Yes but it is just a distraction. Latest numbers I have seen is Farming 0.6 % and fishing 0.1%. I know they are used as totemic scarecrows but we don't have to fall for that stupid trap/crap.

Olddog wrote:

Yes but it is just a distraction. Latest numbers I have seen is Farming 0.6 % and fishing 0.1%. I know they are used as totemic scarecrows but we don't have to fall for that stupid trap/crap.

That’s a typical EU attitude. Only a small amount for our overall money pot so we don’t care, people still work in these two very hard going industries at the end of the day....

Arion640 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Yes but it is just a distraction. Latest numbers I have seen is Farming 0.6 % and fishing 0.1%. I know they are used as totemic scarecrows but we don't have to fall for that stupid trap/crap.

That’s a typical EU attitude. Only a small amount for our overall money pot so we don’t care, people still work in these two very hard going industries at the end of the day....

I think you can add the little squabble that took place a year or so ago with French trawlers running the English out of their own fishing grounds, sometimes pride rears its head.

On a macro level, the UK is a small pimple on the rump of the EU, little things may not mean much to the EU but to the UK, little things are magnified and of greater importance to the little one looking up. 1% is a number but JRM did use the fishing industry as one of his planks, so expect it to get undue attention.

So fishing is .1% and most of that is owned by just a few people. What is the value to the people of the UK? Even to fishers?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

So fishing is .1% and most of that is owned by just a few people. What is the value to the people of the UK? Even to fishers?

It is similar to the passport colour, symbolic and representing the UK being in control of its waters and their resources.

However, if the UK is going to be outside of the EU, every little bit has to be added to the whole, the days of ignoring every other aspect of the economy because London and its financial trade bought in billions will soon be over.
As a third country sitting outside of the EU, the real question should be, can the UK afford to ignore any aspect of its economy, even if it is only .1%?
Someone somewhere especially in the UK has to start looking at the reality and stop thinking that they are still a part of the EU and .1% is meaningless.

Ah the fish industry again, the start of mr. Farage's campaign, while doing nothing in Brussels for the fishermen. Anyhow, even if the UK fishing fleet 100% replaces the ones from continental EU, (do the fishermen pay back the quotas they sold to the Dutch, Spanish and other nations fishermen?) they can not sell it to the EU anymore. Action = reaction.

Brexiteer or remainer, or EU supporter. Give this video a watch: https://youtu.be/v_Q2_1d27LY

Comments about French presidential pardon are certainly interesting.

Yuk, Farage, his days are numbered, so please let's just forget about him. His comments are never interesting, I watch 5 seconds and that was more than enough.

par13del wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

So fishing is .1% and most of that is owned by just a few people. What is the value to the people of the UK? Even to fishers?

It is similar to the passport colour, symbolic and representing the UK being in control of its waters and their resources.

However, if the UK is going to be outside of the EU, every little bit has to be added to the whole, the days of ignoring every other aspect of the economy because London and its financial trade bought in billions will soon be over.
As a third country sitting outside of the EU, the real question should be, can the UK afford to ignore any aspect of its economy, even if it is only .1%?
Someone somewhere especially in the UK has to start looking at the reality and stop thinking that they are still a part of the EU and .1% is meaningless.

penny wise and pound foolish

par13del wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

So fishing is .1% and most of that is owned by just a few people. What is the value to the people of the UK? Even to fishers?

It is similar to the passport colour, symbolic and representing the UK being in control of its waters and their resources.

However, if the UK is going to be outside of the EU, every little bit has to be added to the whole, the days of ignoring every other aspect of the economy because London and its financial trade bought in billions will soon be over.
As a third country sitting outside of the EU, the real question should be, can the UK afford to ignore any aspect of its economy, even if it is only .1%?
Someone somewhere especially in the UK has to start looking at the reality and stop thinking that they are still a part of the EU and .1% is meaningless.

UK has pretty much decided that financial services, its BIGGEST export, is meaningless and could be thrown under the bus. There is no way it is not going to be hit hard in brexit. Auto manufacturing is also going to be affected hard. What is the direction, there seems to be differences of opinion but nobody seems to take that super seriously. Whatever happens to auto industry, who cares. These are areas where a huge difference could be done, but nobody seems to care.

On the other hand, fishing, which is totally insignificant except for symbolic meaning is something to worry about. Strange. Even more strange as this seems just posturing. Fishing is an area where UK has no leverage and the whole UK fishing industry could be killed as accidental byproduct of some other negotiations which just happen to setup customs checks at the border which means that fresh unfrozen fish cannot survive without getting rotten before it reaches european dinner tables. A scenario which BoJo seems happy to threat EU with. "If you don't do as I want, I will shoot myself into my foot".

I would be much more impressed if I could hear some talk about how to tackle the big real meaningful areas of economy instead of a lot of talk about something very small with the explanation that we cannot leave any small part of economy behind when at the same time the big parts of economy are actually being left behind.

The whole idea of brexit is to shake UK economy and that cannot happen without some areas of economy suffering with the hope that others would benefit. Some parts of economy which rely on export to EU are naturally those that suffer when others that could export to USA I suppose are ones that could gain. But there is no gain without some other areas suffering. There could however be all areas suffering with very little gain. The longer it takes to identify the areas that could gain means that more likely those areas that gain are nonexistent.

Dutchy wrote:

Ah the fish industry again, the start of mr. Farage's campaign, while doing nothing in Brussels for the fishermen. Anyhow, even if the UK fishing fleet 100% replaces the ones from continental EU, (do the fishermen pay back the quotas they sold to the Dutch, Spanish and other nations fishermen?) they can not sell it to the EU anymore. Action = reaction.

One has to assume they were sold under the auspices of the EU, now that the UK is no longer a member does it still apply? Does everyone pay back, or is this something like the UK obligations, what is sold stays sold?

Ertro wrote:

UK has pretty much decided that financial services, its BIGGEST export, is meaningless and could be thrown under the bus. There is no way it is not going to be hit hard in brexit.

The UK has to build its economy from scratch, not sure why that is so hard for those in the UK to understand. Financial Services has to find a way to make itself relevant outside of trading with the EU, the EU will be building its financial center outside of the UK, there is no way they will allow a non-member to host such an important element. The only way for it to remain relevant to the EU would be if the UK follows all the EU rules, if they do that what would be the point of Brexit?
Even if the UK were to return in the next 3 to 5 years, London will never again be a huge financial capital of the EU, that is just a fact of life. What the UK has to look forward is to seeing if they can make London a financial center that is not dependent on financial trades with the EU, if they do not, other sectors of the economy will have to emerge, some may have been held down with everyone's focus on London.

par13del wrote:

The UK has to build its economy from scratch, not sure why that is so hard for those in the UK to understand.

It is pretty obvious to observe and acknowledge that ship seems to be sailing on a course where UK has to build its economy from scratch..

However as you said, understanding really is hard. I have absolutely no idea why somebody would want put a country in a situation where the economy is in scratches so that it needs to be rebuilt from there. Especially without any plan that could be observed to exist.

Ertro wrote:

On the other hand, fishing, which is totally insignificant except for symbolic meaning is something to worry about. Strange. Even more strange as this seems just posturing. Fishing is an area where UK has no leverage and the whole UK fishing industry could be killed as accidental byproduct of some other negotiations which just happen to setup customs checks at the border which means that fresh unfrozen fish cannot survive without getting rotten before it reaches european dinner tables.

Which may mean that in addition to going to school to learn how to build boats they may also be unable to sell fresh fish anymore. So what are their choices, let EU countries catch their fish for free, start building facilities to be able to sell frozen fish outside of the EU, or just let the fish stocks grow.

Ertro wrote:

I would be much more impressed if I could hear some talk about how to tackle the big real meaningful areas of economy instead of a lot of talk about something very small with the explanation that we cannot leave any small part of economy behind when at the same time the big parts of economy are actually being left behind.

If folks think a fishing industry is irrelevant they may also believe that anything that does not contribute 5% or more to GDP is also irrelevant.
Fact is that big parts of the economy or any part of the economy that is dependent on the EU is going to be left behind, especially if those who embrace Brexit start looking elsewhere for options.
If they don't, they may as well shut down and start the campaign for return.

Ertro wrote:

However as you said, understanding really is hard. I have absolutely no idea why somebody would want put a country in a situation where the economy is in scratches so that it needs to be rebuilt from there. Especially without any plan that could be observed to exist.

The existing reality is that it has been done, so they either buckle down and make a go of it or they sit down and give up until the UN steps in and give them aid.

par13del wrote:

So what are their choices, let EU countries catch their fish for free, start building facilities to be able to sell frozen fish outside of the EU

The last time I heard somebody who seemed to understand the problem is that building the freezing factory is expensive and there is no company that is in natural position to start doing that job especially since the requirements are not clear that it really is needed. On the other hand if the customs border goes up and there is no such factory it takes very little time for fisher boats to start go bankrupt.

Also the problem is that frozen fish is very cheap with competition from all over the world. Unfrozen fresh fish is much more valuable and UK does not have to compete with far away countries. So to build a freezing factory looks like a financially money loosing business. Somebody would really need to have a heart full of gold to throw their money away to save some other peoples business operating fishing vessels. Build a big factory which might only be needed for 3 months total and lose money while operating for the 3 months.

So it really is possible that it is EU that starts fishing in UK waters solely because BoJo caused UK fishing industry to bankruptcy by accident.

Ertro wrote:

So it really is possible that it is EU that starts fishing in UK waters solely because BoJo caused UK fishing industry to bankruptcy by accident.

In which case it will be an industry that does not survive Brexit, without Brexit the UK turned its economy into a service driven one, it would be ironic if it is forced to revert.
The big issue will be whether government stands in the way of innovators - if they exist - or attempts to assist, so far we have heard a lot about business looking for compensation for Brexit, as the economy contracts such will not be viable.

The sovereignty of the UK must never be questioned again, which also means no copying of EU regulations. Johnson´s speech was inspiring and strong.

The fishing industry is peanuts, wait for the end of the CAP and see thousands farms collapse. I bet you will be able to buy a lot of new lands for a penny.

par13del wrote:

As a third country sitting outside of the EU, the real question should be, can the UK afford to ignore any aspect of its economy, even if it is only .1%?
Someone somewhere especially in the UK has to start looking at the reality and stop thinking that they are still a part of the EU and .1% is meaningless.

Can the UK pay its bills when large components of the UK government will be hit in exchange for something which barely contributes to the national income? At the end of the day, the UK government wants to invest money in NHS, farming, customs controls, increased civil service and many other areas. There are limits as to how much the UK government can loan in the market and bills have to be paid.

Reality will hit home in a few years time and many promises for the voters won´t be kept. But facts stopped to matter a long time ago. Johnson even believes that the EU would open their market for financial services based in the UK, when the UK enforces tariffs for products made in the EU.

LJ wrote:

par13del wrote:

As a third country sitting outside of the EU, the real question should be, can the UK afford to ignore any aspect of its economy, even if it is only .1%?
Someone somewhere especially in the UK has to start looking at the reality and stop thinking that they are still a part of the EU and .1% is meaningless.

Can the UK pay its bills when large components of the UK government will be hit in exchange for something which barely contributes to the national income? At the end of the day, the UK government wants to invest money in NHS, farming, customs controls, increased civil service and many other areas. There are limits as to how much the UK government can loan in the market and bills have to be paid.

But they are investing in the NHS right now, they are out....... I mean from now on there will be 350million pounds a week available. It was written down, so it must be a promise for the keeps and not just some flinchy Brexit lie, right?

Dutchy wrote:

LJ wrote:

par13del wrote:

As a third country sitting outside of the EU, the real question should be, can the UK afford to ignore any aspect of its economy, even if it is only .1%?
Someone somewhere especially in the UK has to start looking at the reality and stop thinking that they are still a part of the EU and .1% is meaningless.

Can the UK pay its bills when large components of the UK government will be hit in exchange for something which barely contributes to the national income? At the end of the day, the UK government wants to invest money in NHS, farming, customs controls, increased civil service and many other areas. There are limits as to how much the UK government can loan in the market and bills have to be paid.

But they are investing in the NHS right now, they are out....... I mean from now on there will be 350million pounds a week available. It was written down, so it must be a promise for the keeps and not just some flinchy Brexit lie, right?

"We could not give the money because the deal the EU forced upon us was unfair." - the explanation that will be used.

LJ wrote:

Can the UK pay its bills when large components of the UK government will be hit in exchange for something which barely contributes to the national income? At the end of the day, the UK government wants to invest money in NHS, farming, customs controls, increased civil service and many other areas. There are limits as to how much the UK government can loan in the market and bills have to be paid.

A lot of what they are talking about is spending, not investments, the only return on some of those services is social not economic. Investments in items that will generate financial income is a must if the economy is to survive, financial services provided to the EU will not be able to subsidize the UK economy as a long term strategy.The sooner they start thinking as a third country and not as a member of the EU whose economy is integrated the faster they will start making the hard choices which will be required to pivot their economy.

par13del wrote:

The sooner they start thinking as a third country and not as a member of the EU whose economy is integrated the faster they will start making the hard choices which will be required to pivot their economy.

Yet is the UK willing to make those hard choices? Boris promisses money to everyone, but unless they discover a money machine, either it has to break promises or having a huge deficit, which it needs to finance. Moreover, I don't see them thinking as a third country as their premisses is that they can continue the current situation withour regulatory alignment (which the EU attaches to the status quo). The current UK knows what it doesn't want to be, but not what it wants to be. The latter is probably more important.

seahawk wrote:

"We could not give the money because the deal the EU forced upon us was unfair." - the explanation that will be used.

Boris cannot say that as their policy is not to approve any deal which is not favourable for them. He can only argue that the EU should have accepted their offer as it's the greatest thing on earth and that the EU shouldn't care about its own people/voters.

par13del wrote:

The UK has to build its economy from scratch, not sure why that is so hard for those in the UK to understand..

Because the last few govenments have been incompentent in a entire range of issues. It's always someone else's fault and by and large, like Brexit the population has swallowed it. Now they have nobody else to blame, it's entirely up to them what happens next.

How does it rebuild it's economy? It has a small but important high tech engineering / production, majority service based economy. It doesn't have the workforce for anything else. Mass manufacturing, car building just isn't going to happen. There is seemingly little to no interest to change education systems and everything is about what will win the next election, not about long term plans.

The hit on the UK's financial and insurance/reinsurance industry and transfers to the EC will be hard and deeper than some realize. The only hope is the UK's offshore islands where a lot of it is based (Bermuda, Bahamas, etc), having tax and corporate information evasion but strong pro-business UK law and court systems will keep it afloat. That will mean a lot of empty office buildings in the UK, in turn a lot less business travel, a lot less jobs overall. That could mean fewer premium seats sold by airlines, hotels less full, with there own fallout.

Reinhardt wrote:

There is seemingly little to no interest to change education systems and everything is about what will win the next election, not about long term plans.

Johnson's speech clearly set out their new goals:
• aggressive deregulation (while name-dropping some specific current regulations at the same time)
• handing the controls over to international market forces
• no alignment with the EU
That sounds like Thatcher on steroids, just minus her push for the Common Market.
I'm not entirely sure if that is what all of his voters imagined Brexit turning out like.

LJ wrote:

Boris cannot say that as their policy is not to approve any deal which is not favourable for them. He can only argue that the EU should have accepted their offer as it's the greatest thing on earth and that the EU shouldn't care about its own people/voters.

Which would also be the fault of the EU. Wake up, the next 2 years will be simple:

If something positive happens it is due to the UK leaving the EU.
If something negative happens it is the fault of the EU.

So mostly business as usual in the UK. Maybe in 5 or 10 years , when the "blame the EU" routine no longer works, things might look different.

ltbewr wrote:

The hit on the UK's financial and insurance/reinsurance industry and transfers to the EC will be hard and deeper than some realize. The only hope is the UK's offshore islands where a lot of it is based (Bermuda, Bahamas, etc), having tax and corporate information evasion but strong pro-business UK law and court systems will keep it afloat.

Not going to happen, the reality on the ground is that the UK in conjunction with the EU has been transferring a lot of those financial services to the EU and decimating the rest under the guise of tax havens etc etc etc. even the USA under democratic leadership has been on that bandwagon. The financial services industry in the Bahamas has been in decline for the last few decades, it is still a significant contributor to government revenue, but in terms of employment, it employs very little and the fears of downgrades and moving EU goal post is starting to ring hollow with the population, not withstanding our long colonial ties. Tourism is our largest industry and financial contributor, including employment, and the bulk of our tourist and business contacts are with North America. The UK only recently decided to re-open its embassy here, my assumption, based on Brexit and trying to re-establish ties.

Cayman, Bermuda and Turks are UK colonies and the UK has not spared them or done much protection from the EU's financial march, heck they even used that leverage to pressure on social laws, so it may be a tough road, however, colonial ties die hard and I expect the locals to do all that they can to assist, unfortunately, treaties have been signed and where the EU enforces penalties, the UK government will ultimately be cash strapped to make up the difference versus local UK spending.

So yes, tough times are ahead for the UK, on the drive to having a service based economy they have seen and reaped the benefits, they will also now see the potential pitfalls.
Is it all doom and gloom, no,but the sooner they accept their role as a 3rd country and cease acting like a member of the EU, the faster they will start to implement necessary structural changes.

Klaus wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

There is seemingly little to no interest to change education systems and everything is about what will win the next election, not about long term plans.

Johnson's speech clearly set out their new goals:
• aggressive deregulation (while name-dropping some specific current regulations at the same time)
• handing the controls over to international market forces
• no alignment with the EU
That sounds like Thatcher on steroids, just minus her push for the Common Market.

Agreed.

Klaus wrote:

I'm not entirely sure if that is what all of his voters imagined Brexit turning out like.

Some don't care, cos..it's Brexit.
Others don't understand it.
Others are okay with it all until it goes wrong. Then they'll blame us for telling them it was going to happen instead of the people who did it.

Then they'll blame us for telling them it was going to happen instead of the people who did it.

This is the key to the neo-fascism taking over the anglo-saxon world. And the epidemic has spread to India and the Philippines, other former colonies are vulnerable.

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/03/nissan-eu-uk-hard-brexit

We are all doomed aren’t we

Thanks for posting this article instead of others I read, it clearly points out this is nonsense.

Nissan sales are abysmal across Europe, they need to cut production everywhere. Sure, that may mean closing a plant in Spain, and stopping Micra production in France (it's made in a Renault plant, alongside the Renault Clio, its sibling), but that also means cutting in the UK, planning to go from 4% to 20% market share with more expensive cars (due to tariffs on car parts coming from the EU) is pure fantasy.

Former Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn is even saying Nissan will go bankrupt in two to three years, that looks like a good plan to accelerate this.

It’s come to light in a recent video i watched the EU appoints commissioners who embezzle money. It happened circa 2004 with an ex French government minister. What sort of organisation tolerates this?!

par13del wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

Yes but it is just a distraction. Latest numbers I have seen is Farming 0.6 % and fishing 0.1%. I know they are used as totemic scarecrows but we don't have to fall for that stupid trap/crap.

That’s a typical EU attitude. Only a small amount for our overall money pot so we don’t care, people still work in these two very hard going industries at the end of the day....

I think you can add the little squabble that took place a year or so ago with French trawlers running the English out of their own fishing grounds, sometimes pride rears its head.

On a macro level, the UK is a small pimple on the rump of the EU, little things may not mean much to the EU but to the UK, little things are magnified and of greater importance to the little one looking up. 1% is a number but JRM did use the fishing industry as one of his planks, so expect it to get undue attention.

You're thinking of the "scallop wars", but remembering it wrong (or remembering how UK tabloids must have portrayed it).

The confrontation happened in French waters.

The dispute comes from a French ban from fishing scallops for half the year to preserve stocks, without a similar ban on the British side (which is of course stupid, if waters are shared, then such rules should be shared, but the British have always tried to fish more than is reasonable).

The egregious part is that British people don't eat scallops, so the British fishermen then sell everything to the French...

If the aggressive de regulation includes Financial Services, then this will end in tears.

Guy V wants an EU army to face russia. I mentioned this upthread but was told why would the EU want to compete with Russia?

https://youtu.be/MkdIJCqcaNA

Aesma wrote:

planning to go from 4% to 20% market share with more expensive cars (due to tariffs on car parts coming from the EU) is pure fantasy..

AFAIK the idea is that Uk will have a FTA with Japan similar to the one with the EU. Nissan would then sell its Japan made cars in the UK for less than the EU cars built in the EU. Hence, Nissan cars would be cheaper. However, I do not understand how this will benefit Sunderland as they can close it down as well if the UK has a FTA with Japan. Moreover, why would Nissan use cars from Sunderland for the EU market when it can export it for less from Japan (including additional shipping cost). This means lower production in Sunderland (no EU market anymore). How does this benefit the UK?

Anyway, the article clearly states that it's just one of the scenario's. One thing we shouldn't forget is that Nissan Sunderland gets many parts from the EU. This means cost for parts will rise, which will increase overall cost for a Nissan. Moreover, any Nissan exported to the EU will get an import levy as well, meaning uncompetitive pricing in the EU. Not good news for Sunderland.

Ryanair requests EU residense or citizenship for job application in Manchaster;

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 16596.html

Arion640 wrote:

Guy V wants an EU army to face russia. I mentioned this upthread but was told why would the EU want to compete with Russia?

Are you so out of any possible positives coming from Brexit that you need to dig up old distorted talking points to maybe steady your own wobbling confidence?

Aren't there any fresher propaganda lies from your tabloids and from your government to comfort you? Have those already wilted even in your own view?

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Guy V wants an EU army to face russia. I mentioned this upthread but was told why would the EU want to compete with Russia?

Are you so out of any possible positives coming from Brexit that you need to dig up old distorted talking points to maybe steady your own wobbling confidence?

Aren't there any fresher propaganda lies from your tabloids and from your government to comfort you? Have those already wilted even in your own view?

Dutchy denied this claim. I’m providing the evidence.

Do you not agree then, that the EU wants an army? You all deny it, but it is pretty clear here!

Arion640 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Guy V wants an EU army to face russia. I mentioned this upthread but was told why would the EU want to compete with Russia?

Are you so out of any possible positives coming from Brexit that you need to dig up old distorted talking points to maybe steady your own wobbling confidence?

Aren't there any fresher propaganda lies from your tabloids and from your government to comfort you? Have those already wilted even in your own view?

Dutchy denied this claim. I’m providing the evidence.

Do you not agree then, that the EU wants an army? You all deny it, but it is pretty clear here!

PESCO is not an army in the same sense NATO is not an army.

That's a stale talking point.

Decent article on the whole Brexit and the reasons behind it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ol/605734/

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Decent article on the whole Brexit and the reasons behind it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ol/605734/

Tugg

"If Britain were to withdraw, we might imagine that we could regain complete national sovereignty. But it would, in fact, be an illusion. Our lives would be increasingly influenced by the EEC, yet we would have no say in decisions which would vitally affect us."

Margaret Thatcher, 1975.

Boom.

Arion640 wrote:

Guy V wants an EU army to face russia. I mentioned this upthread but was told why would the EU want to compete with Russia?

https://youtu.be/MkdIJCqcaNA

So you think having the US army on your soil to defend it is better than having your own part in an EU army to do that ?

Arion640 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Guy V wants an EU army to face russia. I mentioned this upthread but was told why would the EU want to compete with Russia?

Are you so out of any possible positives coming from Brexit that you need to dig up old distorted talking points to maybe steady your own wobbling confidence?

Aren't there any fresher propaganda lies from your tabloids and from your government to comfort you? Have those already wilted even in your own view?

Dutchy denied this claim. I’m providing the evidence.

Do you not agree then, that the EU wants an army? You all deny it, but it is pretty clear here!

False, I said that Russia was an economic dwarf, which it is. You never mentioned the EU army, so how could I deny it in the first place? Is that the way you want to discuss things from now on? Make some claim, wait for some reaction and then say - without a quote - he is wrong because obviously I meant this and that and he denied it!!! Ridiculous way of an adult discussion, but perhaps that's where I went wrong.........

JJJ wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Decent article on the whole Brexit and the reasons behind it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ol/605734/

Tugg

"If Britain were to withdraw, we might imagine that we could regain complete national sovereignty. But it would, in fact, be an illusion. Our lives would be increasingly influenced by the EEC, yet we would have no say in decisions which would vitally affect us."

Margaret Thatcher, 1975.

Boom.

It was true then, and in our ever interconnected world, even more true today.

JJJ wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Decent article on the whole Brexit and the reasons behind it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ol/605734/

Tugg

"If Britain were to withdraw, we might imagine that we could regain complete national sovereignty. But it would, in fact, be an illusion. Our lives would be increasingly influenced by the EEC, yet we would have no say in decisions which would vitally affect us."

Margaret Thatcher, 1975.

Boom.

Being a little selective? From the same article:

In September 1992, in a speech to the World Economic Development Conference in the United States, Thatcher predicted “chaos” if the single currency was introduced. “Huge sums would have to be transferred from richer to poorer countries and regions to allow them to take the strain. Even then, unemployment and mass migration across now-open frontiers would follow. And a full-fledged single currency would allow no escape hatch.” She then laid out the consequences: “The growth of extremist parties, battening on fears about mass immigration and unemployment, offering a real—if thoroughly unwelcome—alternative to the Euro-centrist political establishment. If, in addition, you were to create a supranational European federation, and the people could no longer hold their national parliaments to account, extremism could only grow further.” As forecasts go, it was remarkably prescient.

Boom, boom....

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Being a little selective?

There's nothing remarkable in Thatcher being the bane of anything to do with Euro-sovereignty. Thatcher admitting that the UK gains nothing (loses, actually) watching European developments from the side is a very interesting development.

JJJ wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Decent article on the whole Brexit and the reasons behind it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ol/605734/

Tugg

"If Britain were to withdraw, we might imagine that we could regain complete national sovereignty. But it would, in fact, be an illusion. Our lives would be increasingly influenced by the EEC, yet we would have no say in decisions which would vitally affect us."

Margaret Thatcher, 1975.

Boom.

Really does that mean all those nations that are not members of the EU and trade with the EU, is there national sovereignty an illusion as well?


All this means in reality is that any goods exported to the EU meets EU standards just as the EU has to abide by rules and regulations of the nation that they export too, has the EU given up its sovereignty because they too follow others rules?

The only influence the EU that will effect the UK minus NI are those goods that directly exported to the EU or any travel to the EU except the ROI.