Dare we speak about "Brexit?"

Status
Closed
Aug 2011
4,627
Macron isn't saying that europe needs an army to protect itself against the USA militarily, he's saying europe needs an army because under Trump, european security is unpredictable. Trump tears up international treaties. Europe already knows how, under Obama, the USA is directing its defence strategy away from europe and towards the pacific. Trump just adds to the uncertainty. The EU Army is a concept which has its origins in the European Security and Defence Policy of the European Union of 1999 and the formation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of 2009, the Lisbon Treaty. Macron is simply saying that the EU needs to move things along. It's hardly pie in the sky thinking. Trident Juncture is a current exercise in Norway involving 51,000 men, 10,000 tanks, 250 planes and 65 vessels. It includes all the nato countries plus Sweden and Finland. If nato cannot rely on the USA, europe will have to make up the numbers that the USA currently provides.
 
Oct 2011
24,083
Lago Maggiore, Italy
I voted remain. But, seeing the so called reasons for staying in, I am about to change my mind, come the second referendum!!
Well you see, this is quite British ...

Personally I've been quite neutral about Brexit [in the sense that my opinion was that it was and it is a British matter and that I didn't see, from my external perspective, predominant reasons for a choice or an other], but if I have to express a general comment about UK in EU, I have to say that it was more odd to see UK in EU than to observe it leaving the Union now.

If I consider the history of Great Britain, to stand alone would is quite natural for the British people [and I have to admit that I've been a bit surprised by the majority of young British citizens wanting to remain in EU].
 
Jul 2016
781
Dengie Peninsula
The reason I voted to remain, was that i asked my daughter which way to vote, as she will suffer the consequences, not I, as i shall be too old for anything to affect me.. But the weak arguments of "remain" are rapidly turning me against them
 
Aug 2011
4,627
No deal and WTO-rules is what we want.
Putin, and around 20 other countries I understand, intend to block what you want. You might get your no deal, but don't think WTO is automatic. We'll have to start buying influence, like doing some deal with Argentina over the Falklands for example. And all this against a backdrop of the world knowing that the UK is desperate for a deal because it hasn't got one from the EU. We'll be taken to the cleaners.
 
Jun 2016
1,537
England, 200 yards from Wales
The future was perfectly clear - to the remainers, remember all those mass-panic inducing news articles?
They were mainly in case of a no deal, we don't know if that is what we're getting though.

What clarity was given by the remainers regarding the direct effect of the vote on the EU should we have remained?
It would be a vote for the status quo, what might come later is necessarily uncertain in case of either remain or leave.

Did you expect there to be a single agreement beyond the yes/no decision taken by the country, given this was not on the ballot and therefore was never meant to be quantified?
The single agreement should have come, on the part of the leave people, before the campaign, then it could have been voted for. As it didn't and wasn't people should not pretend that the vote gives a mandate for any particular sort of leaving, rather than just the general idea of no longer being a member.
 
Jan 2014
2,078
Westmorland
but if Nige had remained at UKIP’s helm, post-Referendum fervour could have seen them at least finish off the LibDems, displacing them as 3rd Party in seats as well as votes, with a decent shot at becoming the Loyal Opposition. But not only did Nige stand down but there followed the complete farce of selecting his replacement; and then finally selecting an English Nationalist as leader. Things now are getting back into shape under Batten, so there is hope for the future. But the party’s fate might still only be that of the ‘UKIP Factor’ threatening marginal seats.

One of the most exciting news stories for me was Nige and Banks heading to NI to speak at a DUP event. I hoped this would presage a DUP-UKIP merger, and have since been very disappointed that nothing came out of that, whether because no-one had contemplated the idea in the first place or because egos got in the way.

I believe the DUP going national would be a good idea and merging with UKIP would see it having a solid shot at No. 10.
Farage couldn't win a parliamentary seat for himself. UKIP was always a single issue party based around the personal charisma of one man and although Cameron has been criticised for offering the referendum, it had the desired effect of pulling the rug from under UKIP. IMO, Farage never had any chance of replacing the Lib Dems.

A UKIP/DUP merger would certainly underline the extremist positions of both parties. There are undoubtedly those who would support the uncompromisingly nationalist and regressive policies of a country-wide DUP, but if British history tells us one thing, it is that we don't really like zealots. I suspect my dogs would stand a better chance of getting into Number 10 than a UKIP/DUP alliance.
 
Aug 2009
4,976
Londinium
Putin, and around 20 other countries I understand, intend to block what you want. You might get your no deal, but don't think WTO is automatic. We'll have to start buying influence, like doing some deal with Argentina over the Falklands for example. And all this against a backdrop of the world knowing that the UK is desperate for a deal because it hasn't got one from the EU. We'll be taken to the cleaners.
There no great rush, please calm down.

As an existing, independent, member of the WTO the UK can simply keep the same WTO schedules as the EU but, quite literally, change “EU” to “UK” with very little change (after the initial period of uncertainty that all markets indulge in).

This will allow for a transition to occur where the UK can start to negotiate, as you describe, with other parties i.e. change the schedules of trade. IIRC, the US and Aus have already been mooted for “post-WTO deals”. Likely other nations will as well, don’t forget the UK is one of the top 10 largest markets in the world and the City of London handles most international financial transactions. Among other reasons, the UK would be in a good position to enter into those negotiations you describe.

I have no idea what Argentina can offer the UK which would instigate the transfer of Falkland sovereignty, any suggestions?
 
Jun 2016
1,537
England, 200 yards from Wales
Putin, and around 20 other countries I understand, intend to block what you want. You might get your no deal, but don't think WTO is automatic. We'll have to start buying influence, like doing some deal with Argentina over the Falklands for example. And all this against a backdrop of the world knowing that the UK is desperate for a deal because it hasn't got one from the EU. We'll be taken to the cleaners.
And, if some no deal fans get their way, we'll have walked away from the GFA, reneged on the backstop commitment in last December's agreement and refused the financial settlement of our commitments with the EU. We'll then be looking to make new trade deals with many new partners, having demonstrated that the UK' signature on an agreement is worthless.
 
Jun 2016
1,537
England, 200 yards from Wales
There no great rush, please calm down.

As an existing, independent, member of the WTO the UK can simply keep the same WTO schedules as the EU but, quite literally, change “EU” to “UK” with very little change (after the initial period of uncertainty that all markets indulge in).
I'm not absolutely sure, but are these EU schedules not linked to quotas, which we want to divide pro-rata, which needs agreement?
 
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions