No I wouldn't accept we need any EU regulations, that's to be discussed later,we can agree free trade deals on everything, if we so wish, and will not be held back by any EU rules. Not sure what you're trying to say about Belgium, but it's too late anyway with them,they are supplying the Terrorists that bomb half the countries in Europe.
Seems like you have a vain lot of MPs in general https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/vain-politicians-spend-460000-taxpayers-14212389 Ooops relied to the wrong picture but you get the point.
It sounded like it to me If you really want to know all the ins and outs I would suggest you read back over the 10,000 and odd posts on the subject That will keep you quiet for a good while don’t you think
I'm sure all the in and out are fascinating but a summary of the benefits of leaving is all I'm after surely that can't be too difficult to come up with? "A question to the leavers as I honestly do not understand . Apart from the, "taking back our borders, making our own rules" rhetoric what tangible, financial, political, cultural, military, economic or social benefits do you envisage from leaving the EU? I'm not on a wind-up I just can't see what the advantage is in leaving. Please don't say the $350m a week as even if it were true it really isn't a significant amount compared to total annual UK government spend of £847 billion, about 2%." Post #13288 but copied for you as I'm considerate
You see you have known all along so it was a windup Have changed the $ to £ for you let’s at least be accurate
We can do tarrif free trade with the rest of the world,we don't have to allow in all the no skilled migrants, who bring nothing to the country, just take housing off people born here, they more often than not are claiming benefits so we have to pay extra tax to support them,not sure why you put military as we will still be aligned with the USA as we are now,Spain and France helped Argentina in the Falklands so not as if the EU defend the UK. As a bonus, with N/Ireland and Scotland voting to remain, with a bit of luck we can get rid of them
So the painting was commissioned and painted in 2004 as part of the Parliamentary Art collection. They have about 7100 paintings dating back to 1388. Since this portrait there has also been amongst many others a bust of Margaret Thatcher and a painting of Ian Duncan Smith created for similar fees. In 2004 the Labour government set targets that by 2008,no one should wait more than 18 weeks from GP referral to hospital treatment: 90 per cent of patients admitted to hospital for treatment and 95 per cent of those not admitted should receive consultant-led care within 18 weeks unless it is clinically appropriate not to do so, or they choose to wait. And in 2009 93 per cent of admitted patients and 98 per cent of non-admitted patients began treatment within 18 weeks. The median length of wait was 8 weeks for admitted patients and 5 weeks for non-admitted patients. Currently less than 46% of hospital services are reaching the 18 week target and it's risen to 24 weeks. So why have they gone and put an old picture of Diane Abbott branded it with Labour when the issues with the NHS have to do with the last 9 years of Tory government and not parliamentary art. Is it because the side by side records would not look pretty for the Tories?
Not true Chesh: FRANCE was Britain's greatest ally during the Falklands war, providing secret information to enable MI6 agents to sabotage Exocet missiles which were desperately sought by Argentina, according to Sir John Nott, who was Defence Secretary during the conflict. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...helped-us-win-Falklands-war-by-John-Nott.html
You can not have a free trade agreement without agreeing regulations. Regulations are much more important than tariffs. So if we want to try and have a free trade agreement with the EU we will have to accept regulatory alignment on goods.
When we joined it was the Common Market. It has evolved into a burgeoning United States of Western Europe. The destination is a central government, with a single currency. De Gaulle objected to Britain joining in the 1960s because we are not like the continental Europeans and he was right. I'm not sure how many, even those who want to remain, would accept that we would become a State on the outskirts of The US of E. There is basically one reason to remain. "I'm doing ok as things are now." There are a multitude of reasons someone voted to leave and I can't know all of them. I voted to leave because I don't want to be a citizen of Europe. I'm British and the UK is in Europe. I have an MP and a government in Westminster, I don't need more bloody politicians in Brussels or Strasbourg. I think the EU is run for the benefit of Germany and France especially, but I don't accept that Malta have a veto over something we want in this country. Yes, I want us to do our own trade deals. I also want the deal the EU would offer us if we had never joined. They have been vindictive because the UK voted to leave. I'm going to read "but we wanted to leave, they didn't want us to." "We're leaving the club" etc Yes, we voted to leave. We buy far more from them than they buy from us and we pay a bloody fortune for the privilege! We get money back? WWF, National Trust, The RSPB, The Unions etc get fortunes from the EU or they might build an Opera house in Wisbech! I hope I have given you some idea of my reasons. I could go on And usually do
We would have to accept regulatory alignment on goods we trade with the EU, not on everything as we do now. Whether or not you trade within the EU you are tied to their regulations. It's one of the reasons many small businesses want out.
Well said my thoughts and principles. I too voted for a Common Market and that was all The powers that be have been conning us for years Well no more
You fell for the WJ spin mate, a French team worked getting their planes set up to fire exocets and maintenance on their planes, they stayed and continued to work throughout the conflict, some of our sunken ships probably wouldn't have happened if they hadn't helped them. The Spanish, they caught a team sent to Spain with the intention of putting mines on a British war ship and sinking it in Gibraltar harbour,British intelegence put the Spanish onto them and they were caught, but not wanting to upset Argentina they put them on a plane and flew them back home.
OK so if I understand you are expecting a reduction in unemployment, a fall in homelessness, a reduction in taxation and an increase in services due to available benefit money? As you're not expecting any EU country to protect the UK post Brexit, as they do now as part of NATO, then you are also anticipating an increase in military spending? or have I not understood you. What amount of change do you anticipate in these areas?
We will continue as you do, to rely on the good old USA to protect us, and the EU have never protected us. In fact as the probable aggressor being Russia, they are relying on our help as always.
That's all good and I can clearly see the deficit side of the balance sheet and why you don't like the EU but on the plus side what are the tangible benefits you expect that the UK will gain from leaving?
Under article 5 of the NATO agreement an attack on one of the members is considered an attack on all and the member countries will support the attacked country to restore stability in the region. So if the UK were attacked the other NATO members would protect/ support etc. Don't kid yourself about the good old USA they support NATO exactly because a potential aggressor is Russia and any conventional or short range nuclear war they anticipate to be fought on European soil not American. They have their self interest at heart not the protection of the UK or Europe who they consider to be expendable. Yes the USA is the major protector of Australia but only again because it serves American interest i.e. avoids the expansion of China. So what level of unemployment, taxation, homelessness etc do you anticipate post Brexit?