Off Topic Impact of Brexit on Football

Generals and ignorant old farts- never shall the twain meet

 

Sorry about that but I was meerly trying to illustraite that I disaprove of all this labelling that has gone on during and after the campaigns. There was supposed to be a hint of irony to my then applying labels! As you say the votes weren't unanimous in any; age range, educational level or employment status. So why the generalisation? These labellings in the campaigns and in society in general are what foster divisions. These divisions in our society are what got us here. Xenophibia has grown out of continued ignorance of the people and a failure to manage immigration and I think more importantly social integration.
I also don't see it as "I won". A win would have been that Cameron had come back with some genuine concessions from his negotiations that would have illustraited that the EU was a progressive and people centric organisation. I realise that they cannot give in to foot stomping politicians left right and centre from all the member states. But how can it be good for us as a country if our voices cannot be heard or listened to?
There is a right wing cancer growing in the EU because it seemingly does not listen and they seemingly have been oblivious to it thus far, or is it too arrogant to imagine that people should challenge their EU dreams/gravy train?
I have a meeting shortly so will have to cut my response short. But being smaller and less beauracratic can have advantages in negotiating and nimbleness to work with the world. i work for a large multi national company and we have many competitors, a number of whom can't compete by low production costs and volume but can move faster because of less internal inertia. With our leaders we can but dream!
My parents have a gate at the end of their drive, does that count? Is two people, 4 cats and several fish a community?

Bah!

 

I like the use of Xenophibia instead of Xenophobia. Was there 'a hint of irony' about the 'phibs that the leave camp told, General?

I'm not convinced by the advantages of "being smaller and less bureaucratic", really. My experience from running my own small company is that the big boys squeeze the little guy every time, like the supermarkets do with our farmers. Time will tell though once we finally exit the EU in over 2 years time.

 

RER despite what Rob might say we are members of the WTO (both in our own right and through the EU) and as such do not have to negotiate trade agreements with any other country that is a member of WTO. If we want to sign bilateral deals with each country then we can, but we don't have too we can just trade under WTO rules.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-leaving-eu-trade/

 

4 million bad losers only another 12 million to go. Although I thought there was an investigation going on about some dodgy vote, so we might have slightly less than 4 million. I can't imagine the abuse and criticism that Farage and Boris would have got calling for a second referendum if things had gone differently. The establishment and media would have been lining up to take pot shots at them.

 

Not I'm not going to PM you are incorrect about several things and you confuse fact with opinion & prediction, all of which I've explained in some length. If you're unsure how just read back through the posts. I've got as much chance of getting through to you as I have talking to a brick wall. I'd rather spend my time on other things.

 

I have responded to each and every point you raised and clearly, in detail, explained why I am right. It's not opinion I was giving you cold hard factbombs. You don't want to point out where I was incorrect because you know that I have explained and justified each fact with evidence.

There were good reasons to Leave, but I am afraid you have been deeply misled by the Leave campaign and I am astonished that people are still peddling their bullshit when it's been confessed by the Leave campaign several times since and slowly the facts are becoming more and more obvious for you to see about their lies. If you think you've been talking to a brick wall, imagine being me and having to put up with your accusations, obfuscations and complete disregard for the responses I've made.

Fortunately, it's looking increasingly unlikely that whichever next Prime Minister (chosen totally democratically by 150,000 Tories) of our 60m fellow citizens will be able to submit the Article 50 notice (politically and possibly even legally), so hopefully this will all be redundant.

So I agree that we are much better off spending time on other things. Like the football.

 

They already did in advance of the referendum. Farage said to the Mirror that he wouldn't consider a vote decisive if the balance was 52-48.

 

Well the last one wasn't chosen democratically so why should this one

 

It's a distinct possibility that it won't even go to the 150,000 Tory faithful. John Major took over from Thatcher through the support of his Parliamentary colleagues when the other candidates all dropped out. It could well happen again if one candidate moves far ahead of the others as Theresa May seems to be doing. It seems to be satisfactory that a faction of our Parliament is capable of deciding the next PM, but the whole Parliament is not capable of deciding whether we should stay in the EU - let the people decide instead.

 

As in Cameron? Or do you mean first past the post? If the second I completely agree with you, our democratic system is a shambles.

 

Hi bors, bit of good news to cheer up the doom and gloom merchants. John Key, New Zealand's Prime Minister, has said that the country will work with Australia in arranging new ties with the UK as it withdraws from the EU. Where it makes sense New Zealand and Australia will co-operate together. New Zealand has offered us trade negotiators due to our shortage to negotiate with the EU.

President Obama said that we would go to the back of the queue in negotiating trade deals with America. Nice to know who your real friends are. The Yanks should be thanking us for leaving the EU. The EU without us is not in such a strong bargaining position with the Yanks. Who knows, perhaps our negotiators could persuade the Yanks to make some dollar donation to us for using Mildenhall and Lakenheath in recognition of our help to them in their trade deal with the EU.

In 2013 Cameron was instrumental in getting deals worth £5.6 billion on a trade visit to China.
Unshackled gives us more room to manoeuvre. Canada, India, Pakistan, South Africa, South American states, Japan, the world is now our oyster.

PS Dare I mention Russia.

 

The EU already has trade deals either completed or under negotiation with each of those countries. And given the EU's size, the deals will be better than anything we will be given.

 

Rob bor, you completely miss the point. Negotiations by us with those countries outside the framework of the EU. We will not be bound by EU negotiations. You are a lawyer studying EU regulations, explain to me this : The EU say we are still members yet they do no issue an invitation to a member of the EU to attend a meeting, our PM was denied access to their meeting. Their decision not ours, our government should give notice that as we are not good enough to attend their meeting, our money is not good enough for them to receive and we are withholding it.

The EU wants it all ways, in and out when it suits them.

 

So we're going to simultaneously enter multi-year trade deal negotiations with dozens of countries, relying on some borrowed kiwi negotiators and an outgoing PM to make sure we're in a good place once the two year withdrawal from the EU is up?

Obama said we'd go to the back of the line long before the referendum. No change there.

 

DH bor, Obama made his remarks to influence our vote, didn't work. Where does it put him in relation to support from his staunchest ally. Was he speaking for the people of America ? He is nearing the end of his term of office, better if he had applied a bit of commonsense like Cameron and allowed his successor to make comment.

This word simultaneously, where did you dig that up ? Incidentally the Kiwi's have success for the past eight years in negotiating trade deals, which would you prefer, someone who knows the job or our inexperience negotiators ?

 

My point is that Obama's position doesn't appear to have changed, it wasnt scaremongering. I suspect the US also don't have huge numbers of trade negotiators sat around waiting for the call to work on a UK deal anyway. They'll conclude current deals whenever that may be, and decide who the next priority is. Trump or Clinton may bump us up the list, but they won't abandon ongoing negotiations elsewhere to immediately negotiate with the UK.

Simultaneously? Currently we have a large number of trade deals thanks to the EU. New Zealand has less and is slowly building up a portfolio of deals, steadily improving things for their economy. When we pull out, we suddenly lose a hell of a lot of deals, plunging ourselves back to square one. That'll be a massive shock to the economy. So unless we negotiate a large number of deals simultaneously, it'll take us centuries to get back to a remotely comparable trade situation.

New Zealand's negotiators may have 8 years experience, the EU department has over 40.

 

The second meeting was to do with how the EU will move forward, including how they will handle the UK's departure. The UK is hardly going to be invited to that. We will be involved in the EU single market for another two years, but not in planning its forward development. Only EU countries staying in will be involved with that.

 

Anybody wanting to know what happens next should read that article, which does back up Rob's argument. It's not entirely true that "EEA members must agree to implement legislation that they have no say in deciding", though. EEA members are 'consulted' about new legislation, but that is as far as their influence goes.

 

DH bor, Obama is President of America, not for him to pass comment on what another country's people decide, Trump has already made his position on our referendum known, Clinton, her husband was very pro British so I envisage no problem there but she is "influenced" (note that word, not scaremongering) by big business in America.

America will do what America has always done, put their interest first. If the next administration decide to put us to the end of the queue, that is their prerogative, they were not so backward when it came to discuss the Treaty of Paris.

You make reference to EU trade deals, they no longer will apply to us when we leave, what they negotiate is their business, ours is to get the best possible deals with other countries outside the EU. You anticipate it will take us centuries to negotiate deals, wow that is a pessimistic viewpoint, I don't give much credence to that viewpoint of yours.

We need to start negotiations quickly and not wait for the bureaucratic EU to hamper our interests. We agreed to their rules re two years, but that doesn't stop us doing what the French did and ignore the EU when it suited the French..