Isn't that exactly what Sean Spicer did when he was asked for clarification of his first statement.Imploding Turtle wrote:Go on then. To whom are you comparing modern left-wing political protesters?
Her secret speeches to investment bankers were significantly more doom laden about the prospect of Brexit. And no, I don't think every pro EU politician should step down from government, after all we've had decades of anti EU politicians successfully serving. However, I do think that at least the leader should believe in the direction of travel. They're the ones selling the vision, May's vision wasn't Brexit.dsr wrote:But it wasn't a complete about face. She went from "On balance I support membership of the EU" to "I support the result of the referendum". Are you saying that every single politician who supported membership of the EU should never again sit in government in the UK? I would have thought it a valid position to say that although the current situation was not their first choice, they are willing to accept majority rule and will go forward and make the best of the situation. Who knows, there may even be a politician or two willing to concede that although the decision wasn't a decision they would have taken, there is nonetheless a possibility that it was the right decision!
Politicians who were EU first and UK as an afterthought, would be hypocritical to want to be in a UK government. I don't think Teresa May was ever that.
So, who or what are you fighting, and how are you going about it? Personally, I think it's merely a sign of your angst at picking the wrong horse to back. GET OVER IT, ITS A DONE DEAL!!Lancasterclaret wrote:Uncanny the amount of brexiteers that are so opposed to the undemocratic nature of the Eu, but by a complete coincidence, also come across as ever so slightly bigoted on threads about Islam.
Uncanny
And just like the likes of bill cash did, I ain't going to stop fighting for what I believe is right.
So what is this deal?BennyD wrote: GET OVER IT, ITS A DONE DEAL!!
Hi nil_d,nil_desperandum wrote:So what is this deal?
Please tell, and then let Davis, Fox, Johnson, May etc know, because they don't have a clue. Indeed, Mrs May has admitted this by saying that "No deal is better than a bad deal".
For me it's important she took such at position ahead of negotiations.nil_desperandum wrote:Indeed, Mrs May has admitted this by saying that "No deal is better than a bad deal".
Probably about the same time as you stop calling people who voted leave stupid for doing so.Imploding Turtle wrote:When are the people telling the rest of us to "get over it" going to get over the fact that our voices and our concerns are just as important and valid as theirs?
Pretty sure i've never done that. And it happens far than being told to shut up and get over it any time I want to share a concern.Sidney1st wrote:Probably about the same time as you stop calling people who voted leave stupid for doing so.
That's the challenge: how can we get politicians to align themselves with the rest of us, rather than take themselves on their own personal "power trip."nil_desperandum wrote:100% agree Paul, but I'm not sure that some on both sides (or all sides) share our values or aspirations.
Do you think that Trump and Kim Jong Un agree with us? Doubt even Farage shares these values.
Hi IT, it's time for all of us to "get over it." There are more important things going on in the world and North Korea.Imploding Turtle wrote:When are the people telling the rest of us to "get over it" going to get over the fact that our voices and our concerns are just as important and valid as theirs?
He's right, the government should be concentrating all its energies elsewhere. Best way to do this is to revoke article 50 and just carry on how we are.Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, it's time for all of us to "get over it." There are more important things going on in the world and North Korea.
The UK's relationship with the EU is irrelevant in terms of world politics.
So can you please clarify what you understand by "no deal"? I honestly don't know what no deal means.taio wrote:For me it's important she took such at position ahead of negotiations.
martin_p wrote:He's right, the government should be concentrating all its energies elsewhere. Best way to do this is to revoke article 50 and just carry on how we are.
The way I understand "no deal" is along the lines of "please don't force an unacceptable deal on the UK, please don't, as Boris has spoken, seek to "punish" the UK for leaving the EU, please don't demand money for things that aren't part of the UK's obligations (I'm sure the UK will meet all obligations), please don't seek to make "enemies" where we want to be friends...."nil_desperandum wrote:So can you please clarify what you understand by "no deal"? I honestly don't know what no deal means.
Suppose you are on holiday in the EU on the 31st March 2019, and rather than continuing negotiations our team of negotiators say "that's it - no deal". Will your EHIC card still be valid?, (what happens if you happen to have to visit the hospital on April 1st?) Will anyone check you at the border on April 1st? Will you be able to bring home the things you may have bought whilst on holiday? What happens to shared intelligence on crime and terrorism do we just turn our backs on all the arrangements we currently have? etc. etc.
It's a great soundbite, but I don't see how there can possibly be no deal - other than to say that "in the short term things stay as they are until we settle these matters."
I assume by "no deal" she means we'll instantly revert to WTO rules, but that's such a small part of the complex nature of our complex relationship with the EU.
That's exactly what I understand by no deal Martin, and clearly that can't happen, with workers and tourists spread all over the EU as the deadline passes. (Not to mention of course the rights and status of EU workers here in the UK).martin_p wrote:We stop being in the EU at midnight on 29th March 2019. Everything we have with the EU will end then unless some sort of alternative deal has been worked out (including the EHIC)
Hi nil_d,nil_desperandum wrote:Hi Paul.
No real argument with the points you make, except to point out that all the items you clarify would in my eyes constitute a "deal".
Not a trade deal of course, but we would need to know where we stood on April 1st 2019, and so some kind of deal would have to be struck. e.g. What's to stop the French just abandoning the border at Calais, Caen, Cherbourg etc., if we don't have an agreement with them after March 31st 2019?
One further point: the EHIC card is vital to many with homes in France. You have to live in France permanently for it to be invalid, in which case you will presumably have opted into one of their schemes. If you live in France for less than 133 days per year then the EHIC card works fine.
An English friend of ours In France collapsed last week. The paramedics were out in a flash and took her to the local hospital. She was quickly assessed, and very promptly asked "how are you going to pay?". Her husband produced the EHIC card out of his wallet, and after 3 days on a hospital drip and some fantastic care she is now recovering at home, having paid nothing.
Sounds like a liberal's wet dream.Paul Waine wrote:Hi nil_d,
Deal I'd like is one where every country can "hold out the hand of friendship" to all other countries. Where we all agree to work together for mutual benefit. Where we all agree to trade between us, without creating barriers that may limit the economic situations for people on both sides of the barriers. Where people are free to travel between countries, while respecting the ways societies in those other countries have chosen to organise. Where the "better off" can be generous to those in need in other countries.
Some say that trading under WTO terms will be harmful for UK. So, let's start campaigning to make WTO terms equal to "single market" terms.
Let's start to build a world our children and grandchildren can enjoy - and be proud of what we have bequeathed them.
Hi Paul.Paul Waine wrote:Hi nil_d,
Not sure what you mean by France "abandoning the border..." the places you mention will still be in France.
Nothing. We'd have to do the checks in the UK instead. Where it is different is that we would have the power to make the company that brought the immigrants in (Chunnel, Sealink, whoever) take them back again. Rather like happens if an airline carries an illegal immigrant to the USA.nil_desperandum wrote:Hi Paul.
Just to clarify. What I was meaning is if we have the famous May "no deal", what happens to the current co-operation at the French channel ports whereby stringent checks are made by officials with dogs etc, of all trucks and (usually to a lesser extent of all other vehicles).?
[I've been made to open not only my boot but also my bonnet (at gun point) on recent crossings.]
If there's no deal, then what's to stop the French from saving money by just allowing all and sundry through and leaving us to deal with it all at this side of the channel.? Of course a deal will be done on this, but this just shows what nonsense May's threat of "no deal" is. She doesn't hold enough the cards to do it.
And you think that this would be a simple matter?dsr wrote:Nothing. We'd have to do the checks in the UK instead. Where it is different is that we would have the power to make the company that brought the immigrants in (Chunnel, Sealink, whoever) take them back again. Rather like happens if an airline carries an illegal immigrant to the USA.
Why would this be a problem? Surely the EU is so awesome that refugees would not want to go to a doomed country outside the EU, isn't it obvious they just won't want to come here. Remember we are economically doomed and there will be no jobs, I wish the remainers would keep up with themselves. Don't you remember the emergency budget that was held just after the referendum???nil_desperandum wrote:And you think that this would be a simple matter?
Send one airline passenger back - fair enough. There are almost 50 crossings per day on the Calais / Dover route alone. Without French co-operation on the other side of the channel there would be utter chaos at the British ports and I suspect the services would gridlock.
There'll be a deal on this - rest assured.
Firstly, I wasn't particularly thinking of refugees. I was thinking far more of terrorists and criminals, (who so far as I am concerned are not the same as refugees). In any case, one would hope that the UK will still be open to genuine refugees. They aren't from the EU so that situation shouldn't change.PutTheWheelieBinsOut wrote:Why would this be a problem? Surely the EU is so awesome that refugees would not want to go to a doomed country outside the EU, isn't it obvious they just won't want to come here. Remember we are economically doomed and there will be no jobs, I wish the remainers would keep up with themselves. Don't you remember the emergency budget that was held just after the referendum???
You do know that that's not the case, don't you?dsr wrote:It's not an issue with airlines, because (due to terrorism threats and other reasons) no-one is allowed on a plane without a valid passport. .
A refugee can't get into the country on a domestic flight, though. You were worried about the French cutting back on customs officers in Calais. There is literally no problem with refugees trying to get from Manchester to Heathrow. And an EEA identity card will be no use for flying France to the UK because the UK won't be in the EU.nil_desperandum wrote:You do know that that's not the case, don't you?
Passports are not usually compulsory for domestic flights within the same country, and you can use an EEA identity card within the EU on most flights.
All correct, but I was simply replying to your assertion that you can't currently fly without a passport.dsr wrote:A refugee can't get into the country on a domestic flight, though. You were worried about the French cutting back on customs officers in Calais. There is literally no problem with refugees trying to get from Manchester to Heathrow. And an EEA identity card will be no use for flying France to the UK because the UK won't be in the EU.
Hi nil_d, and Happy Easter.nil_desperandum wrote:Hi Paul.
Just to clarify. What I was meaning is if we have the famous May "no deal", what happens to the current co-operation at the French channel ports whereby stringent checks are made by officials with dogs etc, of all trucks and (usually to a lesser extent of all other vehicles).?
[I've been made to open not only my boot but also my bonnet (at gun point) on recent crossings.]
If there's no deal, then what's to stop the French from saving money by just allowing all and sundry through and leaving us to deal with it all at this side of the channel.? Of course a deal will be done on this, but this just shows what nonsense May's threat of "no deal" is. She doesn't hold enough the cards to do it.
"How many of us have a second home in France or another EU country? How long has UK government policy been written to look after the needs of the "relatively better off?" I think any UK Gov't would have a problem negotiating to maintain EHIC under these terms, especially when there is a reluctance in some of the NHS to seek to recover health care costs provided to EU under EHIC in UK."
But the EHIC currently covers all who are in the EU - including all those who work there, (even just maybe flying in for a meeting), and who in many cases are not well off at all, + tourists / families, many of whom already have to scrimp and save for a holiday and can ill afford the extra costs for additional premiums to insurance to cover the benefits of EHIC being lost.
Then ignoring everything that has gone between, what I said was that it should be made a rule that anyone carrying people from outside the UK to the UK will have to check the passports, and if they're travelling without a valid passport, the carrier will have to take them back. Which is what airlines already do.nil_desperandum wrote:All correct, but I was simply replying to your assertion that you can't currently fly without a passport.
My original point - in any case - was that criminals. terrorists etc. could potentially get all the way to mainland UK without an identity card / passport / check of any kind, if we don't have co-operation with the French at the other side of the channel. (Again - I stress - this won't actually happen. There'll be a deal).
It's as clear as it is sly and snide Lancaster. That's why you ought to have had the courage to say it outright.Lancasterclaret wrote:Think its clear enough Rowls.
Bright bloke like you should be able to see it.
Or maybe you are like quite a lot of your type, you just ignore the rather nasty bits of your support?
I haven't ignored anything that's gone in between, it's just that most of it isn't relevant to the initial point I was making re: "deal or no deal"dsr wrote:Then ignoring everything that has gone between, what I said was that it should be made a rule that anyone carrying people from outside the UK to the UK will have to check the passports,
Rather than say stuff like that, and relying on the people actually knowing what that means, can you actually tell people that is going to be a lot worse than the current trading situation.If we leave the EU without a deal, as I believe we will because there's no way the 27 countries will agree anything in 2 years, then we will be dealing with the EU on pretty much the same terms as we currently deal with the USA.
Very well. What it means is that if we don't make a trade deal with the EU, then (since all the EU countries and the UK are all members of the World Trade Organisation) we will have to trade under World Trade Organisation rules. These are the same rules we currently use in trading with the USA, Japan, China, India, and various other countries with whom the EU doesn't have a trade agreement.Lancasterclaret wrote:Rather than say stuff like that, and relying on the people actually knowing what that means, can you actually tell people that is going to be a lot worse than the current trading situation.
For some reason best known to you and your lot, you don't seem to like actually highlighting stuff that people don't want to hear.
It is very likely, as you say, that some of our exports won't be exported because it will be cheaper to source the stuff internally within the EU. But I don't reckon it will make all that much difference, because after all in the past we've seen sharp rises in the pound's exchange value which affected our export prices far more than WTO tariffs will. It wasn't disastrous then.Lancasterclaret wrote:That wasn't too hard was it?
Again though, you are not mentioning the costs of WTO tariffs.
I find it very hard to believe that our biggest export market won't be able to find cheaper products within the remaining EU bloc than we can produce relatively quickly.
Which is one of the main reasons I'm against this, and one of the main reasons I'm convinced we are going to take a hit that will hinder a generation, and one of the main reason I'm praying like mad that TM can somehow placate the Conservative right to accept that we might have to pay to enjoy a sizeable benefits of trading with the EU.
But of course it might not be that bad, so I take your point that we don't know yet.
More on WTO tariffs for those who are interested
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ta ... iffs_e.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;