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.
A few more years of uboat attacks and we would have had no choice but to capitulate. It was Hitler's (and Japans mistake to attack Pearl Harbour too early) decision to open two fronts that cost them the war. A few more years of being patient and the economical/industrial/military would have been so much more powerful we wouldn't have been able to win and they would have controlled a significant fraction of Europe and Asia. That would have closed off one front (US wouldn't have had a base to start from). The UK got lucky, rather than win.
I disagree Churchill would never let Britain surrender and in fact by 1943 the German Uboats had lost the war at Sea. Defeated by navy radar, convoy formations and radar bombing attacks. Yes they were still effective, just not effective enough to bring Britain grinding to a halt. Hitler wasn't consulted before the Japs attacked Pearl Harbour, which was a failed mission because the main targets weren't there i.e aircraft carriers and the more modern warships. Hitler's decision to open a two front war was his demise. Up till the end of Stalingrad in 43, Germany was still trying to run a civilian economy, were as in the UK we were continually mass producing for war. That was one reason why the Luftwaffe lost the battle of Britain, the workers weren't producing enough aircraft replacements on pre war hours. Yes we got lucky, but we would still have won, so long as Russia kept them busy.
We didn't rebuild Germany. If anything it was the complete opposite; we spent the first 5-10 years dismantling German industry and taking home the spoils and turn the country into a pastoral/light industry nation (this changed due to the cold war).
Well the Royal Engineers rebuilt the automotive industry by rebuilding car factories. We even let them keep the Volkswagen beetle – the second best selling car in history! I think that was a big mistake by the then British car manufacturers.
Strictly speaking last time we had a democratic right to affect the EU was with the Lisbon Treaty wasn't it? Just because it wasn't direct democracy doesn't mean we didn't have a say (as we still voted for the Parliament that voted on the issue).
Hmmm… coming from the person who previously argued for proportional representation as the current system doesn’t give a good representation of the peoples votes per party. I’m sure if Cameron chose to just let parliament vote on Brexit and the result was ‘we are out’, you would be waving your arms around even more about the lack of direct democracy.
I've never quite understood this sentiment. Cherry-picking is literally the basis of all trade agreements from the major to the minor. I want your Charizard, you want my Ltd Edition Pikachu, so we trade cards. Y'know?
Or on a more macro level, I want to the right to export financial services into your country, and you want tariffs on agricutural products removed. So we make a deal to do that. The more stuff there is to talk about, the bigger the deal gets. But there's no reason two parties can't both cherry pick what they want from the other. If one side regards a point as inviolable, you either strike it from the negotiations and move on, or up your counter-offer to try and sweeten the pot. Only an idiot throws the pot over the side of a bridge and screams 'THERE CAN BE NO DEAL!' if there's still other things both sides want and can negotiate over.
This didn't really start with a reference to just trade deals though. It was more on the rights of EU citizens to stay in the country (and UK citizens to stay in the EU). The UK is the one leaving so has to approach the table with what it would like. There have been comments that this has been offered from the UK but without the full deal the EU doesn't really know what this means (for example they could come back and say we offer EU citizens already here with various 'but's' attached). As you've pointed out there will be trade deals but it's not going to be "we want free trade for everything but don't want free movement" or "we want to be part of the EU science community but don't want free movement" for the UK because the EU wants to protect it's own citizens (that now excludes the UK) so it might decide that agricultural taxes are the way to go. This discussion came about because someone commented that the EU are telling the UK that it won't get the same type of benefits, which as you've pointed out is correct. Whatever agreement comes later will be less than we have now because both parties want different things and there will be sacrifices as part of any trade deal. It could for example be no tax on jam and biscuits whilst we don't put import duties on cakes and handbags. However there might not be any agreement over cars and both sides tax the other; that's not the EU threatening the UK just as you've pointed out reality, but they are correct it is worse than we have now.
I'm actually uncertain now of what you're asserting. Is this counter-scenario one where Russia and America both literally never went to war with Germany? Because even in that hypothetical, Germany couldn't have particularly increased U-boat production in '41 above what they did, and by '42 U-boats were gradually being made less and less effective by newer tech. We would never have starved. Given the drubbing the Luftwaffe took over the Battle of Britain, it is doubtful that campaign could have renewed with sufficient ferocity to dominate the British skies, and Sea Lion was a logistical impossibility regardless of Russia/the US.
The likely outcome of the US and Russia not getting militarily involved when they did is a stalemate through 41-43 followed by a peace treaty which more or less confirmed the status quo bar some minor territorial points.
This started because Sentinel1 stated that we (being the UK) won the war and my view was that it was the intervention of the Soviet Union and US that won the war. That in some ways we got 'lucky' because of their intervention as without them the best we could have hoped for was an agreement to stop fighting. So you are confirming what I said in that it wasn't the UK's direct intervention that won the war. It's also not just about resources though, it's military command divided between two fronts and so on. You never want to fight on two fronts if you can help it, but I wasn't hypothetically postulating that Germany would have ever try to invade (too costly), more that they could have starved us to the point where we were irrelevant in a similar manner that the allied bombing campaign wore out Germanys production.
I disagree Churchill would never let Britain surrender and in fact by 1943 the German Uboats had lost the war at Sea. Defeated by navy radar, convoy formations and radar bombing attacks. Yes they were still effective, just not effective enough to bring Britain grinding to a halt. Hitler wasn't consulted before the Japs attacked Pearl Harbour, which was a failed mission because the main targets weren't there i.e aircraft carriers and the more modern warships. Hitler's decision to open a two front war was his demise. Up till the end of Stalingrad in 43, Germany was still trying to run a civilian economy, were as in the UK we were continually mass producing for war. That was one reason why the Luftwaffe lost the battle of Britain, the workers weren't producing enough aircraft replacements on pre war hours. Yes we got lucky, but we would still have won, so long as Russia kept them busy.
1943 (you need to go back to the end of 1941 to compare the uboat situation then) was way past the point the US joined the war though and your last statement confirms what I was trying to point out. That the UK didn't win the war. It was the intervention of the US and Soviet Union that won it. We were 'hanging on' at best.
Well the Royal Engineers rebuilt the automotive industry by rebuilding car factories. We even let them keep the Volkswagen beetle – the second best selling car in history! I think that was a big mistake by the then British car manufacturers.
Yes very magnanimous of us not to steal their ideas and keep it for ourselves whilst we as the looted victors swiped anything else that was of value...
Hmmm… coming from the person who previously argued for proportional representation as the current system doesn’t give a good representation of the peoples votes per party. I’m sure if Cameron chose to just let parliament vote on Brexit and the result was ‘we are out’, you would be waving your arms around even more about the lack of direct democracy.
You know proportional representation isn't the same as direct democracy right? Direct democracy is when we vote on everything ourselves as a population. We have a parliamentary system and currently that is voted for by the population using FPTP, whereas proportional representation gives a more representative sample of voters preferences by party - but, and importantly, it is still voting for some to represent us in parliament. The Lisbon treaty was voted by parliament as our representatives; it is our votes that determine the make up of the representatives. Therefore indirectly we had a say on the treaty because it was perfectly within our remit to vote in eurosceptics only - but we didn't. The same would apply if DC had let parliament (where by FPTP or PR) have the vote as that is the type of democracy we have. If they voted leave then that is the democratic process we have in place. That doesn't mean I wouldn't tell them I thought it was idiotic - but we still had the choice as to who to put in as our MP.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/18 17:17:03
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
This didn't really start with a reference to just trade deals though.
I'll be honest, I was referring to the 'cherry picking' comment as is more commonly replicated across the media and the normal perception of what it entails than any forum specific definition.
This started because Sentinel1 stated that we (being the UK) won the war and my view was that it was the intervention of the Soviet Union and US that won the war.
Sure. Although it is debatable if the USA could have 'won' the war either without us or the Soviets onside. The Soviets are the only ones you could say could have done it solo, I think.
more that they could have starved us to the point where we were irrelevant
This is the point I'm still going to niggle at, I'm afraid. They couldn't have starved us, they didn't have the means even without the Soviets. It may not have appeared that way at the time, but we have the benefit of knowing the German side of the coin here in the future. They didn't have the construction facilities in '41 to even begin to outbuild Britain. And as said, even if we assume they scale it up over '42 and '43 (along with appropriate training schools, etc), the technological advance would likely have rendered U-boat warfare insufficient for meeting the goal of starving Britain out, or even of damaging its war machine particularly.
But yes, we would have had considerable issues with doing any lasting damage back to Hitler. I suspect his forces would have ground to a halt somewhere in Africa and we'd have held the front line there, but we would otherwise have just both been resorting to lobbing missiles and bombs at each other.
An interesting point of speculation would be that if the US does not join the war, it is possible the British would have independently developed the atomic bomb, we had sufficient people looking into it (whereas Hitler did not). If that had happened before the end of the conflict, it is likely that that event in turn would have ended it on Britain's terms.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/18 18:46:20
Mr. Burning wrote: The Greeks are in a situation which is also of the EU's devising.
That's not correct. Greece deliberately misled the EU on the state of it's finances. If it had been upfront it wouldn't have been allowed in the EU until it resolved these issue and that would not have resulted in the present day predicament. Instead they chose, with the help of some banks, to fudge the books. And even when they did join the EU they didn't actively try and resolve the situation. Greece desperately wanted to join the EU and did it's utmost to ensure that happened. However by not recognising the long term issues to resolve the problems it also failed to recognise the what might happen in the worst case scenario.
The one size fits all policy regarding finance and banking is detrimental to countries such as Greece. Italy sits on the cliff edge. Portugal and Spain are or have been close.
Italy's banks sit on a cliff edge, just like ours did 7 years past. Italy itself has a strong economy. The issue is that bailing out the banks would see Italy rack up a huge debt (just like we did)
The EU would be in a strong position had it decided to create a structure to absorb member states toxic assets. It decided that, for example, money into Greece should come straight out in the form of interest on their accumulated debts.
That doesn't really work though as it does not encourage countries to be responsible in their spending if they know that every time it goes wrong their asset will be absorbed. There is still a requirement for each country to be fiscally responsible if they know the debt is theirs to pay back.
IN addition to servicing debts forever, Greece is told to become competitive.....
That's because it needs to be. As an example in some such countries they will employ someone to do a specific job, for example at the airport there may be a someone that loads or unloads a plane of the luggage, someone that taxi's in the planes and so on. The disadvantage is for the majority of the time these people aren't doing anything; they only need to work when there is luggage to unload, a plane to taxi in and so on. This isn't an effective way of working for any country. Instead it needs to maximise the use of its staff so they are fully utilised. So one person does the taxi, handles the luggage and so on. Only at locations that are very busy is it viable to have one person doing separate tasks. This is what is meant by being more competitive. The disadvantage is that more people are out of jobs because you need less to undertake all of the duties. This is where you need a sensible government to try and develop industries/businesses and so on rather than artificially create jobs which for a significant part of the day don't do anything, this just isn't efficient.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll be honest, I was referring to the 'cherry picking' comment as is more commonly replicated across the media and the normal perception of what it entails than any forum specific definition.
That's fine, it's a forum and the conversations can stretch over a few pages so joining half way through can get things muddled.
Sure. Although it is debatable if the USA could have 'won' the war either without us or the Soviets onside. The Soviets are the only ones you could say could have done it solo, I think.
Yeah I don't think the US would could have won on it's own. I don't think the Soviets would have won without the resources provided by the US and the US would have needed to have find another base of operations to start the invasion from if the UK wasn't around. They all added to the factors that brought down Hitlers regime. I just think that a divide and conquer strategy would have made things a whole lot more dicey.
An interesting point of speculation would be that if the US does not join the war, it is possible the British would have independently developed the atomic bomb, we had sufficient people looking into it (whereas Hitler did not). If that had happened before the end of the conflict, it is likely that that event in turn would have ended it on Britain's terms.
I think we can agree on this one, whoever got to the atomic bomb first would have won the war. Germany did start to work on the concept but 30's rhetoric had resulted in many scientists/engineers realising what was going on and got out of Dodge City. A lot of those that did remain were then conscripted into the army not making use of skills effectively. As such you ended up with a limited pool of talent and hence they (fortunately) failed to recognise the potential importance. I suppose there is a lesson here - scientists/engineers don't wait for things to go down the pan, they get out before it does!
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/18 19:20:00
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: At a time when European leaders are taking a hard-line and talking about punishing Britain and making us pay for daring to leave to make an example of us, taking the 'moral high ground' is naive and foolish. Why should we?
Because it's the right thing to do? These are real people, with real lives, not bargaining chips to make you feel better.
I don't want any expulsions of EU citizens, they came here legally and should have every right to remain here. They should be offered British citizenship, and/of indefinite leave to remain here on some sort of visa.
We agree on this at least.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: But ultimately I care more about British citizens, my own countrymen, the people whose interests our Government is suposed to serve first and foremost. If the EU begins expelling British expats and workers en masse, we need to show them that we're capable of being just as ruthless.
3) Moral high ground for us means that EU politicians pretty much have to respond by guaranteeing UK citizens' rights in the UK too. Because nobody wants to look more evil than May.
That's putting a lot of faith in EU leaders. A faith I do not share. Say we do guarantee the rights of EU citizens, but the EU flat out refuses to reciprocate? What then?
And I don't think the EU cares about looking evil. Just take what they're doing to Greece for instance. They care more about preserving the European Project, than they do about protecting EU and British workers. Theyd quite happily sell out all the EU workers in Britain if they thought by making an example of us they could preserve the EU and deter other countries from leaving.
Whatever.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
If you're asking about May promising to do a quid pro quo, she announced it a while back, I remember reading it. She essentially said that she was happy to guarantee EU citizens settlement rights the minute the EU offered them back. She also specified that it didn't even have to be part of the negotiations, she was willing to agree it that week.
Mr. Burning wrote: The Greeks are in a situation which is also of the EU's devising.
That's not correct. Greece deliberately misled the EU on the state of it's finances. If it had been upfront it wouldn't have been allowed in the EU until it resolved these issue and that would not have resulted in the present day predicament. Instead they chose, with the help of some banks, to fudge the books. And even when they did join the EU they didn't actively try and resolve the situation. Greece desperately wanted to join the EU and did it's utmost to ensure that happened. However by not recognising the long term issues to resolve the problems it also failed to recognise the what might happen in the worst case scenario.
The one size fits all policy regarding finance and banking is detrimental to countries such as Greece. Italy sits on the cliff edge. Portugal and Spain are or have been close.
Italy's banks sit on a cliff edge, just like ours did 7 years past. Italy itself has a strong economy. The issue is that bailing out the banks would see Italy rack up a huge debt (just like we did)
The EU would be in a strong position had it decided to create a structure to absorb member states toxic assets. It decided that, for example, money into Greece should come straight out in the form of interest on their accumulated debts.
That doesn't really work though as it does not encourage countries to be responsible in their spending if they know that every time it goes wrong their asset will be absorbed. There is still a requirement for each country to be fiscally responsible if they know the debt is theirs to pay back.
IN addition to servicing debts forever, Greece is told to become competitive.....
That's because it needs to be. As an example in some such countries they will employ someone to do a specific job, for example at the airport there may be a someone that loads or unloads a plane of the luggage, someone that taxi's in the planes and so on. The disadvantage is for the majority of the time these people aren't doing anything; they only need to work when there is luggage to unload, a plane to taxi in and so on. This isn't an effective way of working for any country. Instead it needs to maximise the use of its staff so they are fully utilised. So one person does the taxi, handles the luggage and so on. Only at locations that are very busy is it viable to have one person doing separate tasks. This is what is meant by being more competitive. The disadvantage is that more people are out of jobs because you need less to undertake all of the duties. This is where you need a sensible government to try and develop industries/businesses and so on rather than artificially create jobs which for a significant part of the day don't do anything, this just isn't efficient.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll be honest, I was referring to the 'cherry picking' comment as is more commonly replicated across the media and the normal perception of what it entails than any forum specific definition.
That's fine, it's a forum and the conversations can stretch over a few pages so joining half way through can get things muddled.
Sure. Although it is debatable if the USA could have 'won' the war either without us or the Soviets onside. The Soviets are the only ones you could say could have done it solo, I think.
Yeah I don't think the US would could have won on it's own. I don't think the Soviets would have won without the resources provided by the US and the US would have needed to have find another base of operations to start the invasion from if the UK wasn't around. They all added to the factors that brought down Hitlers regime. I just think that a divide and conquer strategy would have made things a whole lot more dicey.
An interesting point of speculation would be that if the US does not join the war, it is possible the British would have independently developed the atomic bomb, we had sufficient people looking into it (whereas Hitler did not). If that had happened before the end of the conflict, it is likely that that event in turn would have ended it on Britain's terms.
I think we can agree on this one, whoever got to the atomic bomb first would have won the war. Germany did start to work on the concept but 30's rhetoric had resulted in many scientists/engineers realising what was going on and got out of Dodge City. A lot of those that did remain were then conscripted into the army not making use of skills effectively. As such you ended up with a limited pool of talent and hence they (fortunately) failed to recognise the potential importance. I suppose there is a lesson here - scientists/engineers don't wait for things to go down the pan, they get out before it does!
So the leaders of the EU, with their branches dedicated to ensuring that prospective members were stable, who would have enough contacts to see if anything was improper did not know that Greece, an economy run at best as the plaything of a generation of dictators, where financial abuses were rife had no idea that the Greek economy wasn't suitable to be part of the single currency?
Did the EU throw Greece out for their deception and financial mismanagement once discovered?
So the leaders of the EU, with their branches dedicated to ensuring that prospective members were stable, who would have enough contacts to see if anything was improper did not know that Greece, an economy run at best as the plaything of a generation of dictators, where financial abuses were rife had no idea that the Greek economy wasn't suitable to be part of the single currency?
Did the EU throw Greece out for their deception and financial mismanagement once discovered?
My understanding, and I will admit that it gets sketchy at this point is that they met the requirements of EU membership because of the 'assistance' by the banks. At the time the EU didn't request that they were kept up to date on each countries finances and allowed each country to get on with it (on the assumption general fiscal responsibility came with the job - which was perhaps the biggest mistake they made). Following the financial collapse and the Greece issue coming to light they implemented a system where members had to work towards certain fiscal responsibility (at which points other countries were suddenly highlighted as being a bit on the dodgy side financially). There's a bit of irony that some Leavers pointed to the financial requirements of the EU as federalistic whereas some point to the Greece issue as a failing of the EU, yet the first was to avoid another collapse as much as possible and the second was due to some iffy financial manoeuvring.
As for kicking them out, I suppose being the 'dictatorship' that the EU is rather than potentially screw over the people that lived there, they allowed them to make their own choice through democratic elections. They then took the option of the bitter pill. If of course they had forced Greece out then I can imagine now we would be arguing how dictatorial the EU was by not giving them any choice and how they only cared about 'viable' countries....
If you're asking about May promising to do a quid pro quo, she announced it a while back, I remember reading it. She essentially said that she was happy to guarantee EU citizens settlement rights the minute the EU offered them back. She also specified that it didn't even have to be part of the negotiations, she was willing to agree it that week.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/18 21:22:41
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
If you're asking about May promising to do a quid pro quo, she announced it a while back, I remember reading it. She essentially said that she was happy to guarantee EU citizens settlement rights the minute the EU offered them back. She also specified that it didn't even have to be part of the negotiations, she was willing to agree it that week.
I've got no problem with what May has said, I was actually after the EU threats to deport UK citizens out of spite. I couldn't find any examples, so wondered what he was on about.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Although I support the idea of all EU residents currently over here getting unlimited right to remain (and UK citizens over here getting the same) its actually strongly beneficial for Britain that this happens
Most of the EU citizens in Britain at the moment are relatively young, economically active people that benefit us
Most of the UK citizens in Europe are older and less economically active (often retired) who will cost us a bunch of extra cash if they return
If you're asking about May promising to do a quid pro quo, she announced it a while back, I remember reading it. She essentially said that she was happy to guarantee EU citizens settlement rights the minute the EU offered them back. She also specified that it didn't even have to be part of the negotiations, she was willing to agree it that week.
I've got no problem with what May has said, I was actually after the EU threats to deport UK citizens out of spite. I couldn't find any examples, so wondered what he was on about.
Ah, I see. My apologies. I can't say I've read anything along those lines myself.
I think it interesting though, that the EU has not only not taken May up on her offer, but they haven't exactly jumped to offer British citizens residency either. Whilst I might think May should have done it anyway, she's actually two steps ahead of the EU on this one. At least she's trying. It's mildly despicable that the supposedly liberal EU would rather leave everyone hanging and make no proposals whatsoever. If anyone here is really using the citizens as a bargaining chip, it is them.
Well, if the EU are not going to do it, we should. We certainly need the EU workers that are here, and we should be making them welcome, and encouraging immigration from all corners of the globe. We need young, healthy workers far more than ex-pat retirees.
Healthy immigration is essential to our economy, and all this rubbish is discouraging workers from chosing the UK as a destination to come to live, work and raise a family.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
r_squared wrote: Well, if the EU are not going to do it, we should. We certainly need the EU workers that are here, and we should be making them welcome, and encouraging immigration from all corners of the globe. We need young, healthy workers far more than ex-pat retirees.
Healthy immigration is essential to our economy, and all this rubbish is discouraging workers from chosing the UK as a destination to come to live, work and raise a family.
Also make it look bad on EU not ensuring rights.
Gives a advantage when your offering somthibf that others are not.
Its Chess. Play a move so they have to react.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
I think it interesting though, that the EU has not only not taken May up on her offer, but they haven't exactly jumped to offer British citizens residency either. Whilst I might think May should have done it anyway, she's actually two steps ahead of the EU on this one. At least she's trying. It's mildly despicable that the supposedly liberal EU would rather leave everyone hanging and make no proposals whatsoever. If anyone here is really using the citizens as a bargaining chip, it is them.
In reality they probably can't at this stage. Firstly it requires all member states to agree (people can negotiate on their behalf but it still has to be agreed) and secondly they probably have to ensure it is legal within the constitution as I've pointed out before the EU works on giving everyone the same rights regardless of who they are in terms of free movement. Freedom of movement for some, which this effectively is could well be challenged. The same issue is going to apply for the Ireland and NI border (and I think Ireland know this which is why they are investigating what would be needed to install check points).
However, despite May's assurances the UK had the opportunity to write it into the A50 legislation and voted against it (I'm not sure whether May voted for or against this change, which would be interesting to know given she is supportive apparently of the idea). Even if she did it does raise doubt in the EU whether the country actually means it.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
In reality they probably can't at this stage. Firstly it requires all member states to agree (people can negotiate on their behalf but it still has to be agreed) and secondly they probably have to ensure it is legal within the constitution as I've pointed out before the EU works on giving everyone the same rights regardless of who they are in terms of free movement.
It could be done quite simply. Every national government gets together and issues a statement that regardless of negotiations, right to residency within their countries will be issued to British citizens at the time of British EU departure who meet the criteria. It only needs to be approved formally by all 27 states if it's going to be codified into EU law. There's nothing whatsoever preventing all 27 Foreign Affairs ministers getting on the wire over the space of a day and issuing a joint statement of intent. It's their police that do deportations after all, the EU doesn't handle that end of things. If the national government all declare that Brits won't be deported, than Brits won't be deported. It's as simple as that, regardless of whatever the Eurocrats in Brussels might think.
There is nothing whatsoever stopping the individual member states from doing it in the name of decency. But they haven't. They're holding off because they DO intend to use it as a bargaining chip.
I'm of the opinion we should issue right to residency anyway, because it is the decent thing to do, it would be an economically advantageous thing to do, it would be an excellent positive press opportunity, and a sop to the Remain camp. But the truth remains that our government is still one step morally ahead of our European counterparts on this issue.
And....well, that says something, I think. What it is, I couldn't put my finger on. But something.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/19 00:10:18
I think it interesting though, that the EU has not only not taken May up on her offer, but they haven't exactly jumped to offer British citizens residency either. Whilst I might think May should have done it anyway, she's actually two steps ahead of the EU on this one. At least she's trying. It's mildly despicable that the supposedly liberal EU would rather leave everyone hanging and make no proposals whatsoever. If anyone here is really using the citizens as a bargaining chip, it is them.
In reality they probably can't at this stage. Firstly it requires all member states to agree (people can negotiate on their behalf but it still has to be agreed) and secondly they probably have to ensure it is legal within the constitution as I've pointed out before the EU works on giving everyone the same rights regardless of who they are in terms of free movement. Freedom of movement for some, which this effectively is could well be challenged. The same issue is going to apply for the Ireland and NI border (and I think Ireland know this which is why they are investigating what would be needed to install check points).
However, despite May's assurances the UK had the opportunity to write it into the A50 legislation and voted against it (I'm not sure whether May voted for or against this change, which would be interesting to know given she is supportive apparently of the idea). Even if she did it does raise doubt in the EU whether the country actually means it.
So when May makes positive statements towards mutual rights between the EU and the UK your response is to assume ill intent and duplicity? Furthermore it's too difficult for the EU to do the right thing due to bureaucracy? They can't even say they are in favor of the scheme?
I think it interesting though, that the EU has not only not taken May up on her offer, but they haven't exactly jumped to offer British citizens residency either. Whilst I might think May should have done it anyway, she's actually two steps ahead of the EU on this one. At least she's trying. It's mildly despicable that the supposedly liberal EU would rather leave everyone hanging and make no proposals whatsoever. If anyone here is really using the citizens as a bargaining chip, it is them.
In reality they probably can't at this stage. Firstly it requires all member states to agree (people can negotiate on their behalf but it still has to be agreed) and secondly they probably have to ensure it is legal within the constitution as I've pointed out before the EU works on giving everyone the same rights regardless of who they are in terms of free movement. Freedom of movement for some, which this effectively is could well be challenged. The same issue is going to apply for the Ireland and NI border (and I think Ireland know this which is why they are investigating what would be needed to install check points).
However, despite May's assurances the UK had the opportunity to write it into the A50 legislation and voted against it (I'm not sure whether May voted for or against this change, which would be interesting to know given she is supportive apparently of the idea). Even if she did it does raise doubt in the EU whether the country actually means it.
So when May makes positive statements towards mutual rights between the EU and the UK your response is to assume ill intent and duplicity? Furthermore it's too difficult for the EU to do the right thing due to bureaucracy? They can't even say they are in favor of the scheme?
What is up with all that then?
A pan entire EU trade deal with Canada was held up by one small.. 2-3 million regional parliament last year because they not agree at first.
Thr whole everyone agree has a downside to.
Geting27 states to agree on something. Tough indeed.
This is why EU can never seem to do much.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
So bypass the EU entirely and deal directly with the individual national governments. Make assurances to each government that we won't be deporting their citizens, and outright ask them to reciprocate. The French Government doesn't need permission from the other 26 nation states (25?) to make a decision to not deport Brits.
Or do they?
In which case that supports the "The EU undermines national sovereignty" argument that Europhiles like to mock, if a national government cannot make an independent decision on the status of foreign nationals within its own borders.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/19 01:02:47
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So bypass the EU entirely and deal directly with the individual national governments. Make assurances to each government that we won't be deporting their citizens, and outright ask them to reciprocate. The French Government doesn't need permission from the other 26 nation states (25?) to make a decision to not deport Brits.
Or do they?
In which case that supports the "The EU undermines national sovereignty" argument that Europhiles like to mock.
Who the hell knows given the thousands of EU regulations out there.
There so much paper work it would be pretty hard to work out who has what right. They still do the utterly stupid waste of money parlament swap and have two moving like a old royal court to the summer palace.
That's only one bloated inefficacy.
And yes. If that's the case thr fact of undermining that is not only claimed but direct proof.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/19 01:06:00
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: Although I support the idea of all EU residents currently over here getting unlimited right to remain (and UK citizens over here getting the same) its actually strongly beneficial for Britain that this happens
Most of the EU citizens in Britain at the moment are relatively young, economically active people that benefit us
Most of the UK citizens in Europe are older and less economically active (often retired) who will cost us a bunch of extra cash if they return
True, France and Spain are unlikely to extend citizenship easily to the large number of British retirees who are a burden for the healthcare system . The other UK residents in Europe are unlikely to be affected as many migrated to be with their EU spouse or are high paid professionals who are likely to pass non-EU worker requirements anyway. If the UK won't guarantee residence the mostly young East European workers could easily find work in other EU countries now the economy is recovering fast. The only country who stands to lose if the UK as its labor intensive economy needs those migrant workers.
I suppose May would be in political trouble with the xenophobic element of her support if the (East European) EU migration to the UK is halted, only to replaced by a similar number of workers from commonwealth countries like Pakistan and India.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So bypass the EU entirely and deal directly with the individual national governments. Make assurances to each government that we won't be deporting their citizens, and outright ask them to reciprocate. The French Government doesn't need permission from the other 26 nation states (25?) to make a decision to not deport Brits.
Or do they?
Well, right now they'd need permission to deport UK citizens, as they are EU citizens at this time.
I'm sure Boris Johnson and David Davis have made those assurances to the individual states already, or are they playing silly buggers? You tell me.
In which case that supports the "The EU undermines national sovereignty" argument that Europhiles like to mock.
When we leave the EU, then those govts aren't bound by the freedom of movement rules they agreed to, so can do what they like with non-EU members such as what we will become.
BTW have you got those links I asked for about the spiteful threats to deport UK nationals by EU governments? I'm still coming up a blank myself.
Who the hell knows given the thousands of EU regulations out there.
There so much paper work it would be pretty hard to work out who has what right.
At the moment it's very simple, we're EU members, so therefore all our citizens can stay indefinitely in another EU state if they wish. When we leave, then the respective Govts of each EU country will deal with UK citizens exactly as they would any other non-EU citizen, subject to whatever agreement the UK Govt and the EU come up with, if they come up with an agreement at all.
Not sure why you're getting yourself worked up in a tizzy about paperwork? Can you point out some paperwork to do with EU immigration that seems to be the trouble?
jhe90 wrote: They still do the utterly stupid waste of money parlament swap and have two moving like a old royal court to the summer palace.
That's only one bloated inefficacy.
Not sure what that has to do with grandfather EU immigration rights after Brexit?
And yes. If that's the case thr fact of undermining that is not only claimed but direct proof.
Not sure what you're talking about here? That sentence is very poorly structured. Are you alluding to the fact that because we agreed to free movement of people as members of the EU, that we are no longer Sovereign? I'm not sure how a legal, and willingly entered into agreement by national government means that we are no longer sovereign, apart from surrendering agreed to movement rights for countries who have a reciprocal movement agreement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhe90 wrote: A pan entire EU trade deal with Canada was held up by one small.. 2-3 million regional parliament last year because they not agree at first.
Well, that is what happens when you respect a nations sovereign right to decide what to do, and democracy too, of course.
I think the key word here is "seem". It may not "seem" to us like they don't get much done, but I suppose that depends on how involved an individual actually is. Most of us truck along through our day with barely a thought to the machinations of local, national or supra-national government.
The president of the European council is not like POTUS, they can't issue executive orders, and pretend they've just made a law and act like they're just "getting stuff done". Real politics is much longer term, and complex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/19 09:05:25
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
In reality they probably can't at this stage. Firstly it requires all member states to agree (people can negotiate on their behalf but it still has to be agreed) and secondly they probably have to ensure it is legal within the constitution as I've pointed out before the EU works on giving everyone the same rights regardless of who they are in terms of free movement.
It could be done quite simply. Every national government gets together and issues a statement that regardless of negotiations, right to residency within their countries will be issued to British citizens at the time of British EU departure who meet the criteria. It only needs to be approved formally by all 27 states if it's going to be codified into EU law. There's nothing whatsoever preventing all 27 Foreign Affairs ministers getting on the wire over the space of a day and issuing a joint statement of intent. It's their police that do deportations after all, the EU doesn't handle that end of things. If the national government all declare that Brits won't be deported, than Brits won't be deported. It's as simple as that, regardless of whatever the Eurocrats in Brussels might think.
There is nothing whatsoever stopping the individual member states from doing it in the name of decency. But they haven't. They're holding off because they DO intend to use it as a bargaining chip.
That's not really going to work though. It's not legally binding in any form on any of the governments. Jean-Marc Ayrault may agree to it now but may not be the minister for Foreign Affairs in France in 12 months time. Suppose Marie Le Pen won how likely is it that the new Foreign Minister will accept this and not try and renegotiate it? This applies to all the countries, some will face elections and what is agreed in a "memorandum of understanding" now may mean nothing in two years time. This isn't some form of hobby club where all the members can sit down and have a bit of a chat and agree something. Unless it is legally binding (i.e. approved by the EU) then it isn't really worth anything. This goes for all the negotiations.
Nor does this answer the issue of whether legally they can provide a small number of EU residents the ability to have free movement in the UK and not have the same benefit for the rest of the EU residents given that every citizen is meant to have the same freedom of movement rights as the next one. You could find that making any such agreement immediately results in a court challenge that could last 3-5 years as it makes it way up to the ECJ. That would then put any such negotiations on hold until this was resolved (and as I pointed out this same issue applies to Ireland). They may not be able to confirm the options yet because legally they need to determine the implications (and they can't really do that until the UK has put down on paper what it proposes, otherwise you could run around trying to cover all the different options wasting a lot of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere).
The facts are that the only country that I am aware of that *has* said it will use EU migrants as a bargaining chip is the UK (see my link to the Liam Fox's statement earlier). Unless evidence is provided to contrary it is supposition that the EU intends to do so. They may just be cagey because of the numerous mixed messages the UK is presenting and would prefer them to put everything down on the table (for example if May voted against the A50 amendment giving rights to EU citizens for example).
Thr whole everyone agree has a downside to.
Geting27 states to agree on something. Tough indeed.
This is why EU can never seem to do much.
If the EU never seems to do much then why does everyone always seem to bang on about there being too much red tape from the EU? These two concepts are mutually exclusive...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/19 10:04:06
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
That's not really going to work though. It's not legally binding in any form on any of the governments. Jean-Marc Ayrault may agree to it now but may not be the minister for Foreign Affairs in France in 12 months time.
Aye it does. Since it's an informal declaration of intent, if the Greek foreign minister changes his mind ten months down the line, we could do exactly the same thing regarding Greek citizens, since there's absolutely nothing technically binding us either. That's why it's a statement of intent as opposed to a written treaty, and why it doesn't require EU consent. But it would still work because all parties would have something to lose from backing out, and nothing to gain.
Nor does this answer the issue of whether legally they can provide a small number of EU residents the ability to have free movement in the UK
If we've left the EU, we can do whatever we want with regards to who we let stay and who we let go. We're no longer subject to their rules, that's kind of the point. A good way of doing it in practice would be to just refuse to issue new National Insurance numbers for work purposes to new EU arrivals. Those who already have them will be sorted, new arrivals after we leave wouldn't. People in the EU have separate travel powers all the time thanks to dual nationalities and suchlike. Giving a specific number of EU citizens residency here would work no differently.
The EU as an organisation really, really needs to have nothing whatsoever to do with this. I repeat, if a Ministry in a country says that they will not take a certain course of action, then that's it. It has sod all to do with anyone sitting in Brussels. As we won't be in the EU, there's no worry about our citizens going to the ECJ for legal action, and as we'll be outside of the EU, we can keep or refuse entry to anyone in the EU based on whatever grounds we like.
In other words, an informal statement of intent separate to negotiations is completely feasible. And to put it bluntly, even if it wasn't, there's absolutely nothing stopping all 27 countries of the EU saying that they'll deal with that matter separately, but that they are in principle willing to deal with it as a separate agreement/treaty to the rest of the negotiations and sort it out nice and quickly as a quid pro quo. I repeat, a day on the wire and that could be sorted.The reason that they haven't, is because they don't want to.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/19 10:21:02
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: So bypass the EU entirely and deal directly with the individual national governments. Make assurances to each government that we won't be deporting their citizens, and outright ask them to reciprocate. The French Government doesn't need permission from the other 26 nation states (25?) to make a decision to not deport Brits.
Or do they?
In which case that supports the "The EU undermines national sovereignty" argument that Europhiles like to mock, if a national government cannot make an independent decision on the status of foreign nationals within its own borders.
If we leave the EU then every country in the EU will have the right to decide what happens to our citizens, whether they need Visa's and so on. This is just the same for us currently when accepting migrants from Australia, India or South Africa. The only exception would be if all states agree to EU legislation that guarantees some grandfather rights to UK citizens living in the EU. In essence you have hit the nail on the head about why the EU can't come out and say it guarantees the rights of UK citizens because as it stands it is not in its remit to do so - that needs to be legislated for (which needs agreement by all 27 states). However there is existing legislation on EU freedom of movement so rules on the movement of the EU's own citizens must apply equally for all countries.
There is also the practicality of what you are suggesting. How do you determine whether someone is a resident of France, Germany or Poland? Yes people might speak different languages but that isn't an effective way of identifying which country they are from. There are no records of people moving into the country from the EU (and which country they came from) because of freedom of movement rules. If you had specific rules for countries you'd have to round up everyone that you think might be from the EU put them in camps and try and find out which country they are from (and they all could claim to be from countries where there is an agreement). Using passports doesn't work because although they may have a German passport (say they were born there) the parents may have immediately moved to Italy and they spent 20 years there before, as a young adult, they moved to the UK. How would you distinguish such people and would they be classed as German, Italian, neither?
If we've left the EU, we can do whatever we want with regards to who we let stay and who we let go. We're no longer subject to their rules, that's kind of the point. A good way of doing it in practice would be to just refuse to issue new National Insurance numbers for work purposes to new EU arrivals. Those who already have them will be sorted, new arrivals after we leave wouldn't. People in the EU have separate travel powers all the time thanks to dual nationalities and suchlike. Giving a specific number of EU citizens residency here would work no differently.
You are missing the point. We can make decisions on individual countries citizens, individual countries can make decisions on our UK citizens once we leave is correct. However you are haranguing about the EU not coming out and saying they would guarantee UK citizens rights permanently, but they simply *can't*. It is not currently in their remit to do so, because once we leave it will be an individual countries decision as to how they accept and deal with UK citizens long term. How can the EU guarantee the rights of UK citizens in, for example, Spain when it is up to the Spanish government to decide these rights. I repeat once we leave the EU it will be for individual countries to decide how they deal with UK citizens (beyond maybe a temporary Schengen visa). That means that if some one living in Spain wants to pop over to Portugal then they would have to comply whatever the Portuguese requirements are. Conversely we may have different requirements for Portuguese and Spanish citizens.
If the UK wants UK citizens already living in the EU to retain the right of permanent residency *across the EU* then this requires a change in the EU legislation as it effectively removes some of the rights of the individual countries to determine these for itself. The EU, under current legislation simply cannot guarantee UK citizen rights because it does not have the remit to do so (in the same way it doesn't have the right to tell us how to accept Australians). To do this it needs to change EU legislation which needs agreement by all 27 countries. If this is a quid pro quo then this leaves open a legal challenge because the EU is giving certain EU citizens greater rights than others.
The UK can indeed approach individual countries but then that will just be an agreement with that individual country, but that is not an EU wide agreement which is completely different. It's massively more complicated for the EU to guarantee UK rights simply because there are 27 different countries to deal with. A simplistic quid pro quo agreement ignores likely large swathes of legal work that would be needed because of each countries individual legal framework.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/19 11:03:05
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Given the amount of international negotiations and treaties the UK has got to work through over the next few years, the last thing we need do is to add another 27 pieces of work to the pile.
You are missing the point. We can make decisions on individual countries citizens, individual countries can make decisions on our UK citizens once we leave is correct. However you are haranguing about the EU not coming out and saying they would guarantee UK citizens rights permanently, but they simply *can't*. It is not currently in their remit to do so, because once we leave it will be an individual countries decision as to how they accept and deal with UK citizens long term.
Ahhhh, I think I see where the confusion between us is coming from. Let me try wording differently, I think we're debating separate things.
I'm asserting that the member states of the EU (not the EU itself) could jointly sign up to a separate accord through their Foreign Ministries to permit current British citizens dwelling within their nation-states who tick a certain number of criteria residency rights there, in exchange for identical treatment of their citizens within Britain. The intent for this could be declared now, with the formal piece of paper/treaty ready to go for all nation-states to sign individually upon Britain seceding.
In other words, it would be an EU wide-agreement, but would not include the 'EU' per se. The only real reason for any European countries to not sign such an accord, would be if they wanted to potentially use the issue as a bargaining chip in the official EU negotiations.
It would be a relatively simplistic piece of paper to draw up, given that it would only apply to granting residency right to people who ticked certain criteria at that point in time. It would never need updating, or further paperwork beyond that initial application. It's like granting a group of x number of refugees residency rights. Once you've processed that group, that's it.
Does that make my position clearer?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/19 11:27:20
That's because they French refuse to let the EU scrap the Strasbourg seat, so every month masses of people and paperwork are transported there and back. Vast waste of money all due to French pride, apparently in 2011 they went to the ECJ when only 11 trips to Strasbourg were on the calendar. The horror! Now they're off to the ECJ because an important vote isn't taking place in Strasbourg.
That time stick in my head when Jacques Chirac walked out of an EU summit because a speaker addressed everyone in English, and wouldn't return until they spoke in French.
In other words, it would be an EU wide-agreement, but would not include the 'EU' per se. The only real reason for any European countries to not sign such an accord, would be if they wanted to potentially use the issue as a bargaining chip in the official EU negotiations.
Well. Firstly, we'd be talking to all them, not just a few. And secondly, the initiative wouldn't have to come from us. May's said we're happy to do something along those lines. There's nothing stopping the Polish Foreign Minister picking up the phone to his counterparts, and then buzzing us to say, 'Hey, we've got a proposal'.
The 'EU' must be seen as speaking on behalf of its member states. To do otherwise would further undermine the union as it is.
The legal team at Brussels Towers must be throwing fits ensuring that potential minor issues are under the auspices of the whole rather than left to individual nations.
Well. Firstly, we'd be talking to all them, not just a few. And secondly, the initiative wouldn't have to come from us. May's said we're happy to do something along those lines. There's nothing stopping the Polish Foreign Minister picking up the phone to his counterparts, and then buzzing us to say, 'Hey, we've got a proposal'.
As I understand it, we can't do simple or complex deals with single member states as a member country because that undermines the constitution of 'One Europe' in the EU policy. Once we have officially left , when ever that is, we should be able to do what we like with other EU countries so long as the EU doesn't shaft us with some dirty political leaving deal that means we can't e.g. in exchange for continued free trade.
We would all prefer it, if the EU allowed us to begin such negotiations in advance of leaving, but they never will citing 'constitutional policy as a current member state', when in reality they don't want to look like they are giving in or making Brexit look good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/19 12:40:15
Hmmm… coming from the person who previously argued for proportional representation as the current system doesn’t give a good representation of the peoples votes per party. I’m sure if Cameron chose to just let parliament vote on Brexit and the result was ‘we are out’, you would be waving your arms around even more about the lack of direct democracy. 
