The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
petersaxton said:
You've got no choice but to do trade deals with us, May tells posturing EU leaders
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ce-trade-deals-tell-posturing-EU-leaders.html
Click to expand...

... that's true ... but they certainly don't need to be as accommodating or as mutually beneficial as when we were in the EU ... as has been pointed out on here already, we need Europe far more than Europe needs us ... you can carry on ignoring that fact along with the posters you disagree with ... but it doesn't change things ... <laugh>

You must log in or register to see images
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smirnoffpriest
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
There was an interesting study I read the other day, showing what some in here claimed was valid. It related to the apparent rise in reported racist incidents after Brexit, which seemingly hasn't lead to an increase in convictions, which was what some contended..
Click to expand...

With an average time to go to court of 3-4 months I'm surprised this information is available. Do you have a link?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Prime Minister
steveninaster1 said:
Yes in certain areas if we mirror EU law and the EU accept that our law is equal to theirs. Other areas we will lose money regardless as there is no equivalent. It's in the link I previously gave you.
Click to expand...

That would be the key, acceptance.

Frankfurt would dearly love to steal London's preeminence as the centre of European trading operations, however.

For the banks, It's a matter of is their potential loss of income worth incurring the cost and hassle of moving lock stock away from London.

No doubt, however, that if some deal is not struck, London will be the loser to one degree or another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakartaToon
paultheplug said:
I'm surprised you would want to live near the ferry fort for Melilla and the drop-off point for illegal immigrants/refugees rescued from the Med. Are there refugee camps near you?
Click to expand...

You're mixing me up with someone else. I'm not bothered about the migrants. We've had them for years, what with Hull being a port and university City.
 
steveninaster1 said:
With an average time to go to court of 3-4 months I'm surprised this information is available. Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

Not at hand. I'll see if I can find one later. The name of one force mentioned is on the tip of my tongue, bit it's just not coming.
 
Brexit said:
Banks can cope with loss of EU passports after Brexit, says Moody's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...loss-of-eu-passports-after-brexit-says-moody/


can it?
Click to expand...
That piece appears to contradict itself;

“It is likely that some banks and other financial services companies may choose to move some UK-based activities to the EU before the UK’s withdrawal negotiations are complete, given the uncertainty of the outcome,” they said.

And Moodys view is challenged by the CLC at the end of it;

Despite Moody's relatively optimistic assessment of London's prospects, Mark Boleat, the policy chief at the City of London Corporation, insisted that passports remained a source of concern.
“Passporting is still a crucial issue for financial services firms and the uncertainty is causing real problems for some businesses," he said.
"In the City many firms are still analysing what impact the loss of passporting will have on them."
"For some retail banks it is of almost no real importance. But for the whole of international investment banking and an institution such as [insurance market] Lloyd's of London it is an absolute necessity.
"We are making this point clear to policy makers in our ongoing discussions.”
 
petersaxton said:
Well, I never. The Leavers look to be right and the Remainers look to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Wow! It's The Daily Nazi, so it must all be true!!...or is it just the usual ultra right wing spin and **** from The Star without the tits..

What it actually says is that Juncker thinks a deal may be possible. But the EU has to agree.


A long, long way from the collective EU agreeing to something that all 27 members must accept. Highly speculative given the entrenched position of the Eastern bloc countries on this issue.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
Wow! It's The Daily Nazi, so it must all be true!!...or is it just the usual ultra right wing spin and **** from The Star without the tits..

What it actually says is that Juncker thinks a deal may be possible. But the EU has to agree.


A long, long way from the collective EU agreeing to something that all 27 members must accept. Highly speculative given the entrenched position of the Eastern bloc countries on this issue.
Click to expand...

Quite true, but they (Eastern bloc) will be forced to tow the line or lose funding, thats the way the EU seems to work.


Also what papers do you recommend we look at for guidance, The Guardian?
 
Brexit said:
Quite true, but they (Eastern bloc) will be forced to tow the line or lose funding, thats the way the EU seems to work.


Also what papers do you recommend we lok at for guidance, The Guardian?
Click to expand...

Highly Unlikely. They were invited to join the EU. Cutting their funding for refusing to,"follow orders" is dictating terms.

If the suggestion, and that's all it is, were to get to the stage where they were the only objectors, then some diplomatic persuasion may take place. But out and out blackmail, no.

But that things would ever even reach that situation is highly speculative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smirnoffpriest
Brexit said:
Quite true, but they (Eastern bloc) will be forced to tow the line or lose funding, thats the way the EU seems to work.


Also what papers do you recommend we look at for guidance, The Guardian?
Click to expand...
None.
The story is amusing really as it is not proposing a removal of the free movement of workers. It is proposing that employers are allowed a preference for people living in Switzerland regardless of nationality. Nothing actually stopping an EU resident moving to Switzerland and then getting a job.

The anti-immigration party SVP are against the compromise.
 
Brexit said:
EU backtracking on free movement at last?! Juncker buckles on Swiss immigration deal

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...wn-Juncker-close-agree-Swiss-deal-immigration
Click to expand...
Your really should read beyond the Tory press headlines ffs.

Firstly, Junker has already ****ed the idea clean off that the UK would get a concession on free movement and secondly the compromise the Swiss have been granted equates to 2/3rds of **** all

In the face of Brussels’ refusal to negotiate over the free movement of people, Swiss politicians may yield on implementing the February 2014 referendum result in literal terms.
Earlier this month a parliamentary commission proposed implementing the February 2014 vote simply by encouraging employers to take on domestic workers, for instance by obliging them to report vacancies at local jobcentres. There would be no limits set without explicit EU approval.
Such an approach is expected to be approved on Wednesday by the parliamentary chamber representing Switzerland’s voters.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/73a8389e-7e88-11e6-bc52-0c7211ef3198.html#axzz4KnSvn1FB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back