At what point will the pressure rise up enough to have a referendum to unify NI and RoI ? This weekend's RoI elections will be a major step to such a poll as the government party control rearranges itself. I also wonder about the influence of the USA, a major part of the GFA under then Pres. Clinton in a unification vote. The need to get the Irish-American vote in the USA has sharply declined over the last 20 years as the parties shift to other ethnic groups like the Latino/Hispanics to get their vote or White voters in general and especially by Trump and our Republican party that I doubt we would be involved either way with it. Still, I think it is still a long held dream in the RoI of all of Ireland as one country.
As others have noted, there has been a significant decline in identity and economic status by religion in NI over the last 2 decades. The border of RoI and NI is virtually non-existent, people can still cross it like countries in the EU. The difference of the Euro and Pound is negligible between the RoI and NI due to more using credit and bank debit cards instead of cash I think for many in the UK and in NI in general the support of the Monarchy is much weaker and many just want to live in peace and minimal hassles. I wouldn't be surprised of a unification vote in the next 5 years.

UK talks about a trade deal with EU like EU Australia... Now EU asks if UK realize there is no trade deal EU Austraila...


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 28681.html

Exactly what does UK mean?

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

Is it not defined into GFA how to trigger an referendum? Even if it is up to UK as I remember it is not an UK government / parliament business?

It would be pretty silly not to define the procedure for a border poll within the Belfast Agreement, but here it is for you
[snip]

As mentioned earlier, if the general population of NI want a poll, and Eire wants a poll, it would be foolish for the secretary of state to refuse to hold said poll. If anything is likely to re-light the troubles: that would do it!

I agree. except Northern Ireland isn’t like any other western European nation. There will literally be civil war if there’s an attempt to reunite ireland. It really is an eccentric place.

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

Is it not defined into GFA how to trigger an referendum? Even if it is up to UK as I remember it is not an UK government / parliament business?

It would be pretty silly not to define the procedure for a border poll within the Belfast Agreement: here it is for you.

It's about as defined as anything else in the UK's constitutional arrangements, i.e: very badly.

for instance:

it does not specify what constitutes a clear trigger to have the poll: what exactly does the it take to estimate the likeliness for a majority?
A few credible opinion polls? A republican majority in the NI assembly? A vote in the NI assembly? A formal demand by the NI executive?

it does not specify a timeframe for either the poll to be held, nor for the enactment of the result (if a positive is indeed achieved).

it does not specify if (nor when?) a poll has to be held in the RoI and whether they could refuse NI joining?
(image NI wants to join to RoI, yet the RoI does not want the territory; what then?)

it does not specify whether the border poll principle remains valid also in case NI would have joined the RoI: is there a return to the UK possible should voters in NI change their mind again? (it's repetitive ad infinitum in case of a negative outcome (7 year interval); is it repetitive in case of a positive outcome too?)

sabenapilot wrote:

A101 wrote:

olle wrote:

Is it not defined into GFA how to trigger an referendum? Even if it is up to UK as I remember it is not an UK government / parliament business?

It would be pretty silly not to define the procedure for a border poll within the Belfast Agreement: here it is for you.

It's about as defined as anything else in the UK's constitutional arrangements, i.e: very badly.

for instance:

it does not specify what constitutes a clear trigger to have the poll: what exactly does the it take to estimate the likeliness for a majority?
A few credible opinion polls? A republican majority in the NI assembly? A vote in the NI assembly? A formal demand by the NI executive?

it does not specify a timeframe for either the poll to be held, nor for the enactment of the result (if a positive is indeed achieved).

it does not specify if (nor when?) a poll has to be held in the RoI and whether they could refuse NI joining?
(image NI wants to join to RoI, yet the RoI does not want the territory; what then?)

it does not specify whether the border poll principle remains valid also in case NI would have joined the RoI: is there a return to the UK possible should voters in NO change their mind again?

With the situation where the 2 parties in NI will have totally different views on these questions this is a box of pandora.

Noone in England can say they was not warned about this, Scotland, Finance sector of London, hard borders etc.

If the border poll is called for by the RoI under pressure of Sinn Fein, the RoI will get full backing from the EU and it will be very difficult to refuse for the UK government. When that time comes, it's going to be hard to refuse an indyref2 too...
The territorial integrity of the UK is thus likely to be put to several referendums this decade, IMHO: chances of it surviving intact are about 50/50, I'd say.

Luckily the EU is much kinder to the UK than the UK is to the EU: imagine the EU throwing its full economic, financial and political weight behind a break up of the UK by actively intervening in both NI and Scotland to swing public opinion behind a LEAVE vote, in a way similar as how some Brexiteers still want to break up the EU...

It really doesn't take that much EU funds to convince a couple of tens of thousand of wavering voters from these somewhat deprived regions in the UK that leaving the UK and (re)joining the EU would be in the best interest of their region.

olle wrote:

UK talks about a trade deal with EU like EU Australia... Now EU asks if UK realize there is no trade deal EU Austraila...


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 28681.html

Exactly what does UK mean?

Ursula von der Leyen has mocked Boris Johnson’s claims to be willing to accept an Australian-style trade deal with the EU by reminding MEPs that the European Union does not currently have a trade agreement with Australia and are in fact about to sign a FTA with the Oceanic nation.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... trade-deal

"We are currently trading on WTO terms with Australia. If this is the British choice, well, we are fine with that choice without any further question. But let me remind Mr. Johnson we just are in fact at this moment agreeing with Australia that we must end this situation and are thus working on a free trade deal with them!”

https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-fo ... agreement/

And Michel Barnier added injury to insult by rather bluntly annoucing to MEPs he wouldn't even engage in talks on granting the City a “permanent regime” for financial services that would last for “decades to come” as the UK Government seeks, let alone be open to ever granting such a deal. The City of London will instead have to just rely on Brussels judging that the UK’s regulations and supervisory systems are sufficiently robust for the time being– a so-called equivalence decision that can be unilaterally overturned by Brussels with as little as 30 days’ notice.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... vices-deal

30 days notice will be a nice card to play. That is even worse compared to the swiss EU relationship.

What does tha London financial sector think about this. One remainder of that the financial sector of London stands for close 20% of all UK tax incomes...


Will this mean. Nothing at all and continuing growth, stop of growth or even decrease of the finance industry?

olle wrote:

What does tha London financial sector think about this. One remainder of that the financial sector of London stands for close 20% of all UK tax incomes...

Accprding to the FT front page, they're not enthused at all:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQckMRqXkAE ... name=large
(via Twitter)

One bank executive involved in formulating the government's negotiating strategy said that global banks with big London operations would need a much longer "grace period" than 30 days.

He said: "If you're JP Morgan or UBS, even a year is not enough time to get things set up. Anything less than three years is of no use whatsoever."

The executive expressed scepticism that the UK would convince Brussels to sign up to such an arrangement, however. "The idea that they're definitely going to get it is preposterous," he said.

And Michel Barnier has already shot down any such attempt as we've seen.

Arion640 wrote:

Waiting for south island independence day the northern welfare state has failed them.

That's cool. I know it's a bullshit argument you're bringing up to distract, but I've honestly got opposition to a poll if that's what they want. Here in New Zealand we aren't about oppressing and subjugating others. We let Tokelau, Tovalu and the Cook Islands live independently and everybody seems happy with that.

Jetty wrote:

Not much would be different, but freedom of movement for the Scottish would undo the advantage of the UK leaving the EU.

With respect - what on earth are you talking about?

Jetty wrote:

EU criteria should include social metrics going forwards, then Scotland can join when they've fixed their massive social issues.

Actually the Scottish government is being very proactive already with policies like minimum alcohol pricing.

Arion640 wrote:

They probably could, except they’d have to except the Euro and Schengen which they won’t be able too without a hard border with England.

Good. Rebuild Hadrian's Wall (and conquest Carlisle too ).

zkojq wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Waiting for south island independence day the northern welfare state has failed them.

That's cool. I know it's a bullshit argument you're bringing up to distract, but I've honestly got opposition to a poll if that's what they want. Here in New Zealand we aren't about oppressing and subjugating others. We let Tokelau, Tovalu and the Cook Islands live independently and everybody seems happy with that.

Jetty wrote:

Not much would be different, but freedom of movement for the Scottish would undo the advantage of the UK leaving the EU.

With respect - what on earth are you talking about?

Jetty wrote:

EU criteria should include social metrics going forwards, then Scotland can join when they've fixed their massive social issues.

Actually the Scottish government is being very proactive already with policies like minimum alcohol pricing.

Arion640 wrote:

They probably could, except they’d have to except the Euro and Schengen which they won’t be able too without a hard border with England.

Good. Rebuild Hadrian's Wall (and conquest Carlisle too ).

I was quote shocked when I was living there at the support for it. I think your dysfunctional labour government will just accelerate the issue too as they really aren’t liked outside of Auckland. One city controls the fate of your whole country. Shame.

Sabenaplot wrote:

It's about as defined as anything else in the UK's constitutional arrangements, i.e: very badly.

It’s not just the UK constitution,ROI changed there own to accomodate the Belfast Agreement

Sabenaplot wrote:

it does not specify what constitutes a clear trigger to have the poll: what exactly does the it take to estimate the likeliness for a majority?

A few credible opinion polls? A republican majority in the NI assembly? A vote in the NI assembly? A formal demand by the NI executive?

Well that’s up to the Secretary of State, but I would imagine if the Stormont passed a resolution to hold a poll and the electorate held a petition, it clearly states He/She must do so, if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.obviously it’s going to affect the ROI it will be done in consultation with ROI

Sabenaplot wrote:

it does not specify if (nor when?) a poll has to be held in the RoI and whether they could refuse NI joining?

The poll only concerns NI, so no poll in ROI and under constitutional changes made through the Belfast Agreement the ROI is obliged to accept the border poll result in NI irrespective if it does not want NI or not

Sabenaplot wrote:

it does not specify whether the border poll principle remains valid also in case NI would have joined the RoI: is there a return to the UK possible should voters in NI change their mind again? (it's repetitive ad infinitum in case of a negative outcome (7 year interval); is it repetitive in case of a positive outcome too?)

Once the border poll is conducted and is in favour of unification there’s no buyers remorse, it then becomes a matter between the ROI/UK to make the transition happen. I imagine talks will begin between the ROI/UK PDQ and a settlement talks along the lines HK handover, once handover is complete it’s no longer sovereign territory of the UK and all associated problems become the ROI/EU depending on who is in government I don’t think the ROI would be in a real big hurry to get it done.

The 7 year interval mentioned is the minimum amount of time between border polls that fail. In theory they can hold a border poll every 7 years until a yes vote wins the majority.

zkojq wrote:

Jetty wrote:

EU criteria should include social metrics going forwards, then Scotland can join when they've fixed their massive social issues.

Actually the Scottish government is being very proactive already with policies like minimum alcohol pricing.

Good. But I’d like to see a substantial lower amount of degenerates among Scottish people before allowing them free movement within the EU again. Judging by the statistics and the Scottish people visiting my hometown (Amsterdam, where they have a horrible reputation) those policies aren’t very successful yet.

Reading express becomes more funny each day... now France have been planning all the time to move the EU economical centre from London to Paris...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/12411 ... macron-spt


When will express realize that they have been part of creating the situation that made it possible¿? ForbFrance and Germany any high paying job moving from London is a gain... Death by 1000 cuts...

Looks like more Businesses continue to have confidence in the UK economy.

Virgin are to launch a London-Cape town service. #despitebrexit

As global centre for trade and services unbound my stupid EU rules, this is logical.

seahawk wrote:

As global centre for trade and services unbound my stupid EU rules, this is logical.

Especially as Virgin is strengthening links within the soon-to-be re-established British Empire here.



Back to reality....

12 days after Brexit, and the UK is learning it is still a full subject to EU rules over which it has no more say, having been ordered to answer to the European Commission over an obscure road tax.

The UK has been given 2 months to change how the British tax works -or be taken to the ECJ- since Brexit Britain is fully subjected to European jurisdiction too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

sabenapilot wrote:

seahawk wrote:

As global centre for trade and services unbound my stupid EU rules, this is logical.

Especially as Virgin is strengthening links within the soon-to-be re-established British Empire here.



Back to reality....

12 days after Brexit, and the UK is learning it is still a full subject to EU rules over which it has no more say, having been ordered to answer to the European Commission over an obscure road tax.

The UK has been given 2 months to change how the British tax works -or be taken to the ECJ- since Brexit Britain is fully subjected to European jurisdiction too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

I that gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling to want to extend the transition phase As well as a timely reminder on sovereignty

Well, I hope the EU will reciprocate and charge accordingly British haulers

sabenapilot wrote:

12 days after Brexit, and the UK is learning it is still a full subject to EU rules over which it has no more say, having been ordered to answer to the European Commission over an obscure road tax.

The UK has been given 2 months to change how the British tax works -or be taken to the ECJ- since Brexit Britain is fully subjected to European jurisdiction too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

That looks almost exactly like the "foreigners toll" the german transportation minister tried to impose but which got punched back by the EU Commission as well. That was equally predictable because it was in blatant violation of EU principles. (And him forking over huge amounts of public funds to private contractors even before that legal risk was even checked has landed him a less than cosy place before a Bundestag investigation committee.)

So there is no one to blame but the Westminster morons who thought they could get away with the same stupid idea.

A101 wrote:

I that gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling to want to extend the transition phase As well as a timely reminder on sovereignty

Yeah, we know that harassing foreigners was the main motivation for many if not most Leave voters.

Such a lovely bunch!

All those foreigners will scramble for a chance to give you only the best trade deals for sure!

Klaus wrote:

Yeah, we know that harassing foreigners was the main motivation for many if not most Leave voters.

Such a lovely bunch!

All those foreigners will scramble for a chance to give you only the best trade deals for sure!

That’s the fundamental difference between you & I.

I’m not questioning the merits of the tax just the sovereign right of the UK to do it without interference from outside the UK, sovereignty is one of the reasons for Brexit

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Yeah, we know that harassing foreigners was the main motivation for many if not most Leave voters.

Such a lovely bunch!

All those foreigners will scramble for a chance to give you only the best trade deals for sure!

That’s the fundamental difference between you & I.

I’m not questioning the merits of the tax just the sovereign right of the UK to do it without interference from outside the UK, sovereignty is one of the reasons for Brexit

Yeaaah. UK road's to UK drivers!! (but obv, EU road's to EU drivers too)
That's an amazing brexit achievment ! Congrats!

Every treaty, every trade agreement, every defense pact, every membership in any international association is a limitation on sovereignty.

Grizzly410 wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Yeah, we know that harassing foreigners was the main motivation for many if not most Leave voters.

Such a lovely bunch!

All those foreigners will scramble for a chance to give you only the best trade deals for sure!

That’s the fundamental difference between you & I.

I’m not questioning the merits of the tax just the sovereign right of the UK to do it without interference from outside the UK, sovereignty is one of the reasons for Brexit

Yeaaah. UK road's to UK drivers!! (but obv, EU road's to EU drivers too)
That's an amazing brexit achievment ! Congrats!

The achievement is in the government regaining sovereignty over its laws, this only illustrates how the EU impinges on domestic legislation. But once again unfortunately you are also debating the merits of the legislation and how it interacts with the EU, whereas I debating on how the EU effects UK sovereignty.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Every treaty, every trade agreement, every defense pact, every membership in any international association is a limitation on sovereignty.

Yes it does and that cuts both ways, but only if you agree and ratify it.

The problem with the EU is it works one way as the EU has supremacy over UK legislative and judicial controls hence the loss of sovereignty.

A101 wrote:

That’s the fundamental difference between you & I.

I’m not questioning the merits of the tax just the sovereign right of the UK to do it without interference from outside the UK, sovereignty is one of the reasons for Brexit

If the UK pulls that kind of crap from the outside there will be reciprocal repercussions in an external bilateral relationship as well.

So you can shoot yourselves into your own feet and the EU won't stop you any more, but the bleeding still remains your own problem then.

Your leaders have been telling you that you can have everything for nothing, but of course that's just another lie.

A101 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Every treaty, every trade agreement, every defense pact, every membership in any international association is a limitation on sovereignty.

Yes it does and that cuts both ways, but only if you agree and ratify it.

The problem with the EU is it works one way as the EU has supremacy over UK legislative and judicial controls hence the loss of sovereignty.

No, it works both ways: Every EU member state has a say and in most major cases even a veto on the rules which then apply to all member states and those jointly agreed rules are then als jointly defended against large external powers who'd normally just overwhelm each separate country in separate negotiations, so in the EU each member state actually has a lot more actual, practical sovereignty than they had before their membership (or before the EU even existed).

That helpless member states were oppressed by an evil EU empire and its maliciously mustache-twirling unelected bureaucrats is such a hilariously absurd lie and so easily disproved that it is amazing that this lie still finds takers on the increasingly self-isolating island.

noviorbis77 wrote:

It could easily been a remainer writing that to stir things up

Everything's a conspiracy against Brexiteers! The people who said Brexit would result in border checks - conspiracy that's part of project fear! The 'experts' who said that lots of trade deals would not be signed on Brexit day - conspiracy! The people who said that none of the technology exists for an "electronic border" - conspiracy! Evidence of hundreds of millions of pounds of assets being moved abroad as a result of Brexit - conspiracy. Remainers asking repeatedly what ECJ ruling brexiteers looked forwards to be free from - conspiracy to make brexiteers look stupid.


Once everything's a conspiracy, nothing's a conspiracy.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Wrong! Easiest trade in history they said!

Seriously it's getting quite embarassing at this point. Two weeks after Brexit day and still no trade deals?

Arion640 wrote:

@ Point 3 - and spain will veto Scotland joining too.

This has literally been debunked a dozen times in these Brexit threads. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Arion640 wrote:

You can’t tar all the brexiteers with the same brush though. We aren’t all racists as much as some would like us to be.

A101 wrote:

I’m not denying that immigration was just one factor in the campaign, it just does not mean you tar every person with the same brush.

Exactly, some people voted for Brexit to keep the three pin plugs.

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

@ Point 3 - and spain will veto Scotland joining too.

Nope. Plenty of politicians on record saying they won't mind as long as it's done legally.

Right but just because the UK has left the EU doesn't mean that certain people aren't going to keep spreading euromyths despite overwhelming evidence debunking them.

A101 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Every treaty, every trade agreement, every defense pact, every membership in any international association is a limitation on sovereignty.

Yes it does and that cuts both ways, but only if you agree and ratify it.

The problem with the EU is it works one way as the EU has supremacy over UK legislative and judicial controls hence the loss of sovereignty.

That is the basic point. A country should be free to have stupid laws and not be forced laws made up by others. The UK had to accept way too much stupid EU rules that actually hurt the UK. This ends 2021.

Klaus wrote:

If the UK pulls that kind of crap from the outside there will be reciprocal repercussions in an external bilateral relationship as well.

So you can shoot yourselves into your own feet and the EU won't stop you any more, but the bleeding still remains your own problem then.

Your leaders have been telling you that you can have everything for nothing, but of course that's just another lie.

Thats a big outburst when we are basically talking about national sovereignty for the road system in the UK, but by all means if the EU as a collective introduce another tax by all means

The true colours of the EU mentality shining through with its bully boy tactics if it’s not in the interests of the EU it can’t be in anyone else’s

Klaus wrote:

No, it works both ways: Every EU member state has a say and in most major cases even a veto on the rules which then apply to all member states and those jointly agreed rules are then als jointly defended against large external powers who'd normally just overwhelm each sepaurate country in separate negotiations, so in the EU each member state actually has a lot more actual, practical sovereignty than they had before their membership (or before the EU even existed).

That helpless member states were oppressed by an evil EU empire and its maliciously mustache-twirling unelected bureaucrats is such a hilariously absurd lie and so easily disproved that it is amazing that this lie still finds takers on the increasingly self-isolating island.

As we discussed before a few pages back the veto is an illusion

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

If the UK pulls that kind of crap from the outside there will be reciprocal repercussions in an external bilateral relationship as well.

So you can shoot yourselves into your own feet and the EU won't stop you any more, but the bleeding still remains your own problem then.

Your leaders have been telling you that you can have everything for nothing, but of course that's just another lie.

Thats a big outburst when we are basically talking about national sovereignty for the road system in the UK, but by all means if the EU as a collective introduce another tax by all means

The true colours of the EU mentality shining through with its bully boy tactics if it’s not in the interests of the EU it can’t be in anyone else’s

Klaus wrote:

No, it works both ways: Every EU member state has a say and in most major cases even a veto on the rules which then apply to all member states and those jointly agreed rules are then als jointly defended against large external powers who'd normally just overwhelm each sepaurate country in separate negotiations, so in the EU each member state actually has a lot more actual, practical sovereignty than they had before their membership (or before the EU even existed).

That helpless member states were oppressed by an evil EU empire and its maliciously mustache-twirling unelected bureaucrats is such a hilariously absurd lie and so easily disproved that it is amazing that this lie still finds takers on the increasingly self-isolating island.

As we discussed before a few pages back the veto is an illusion

Did you complain when they did the same thing for german autobahn? I guess no. The rule is there is one rule for all into the SM. Before SM there were small thing everywhere to give advantage for national companies. Made it impossible for Europe to create competitive companies compared to for example US ones in their field. Memory is short...

It also raised the cost dramatically for consumers. In 1994 cost of living in Norway and sweden was very similar. Today sweden is much cheaper and even if Norway has higher calaries I consider the standard of living higher in Stockholm then Oslo.

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-meps- ... sf-twitter

Such arrogance

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-meps-call-for-uk-to-stay-in-dynamic-alignment-with-eu-rules-11932563?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

Such arrogance

The arrogance of Downing Street is in deed unbearable.

best regards
Thomas

zkojq wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

It could easily been a remainer writing that to stir things up

Everything's a conspiracy against Brexiteers! The people who said Brexit would result in border checks - conspiracy that's part of project fear! The 'experts' who said that lots of trade deals would not be signed on Brexit day - conspiracy! The people who said that none of the technology exists for an "electronic border" - conspiracy! Evidence of hundreds of millions of pounds of assets being moved abroad as a result of Brexit - conspiracy. Remainers asking repeatedly what ECJ ruling brexiteers looked forwards to be free from - conspiracy to make brexiteers look stupid.


Once everything's a conspiracy, nothing's a conspiracy.

Grizzly410 wrote:

Wrong! Easiest trade in history they said!

Seriously it's getting quite embarassing at this point. Two weeks after Brexit day and still no trade deals?

Arion640 wrote:

@ Point 3 - and spain will veto Scotland joining too.

This has literally been debunked a dozen times in these Brexit threads. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Arion640 wrote:

You can’t tar all the brexiteers with the same brush though. We aren’t all racists as much as some would like us to be.

A101 wrote:

I’m not denying that immigration was just one factor in the campaign, it just does not mean you tar every person with the same brush.

Exactly, some people voted for Brexit to keep the three pin plugs.

JJJ wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

@ Point 3 - and spain will veto Scotland joining too.

Nope. Plenty of politicians on record saying they won't mind as long as it's done legally.

Right but just because the UK has left the EU doesn't mean that certain people aren't going to keep spreading euromyths despite overwhelming evidence debunking them.

It’s okay mate. Get your own house sorted out before lecturing us. I saw it all when i was living there.

tommy1808 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-meps-call-for-uk-to-stay-in-dynamic-alignment-with-eu-rules-11932563?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

Such arrogance

The arrogance of Downing Street is in deed unbearable.

best regards
Thomas

Not really. We are the ones who have left. We would like to trade with you. Here will be our offer. Take it or leave it.

The problem for you is that the UK does not have the upper hand. You will see the result of theses negotiations.

And the EU is so fed up with the way your politicians are acting that the MEPs want to harden the EU stance.

Olddog wrote:

The problem for you is that the UK does not have the upper hand. You will see the result of theses negotiations.

And the EU is so fed up with the way your politicians are acting that the MEPs want to harden the EU stance.

That is fine then.

We will not have a trade deal.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Here will be our offer. Take it or leave it.

thank you, but no. I like the megalomania of a small economy, highly dependent on our market, with much of manufacturing industry only existing to sell to us, and 20% of total Tax revenue existing at the EUs pleasure only .... to go "take it or leave it".....

best regards
Thomas

noviorbis77 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The problem for you is that the UK does not have the upper hand. You will see the result of theses negotiations.

And the EU is so fed up with the way your politicians are acting that the MEPs want to harden the EU stance.

That is fine then.

We will not have a trade deal.

Fine, you will be hurt more than us. I am tired of debating this. Brexiteers want the feel the consequences before believing it. You have been warned for the past 4 years, so you can't deny that you knew the consequences. Lose-lose it is.

olle wrote:

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

If the UK pulls that kind of crap from the outside there will be reciprocal repercussions in an external bilateral relationship as well.

So you can shoot yourselves into your own feet and the EU won't stop you any more, but the bleeding still remains your own problem then.

Your leaders have been telling you that you can have everything for nothing, but of course that's just another lie.

Thats a big outburst when we are basically talking about national sovereignty for the road system in the UK, but by all means if the EU as a collective introduce another tax by all means

The true colours of the EU mentality shining through with its bully boy tactics if it’s not in the interests of the EU it can’t be in anyone else’s

Klaus wrote:

No, it works both ways: Every EU member state has a say and in most major cases even a veto on the rules which then apply to all member states and those jointly agreed rules are then als jointly defended against large external powers who'd normally just overwhelm each sepaurate country in separate negotiations, so in the EU each member state actually has a lot more actual, practical sovereignty than they had before their membership (or before the EU even existed).

That helpless member states were oppressed by an evil EU empire and its maliciously mustache-twirling unelected bureaucrats is such a hilariously absurd lie and so easily disproved that it is amazing that this lie still finds takers on the increasingly self-isolating island.

As we discussed before a few pages back the veto is an illusion

Did you complain when they did the same thing for german autobahn? I guess no. The rule is there is one rule for all into the SM. Before SM there were small thing everywhere to give advantage for national companies. Made it impossible for Europe to create competitive companies compared to for example US ones in their field. Memory is short...

It also raised the cost dramatically for consumers. In 1994 cost of living in Norway and sweden was very similar. Today sweden is much cheaper and even if Norway has higher calaries I consider the standard of living higher in Stockholm then Oslo.

Why would I need to complain?

The return of sovereignty is fundamental to Brexit. Brexit restricts Brussels involment into the domestic affairs of the UK. Placing a tax on HGV to help offset the ongoing maintenance of the road network is and should be a sovereign decision, but once again you see the EU getting more and more involved basic domestic decisions such as the road network under the auspices of Trans-European networks to the point on how a road should be designed.


It’s getting to the point that the EU might as well federalise with a central government basically that’s what you are advocating with the comment about the US.

You are totally out of touch. The problem is not the tax. The problem is the discrimination while you are still in the EU. Don't worry, after 2020, you will have full sovereignty and be charged accordingly on EU's roads

A101 wrote:

It’s getting to the point that the EU might as well federalise with a central government basically that’s what you are advocating with the comment about the US.

Interesting point... Would you say that the US is worse off with a federal government than if it had remained a loose collection of Independent states?

Francoflier wrote:

A101 wrote:

It’s getting to the point that the EU might as well federalise with a central government basically that’s what you are advocating with the comment about the US.

Interesting point... Would you say that the US is worse off with a federal government than if it had remained a loose collection of Independent states?

probably not, as the EU structure is what you get when looking at the US System and taking care of most of its bugs...... the EU is essentially the tea parties wet dream, they just don´t know that.....

best regards
Thomas

Francoflier wrote:

A101 wrote:

It’s getting to the point that the EU might as well federalise with a central government basically that’s what you are advocating with the comment about the US.

Interesting point... Would you say that the US is worse off with a federal government than if it had remained a loose collection of Independent states?

No, federalism helps define a role at all levels of government, whereas the federal government role is mainly national affairs state government and then local government. Brussels is effectively try to do the role of federal government across a collective of nations which also have multi levels of government.

As I said it’s to the point where it either has to federalise or return to its origins of being a collective trade common market. It’s past the point of going back so either it’s federalism or bust within the next generation

noviorbis77 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-meps-call-for-uk-to-stay-in-dynamic-alignment-with-eu-rules-11932563?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

Such arrogance

The arrogance of Downing Street is in deed unbearable.

best regards
Thomas

Not really. We are the ones who have left. We would like to trade with you. Here will be our offer. Take it or leave it.

This is exactly the point.both sides has red lines. If those cannot be metit will be the Australian model WTO.

Australia is now moving away from this and has a FTA with EU on the way.

That is what EU tells UK.


Until now UK has told EU we want a deal that does not change anything for UK export including services (financial etc).

noviorbis77 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The problem for you is that the UK does not have the upper hand. You will see the result of theses negotiations.

And the EU is so fed up with the way your politicians are acting that the MEPs want to harden the EU stance.

That is fine then.

We will not have a trade deal.

The UK needs to see this and also cancel the withdrawal agreement. No Deal was always the best option. Not one more penny for the EU!

seahawk wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The problem for you is that the UK does not have the upper hand. You will see the result of theses negotiations.

And the EU is so fed up with the way your politicians are acting that the MEPs want to harden the EU stance.

That is fine then.

We will not have a trade deal.

The UK needs to see this and also cancel the withdrawal agreement. No Deal was always the best option. Not one more penny for the EU!

Under "no deal" WTO schedule tariffs would apply and the UK pays in reduced business, and that business they still have causes payments into the EU Budget.....

EU customers have options.... UK exporters... not so much: i.e. they have to drop prices to stay competitive, less profit, less tax revenue for the UK and more tariff income for the EU.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

That is fine then.

We will not have a trade deal.

The UK needs to see this and also cancel the withdrawal agreement. No Deal was always the best option. Not one more penny for the EU!

Under "no deal" WTO schedule tariffs would apply and the UK pays in reduced business, and that business they still have causes payments into the EU Budget.....

EU customers have options.... UK exporters... not so much: i.e. they have to drop prices to stay competitive, less profit, less tax revenue for the UK and more tariff income for the EU.

best regards
Thomas

But the UK would be fully sovereign again. It can have its own standards, blue passports, 3 pin plug-ins and whatever they like. If business and commercial interests would matter, they would not have left in the first place.

seahawk wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

The problem for you is that the UK does not have the upper hand. You will see the result of theses negotiations.

And the EU is so fed up with the way your politicians are acting that the MEPs want to harden the EU stance.

That is fine then.

We will not have a trade deal.

The UK needs to see this and also cancel the withdrawal agreement. No Deal was always the best option. Not one more penny for the EU!

As a german troll egging the UK on to do the maximum damage to itself is really getting a bit ghoulish, don't you think?

tommy1808 wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Here will be our offer. Take it or leave it.

thank you, but no. I like the megalomania of a small economy, highly dependent on our market, with much of manufacturing industry only existing to sell to us, and 20% of total Tax revenue existing at the EUs pleasure only .... to go "take it or leave it".....

It’s exactly what you and others posters explained in here all along, the sheer size difference between EU and UK market gives EU the upper hand in any negotiation.
And now “take it or leave it”… They clearly missed the 3 art50 extension requests sent by UK PM to avoid a no deal scenario, the EU didn’t blink then and secured its priorities since (the WA content). What makes them think it could be any different now the point of no return is passed ?

At some point they’ll have to recognize that in order to obtain something in negotiation they’ll have to offer something, it seems UK wants tariff and quota free deal, in exchange the EU wants to attach a no dumping condition. Simple, basic.
What we read in noviorbis77 “arrogance” article is simply part of EU internal discussion happening in order to establish what are the no dumping conditions the negotiator in chief will have in its mandate, EU parl wants strict conditions (dynamic alignment) when the EU CO started with looser solution (no regression like), we’ll see what EU negotiation basis are later this month.

Heavy is the cinder block of reality on the tartlet of the project fear illusions.