9 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Quote

I don't see you criticising the EU commissioners for not having a plan in place for exiting nations. 

There is. The U.K. already started that process. 

Yes the UK HAS started the process. But there is no 'plan in place for existing nations' it's still being written.

Edited July 25, 20187 yr by Rally123

This is an actual photo in today's Sun under the headline:

 

If the EU turn hostile on Brexit and see us leaving as an act of aggression - it's time to turn to trade deals and the open seas

2 minutes ago, Rally123 said:

Yes the UK HAS started the process. So there is no 'plan in place for existing nations' it's still being written.

Please don’t spread untruth. There is a plan and it is currently being executed. That plan is very simple: by the date Brexit becomes effective, your membership has ended and you will be a third country. 

 

Did you really vote for Brexit without reading the regulations first? Otherwise you would have known it. 

9 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

This is an actual photo in today's Sun under the headline:

 

If the EU turn hostile on Brexit and see us leaving as an act of aggression - it's time to turn to trade deals and the open seas

So?

3 minutes ago, Rally123 said:

So?

I think the point he is trying to make is that even though the British soldier is kneeling he is almost the same height as his Euro counterpart. Speaks volumes.

9 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Please don’t spread untruth. There is a plan and it is currently being executed. That plan is very simple: by the date Brexit becomes effective, your membership has ended and you will be a third country. 

The date is set but the conditions haven't been. Hence why negotiations are ongoing and they still don't know if it'll be a hard or soft Brexit.. If rules were in place there really is no need for negotiations.

3 minutes ago, Rally123 said:

So?

Maybe I am alone here in thinking that it is somewhat irresponsible for a low brow Brexit supporting newspaper to run jingoistic, rabble rousing nonsense such as the above. Hostile? Acts of Aggression? Why use these terms and this imagery when there are no events to support it, if not to gee up the proles and get them shaking their pitchforks for blighty?

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Maybe I am alone here in thinking that it is somewhat irresponsible for a low brow Brexit supporting newspaper to run jingoistic, rabble rousing nonsense such as the above. Hostile? Acts of Aggression? Why use these terms and this imagery when there are no events to support it, if not to gee up the proles and get them shaking their pitchforks for blighty?

There is no embarrassment in getting your information from the Sun RR, we have one remainer who gets it from Twitter.

Edited July 25, 20187 yr by vogie

1 minute ago, vogie said:

There is no embarrassment in getting your information from the Sun RR, we have one remainer who gets it from Twitter.

I was loathe to link to it; I hate the thought of that old scrote getting ad revenue from my actions, however the irresponsibility of the article justified my link, I think. 

 

Off topic, but I remember once reading an article in some Sunday broadsheet about Trevor Kavanagh, former political editor at the Sun. It was very complimentary to him, suggesting that he had one of the toughest jobs in Fleet Street, taking complex matters of state and writing them in a way that the average Sun reader might understand. On reflection, it was possibly a bit arrogant of the author...

55 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Constructive: Norway or Canada option

Mutually beneficial: Remain (sorry, but any other scenario is lose-lose)

 

But the UK opts for:

Have cake and eat it; Also known as Chequers white paper plan

Lets fight among ourselves until time runs out: No deal & total chaos

Sorry, but the Chequers white paper is a capitulation, and a million miles from cake and eat it!

 

Norway - we would need to accept the “four freedoms”. Free movement of goods, services, persons and capital to and from EU and EEA member states.

It also involves accepting common EU standards on things like health and safety, environmental and social protection. Norway must accept the rulings of the bodies like the European Commission and European Court of Justice, when it resolves disputes in these areas.

So, we would be subject to all of the rules, institutions, and requirements of the EU, but without the right to influence them.

 

Canada - while I think it is much closer to the right deal, I believe it wouldn’t solve the NI border issue. Checks take place at the border to make sure Canadian goods meet EU regulatory standards, and there is a higher degree of paperwork involved.

Also, the EU can choose to introduce future barriers to Canadian goods if it wished.

Canadian financial services don't have access to the European market. And we all know that Financial Services are a huge part of the UK economy.

 

Given our 40 years of cooperation and massive contributions (both financially and strategically), and the fact we already have a trade arrangement in place (a template), I think the EU should be offering a bespoke deal to the UK, not just throwing ‘Canada or Norway’ out there.  I think David Davis had a Canada ‘plus plus’ deal in mind. Pity that was kiboshed by Theresa the appeaser.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Rally123 said:

The date is set but the conditions haven't been. Hence why negotiations are ongoing and they still don't know if it'll be a hard or soft Brexit.. If rules were in place there really is no need for negotiations.

Again, please read the regulations before spreading nonsense. The conditions and rules are set out clearly in the regulations, and the U.K. people and government decided they wanted to Brexit in accordance with those conditions and rules (or they would have decided differently).

 

”negotiations are ongoing” because the U.K. wants to keep some of its membership benefits without being a member. Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with exiting, and it’s certainly not the EUs job to help with that. If you want to enjoy the membership benefits, you gotta strike a deal with the club. 

Edited July 25, 20187 yr by welovesundaysatspace

6 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

Tebee is very right about what will happen if nobody makes any deal to prevent that scenario. Flights can not take place if there is no legal agreement for them, no landing rights , no insurance...

 

But from the Brexiteer side; who needs facts or experts, blah blah.... Ignorance is bliss.....

 

Very right?.

 

I assume that flights to/from other destinations than EU/EEA will not be disrupted, (Africa, Asia, America).

Maybe with the exception of some few cabotage flights (which will no longer be cabotage flights after Brexit),

if such flights still exist.

(a long time ago some US airlines used to operate cabotage flights between UK and Germany)

 

But, I wonder.

British Airways is no longer a UK company but fully owned by IAG which is an airline holding company registered in Madrid.

Last time I checked Madrid was firmly the in EU.

 

If worst should come to worst, the disruption should not be gigantic, unless the UK government wants it to be.

 

(of course, other (UK) airlines operating from UK may suffer)

 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Sorry, but the Chequers white paper is a capitulation, and a million miles from cake and eat it!

 

Norway - we would need to accept the “four freedoms”. Free movement of goods, services, persons and capital to and from EU and EEA member states.

It also involves accepting common EU standards on things like health and safety, environmental and social protection. Norway must accept the rulings of the bodies like the European Commission and European Court of Justice, when it resolves disputes in these areas.

So, we would be subject to all of the rules, institutions, and requirements of the EU, but without the right to influence them.

 

Canada - while I think it is much closer to the right deal, I believe it wouldn’t solve the NI border issue. Checks take place at the border to make sure Canadian goods meet EU regulatory standards, and there is a higher degree of paperwork involved.

Also, the EU can choose to introduce future barriers to Canadian goods if it wished.

Canadian financial services don't have access to the European market. And we all know that Financial Services are a huge part of the UK economy.

 

Given our 40 years of cooperation and massive contributions (both financially and strategically), and the fact we already have a trade arrangement in place (a template), I think the EU should be offering a bespoke deal to the UK, not just throwing ‘Canada or Norway’ out there.  I think David Davis had a Canada ‘plus plus’ deal in mind. Pity that was kiboshed by Theresa the appeaser.

 

 

Mrs May has already said that there will be no Norway or Canadian deal, can we believe her, who knows.

 

Not Norway nor Canada

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43256183

 

 

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The EU is a club that provides its members certain benefits and comes with certain membership requirements, rules and fees on the other hand. The UK decided the benefits are not worth it anymore and therefore cancelled its membership. Obviously, that means you will also lose your membership benefits. 

 

No one ever not allowed you to do so. All your membership benefits will be cancelled by the date of execution, and so will be all the obligations that came with it. Just as you wished. 

 

Now finding a new club certainly the UKs job alone. 

 

There is. The U.K. already started that process. 

 

Apparently they did, otherwise there wouldn’t be the relevant regulations that the U.K. used to Brexit. 

 

The EU provides its members a cancellation option. The U.K. used that to cancel its membership. Very easy. 

 

Who needs help with what exactly? The process has been started and it will be excuted. We can all sit back and enjoy. 

 

I’m just repeating what I read here from hardcore Brexit-fans. Maybe that’s not your understanding, but certainly that of your leaders. 

I thought the EU commission were bloody minded until I started reading your comments...

 

Thankfully the EU commission have 27 countries consider, so they can't just say "talk to the hand".

10 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I thought the EU commission were bloody minded until I started reading your comments...

No one is bloody minded. People are just doing as you wished: executing your Brexit according to the protocol. 

Edited July 25, 20187 yr by welovesundaysatspace

Just now, welovesundaysatspace said:

No one is bloody minded. People are just doing as you wished. 

You seem to have more to say on this subject than most, you must have have great concerns although you are beginning to sound like my mother, 'I told you what would happen' 'next time you'll listen to me' my mother didn't have a clue either. Is it anything to do with your payments having to rise after we've left, life is too short to be bitter.

5 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

No one is bloody minded. People are just doing as you wished: executing your Brexit according to the protocol. 

So you're saying the EU are not intent on negotiating any kind of a deal? You think they'll just flip a switch and cut the UK out in March 2019?

19 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

So you're saying the EU are not intent on negotiating any kind of a deal? You think they'll just flip a switch and cut the UK out in March 2019?

If the EU wasn’t intent on negotiating a deal, they wouldn’t be negotiating. But it’s quite obvious that the EU won’t make a deal that would hurt it more than no deal. 

 

20 minutes ago, vogie said:

You seem to have more to say on this subject than most, you must have have great concerns although you are beginning to sound like my mother, 'I told you what would happen' 'next time you'll listen to me' my mother didn't have a clue either. Is it anything to do with your payments having to rise after we've left, life is too short to be bitter.

If you don’t like that I correct the untruth people are spreading here, please tell those people to stick to the facts. 

1 minute ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

If the EU wasn’t intent on negotiating a deal, they wouldn’t be negotiating. But it’s quite obvious that the EU won’t make a deal that would hurt it more than no deal. 

 

If you don’t like that I correct the untruth people are spreading here, please tell those people to stick to the facts. 

No it's nothing to do with that, sorry if I gave that impression, it just appears you are saying the same thing in your posts, just using different words. 

54 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Sorry, but the Chequers white paper is a capitulation, and a million miles from cake and eat it!

 

Norway - we would need to accept the “four freedoms”. Free movement of goods, services, persons and capital to and from EU and EEA member states.

It also involves accepting common EU standards on things like health and safety, environmental and social protection. Norway must accept the rulings of the bodies like the European Commission and European Court of Justice, when it resolves disputes in these areas.

So, we would be subject to all of the rules, institutions, and requirements of the EU, but without the right to influence them.

 

Canada - while I think it is much closer to the right deal, I believe it wouldn’t solve the NI border issue. Checks take place at the border to make sure Canadian goods meet EU regulatory standards, and there is a higher degree of paperwork involved.

Also, the EU can choose to introduce future barriers to Canadian goods if it wished.

Canadian financial services don't have access to the European market. And we all know that Financial Services are a huge part of the UK economy.

 

Given our 40 years of cooperation and massive contributions (both financially and strategically), and the fact we already have a trade arrangement in place (a template), I think the EU should be offering a bespoke deal to the UK, not just throwing ‘Canada or Norway’ out there.  I think David Davis had a Canada ‘plus plus’ deal in mind. Pity that was kiboshed by Theresa the appeaser.

 

 

 

What you say about Norway, or more correctly EFTA states in EEA, is a bit rough with respect to the legal aspects.

Yes, the 4 freedoms, the free movement between EEA countries must be followed.

The "rules" of the single market must be followed.

 

Now; the watchdog for EEA states is not the EC or the ECJ. It is ESA (the EFTA Surveillance Authority) which is the watchdog and which ensures compliance.

Non-compliance would lead to a possible dispute between ESA and the member state in question.

ESA may decide to bring the matter/dispute to the EFTA court for final settlement.

 

People often say "without the right to influence them". I strongly disagree with that.

EFTA countries participate in

groups and committees developing EC directives (most directives are EC not EU) on the same basis as EU members.

And are free to discuss and express views. But cannot demand that 2nd word of last paragraph should be 35 rather than 42.

The same goes for EU member states - cannot demand this and that text in directives.

When a directive is ready.

EFTA countries actually have the freedom to say No thank you and refuse to implement, that is something EU countries cannot do.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

No it's nothing to do with that, sorry if I gave that impression, it just appears you are saying the same thing in your posts, just using different words. 

That could have to do with the fact that people keep saying the same nonsense again and again, just using different words. 

22 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

If the EU wasn’t intent on negotiating a deal, they wouldn’t be negotiating. But it’s quite obvious that the EU won’t make a deal that would hurt it more than no deal. 

 

If you don’t like that I correct the untruth people are spreading here, please tell those people to stick to the facts. 

Tell me what sort of a deal would hurt the EU more than a no deal. How do you define 'hurt' - in a financial way or pride?

26 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

That could have to do with the fact that people keep saying the same nonsense again and again, just using different words. 

Anybody that disagrees with you is nonsense, is that what you're saying?

32 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Tell me what sort of a deal would hurt the EU more than a no deal. How do you define 'hurt' - in a financial way or pride?

You really have to ask the experts I elected to take care of such matters. It’s too complex for a simple guy like me to fully understand, so I’m glad I have competent people doing it on my behalf and who I believe act in my best interest. Whether that’s true for your government too, or their main objective isn’t actually the economy but to please some crazy right-wings is something I cannot tell. 

 

From what I understand, granting a non-member that doesn’t live up to the same obligations as member the same or better benefits would defeat the purpose of a membership and provide incentive to leave the union. This would obviously hurt the union so any deal that doesn’t protect the four freedoms of the Single Market or allows some sort of cherry-picking, for example, would be worse than no deal. 

 

 

21 minutes ago, vogie said:

Anybody that disagrees with you is nonsense, is that what you're saying?

No, and if you could or would read, then you wouldn’t have to ask such question.  

11 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

From what I understand, granting a non-member that doesn’t live up to the same obligations as member the same or better benefits would defeat the purpose of a membership and provide incentive to leave the union. This would obviously hurt the union so any deal that doesn’t protect the four freedoms of the Single Market or allows some sort of cherry-picking, for example, would be worse than no deal. 

Do you not think, given our history and vast contribution to the EU project to date, and given the vast amount of trade and economic ties between the UK and EU,  that most other member states would understand why a bespoke deal is justified?

Is the EU so fragile that they would fear an exodus of major member states if we got a reasonable deal?

13 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Do you not think, given our history and vast contribution to the EU project to date, and given the vast amount of trade and economic ties between the UK and EU,  that most other member states would understand why a bespoke deal is justified?

Is the EU so fragile that they would fear an exodus of major member states if we got a reasonable deal?

And considering that the UK got no benefits out of it, being locked in a figurative basement for 20 years, it seems to me that the EU actually owes the UK reparations.

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And considering that the UK got no benefits out of it, being locked in a figurative basement for 20 years, it seems to me that the EU actually owes the UK reparations.

I fear I'm going to regret the basement analogy ?

 

But let's not get started on reparations due to the UK from a free Europe following WWII...

45 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Do you not think, given our history and vast contribution to the EU project to date, and given the vast amount of trade and economic ties between the UK and EU,  that most other member states would understand why a bespoke deal is justified?

I don’t know how most other member states think. You gotta ask them. 

 

Personally I agree with the EU position whether it’s the U.K. or any other state. The EU is successful because it has power, and that comes from having members. You can only have members by offering them benefits that make the membership attractive. 

 

Quote

Is the EU so fragile that they would fear an exodus of major member states if we got a reasonable deal?

It’s not an issue of fragility. It defeats the purpose of the membership. When someone can enjoy the same/better benefits without the obligations, the membership and club are rendered redundant. Why would any club do that? It’s just nonsense. 

 

I wish the U.K. all the best with their Brexit. I have quite some friends there, both locals as well as foreigners. But solving the UKs selfmade problem at the cost of the EU? No, thanks. For the longterm success of the Union I believe we can accept the shortterm damage of a no-deal. 

Edited July 25, 20187 yr by welovesundaysatspace

16 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I don’t know how most other member states think. You gotta ask them. 

 

Personally I agree with the EU position whether it’s the U.K. or any other state. The EU is successful because it has power, and that comes from having members. You can only have members by offering them benefits that make the membership attractive. 

 

It’s not an issue of fragility. It defeats the purpose of the membership. When someone can enjoy the same/better benefits without the obligations, the membership and club are rendered redundant. Why would any club do that? It’s just nonsense. 

 

I wish the U.K. all the best with their Brexit. I have quite some friends there, both locals as well as foreigners. But solving the UKs selfmade problem at the cost of the EU? No, thanks. For the longterm success of the Union I believe we can accept the shortterm damage of a no-deal. 

Tell me to mind my own business, but are you German?  I find myself reading your comments in a German accent, perhaps because of your tone and the way you seem so passionately pro-EU.

Anyway, gotta go - will respond properly later!

21 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I don’t know how most other member states think. You gotta ask them. 

 

Personally I agree with the EU position whether it’s the U.K. or any other state. The EU is successful because it has power, and that comes from having members. You can only have members by offering them benefits that make the membership attractive. 

 

It’s not an issue of fragility. It defeats the purpose of the membership. When someone can enjoy the same/better benefits without the obligations, the membership and club are rendered redundant. Why would any club do that? It’s just nonsense. 

 

I wish the U.K. all the best with their Brexit. I have quite some friends there, both locals as well as foreigners. But solving the UKs selfmade problem at the cost of the EU? No, thanks. For the longterm success of the Union I believe we can accept the shortterm damage of a no-deal. 

 

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Tell me to mind my own business, but are you German?  I find myself reading your comments in a German accent, perhaps because of your tone and the way you seem so passionately pro-EU.

Anyway, gotta go - will respond properly later!

welovesundaysatspace must be a German because his English is impeccable.