Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK, so Trump becomes President today, so what does that mean for Britain?

Well, we'll hear the usual waffle from both sides about the special relationship.

But with us having to forge a new path for ourselves, I'd like to see this nation stop hanging onto American coat tails and instead putting British interests first.

Trust and respect America, because they'll always be good friends, but never rely on them...

Ironically, and this is just my opinion, I think Brexit could be the reset button to form a proper relationship with Europe.

The EU won't have the awkward member i.e Britain, sulking in the corner, and for us, we'll no longer have to worry or bang on about Juncker and Merkel's 'supposed' plot for a Daily Mail style 4th Reich or whatever nonsense the Express will come up with.

With Trump and Putting not gibing two hoots for the EU or Europe, I feel there is a great chance for Britain to forge a closer partnership with Europe, and there is none of this EU baggage to spoil it...

It could be done. Should be done in my book.

Golf course Airstrip One .

 reds8n wrote:


Golf course Airstrip One .

A few years ago, there was a BBC report about native British crayfish in the Thames valley being elbowed out by American and Chinese crayfish, which were invasive species.

I thought at the time that it was a good metaphor for the future

 Ketara wrote:

But that's just us. If Europe wants the EU, they're free to have it. It's no reason to bear grudges, or even disunity.

While there are indeed some grudges in Brussels on the way the UK conducted themselves while in the EU, it's up to the UK to decide what kind of relationship she wants with the EU.

As far as the EU goes, all options are on the table.

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

But that's just us. If Europe wants the EU, they're free to have it. It's no reason to bear grudges, or even disunity.

While there are indeed some grudges in Brussels on the way the UK conducted themselves while in the EU, it's up to the UK to decide what kind of relationship she wants with the EU.

As far as the EU goes, all options are on the table.

If I was sitting in No. 10 right now, I'd be speed dialling Switzerland, Iceland, Albania, and Macedonia to try and get a united coalition for negotiating a wider European Economic Trade Agreement with the EU. If we could pull something like that, we could find that everyone ends up better off from Brexit. Make the 'two tier' system Europeans have spent so long thinking about a reality.

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

But that's just us. If Europe wants the EU, they're free to have it. It's no reason to bear grudges, or even disunity.

While there are indeed some grudges in Brussels on the way the UK conducted themselves while in the EU, it's up to the UK to decide what kind of relationship she wants with the EU.

As far as the EU goes, all options are on the table.

If I was sitting in No. 10 right now, I'd be speed dialling Switzerland, Iceland, Albania, and Macedonia to try and get a united coalition for negotiating a wider European Economic Trade Agreement with the EU. If we could pull something like that, we could find that everyone ends up better off from Brexit. Make the 'two tier' system Europeans have spent so long thinking about a reality.

Is that one of those I'd rather be a big fish on small pond thing?

Wouldn't it just be better to apply for EFTA? But then again that implies freedom of movement (both within the EFTA and EFTA-EU).

I'm not sure what would Albania or Macedonia add, they're on track to join the EU and are already receiving EU funds.

Eddie Hitler to contest Stoke By-Election

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/20/ukip-leader-paul-nuttall-to-contest-stoke-central-byelection-tristram-hunt-labour

I think this is a smart move for UKIP to go all in here, as it is definitely their sort of battleground, having voted heavily in favour of leaving.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


And this is why it's difficult to take you seriously. "Legislated theft" is a complete oxymoron. Further, your argument completely ignores the fact that money isn't made in a vacuum.

Each nation creates its own wealth from the time and effort of its workers, those workers pay taxes and a chunk of those taxes is handed to the EU, where people who aren't elected by the people of the nations involved give it to other 'members' of the group who don't have enough money according to the 'rules' - they didn't earn it, they haven't retuned a service for it and if someone takes your wealth away just because the screaming mob demand restitution between nations for no return, i don't see how that isn't theft - just because a mob agrees doesn't make it law. every civilised nation will have to concur that an unjust law is an illegal law and any deals done under said illegal laws are themselves illegal. Hitlers actions were totally legal in Germany at the time.
"legislated theft" where illegal legislation condones the seizing of a persons wealth is enforced. does that make more sense to you?

 Ketara wrote:


Whilst I don't agree with much the other chap wrote, much of this is pure fantasy. We joined the EU for a number of reasons, from our economy being in the gutters to various other ones. The EU isn't a communist organisation, the EU isn't a scam project by Germany, and there are prior agreements relating to what countries pay and when, so the theft/rape analogy is ludicrous (it would be OTT even if it were true).

What did we vote for if not for all the info in that pamphlet? the internet wasn't around then and it was all the info we had.
heres the text...


The thing is, newspapers claim that polling indicated

"issues focusing voters’ minds included economic considerations, defence, the future of Britain’s voice in international affairs; and optimism for a prosperous and peaceful future. With memories of the Second World War still relatively fresh, closer European cooperation was seen as a crucial means to avoid future conflict."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/25/britains-1975-europe-referendum-what-was-it-like-last-time
Yet the literature distributed paid a coursery mention of these things in the section
titled "if we say no"


Just to hammer my point home, check out the preface written by the then Prim Minister..

DEAR VOTER

This pamphlet is being sent by the Government to every household in Britain. We hope that it will help you to decide how to cast your vote in the coming Referendum on the European Community (Common Market).

Please read it. Please discuss it with your family and your friends.

We have tried here to answer some of the important questions you may be asking, with natural anxiety, about the historic choice that now faces all of us.

We explain why the Government, after long, hard negotiations, are recommending to the British people that we should remain a member of the European Community.

We do not pretend, and never have pretended, that we got everything we wanted in these negotiations. But we did get big and significant improvements on the previous terms.

We confidently believe that these better terms can give Britain a New Deal in Europe. A Deal that will help us, help the Commonwealth, and help our partners in Europe.

That is why we are asking you to vote in favour of remaining in the Community.

I ask you again to read and discuss this pamphlet.

I'll agree that there was a lot more at play back then than the politicians wanted to let on, but the facts the people of britain were given to consider were in that pamphlet.


On the communism point, i saw this section on https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/budget-european-union

In broad terms these adjustments make little difference to the big picture impact of the EU budget: redistribution of resource from richer to poorer member states. That is part of the purpose of the EU budget.

Redistribution of resources? isn't that one of the key points of communism?

My mention of a scam was in reference to the fact that the German economy is doing great (i'm unaware of any other member state doing as well as germany in terms of GDP and national debt) while greece and Italy don't even get to elect their own politicians.

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

But that's just us. If Europe wants the EU, they're free to have it. It's no reason to bear grudges, or even disunity.

While there are indeed some grudges in Brussels on the way the UK conducted themselves while in the EU, it's up to the UK to decide what kind of relationship she wants with the EU.

As far as the EU goes, all options are on the table.

If I was sitting in No. 10 right now, I'd be speed dialling Switzerland, Iceland, Albania, and Macedonia to try and get a united coalition for negotiating a wider European Economic Trade Agreement with the EU. If we could pull something like that, we could find that everyone ends up better off from Brexit. Make the 'two tier' system Europeans have spent so long thinking about a reality.

That sound rather like starting up another competing EU? Why leave one, to saddle ourselves with another?
Surely the whole point of this exercise is that we're supposed to be doing things on our own?

 r_squared wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

But that's just us. If Europe wants the EU, they're free to have it. It's no reason to bear grudges, or even disunity.

While there are indeed some grudges in Brussels on the way the UK conducted themselves while in the EU, it's up to the UK to decide what kind of relationship she wants with the EU.

As far as the EU goes, all options are on the table.

If I was sitting in No. 10 right now, I'd be speed dialling Switzerland, Iceland, Albania, and Macedonia to try and get a united coalition for negotiating a wider European Economic Trade Agreement with the EU. If we could pull something like that, we could find that everyone ends up better off from Brexit. Make the 'two tier' system Europeans have spent so long thinking about a reality.

That sound rather like starting up another competing EU? Why leave one, to saddle ourselves with another?
Surely the whole point of this exercise is that we're supposed to be doing things on our own?

Simple. We like the EEA. It's just the associated legislature and all the other crap that's built up that we don't tend to be so keen on, and neither are many other people. If the EU had any sense, they'd have moved to a two tier system half a decade ago, and avoided Brexit and all this discontent across the Continent to begin with.

Doesn't anyone pay attention to what Leia said to Tarkin anymore?

 Ketara wrote:

 r_squared wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

But that's just us. If Europe wants the EU, they're free to have it. It's no reason to bear grudges, or even disunity.

While there are indeed some grudges in Brussels on the way the UK conducted themselves while in the EU, it's up to the UK to decide what kind of relationship she wants with the EU.

As far as the EU goes, all options are on the table.

If I was sitting in No. 10 right now, I'd be speed dialling Switzerland, Iceland, Albania, and Macedonia to try and get a united coalition for negotiating a wider European Economic Trade Agreement with the EU. If we could pull something like that, we could find that everyone ends up better off from Brexit. Make the 'two tier' system Europeans have spent so long thinking about a reality.

That sound rather like starting up another competing EU? Why leave one, to saddle ourselves with another?
Surely the whole point of this exercise is that we're supposed to be doing things on our own?

Simple. We like the EEA. It's just the associated legislature and all the other crap that's built up that we don't tend to be so keen on, and neither are many other people. If the EU had any sense, they'd have moved to a two tier system half a decade ago, and avoided Brexit and all this discontent across the Continent to begin with.

Doesn't anyone pay attention to what Leia said to Tarkin anymore?

Unfortunately the EEA model requires freedom of movement, which apparently is a no go?

And EEA members pay into the EU pretty much the same contribution as the UK is, and have to incorporate most EU legislation without having a say in it (company law, consumer protection, etc).

You'd be getting back agriculture and fisheries though but that's a long shot from taking back control.

My mistake, that was a typo. I meant to type 'EEC'. We liked the EEC. And if a purely trade related body was re-instituted, we'd be all over it like a rash. It's the whole integration 'superpower under construction' thing we don't tend to be too keen on (elimination of borders, single currency, intra-national courts and Parliaments, etcetc).

An EU for trade is good.

A political based EU is bad, want to try and alter a law in the EU? Good luck trying to convince 3/4 of the European Parliament and 1/4 of the European Council. The reason that the EU is so beaucratic, is because that they only way anything can get passed through the massive mess that is the EU system.

I wish it had stayed as the common market or EEC. The EU was a step too far.

How on earth do you think you can get a union of countries trading in a common market (which will require common standards and practices) without it ending up a political entity?

 Ketara wrote:


You ever seen an MP's timetable? Generally speaking, in between conducting surgeries, making appearances at the House of Lords, various Committees, constituency appointments, and suchlike, they barely have time to see their families. If they're a Minister or in any other way involved, their workload quintuples beyond that. They simply don't have the physical time to formulate surveys or read extensively on every bill that comes before Parliament, there's simply far too much legislation.

Apparently though there is time to take a £200,000 job with a bank http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/george-osborne-blackrock-investments-city-job-part-time-mp-200000-plus_uk_58823345e4b0b8867de7d0e4?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics

Then there is no reason to have a parliament at all then. You may as well have Direct Democracy for everything because that means the average working professional will be better informed on everything. However I am slightly confused with the argument. On one hand we have ministers that have no time at all other than to listen to 'soundbites' and yet on the other we they do have time to read and understand the minutiae of social demographics research papers so they can come to the conclusion that the poorest are messed over by immigration and tell the rest of the word that all the UK populace doesn't like uncontrolled immigration and we'd like it better if we went to the candy store for pick'n'mix.

Usually all they're able to do is order an assistant to read it and tell them if there's anything objectionable, or follow the party line. They absorb a brief summary, and then act off of that. Certainly, they're in no way well placed to carefully consider all the legislation that goes before the house.

She may have access to figures you and I do not. She is PM, after all.

So the suggestion being that 48% of the voters, said they wanted to remain because they wanted to control immigration as the major issue? Whether she has extra information or not, I find it hard to believe she could concoct a scenario where that 48% all of a sudden became anti-immigration?

How can I be so sure? Because as I just said, that's what they're doing already. Those cheques have been written and cashed en masse. Kids are being bounced into private agencies who foist these kids off on anyone. I met one lady who said she did it for the money who had eight kids crammed into her house. There was no way she could be an effective carer for these children, but she was the only option. These agencies are paid an absolute fortune compared to state carers. So the money is being thrown at it already. And it does nothing.

It is well and good to say 'Ah, but all children must be cared for equally', but back in the real world, you have to look at resources. In the same way Britain doesn't have the resources to provide medical care for every person on the planet, regardless of the fact we're all 'human', Britain also does not have the resources to support the large numbers of immigrant children who need caring for.

You seem determined to turn this into a question of resource allocation, but the fact remains. Without the levels of immigration we have experienced, our own abused and abandoned kids in this country would not be struggling for the support they need. And I repeat, I can't provide them here (I wouldn't care to get anyone into trouble), but I do have the precise figures to hand. This isn't a case of debate. You can choose to believe me, or you can struggle to find some way to blame it all on the Tories. It makes little difference to me or the reality on the ground.

I'm not sure I really said the issues of child care was of the Tories making? This started with regards May statements on what immigration had an impact and child relocation wasn't one of them (I did say that blaming immigration for our woes was bigoted because it ignored wider economic and social issues - hence that she was pandering to a certain crowd. That the UK as a first world country has issues with child neglect of 'British' children probably shows more about how poor our society as a whole is rather than any political party. However the point still stands - A child is a child, a human that has not had a choice in life so far. There is no difference between a 'british child' and a 'foreign child'. They are all the future of the country and the race and all deserve a chance not restricted by which particular land mass they were born on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

Relevant to what? My statement was that we were one of the largest contributors (net) to the EU. Which we are. Talking about it in terms of how much more we actually make domestically is completely irrelevant to my statement. If two people donate to a charity, and the rich one donates a far larger sum than the poor one, you don't turn around and argue 'Yeah, but the fact he donated ten times as much as the other guy doesn't mean anything because it's a lower percentage of his income than what the poor guy donated'.

That's just called a social conscience. Helping those with less income to improve their lot in life so the whole community can benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There's Lithium in them thar mines!

Some much needed good news. Cornwall has apparently significant deposits of Lithium, and is thought to be the only source of that in Europe.

Note the catch though http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-38667701

"And the lithium scheme has a double layer of uncertainty: not only do they need to persuade investors they can find enough lithium, they also have to persuade them there's a cost effective way of extracting it from the water. "

There's no way to extract the element successfully from water yet.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How on earth do you think you can get a union of countries trading in a common market (which will require common standards and practices) without it ending up a political entity?

I don't know, if only there was a trade organisation that we could take ideas from. Like a world trade organisation.....

 welshhoppo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How on earth do you think you can get a union of countries trading in a common market (which will require common standards and practices) without it ending up a political entity?

I don't know, if only there was a trade organisation that we could take ideas from. Like a world trade organisation.....

Which is itself a political entity. Also, if you think the EU is bureaucratic then you should not point to the WTO as an alternative. The organisation has been trying to get the Doha Development Round going since 2001 and got absolutely nowhere until 2013 when the first agreement was reached that had the approval of all members.

The WTO isn't looking to assuming full political control of anywhere though.

 welshhoppo wrote:
An EU for trade is good.

A political based EU is bad, want to try and alter a law in the EU? Good luck trying to convince 3/4 of the European Parliament and 1/4 of the European Council. The reason that the EU is so beaucratic, is because that they only way anything can get passed through the massive mess that is the EU system.

So you are now saying the EU has no 'red tape' because if this really true then no laws would have ever been passed. What in reality happened is that they compromised to allowed all the countries to benefit or be protected by them. That naturally means that individual countries don't get what they think is the best for themselves (even to the point of being destructive to others) because that is the sort of thing that leads to trade wars and worse. Just like a wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/partner etc you make compromises that mean you might not like doing everything the other side does but they also do things you like but they might not so much and that makes the relationship stronger. The 'beat them' until they do what you want all the time is to be avoided at all costs because it only ends in tears.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I wish it had stayed as the common market or EEC. The EU was a step too far.

I actually don't agree with that. I don't think there's anything wrong with the formation of the EU in principle. It was the execution that was lacking.

For example, freedom of movent. Not necessarily an issue. If it was Britain/France/Germany only, there'd be no huge masses of people moving about, stirring up feelings (justified or not). Even if you throw Spain, Austria, Portugal and so on into the mix. But with as many countries as made it into the EU, with such a wealth disparity, in such a short period of time? That was the screwup in execution. They should have done it far more slowly.

I could make similar statements about the euro, the European Parliament, and so on, but you get my drift. The EU has just had terrible timing every step of the way, and always carried on its expansion in such a high-handed, devious fashion in its rush towards statehood, that it tried to piledrive through every obstacle and problem. It always assumed that sheer mass, inertia, and obliqueness would stop something like Brexit from happening.

So it took the gamble. And it lost. Not much else to say, really. I honestly wouldn't rate its odds of making it to 2050, at least not in the current incarnation. We may be the first, but I highly doubt we'll be the last, especially if we don't go down in flames. I suspect Poland will be next out.

Fair point. It was ok when it was comprised entirely of nations of roughly equal wealth, education, health etc. Letting the poorer nations in so quickly upset that balance. Maybe a condition of membership should have been you had to reach a level where you're a net contributor. Everyone chipping in to the pot so to speak.

And never mind the 2050s. I don't think the EU will last till the end of the decade.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The WTO isn't looking to assuming full political control of anywhere though.

And neither is the EU. Which is sensible as it is incapable of doing so due to the way it is run with each member state needing to ratify new treaties etc.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Fair point. It was ok when it was comprised entirely of nations of roughly equal wealth, education, health etc. Letting the poorer nations in so quickly upset that balance.

I don't get it. How can we object to the global elite and rich on personal and business level whilst at the same time approve of the same thing on a governmental and country level by keeping a 'rich persons' club of well off nations only?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:


And never mind the 2050s. I don't think the EU will last till the end of the decade.

I think the EU is stronger than you hope. As I've said before the UK as a bloc of nations is at greater risk. The EU are pretty undivided on the Brexit issue. The UK is on the other hand wholly divided.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
An EU for trade is good.

A political based EU is bad, want to try and alter a law in the EU? Good luck trying to convince 3/4 of the European Parliament and 1/4 of the European Council. The reason that the EU is so beaucratic, is because that they only way anything can get passed through the massive mess that is the EU system.

So you are now saying the EU has no 'red tape' because if this really true then no laws would have ever been passed. What in reality happened is that they compromised to allowed all the countries to benefit or be protected by them. That naturally means that individual countries don't get what they think is the best for themselves (even to the point of being destructive to others) because that is the sort of thing that leads to trade wars and worse. Just like a wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/partner etc you make compromises that mean you might not like doing everything the other side does but they also do things you like but they might not so much and that makes the relationship stronger. The 'beat them' until they do what you want all the time is to be avoided at all costs because it only ends in tears.

Wa? The EU is drowning in red tape, it has so much red tape you could build the Titanic out of it and then sink it in the sea of red tape you have left over.

Except, that system doesn't work. This isn't like comprimising with a family member, this is getting 28 different nations which have never been involved with each other before throwing them into a room with a locked door and then asking them to get out of it. It is different for the USA (which the EU really wants to become.) Because they have been building their government for over 200 years and it started off small and was able to grown along with it. But when was the last time the constitution was amended? It was a very long time ago because you can't even get the same country to agree on the same thing for too long. Half the countries in the EU are less than a Century old, several of them have people living in them who probably fondly remember the old ways and how they were better. And as a general rule of thumb, Europe doesn't get along that well with each other, you have people from hundreds of backgrounds trying to get along, and it doesn't work.

What also doesn't work is the massive difference between the larger European Countries and the smaller ones, what works in Germany won't work in Greece. Italy is teetering on the edge of collapse because it has no money, Greece actually collapse last year. I think only 1 country actually hit the debt budget required to be in the EU last year, they have had to turn a blind eye to everyone else. The entire system is a shambles, it has failed to deal with the Refugee Crisis and it couldn't even help out in the Ukraine, Russia had to come in and do something. Syria is on our doorstep and we couldn't even help them out, we can't even get Turkey, who wanted to join Europe, to stop repeatedly breaking the convention of Human Rights.

Forgive me for ranting. But the EU doesn't work, it is kept afloat merely because the people running it do not want it to stop, even at the cost of Europe.

 Ketara wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I wish it had stayed as the common market or EEC. The EU was a step too far.

I actually don't agree with that. I don't think there's anything wrong with the formation of the EU in principle. It was the execution that was lacking.

For example, freedom of movent. Not necessarily an issue. If it was Britain/France/Germany only, there'd be no huge masses of people moving about, stirring up feelings (justified or not). Even if you throw Spain, Austria, Portugal and so on into the mix. But with as many countries as made it into the EU, with such a wealth disparity, in such a short period of time? That was the screwup in execution. They should have done it far more slowly.

Do you realise it was actually the UK pushing for the 2004 enlargement while France and Germany were against?

That the UK signed up quite a few of the smaller EU countries and pushed their idea of getting the EU to the gates of Moscow no matter the consequences against the likes of France and Germany?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Fair point. It was ok when it was comprised entirely of nations of roughly equal wealth, education, health etc. Letting the poorer nations in so quickly upset that balance. Maybe a condition of membership should have been you had to reach a level where you're a net contributor. Everyone chipping in to the pot so to speak.

And never mind the 2050s. I don't think the EU will last till the end of the decade.

I think what finished it was the deviousness and the constant feeling as if nothing we said or did made a difference to the elite in Brussels. It's been apparent for quite some time now that the current incarnation of the EU was vastly unpopular, and not just here. But the EU is not alone in that. We helped push for expanding Eastward, and Blair did his best to force through Lisbon before anyone could even finish reading the title of the legislation. Our own politicians have been complicit, a fact oft forgotten. That in turn ties in with the isolation of the political class and their alliance with the rich elite in this day and age. Everything is interconnected.

If perhaps there'd been an EU wide referendum every time a new country was admitted instead of it being a purely bureaucratic procedure, if perhaps there were two or three tiers of membership so countries could adjust according to public will instead of restrained to in/out, if perhaps the Commission was less secretive and powerful, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. There were signs for all to see, and plenty of time for reform, but nobody in Europe took it. None of them are taking it now, despite many grandiose speeches in the EU Parliament about how they need to. We'll see if any take it in the future.

If the European Project does die, that inflexibility will be the reason why.

EDIT:-

jouso wrote:


Do you realise it was actually the UK pushing for the 2004 enlargement while France and Germany were against?

That the UK signed up quite a few of the smaller EU countries and pushed their idea of getting the EU to the gates of Moscow no matter the consequences against the likes of France and Germany?

I guess Brexit is easier to accept than that one is on us.

You posted before I did, and I actually addressed that point above, curiously.

If you want to be taken seriously, please try engaging with me in a friendly and respectful fashion instead of continuously just tossing off one liners at me like 'I guess Brexit is easier to accept than that one is on us'. This is about the third time now, and whilst I'm sure it makes you feel more righteous, it's somewhat tiresome for me and hardly conducive to friendly debate on a nerd forum about toy soldiers.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
OK, so Trump becomes President today, so what does that mean for Britain?

Well, we'll hear the usual waffle from both sides about the special relationship.

But with us having to forge a new path for ourselves, I'd like to see this nation stop hanging onto American coat tails and instead putting British interests first.

Trust and respect America, because they'll always be good friends, but never rely on them...

Ironically, and this is just my opinion, I think Brexit could be the reset button to form a proper relationship with Europe.

The EU won't have the awkward member i.e Britain, sulking in the corner, and for us, we'll no longer have to worry or bang on about Juncker and Merkel's 'supposed' plot for a Daily Mail style 4th Reich or whatever nonsense the Express will come up with.

With Trump and Putting not gibing two hoots for the EU or Europe, I feel there is a great chance for Britain to forge a closer partnership with Europe, and there is none of this EU baggage to spoil it...

It could be done. Should be done in my book.

I think you're going to be unpleasantly disappointed. Trump, as has been seen, only respects strength. He is a bully as a negotiator, and has just stated, I paraphrase, "America First in everything", and issued a "warning" to the halls of power for all foreign governments.
Any deal that is beneficial to us is likely to be a lucky byproduct of his antipathy towards the EU, and Germany.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21715025-haggis-aside-benefits-would-be-limited-britain-shouldnt-get-too-excited-prospect

Britain, whose economy is one-sixth the size of America’s, would have little bargaining power.

American negotiators could, for instance, target Britain’s insurance market, extracting an agreement to lower non-tariff barriers and in so doing cutting that prized trade surplus. Britain’s public-procurement market might also be of interest, in which case expect headlines about American health-care firms snapping up National Health Service contracts.

I think any quick deal is likely to be leapt upon by the Tory govt like a pack of starving hyenas but will be a two edged sword. Poltically a win for the Tories, determined to show the UK and the World that we can make quick deals, but likely to end up with us selling out some of our institutions. American business are positively salivating about a chance to get their teeth into the NHS, and the Tories won't mind selling it out to them.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
An EU for trade is good.

A political based EU is bad, want to try and alter a law in the EU? Good luck trying to convince 3/4 of the European Parliament and 1/4 of the European Council. The reason that the EU is so beaucratic, is because that they only way anything can get passed through the massive mess that is the EU system.

So you are now saying the EU has no 'red tape' because if this really true then no laws would have ever been passed. What in reality happened is that they compromised to allowed all the countries to benefit or be protected by them. That naturally means that individual countries don't get what they think is the best for themselves (even to the point of being destructive to others) because that is the sort of thing that leads to trade wars and worse. Just like a wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/partner etc you make compromises that mean you might not like doing everything the other side does but they also do things you like but they might not so much and that makes the relationship stronger. The 'beat them' until they do what you want all the time is to be avoided at all costs because it only ends in tears.

Wa? The EU is drowning in red tape, it has so much red tape you could build the Titanic out of it and then sink it in the sea of red tape you have left over.

Which hence then doesn't make sense relative to your statement that no laws can get passed, because if that is true then, well no laws would have been passed, and there would be no red tape. You are arguing points to suit the cause rather than using points to propose a theory.

Except, that system doesn't work. This isn't like comprimising with a family member, this is getting 28 different nations which have never been involved with each other before throwing them into a room with a locked door and then asking them to get out of it.

Think of it as an extended family them with brothers, their wives, and so on if you want a larger analogy. You still don't go round beating on them to get your own way.

It is different for the USA (which the EU really wants to become.) Because they have been building their government for over 200 years and it started off small and was able to grown along with it. But when was the last time the constitution was amended? It was a very long time ago because you can't even get the same country to agree on the same thing for too long.

1992, the 27th amendment which isn't that long ago (though I'm 38 so for 18 year olds maybe...)

Half the countries in the EU are less than a Century old, several of them have people living in them who probably fondly remember the old ways and how they were better. And as a general rule of thumb, Europe doesn't get along that well with each other, you have people from hundreds of backgrounds trying to get along, and it doesn't work.

You are a bit out, it's closer to 25% are younger than 100 years old. And just because there have been squabbles in the past doesn't mean they can't now work together!

100 or more - Austria, Belgium,Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia (birthday is this year I think), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxenbourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, UK
Under 100 - Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Lativa (just birthday next year), Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia,

Italy is teetering on the edge of collapse because it has no money, Greece actually collapse last year. I think only 1 country actually hit the debt budget required to be in the EU last year, they have had to turn a blind eye to everyone else. The entire system is a shambles, it has failed to deal with the Refugee Crisis and it couldn't even help out in the Ukraine, Russia had to come in and do something. Syria is on our doorstep and we couldn't even help them out, we can't even get Turkey, who wanted to join Europe, to stop repeatedly breaking the convention of Human Rights.

Italy's banks are in crisis, not the Country itself. Greece messed itself up by hiring bankers to undertake some imaginative work on it's finances so it could get let into the EU and then continued as before rather than trying to improve the systems it had in place. The debt budget requirements only came out after a) the UK nearly went bust and b) suddenly realising that several countries were hiding debts under the mattress. But it's only a new change and these changes need decades to implement. It's the principle that they are working towards is being achieved though. The refugee crisis is as the name suggests a crisis. It wasn't expected (who would expect the UK and the US to try and destabilise the country - oh wait scratch that, it should have been predicted as that is what the UK and US like to do). Are you saying Russia's invasion of crimea is justified then, the provision of equipment and the shooting down of MH17? Would you propose that Europe should have invaded Ukraine to 'stabilise' the region? What would you propose they do with Turkey?

But the EU doesn't work, it is kept afloat merely because the people running it do not want it to stop, even at the cost of Europe.

The EU does work, you just don't want to see it. It's easy to pick and choose things that aren't going perfectly as evidence whilst ignoring all the things that do work. That's just called selective bias.

 r_squared wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
OK, so Trump becomes President today, so what does that mean for Britain?

Well, we'll hear the usual waffle from both sides about the special relationship.

But with us having to forge a new path for ourselves, I'd like to see this nation stop hanging onto American coat tails and instead putting British interests first.

Trust and respect America, because they'll always be good friends, but never rely on them...

Ironically, and this is just my opinion, I think Brexit could be the reset button to form a proper relationship with Europe.

The EU won't have the awkward member i.e Britain, sulking in the corner, and for us, we'll no longer have to worry or bang on about Juncker and Merkel's 'supposed' plot for a Daily Mail style 4th Reich or whatever nonsense the Express will come up with.

With Trump and Putting not gibing two hoots for the EU or Europe, I feel there is a great chance for Britain to forge a closer partnership with Europe, and there is none of this EU baggage to spoil it...

It could be done. Should be done in my book.

I think you're going to be unpleasantly disappointed. Trump, as has been seen, only respects strength. He is a bully as a negotiator, and has just stated, I paraphrase, "America First in everything", and issued a "warning" to the halls of power for all foreign governments.
Any deal that is beneficial to us is likely to be a lucky byproduct of his antipathy towards the EU, and Germany.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21715025-haggis-aside-benefits-would-be-limited-britain-shouldnt-get-too-excited-prospect

Britain, whose economy is one-sixth the size of America’s, would have little bargaining power.

American negotiators could, for instance, target Britain’s insurance market, extracting an agreement to lower non-tariff barriers and in so doing cutting that prized trade surplus. Britain’s public-procurement market might also be of interest, in which case expect headlines about American health-care firms snapping up National Health Service contracts.

I think any quick deal is likely to be leapt upon by the Tory govt like a pack of starving hyenas but will be a two edged sword. Poltically a win for the Tories, determined to show the UK and the World that we can make quick deals, but likely to end up with us selling out some of our institutions. American business are positively salivating about a chance to get their teeth into the NHS, and the Tories won't mind selling it out to them.

Still a golden opportunity to reforge a new relationship with the EU, but alas, with Bojo the clown leading the charge, it's not likely to happen.