Yes MEP's sorryI am sure you are correct, but didn't you mean MEPs?
Yes MEP's sorryI am sure you are correct, but didn't you mean MEPs?
According to the chancellor speaking to MPs today, a transition deal has to be done by 1st April to enable airlines to set their schedules for April 2019.
I guess there are many instances just as so, what about holiday companies booking accommodation for the summer 2019 season that is also done a year in advance.
Why would I? Leaving the EU is what I think is bad for the country. Is an email from me going to get a reversal of Article 50?
As I have said here - I have no idea what is the "second best" but am getting closer to believing that a clean break is the best option. The idea of paying most of what we previously did plus ECJ and EU rules on immigration were worth it for membership but unless the EU have a total change of heart (and why should they?) I think what they will let us have as a 2nd class associate member is not worth the price.
I certainly do not want a border down the Irish Sea. If they think that is acceptable then I don't.
You are right, and he did go on to say there were hundreds of complex issues that had to be sorted this month. The heat is very much on.
The intention is to sign the transition period off on 22 March at the General Affairs Council. The EU is supposed to publishing more details tomorrow. I don't expect many cartwheels from any direction.I have also realised that all talk of a transition period is supposed to follow on from the 18 month negotiation period triggered by article 51 which ends 29th March 2019. I believe this transition period and its subsequent length have yet to be agreed by both sides.
I have also realised that all talk of a transition period is supposed to follow on from the 18 month negotiation period triggered by article 51 which ends 29th March 2019. I believe this transition period and its subsequent length have yet to be agreed by both sides.
There have always been options, but the government find themselves in a hard place - on the one hand overturn a referendum result which was not binding (they would be perfectly within their constitutional powers to do this) - risking a consequent uproar (the carrot crunchers would crunch a bit louder for a while). On the other hand shrink away from this and lead the UK. down a road which over three quarters of all MPs suspect will lead to 20 years of gradual decline. Methinks it would be better to face the uproar.You surprise me. I didn't think that if there was something you didn't agree with you wouldn't just roll over and accept it. There are options that would avoid many problems including staying in the CU and SM. I watched proceedings from Westminster for some time this afternoon, and it was obvious that the government are totally at sea. I don't know what you think is the solution to the Irish border. Perhaps you could post a workable idea?
Frenchie - the only "solution" I want is to reverse Article 50 and remain in the EU.You surprise me. I didn't think that if there was something you didn't agree with you wouldn't just roll over and accept it. There are options that would avoid many problems including staying in the CU and SM. I watched proceedings from Westminster for some time this afternoon, and it was obvious that the government are totally at sea. I don't know what you think is the solution to the Irish border. Perhaps you could post a workable idea?
I have also read that the UK has a trade deficit of about £80 billion with the EU so that should focus their minds a bit on reality rather than their inflexible federalist dogma.I have read on several occasions that the EU exports to us twice as much as we export to them. Therefore surely they should be looking at an agreement with us as an important issue or perhaps Estonia for example will over rule Germany, France, Spain etc on this and veto it. This could be a golden example of not getting the "27" to all agree. There are many issues that the EU could lose out on if it does not sensibly agree deals etc with the UK. Its not all about the UK in a mess it does to a degree work both ways even if Brussels would like to maybe brush things under the carpet.
I have also read that the UK has a trade deficit of about £80 billion with the EU so that should focus their minds a bit on reality rather than their inflexible federalist dogma.
Why is there an imbalance? Because the EU have things that we want or need, and the UK has less that they will buy.
Today Danish business leaders have been meeting. They came out with this statement.
"All businesses - even the food industry that risk loosing half its export to the UK - are more concerned with keeping the integrity of the internal market than any loss of UK market access. "
This suggests that they will be able over time to replace their losses by staying within the much larger market. The hoped for they need us more than we need them approach is steadily being knocked down by one country after another.
Its all very well stating this in public by people it does not directly effect, but the reality is that people who have put blood, sweat and tears into building up a business will not sit quietly whilst people in Brussels wreck their livelihood. To lose half your export market at the drop of a hat will take a mighty long time to compensate and if OFH it was that easy to replace they would not be so dependent on it in the first place. There are peoples livelhoods and jobs at stake here and because of the incompetence on "BOTH" sides and not just the UK many people are going to be treated as pawns right around the EU.
This is certainly not about having a cheap dig at the UK politicans at every opputunity. This is about much more important issues that will directly/indirectly have consequences for all the 28 EU countries as it stands whether you wish to believe it or not OFH because going forward the EU will have to revise its budget. That means people in Poland, France, Greece or any other country you wish to name will be at the receiving end of a decision because of this and its putting ones head in the sand if you can not see that.
As I said in a previous post if you want to hold someone accountable its the 17 million plus people who maybe were misguided or not into voting for brexit.Its ridiculous to keep trying to ridicule the politicans who are left with trying to sort this mess out and who really are left in a position that will be criticised for what ever they say or try to instigate.The pure reality is they are on a hiding to nothing and very much put into a no-win situation as half of this country will never agree with their proposals and certainly the majority of Europe will not purely because of their self-interests which will vary country to country.
Agree OFH, although I do feel that it would be mighty interesting on the UK roads if the supply of German cars were to dry up. Bmw for one has the Uk as one of its most important markets and going forward for both parties over time they will undoubtedly manage to exploit new markets its just a question of how long it will take and the cost it will incur to both economies on the short to medium term. Producing less cars for example in the short term means less labour which will affect local economies in areas that they are produced in.
Just think when we all wake up a year from today we will once again be "free"

The PM must be praying that something happens on the same day so they can bury it. Would have to be something pretty blooming big though - another Aussie cricket scandal may do it...