apples from trees in next door's garden, for example?

Surely, international relations are built on firmer foundations than "the huge difference in costs..."

[Devils_Advocate]

So, it's the lower cost of travelling to fish in the waters in a country nearby that makes the difference? Does "it is lower cost" apply in any other situations? Could you argument to be the justification for saving costs by nipping over the garden fence and gathering apples from trees in next door's garden, for example?

Surely, international relations are built on firmer foundations than "the huge difference in costs..."

This is something that the EU have access to currently and something that is currently an important part of their enconomy. Therefore when the UK leave the EU this is going to be a significant change so therefore it becomes an area of negotiation as part of our trade deal

Ive got to admit that im taking a guess at this so please correct me if Im wrong but I dont believe any EU fishing vessels catch fish in Australian waters and so there is nothing to negotiate over.

Its a sad state of affairs when this kind of thing and some of the other nonsense youve argued over the last week or so is all you've got left

[aggi]

So, it's the lower cost of travelling to fish in the waters in a country nearby that makes the difference? Does "it is lower cost" apply in any other situations? Could you argument to be the justification for saving costs by nipping over the garden fence and gathering apples from trees in next door's garden, for example?

Surely, international relations are built on firmer foundations than "the huge difference in costs..."

I'm not really sure what crap Brexit analogy number 580 refers to. I guess it's more likely you'd agree with your neighbour that they could nip over your fence and get some of your apples and you could do the same with them than you'd try and agree with a bloke in Canada that you could fly over to his house to collect some apples and he could do the same.

It's such a basic concept that I suspect you're being a little disingenuous in not "getting it".

I'd think costs, and attempts to minimise them, have a huge impact on international trade deals. Particularly where we're talking about fishing waters where the majority of the catch is sold to the countries we're making the deal with.

[Paul Waine]

I'm not really sure what crap Brexit analogy number 580 refers to. I guess it's more likely you'd agree with your neighbour that they could nip over your fence and get some of your apples and you could do the same with them than you'd try and agree with a bloke in Canada that you could fly over to his house to collect some apples and he could do the same.

It's such a basic concept that I suspect you're being a little disingenuous in not "getting it".

I'd think costs, and attempts to minimise them, have a huge impact on international trade deals. Particularly where we're talking about fishing waters where the majority of the catch is sold to the countries we're making the deal with.

Hi aggi, my point is exactly that "you agree with your neighbour" - but you don't insist it is your right if your neighbour doesn't agree or your neighbour moves out and someone else moves in.

I don't intend to be "disingenuous" or otherwise argumentative. If I can say, without wishing to or intending to cause offense to you or any others posting on here, the arguments that France should be allowed to continue fishing in UK waters, similarly that the UK should be subject to ECJ jurisdiction, or that the UK should bind itself to amending our laws (in particular aspects) in accordance with future (and to date unknown) developments in EU laws are wrong. We should all know and understand this, whatever our views on the current relations between the UK and EU and however we voted in June-2016. Step back from the UK and EU, and place it in the context of any other country with respect to their neighbour. Should the USA, for example, determine what Canada must do and allow the USA to do in Canada? Or, Australia with respect to New Zealand?

I've posted a few times that the source of the current issues are the failure to spell out the terms of withdrawal and future relationships, both on trade and other important matters when Article 50 was drafted in the Lisbon Treaty. If it had done that then it would have been written in a neutral and even handed manner in anticipation that any one (or more) of the member states would have exercised their right to become an ex-member.

Enough from me. Have a great day.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Yep.

Both. I travel a fair bit with work (at least I did) so it may simplify matters there but the main reason was so that my child could get the same, have the right to work in the EU, etc.

Ah fair enough.

If my kids want to work in the Eu27 then I'll apply for dual nationality, but only if its really going to stop them getting a job, which I doubt.

[aggi]

Hi aggi, my point is exactly that "you agree with your neighbour" - but you don't insist it is your right if your neighbour doesn't agree or your neighbour moves out and someone else moves in.

I don't intend to be "disingenuous" or otherwise argumentative. If I can say, without wishing to or intending to cause offense to you or any others posting on here, the arguments that France should be allowed to continue fishing in UK waters, similarly that the UK should be subject to ECJ jurisdiction, or that the UK should bind itself to amending our laws (in particular aspects) in accordance with future (and to date unknown) developments in EU laws are wrong. We should all know and understand this, whatever our views on the current relations between the UK and EU and however we voted in June-2016. Step back from the UK and EU, and place it in the context of any other country with respect to their neighbour. Should the USA, for example, determine what Canada must do and allow the USA to do in Canada? Or, Australia with respect to New Zealand?

I've posted a few times that the source of the current issues are the failure to spell out the terms of withdrawal and future relationships, both on trade and other important matters when Article 50 was drafted in the Lisbon Treaty. If it had done that then it would have been written in a neutral and even handed manner in anticipation that any one (or more) of the member states would have exercised their right to become an ex-member.

Enough from me. Have a great day.

I've never said that France should be allowed to continue fishing in UK waters. Just that in a trade negotiation each party has a right to include what is important to them (and the other party the right to say no).

As you refer to Canada and the USA, part of their recent trade agreement was an agreement to lengthen copyright periods on certain pharmaceuticals. It was controversial in Canada but it was important to the USA so ended up in the trade deal.

If the UK hadn't been all carried away with Brexit fever it would have been wise to put some decent procedures in place before triggering Article 50. Unfortunately, in what has been a familiar pattern, it was all style over substance and the eagerness to show we mean business and trigger Article 50 as soon as we could put paid to that.

[Paul Waine]

Ah fair enough.

If my kids want to work in the Eu27 then I'll apply for dual nationality, but only if its really going to stop them getting a job, which I doubt.

As I understand it, grandchildren can inherit passport rights from a grandparent's place of birth. I don't think it's necessary for either of their parents also to hold the relevant passport for any of their children to make this application.

These rules, of course, may vary, country by country. I'm not aware if there is an EU rule that covers all EU member states.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

As I understand it, grandchildren can inherit passport rights from a grandparent's place of birth. I don't think it's necessary for either of their parents also to hold the relevant passport for any of their children to make this application.

These rules, of course, may vary, country by country. I'm not aware if there is an EU rule that covers all EU member states.

I'm not currently classed as an Irish national, it's british/English.
I can apply for Irish citizenship due to my place of birth.

I think, that my kids can't have it if I've never had it.

Failing that just blag it like Tony Cascarino

[Burnley Ace]

I've never said that France should be allowed to continue fishing in UK waters. Just that in a trade negotiation each party has a right to include what is important to them (and the other party the right to say no).

As you refer to Canada and the USA, part of their recent trade agreement was an agreement to lengthen copyright periods on certain pharmaceuticals. It was controversial in Canada but it was important to the USA so ended up in the trade deal.

If the UK hadn't been all carried away with Brexit fever it would have been wise to put some decent procedures in place before triggering Article 50. Unfortunately, in what has been a familiar pattern, it was all style over substance and the eagerness to show we mean business and trigger Article 50 as soon as we could put paid to that.

We couldn’t put anything in place because the EU refused to discuss anything until Article 50 was used. Just imagine how much smoother everything might have been if there had been some pre trigger discussion about these problematic areas.

It it also highlights that there is no such thing as “friends”, the EU are negotiating with us as rivals and politically cannot be seen to let the UK have a good deal.

[aggi]

As I understand it, grandchildren can inherit passport rights from a grandparent's place of birth. I don't think it's necessary for either of their parents also to hold the relevant passport for any of their children to make this application.

These rules, of course, may vary, country by country. I'm not aware if there is an EU rule that covers all EU member states.

In my case I was the grandchild so needed to do the application.

[JohnMcGreal]

We couldn’t put anything in place because the EU refused to discuss anything until Article 50 was used. Just imagine how much smoother everything might have been if there had been some pre trigger discussion about these problematic areas.

It it also highlights that there is no such thing as “friends”, the EU are negotiating with us as rivals and politically cannot be seen to let the UK have a good deal.

Again, that was always going to be the case. The Article 50 process for a departing member state was clear. The EU waited until they received a formal notification before any discussion took place. If the Leave campaingers didn't understand that (seriously, is there anything they did understand?), then that's their fault.

Just chalk it up to yet another misunderstanding of how anything works from the galaxy brains who persuaded the public to go down this path.

As for the comment about 'friends', that's just laughable. The way this country has behaved towards our European partners and allies over the years has been a national disgrace. It's a bit rich now to complain that they aren't being friendly with us.

[Paul Waine]

I'm not currently classed as an Irish national, it's british/English.
I can apply for Irish citizenship due to my place of birth.

I think, that my kids can't have it if I've never had it.

Failing that just blag it like Tony Cascarino

My parents died more than 10 years ago. My maternal grandmother, who died before I was born, was born in Ireland. Her daughter, my mother, was British and never held an Irish passport. I can claim an Irish passport if I needed one through my maternal grandmother.

It appears that aggi - below your post, of course, and above this one - has also demonstrated this route works.

[aggi]

We couldn’t put anything in place because the EU refused to discuss anything until Article 50 was used. Just imagine how much smoother everything might have been if there had been some pre trigger discussion about these problematic areas.

It it also highlights that there is no such thing as “friends”, the EU are negotiating with us as rivals and politically cannot be seen to let the UK have a good deal.

I was more thinking within the UK. Work out what we actually wanted from Brexit specifically rather than Leave means Leave (but only my version of leave, leaving in another way doesn't count). Although I'm sure that some unofficial sounding out with EU member states could have also taken place.

The UK is a rival to the EU, you'd have to be pretty naive to expect the EU to happily give up everything because the countries are "friends" (although obviously this was derided as Project Fear at the time when people pointed it out). It's not as if the UK hasn't done the same.

[aggi]

I'm not currently classed as an Irish national, it's british/English.
I can apply for Irish citizenship due to my place of birth.

I think, that my kids can't have it if I've never had it.

Failing that just blag it like Tony Cascarino

I think you may have had to do it before they were born from what I read. The rules took a fair bit of re-reading to be clear.

[Burnley Ace]

Again, that was always going to be the case. The Article 50 process for a departing member state was clear. The EU waited until they received a formal notification before any discussion took place. If the Leave campaingers didn't understand that (seriously, is there anything they did understand?), then that's their fault.

Just chalk it up to yet another misunderstanding of how anything works from the galaxy brains who persuaded the public to go down this path.

As for the comment about 'friends', that's just laughable. The way this country has behaved towards our European partners and allies over the years has been a national disgrace. It's a bit rich now to complain that they aren't being friendly with us.

I was explaining why nothing had been put in place before Article 50 was triggered, there is nothing in the Treaty that precluded informal discussion but the EU chose not to. It’s not a misunderstanding at all.

Likewise the constant use, by both sides, of friends. Again you misunderstand if You think that observation is a complaint, it’s one of the reasons that many people, who aren’t concerned about the economic position, voted leave. There is no friendship, it was a relationship of mutual benefit that’s all.

[Burnley Ace]

I was more thinking within the UK. Work out what we actually wanted from Brexit specifically rather than Leave means Leave (but only my version of leave, leaving in another way doesn't count). Although I'm sure that some unofficial sounding out with EU member states could have also taken place.

The UK is a rival to the EU, you'd have to be pretty naive to expect the EU to happily give up everything because the countries are "friends" (although obviously this was derided as Project Fear at the time when people pointed it out). It's not as if the UK hasn't done the same.

This is the point I was making years ago, we are competing in a global market, we aren’t friends, there are no favours given. It was pointed out by the Australian Gov report that the EU cannot allow the UK leaving to be seen as “a success”, we have just wasted time pretending that there could be a deal.

[martin_p]

I was explaining why nothing had been put in place before Article 50 was triggered, there is nothing in the Treaty that precluded informal discussion but the EU chose not to. It’s not a misunderstanding at all.

Likewise the constant use, by both sides, of friends. Again you misunderstand if You think that observation is a complaint, it’s one of the reasons that many people, who aren’t concerned about the economic position, voted leave. There is no friendship, it was a relationship of mutual benefit that’s all.

That’s all!!

And now we’re moving to an arrangement of mutual pain. Great move.

[dsr]

This is the point I was making years ago, we are competing in a global market, we aren’t friends, there are no favours given. It was pointed out by the Australian Gov report that the EU cannot allow the UK leaving to be seen as “a success”, we have just wasted time pretending that there could be a deal.

No-one was asking for favours. In an ideal world, we would buy from the EU without tariffs and we would sell to the EU without tariffs, and the EU would sell to the UK without tariffs and would buy from the EU without tariffs. Everybody wins, nobody loses.

That's what the UK wants, but it's not what the EU wants. Free trade has been an issue for centuries, free traders v protectionists has been an issue in elections in the past. The UK under Johnson is in favour of free trade, by and large; the EU is definitively not in favour of free trade with the UK. That's why they want all those sweeteners like control over our laws and access to our fishing waters to make even the concept of a deal palatable.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Again, that was always going to be the case. The Article 50 process for a departing member state was clear. The EU waited until they received a formal notification before any discussion took place. If the Leave campaingers didn't understand that (seriously, is there anything they did understand?), then that's their fault.

Just chalk it up to yet another misunderstanding of how anything works from the galaxy brains who persuaded the public to go down this path.

As for the comment about 'friends', that's just laughable. The way this country has behaved towards our European partners and allies over the years has been a national disgrace. It's a bit rich now to complain that they aren't being friendly with us.

How have we behaved towards our allies and partners over the years since the inception of the EEC, through to the creation of the EU in the 90's right up to today?

I'll need to check but we haven't picked a fight with anyone in Europe for a good number of years.

[AndrewJB]

Here’s a short video detailing how Cambridge Analytica harvested personal data from Facebook and used it in the US election of 2016.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR ... XdYSQ6nu-M

[Burnley Ace]

Here’s a short video detailing how Cambridge Analytica harvested personal data from Facebook and used it in the US election of 2016.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR ... XdYSQ6nu-M

Fortunately they didn’t affect the Brexit referendum , well according to the Information Commissioner’s Office, but what do they know bloody Tory puppets!!

[Burnley Ace]

No-one was asking for favours. In an ideal world, we would buy from the EU without tariffs and we would sell to the EU without tariffs, and the EU would sell to the UK without tariffs and would buy from the EU without tariffs. Everybody wins, nobody loses.

We would win and they would lose, which is why there will never be a free trade agreement, they just can’t do it.

[Jakubclaret]

We would win and they would lose, which is why there will never be a free trade agreement, they just can’t do it.

Can't or won't?