UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[bristolboy]

51 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

You keep saying this Grouse. And I've answered this point many times: it's academic to talk about tangible benefits in  the absence of a tangible agreement. But the benefits can be grouped into several categories:

 

 

> benefits to the City of less regulation

> less red tape for the vast majority of SMEs (small to medium businesses) who don't trade with the EU.

 

According to the Bank, the UK is the 7th easiest nation to do business in. It was rated very easy. So the stuff about red tape is untrue.

http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index

And you really think the problem in the UK today is overregulation of the financial sector? You believe that what the world needs is less regulation of the financial community? In fact, the EU imposes looser regulations on its financial industry than does the USA. (Although granted that is changing now that the Trump administration is doing its best to let bankers and such resume what they were doing before the crash.)You want even less regulation than that?

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Theresa May and her government are refusing to release the full Brexit impact studies to Parliament, let alone to the public.

 

Democracy requires informed debate, informed decision making and informed voting.

 

There is no excuse for denying MPs, the electorate and the business community access to these studies.

 

A vote in Parliament, public debate and any Public vote is meaningless without access to the fullest information available to the Government.

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

You keep saying this Grouse. And I've answered this point many times: it's academic to talk about tangible benefits in  the absence of a tangible agreement. But the benefits can be grouped into several categories:

 

> political benefits of sovereignty

> benefits of increased domestic policy control

> benefits of reduced prices, especially food prices, which are estimated to be artificially higher by 17% due to the CAP

> benefits of freeer trade and trade liberalisation

> benefits of trade deals with faster growing regions

> benefits to the City of less regulation

> less red tape for the vast majority of SMEs (small to medium businesses) who don't trade with the EU.

 

I have answered a number of times to no avail either. ? 

[My Thai Life]

32 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

**According to the Bank, the UK is the 7th easiest nation to do business in. It was rated very easy. So the stuff about red tape is untrue.

http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index

And you really think the problem in the UK today is overregulation of the financial sector? You believe that what the world needs is less regulation of the financial community? In fact, the EU imposes looser regulations on its financial industry than does the USA. (Although granted that is changing now that the Trump administration is doing its best to let bankers and such resume what they were doing before the crash.)You want even less regulation than that?

As usual you are talking at cross purposes to my post. As per my original post, the red tape was about SMEs (small to medium enterprises) who don't trade with the EU,  yet are burdened with EU regulations (red tape) currently.

 

I didn't say the problem with the UK is overregulation. I said one of the categories of benefits (in answer to Grouse's questions about benefits of brexit) is less regulation to the City. I had exactly the same dialogue with you a few weeks ago, and reminded you that one of the issues that triggered brexit was Cameron's discussions with the EU about the EU's plans to increase Financial Services regulation.

 

People on this thread regularly post from such an entrenched position that they cannot see the whole picture, or even seem to be interested in trying to. Both options have pluses and minuses. To pretend that there is no upside to leave is just dogma.

 

I seem to be one of the very few posters on this thread who would have been equally happy with a remain or a leave result. And yes, I do try to see both sides of the argument.

 

Unlike many of the posters on this thread, I accept the vote to leave, and I recognise the potential benefits.

[welovesundaysatspace]

52 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

I have answered a number of times to no avail either. ? 

With all due respect, but reading your posts there’s not much substance. A lot of it is purely emotional, such as the sovereignty argument. All the rest is  fluff. 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

Just now, welovesundaysatspace said:

With all due respect, but reading your posts there’s not much substance. A lot of it is purely emotional, such as the sovereignty argument. All the rest is  fluff. 

With all due respect ? , you like so many other misinformed chaps on here, are totally blinkered and love to willfully misinterpret fact, solid argument and reasoning as 'emotional response', there is very, very little of that in what I have said, please go ahead and show me where the outpouring of intense emotion is or the 'fluff' for that matter. I have made some sound arguments, you are free to disagree, but all you've done is sniped at me and others whilst contributing no constructive argument whatsoever, typical really.  

[Chomper Higgot]

21 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

I don't read much of either... Which 'British rags' are you referencing, so impartially, I wonder?

 

I'm sure the European press would have a very different opinion, of course! I make an effort to get my information from less biased sources whenever possible, best to eschew the vast majority of MSM, continental or British, most of the time.

Any chance of you sharing these ‘less biased sources’ you refer to?

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Any chance of you sharing these ‘less biased sources’ you refer to?

I alternate between a few, and of course, I do read the MSM in the form of online sites for the Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Mail and RT as well as others. I just take their reporting with a bigger pinch of salt, as is prudent, since they are funded and edited by those with specific agendas.

 

I am a real fan of John Pilger, Douglas Murray, Mark Steyn, the late Christopher Hitchens and his brother Peter, as well Chris Hedges and a couple of others. How 'unbiased' any of them are is obviously debatable, but to my mind they are 100% quality journalists of integrity (quite a rarity these days) who have contrasting views on this and other related and unrelated subjects. I would recommend reading and listening to all of them about Brexit, the EU (and it's history) and the pros and cons of both. They all have sites and blogs that are easy to find with a simple search. Another website I personally find well informed and less biased (as independents are able to be) is this one...

 

https://www.zerohedge.com/ - 

 

There's enough there for you to take a look at. I don't expect you to necessarily agree with my opinion of these sites/journalists, but these are some of my sources for information. I have read a few reports / studies from government & private agencies that are quite revealing. 

 

https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Dumping_on_the_Poor_The_Common_Agricultural_Po.htm - this is a good example, I think it was posted by MyThaiLife in a prior post. I had read it before hand and thought it was well selected by him/her as an example of an independent enquiry into the malpractices of the EU via CAP. Happy reading!

Edited August 29, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There are dozens of deals to be done, there is next to zero progress on any.

 

 

The last minute deal will be the UK caving.

"The last minute deal will be the UK caving."

 

You may possibly be right, as the vast majority of brit. MPs supported 'remain', including May....

 

But - there are so many factors 'at play'!

 

e.g.

 

1) Individual eu countries and their companies exporting to the uk - have a lot to lose too in the event of 'no deal'

 

2) If the brit. govt. 'caves in' or agrees a 'deal' (that is considered a very bad deal by the voters) - it will be interesting to see how this 'plays out' at the next GE. And I'm very sure that MPs are acutely aware of this dilemma, which could well cost them their 'seats'!

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Theresa May and her government are refusing to release the full Brexit impact studies to Parliament, let alone to the public.

 

Democracy requires informed debate, informed decision making and informed voting.

 

There is no excuse for denying MPs, the electorate and the business community access to these studies.

 

A vote in Parliament, public debate and any Public vote is meaningless without access to the fullest information available to the Government.

 

Which "full Brexit impact studies" are they "refusing" to release?

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Which "full Brexit impact studies" are they "refusing" to release?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/no-deal-brexit-no-10-refuses-to-say-mps-will-see-full-impact-analysis

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"The last minute deal will be the UK caving."

 

You may possibly be right, as the vast majority of brit. MPs supported 'remain', including May....

 

But - there are so many factors 'at play'!

 

e.g.

 

1) Individual eu countries and their companies exporting to the uk - have a lot to lose too in the event of 'no deal'

 

2) If the brit. govt. 'caves in' or agrees a 'deal' (that is considered a very bad deal by the voters) - it will be interesting to see how this 'plays out' at the next GE. And I'm very sure that MPs are acutely aware of this dilemma, which could well cost them their 'seats'!

The Brish Government have already stepped across all of the ‘red lines’.

 

Its going to continue that way.

[mommysboy]

6 hours ago, mfd101 said:

So the country will "thrive" by making 9/10 Brits considerably poorer longterm.

 

Great outcome. Shows real good forward thinking, clever management. In a word: strategic. I'm impressed.

Yes, that is likely the sad fact.  It's not my plan is it?  Why have a go at me? 

 

It's just speeding up what is already happening, and it's been going on 10 years or more.

[sandyf]

On 8/28/2018 at 2:37 PM, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Laughable. 'Pooled sovereignty', right, sounds excellent, seems to be working ever so well too. 

 

No one in the UK (or other EU member states) ever voted for this 'pooled sovereignty' nonsense, along with a great many other things. They were forced on us, slowly and insidiously from Brussels. Democracy writ large once again, I guess!?

On the 28th of October 1971, every one of the 356 MP's that voted to join the "Community" knew exactly what they were voting for, the blueprints were already in black and white.

No doubt you have also convinced yourself that the UK government played no part whatsoever in implementing that "Community" policy.

 

The gains from pooling sovereignty speak for themselves. Britain joined the EU as the “sick man of Europe”. Now its economic performance is among the best. The impulse has come from more intense competition, open access to the world’s most valuable single market and a ready supply of skilled workers. The Brexiters miss the irony when they cite today’s relatively strong economy as a reason to leave the EU.
https://www.ft.com/content/169fa2a2-2eee-11e6-a18d-a96ab29e3c95

[mommysboy]

5 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

You keep saying this Grouse. And I've answered this point many times: it's academic to talk about tangible benefits in  the absence of a tangible agreement. But the benefits can be grouped into several categories:

 

> political benefits of sovereignty

> benefits of increased domestic policy control

> benefits of reduced prices, especially food prices, which are estimated to be artificially higher by 17% due to the CAP

> benefits of freeer trade and trade liberalisation

> benefits of trade deals with faster growing regions

> benefits to the City of less regulation

> less red tape for the vast majority of SMEs (small to medium businesses) who don't trade with the EU.

 

But it's all a bit vague/nebulous.  How is this going to pan out in particular?  Why is it going to be any better than it is now?

 

For instance the trade deals announced yesterday are just like for like!  

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/no-deal-brexit-no-10-refuses-to-say-mps-will-see-full-impact-analysis

So we're talking about the Guardian (a staunch remain newspaper) suggesting/stating that a Treasury forecast is being withheld from MPs and the public?

 

I could be mistaken about this, but I thought their forecasts have frequently been proven wrong?

 

Not that it matters, as I too am suprised that May would refuse to release a Treasury forecast to MPs - who are looking for all excuses to remain within the eu, as long as they can 'sell it' to their constituents.  A difficult 'sell' when it comes to Treasury forecasts....

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

As usual you are talking at cross purposes to my post. As per my original post, the red tape was about SMEs (small to medium enterprises) who don't trade with the EU,  yet are burdened with EU regulations (red tape) currently.

 

I didn't say the problem with the UK is overregulation. I said one of the categories of benefits (in answer to Grouse's questions about benefits of brexit) is less regulation to the City. I had exactly the same dialogue with you a few weeks ago, and reminded you that one of the issues that triggered brexit was Cameron's discussions with the EU about the EU's plans to increase Financial Services regulation.

 

People on this thread regularly post from such an entrenched position that they cannot see the whole picture, or even seem to be interested in trying to. Both options have pluses and minuses. To pretend that there is no upside to leave is just dogma.

 

I seem to be one of the very few posters on this thread who would have been equally happy with a remain or a leave result. And yes, I do try to see both sides of the argument.

 

Unlike many of the posters on this thread, I accept the vote to leave, and I recognise the potential benefits.

'Unlike many of the posters on this thread, I accept the vote to leave, and I recognise the potential benefits.'

 

Me too, but it requires strong leadership. In contrast, this appears to be the worst government in living memory imo.

 

Leaving does not mean at any cost- everything is subject to reasonableness.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, mommysboy said:

But it's all a bit vague/nebulous.  How is this going to pan out in particular?  Why is it going to be any better than it is now?

 

For instance the trade deals announced yesterday are just like for like!  

I missed that article, so would appreciate a link.

 

I'm not doubting you as you're a reasonable poster - but would appreciate reading the article/s.

[melvinmelvin]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/28/no-deal-brexit-no-10-refuses-to-say-mps-will-see-full-impact-analysis

 

I might be daft but I  read this pot differently from you

 

as far as I can see the piece of text says when a deal is there, an analysis will be done and shared

 

in case no deal, an analysis will not necessarily be done, hence - zilch to share

 

[sandyf]

What is the difference between a current trade deal and a new trade deal?   Answers on a postcard.

 

Britain hopes to roll over all of the EU’s current trade deals, with Chile, Israel, Egypt, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland and Turkey among others.

However, the government was forced to drop a claim that the process was assured, while maintaining that “all partner countries have agreed to work with us to ensure continuity”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-trade-deal-africa-theresa-may-trip-post-brexit-eu-rollover-a8511871.html

[sandyf]

More brexit expense  - beware the autumn statement.

 

Ministers will launch a major study to design an independent satellite programme, warning the UK could face costs spiralling to a billion pounds from major disruption to navigation systems.

The government will allocate £92m to design the alternative to the European Galileo system which Brussels has said the UK can no longer take part in after Brexit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-navigation-satellites-study-mps-uk-costs-european-galilleo-a8511206.html

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

30 minutes ago, sandyf said:

On the 28th of October 1971, every one of the 356 MP's that voted to join the "Community" knew exactly what they were voting for, the blueprints were already in black and white.

No doubt you have also convinced yourself that the UK government played no part whatsoever in implementing that "Community" policy.

 

The gains from pooling sovereignty speak for themselves. Britain joined the EU as the “sick man of Europe”. Now its economic performance is among the best. The impulse has come from more intense competition, open access to the world’s most valuable single market and a ready supply of skilled workers. The Brexiters miss the irony when they cite today’s relatively strong economy as a reason to leave the EU.
https://www.ft.com/content/169fa2a2-2eee-11e6-a18d-a96ab29e3c95

Totally missed the point. Heath pushed for our membership back in 73' and took advantage of the 'out' campaign being woefully underfunded and unorganised. The British public were never consulted and never voted for any of the policies that were slowly introduced throughout our membership, as I stated. I never said that I laid no blame at the door of British politicians either, your words, not mine. 

 

I would also disagree that the reason we went from being the sick man of Europe to being among the 'best performers' as you put it less to do with the EU as it did deregulation and liberalising of markets among other factors. I would also argue that the EU is 'world's most valuable single market', while that might technically be correct, that is simply because it is the 'largest single market' of it's kind and because Germany is an economic powerhouse. I'd say the 'value' of it all is nominal rather than real in any meaningful way when you take into account that the EEA single market is the slowest growing, with the highest stagnation of any major market in the world, something that is continuously overlooked here again and again by all you entrenched Europhiles. I love Europe, I really dislike the EU, for a number of reasons that I (among others) have argued and laid out perfectly clearly as opposed to the woolly thinking and nebulous responses of 'the majority' of those arguing against Brexit. Still haven't heard any clearly defined and evidenced arguments as to the vast benefits outweighing the negatives, to our remaining inside the EEA/EU.

If you want yet another sound argument, more on the economic side this time, then here goes:

 

It looks as if most people commenting here are totally ignorant of the appalling financial structural issues now enveloping the Eurozone which, though we're not part of, would unquestionably have dire knock on effects for us - IF we remained part of the union. When Germany agreed to shed the Deutschmark it was a quid pro quo for not issuing centralised debt. In other words all debt issuance has been made through sovereign entities rather than the EU; so there is no intention of sharing deficits at a "federal" level and there never was, despite the EU Parliament / ECB overtures - BS as usual. That is why the ECB is now buying in Sovereign and corporate bonds from individual countries in order to provide liquidity. This policy can't continue, and everyone knows it, but there is a widespread recognition that economies will suffer without it. It looks as though Italy, Spain, Portugal are almost certain to default and can literally never repay their debts at this point. Without a functioning currency the EU ultimately collapses in my opinion, (sooner rather than later with any luck) but before that happens all kinds of draconian measures are likely to be introduced in a futile attempt to avert it. No viable sovereign state would willingly get involved with this situation - a cluster-<deleted> of a fiscal/economic union. So to all those who love to bang on about how the EEA is 'the biggest trade bloc / 'most valuable single market' in the world and what a unique privilege it is for us to remain part of it - please - pull your heads out of the sand and know your onions a wee bit better. ? 

Edited August 29, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[Orac]

What is the difference between a current trade deal and a new trade deal?   Answers on a postcard.

 

Britain hopes to roll over all of the EU’s current trade deals, with Chile, Israel, Egypt, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland and Turkey among others.

However, the government was forced to drop a claim that the process was assured, while maintaining that “all partner countries have agreed to work with us to ensure continuity”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-trade-deal-africa-theresa-may-trip-post-brexit-eu-rollover-a8511871.html

 

A common refrain is that the protectionist EU block imports from Africa with high tariffs which is totally incorrect (unless you specifically mention Gabon) as virtually everything is now covered by a zero tariff/zero quota deal. South Africa is particularly important for the motor industry where Ford in Dagenham make engines that are shipped to SA for cars that are then exported back to the EU, something that will be difficult under a no-deal scenario since those U.K. engines would no longer qualify for zero tariffs when they come back to EU.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[melvinmelvin]

14 minutes ago, sandyf said:

What is the difference between a current trade deal and a new trade deal?   Answers on a postcard.

 

Britain hopes to roll over all of the EU’s current trade deals, with Chile, Israel, Egypt, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland and Turkey among others.

However, the government was forced to drop a claim that the process was assured, while maintaining that “all partner countries have agreed to work with us to ensure continuity”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-trade-deal-africa-theresa-may-trip-post-brexit-eu-rollover-a8511871.html

 

pretty good start me thinks,

no reason to be critical as Independent is

 

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So we're talking about the Guardian (a staunch remain newspaper) suggesting/stating that a Treasury forecast is being withheld from MPs and the public?

 

I could be mistaken about this, but I thought their forecasts have frequently been proven wrong?

 

Not that it matters, as I too am suprised that May would refuse to release a Treasury forecast to MPs - who are looking for all excuses to remain within the eu, as long as they can 'sell it' to their constituents.  A difficult 'sell' when it comes to Treasury forecasts....

It’s not a forecast, it is a report of government response to questions.

[sandyf]

9 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Totally missed the point. Heath pushed for our membership back in 73' and took advantage of the 'out' campaign being woefully underfunded and unorganised. The British public were never consulted and never voted for any of the policies that were slowly introduced throughout our membership, as I stated. I never said that I laid no blame at the door of British politicians either, your words, not mine. 

 

I would also disagree that the reason we went from being the sick man of Europe to being among the 'best performers' as you put it less to do with the EU as it did deregulation and liberalising of markets among other factors. I would also argue that the EU is 'world's most valuable single market', while that might technically be correct, that is simply because it is the 'largest single market' of it's kind and because Germany is an economic powerhouse. I'd say the 'value' of it all is nominal rather than real in any meaningful way when you take into account that the EEA single market is the slowest growing, with the highest stagnation of any major market in the world, something that is continuously overlooked here again and again by all you entrenched Europhiles. I love Europe, I really dislike the EU, for a number of reasons that I (among others) have argued and laid out perfectly clearly as opposed to the woolly thinking and nebulous responses of 'the majority' of those arguing against Brexit. Still haven't heard any clearly defined and evidenced arguments as to the vast benefits outweighing the negatives, to our remaining inside the EEA/EU.

If you want yet another sound argument, more on the economic side this time, then here goes:

 

It looks as if most people commenting here are totally ignorant of the appalling financial structural issues now enveloping the Eurozone which, though we're not part of, would unquestionably have dire knock on effects for us - IF we remained part of the union. When Germany agreed to shed the Deutschmark it was a quid pro quo for not issuing centralised debt. In other words all debt issuance has been made through sovereign entities rather than the EU; so there is no intention of sharing deficits at a "federal" level and there never was, despite the EU Parliament / ECB overtures - BS as usual. That is why the ECB is now buying in Sovereign and corporate bonds from individual countries in order to provide liquidity. This policy can't continue, and everyone knows it, but there is a widespread recognition that economies will suffer without it. It looks as though Italy, Spain, Portugal are almost certain to default and can literally never pay their debts at this point. Without a functioning currency the EU ultimately collapses in my opinion, (sooner rather than later with any luck) but before that happens all kinds of draconian measures are likely to be introduced in a futile attempt to avert it. No viable sovereign state would willingly get involved with this situation - a cluster-<deleted> of a fiscal/economic union. So to all those who love to bang on about how the EEA is 'the biggest trade bloc / 'most valuable single market' in the world and what a unique privilege it is for us to remain part of it - please - pull your heads out of the sand and know your onions a wee bit better. ? 

Another emotional rant and I doubt I am the only one that finds them a bit tedious. 

 

"No one in the UK (or other EU member states) ever voted for this 'pooled sovereignty' nonsense,"

356 MP's voted - not my words just a fact.

 

"Laughable. 'Pooled sovereignty', right, sounds excellent, seems to be working ever so well too."

"The gains from pooling sovereignty speak for themselves."  not my words just a quote from the FT.

[melvinmelvin]

14 minutes ago, sandyf said:

More brexit expense  - beware the autumn statement.

 

Ministers will launch a major study to design an independent satellite programme, warning the UK could face costs spiralling to a billion pounds from major disruption to navigation systems.

The government will allocate £92m to design the alternative to the European Galileo system which Brussels has said the UK can no longer take part in after Brexit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-navigation-satellites-study-mps-uk-costs-european-galilleo-a8511206.html

 

this, in my view, is just silly piss talk,

foggy island could never afford to design, build, launch and operate an alternative system of comparable quality

the cab. has likely spoken with some <deleted> in Inmarsat

 

[My Thai Life]

 

44 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Without a functioning currency the EU ultimately collapses in my opinion,

An excellent post canterbrigian. 

 

> Currency union without political union is disastrous, as we have seen. It's a major structural faultline, with no solution short of the United States of Europe. Add to that, the

 

> inability to form a migrant/refugee policy - this is a major issue which people seem to have forgotten about. It's not going to go away, the pressure from Africa can only increase, and the differences within the EU will not diminish.

 

> the CAP, which consumes nealy 50% of the EU budget though agriculture contributes less than 2% of EU GDP, and inflates food prices by an estimated 17%.

 

> no agreement about where "ever closer union" is taking the EU.

 

> the dependence on just 1 or 2 key players within the EU.

 

These are not small issues!

Edited August 29, 2018 by My Thai Life

[melvinmelvin]

31 minutes ago, sandyf said:

More brexit expense  - beware the autumn statement.

 

Ministers will launch a major study to design an independent satellite programme, warning the UK could face costs spiralling to a billion pounds from major disruption to navigation systems.

The government will allocate £92m to design the alternative to the European Galileo system which Brussels has said the UK can no longer take part in after Brexit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-navigation-satellites-study-mps-uk-costs-european-galilleo-a8511206.html

 

here, in May's comment, you can easily see an aspect of UK which is always creating problems,

since early 1990s UK has lived well without the detailed hands on that May is now seeking in Galileo and which she says the UK cannot live without

 

life IS getting difficult when you suffer from a very serious attack/case of superiority complex like the UK does

 

[sandyf]

24 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

pretty good start me thinks,

no reason to be critical as Independent is

 

Only the delusional would have thought that there was any need to start in the first place. The UK is not going to gain anything acting alone. India wants more visas for trade, Trump wants to sell rye whisky and chemically enhanced cornish pasties and the Chinese just want to flood the UK with cheap and nasties.

They call it bureaucracy but the EU has established standards that many would rather bypass and just see the UK as a soft target.