Johnson warns EU against any 'Napoleonic' tariffs in no-deal Brexit

[SheungWan]

I don’t share your concerns over what you feel are the problems with the democratic legitimacy of the EU.
 
I accept there are issues, but am confident in the elected representatives of the EU citizens to work on them.
 
I see what the EU parliament for what it is am happy to accept it for what it is, warts and all. 
 
I’m not too sure how your manifold concerns relate to my posts on johnson suspending parliament, though. 
 
I disagree with your assertion that there is little recourse to suspending parliament to force through a minority version of brexit. 
 
johnson could, for example, call an election with his vision of brexit as core tory policy. 
 
See how popular that is with the majority of the electorate. 
 
If he wins a majority then onward and upward with his goals. 

Johnson vs Corbyn. I hear the siren call of flying lessons.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[AlexRich]

2 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

It stated NOTHING about the terms of leaving simply because it was spelled out as being a binary choice, leave or remain. In reality that simple binary choice wouldn't have seemed unattainable if the right person/people were in place to negotiatiate and run the operation from the off. Instead what we had was Maybot, Ollie Robbins and a littany of other remain MPs who back-tracked, u-turned, capitulated from the start, constantly lied / reneged and did their utmost to frustrate the public's decision.

 

'Setting out the conditions for a future poll, he said he would seek a "mandate" for a renegotiation and a referendum in the next Conservative election manifesto.

"And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in-or-out choice to stay in the EU on these new terms; or come out altogether. It will be an in/out referendum."

But he said holding such a referendum now would be a "false choice" because Europe was set to change following the eurozone crisis and it would be "wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right".

Mr Cameron said he understood "the appeal" of Britain going it alone and he was sure the UK would survive outside the EU. But, he said, the UK must think "very carefully" about the implications of withdrawal for its prosperity and role on the international stage.

"If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return," he added.'  

 

???? We all know how this worked out.

 

 

 

'and as they failed to win a majority they didn’t get a full mandate for that manifesto' --

 

'The 2015 United Kingdom general election was held on 7 May 2015 to elect 650 members to the House of Commons. It was the first general election at the end of a fixed-term Parliament. Local elections took place in most areas on the same day. Polls and commentators had predicted the outcome would be too close to call and would result in a second hung parliament similar to the 2010 election. Opinion polls were eventually proven to have underestimated the Conservative vote as the party unexpectedly won an outright majority, which bore resemblance to its victory at the 1992 general election. Having governed in coalition with the Liberal Democrats since 2010, the Conservatives won 330 seats and 36.9% of the vote, this time winning a working majority of twelve seats.'

 

'May delivered a Brexit deal. We would be out of the EU if that deal had been approved' - now that IS hilarious! Thanks for brightening up my day. ???? 

 

 

 

You post more words than a Tolstoy novel? There were no Leave politicians campaigning for a leave on WTO terms with no transition? Not one of them. People voted based on promises made .... Daniel Hannan’s comment about “not leaving the single market” was simply one of many. So no one voted leave expecting that outcome ... an outcome that simply has no mandate. May’s deal takes the UK out of the EU ... more than Daniel Hannan’s Brexit promise. Even Farage is quoted extolling the economic success of Norway outside of the EU. Again, May’s deal goes further than Norway. 

 

If Norway are outside the EU, then so is May’s deal. And that’s leave.

 

if you favour no deal, WTO, and no transition ... you need a second referendum and a mandate for it. 

 

 

 

 

[Joinaman]

On 6/27/2019 at 1:22 PM, petemoss said:

I can tell you why. Because virtually everything that you have written is the opposite of the truth.

Care to give us the truth then

Would be good to get some REAL facts from the people who know more than all the others

Please include the facts about the above, but include any costs incurred up to now, and in the future with the Lisbon treaty, if we stay in the EU

Its time someone told us the "FACTS" 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

31 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

You post more words than a Tolstoy novel? There were no Leave politicians campaigning for a leave on WTO terms with no transition? Not one of them. People voted based on promises made .... Daniel Hannan’s comment about “not leaving the single market” was simply one of many. So no one voted leave expecting that outcome ... an outcome that simply has no mandate. May’s deal takes the UK out of the EU ... more than Daniel Hannan’s Brexit promise. Even Farage is quoted extolling the economic success of Norway outside of the EU. Again, May’s deal goes further than Norway. 

 

If Norway are outside the EU, then so is May’s deal. And that’s leave.

 

if you favour no deal, WTO, and no transition ... you need a second referendum and a mandate for it. 

 

 

 

 

I include facts and quotes to back up my view, unlike many. If you find reading through anything over a few lines (and often lacking in substance) difficult, that's your issue, feel free to scroll past my input, I couldn't care less - and again, feel free to crack wise all you want ????.

 

There were erroneous promises made by both sides, never contested that once. In reality, if you have read any of my earlier comments on another thread you would know that my position has been for a long time that we should have had a much more detailed and honest discussion about this with opposing political parties on the issue comprised of people conversant with it and willing and able to enact the result, campaigning against each other. That way, once the decision was made (with more understanding) there would have been an established party behind the result to enact it properly. What we had was a government that were elected with the mandate to offer the referendum to the public (despite your earlier post incorrectly stating otherwise) with their leader actually campaigning for the people to vote to remain rather than leave - despite the huge split on the issue within his own party. The same could be said of Labour. Once the result was arrived at (to the shock of DC and a great many others in the political establishment) there was NO ONE around to deliver it, they relieved themselves of all duties to carry it out, which has lead to this shambolic state we find ourselves in now.

 

There were many people I knew that wanted to leave on WTO terms - or a 'hard brexit' if you will, and this was discussed by Farage and a number of others during the campaign. The Norway deal is a bad comparison because what we were offered by May was a lot worse - or 'Norway without the fish (ie - economic clout)' or having our hands untied. If you think that leaving the EU in any meaningful sense would have been delivered by May's deal then you're not in full possession of the facts. It was loathed by both sides of the argument for that exact reason, we'd remain in the CU and SM but have a much reduced amount of input than we had as full members. The decision was binary - there was no detail on how we would leave, there should have been more discussion on this I would agree, but this is not what was offered or promised. Furthermore there is literally NO WAY to discuss the detail of what will happen once we leave with any certainty whatsoever, as this would simply be an exercise in predicting the future, something Remainers seem to be most proficient in. ???? 

 

Lastly see -

'as stated - the recent polls with the EU elections being the greatest indicator, indicate that the majority of the electorate still want to leave, knowing that a no deal is what the Brexit Party, UKIP and the Tory government are all pushing for.' - from a previous post. That seems to support the initial feeling that the majority backed and still do - that leaving means leaving, warts and all. 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[Joinaman]

6 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

"Brexit supporters say there would be short-term disruption but in the long-term the UK would thrive if cut free from what they cast as a doomed experiment in German-dominated unity that has led to Europe falling behind China and the United States..."

Really?? Perhaps, those supporters should study their own country's history. Britain in the early 1970s was considered to be a "failed state". Then it joined the EEC in 1973. - No-one wishes the UK to repeat her dismal (economic) history, but who knows with someone like Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson at the helm...

And, do the Brexiteers really want to risk the breaking off of Scotland?

Sent from my SM-J415F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Would this have had anything to do with the Unions running the country in those days by any chance ? Ramapant inflation, crazy wage rises that we couldn't afford, Commies in the car manufacturing 

You say we will have this again if we leave the EU?

We joined the EEC, not the Federal EU

We will go back to the 70s if we get labour in power, but hey, isn't that what remainers want

Scotland can go do one if it so wishes, who will miss it, Will the EU let it join ? Can it pay its bills on the declining oil revenues, keep free universities, free prescriptions, etc, etc

[stephenterry]

2 hours ago, potless said:

Last night on a news station. it was reported that the E.U. had secured a free trade agreement with Vietnam and that 99% of tariffs would be waived. If that report is true, then I wonder what excuse the E.U. would give for not offering the same or similar for the U.K. I dont know the details but I doubt if Vietnam would be subscribing to the E.U. coffers.

For the past 44 years, the UK has relied upon the European Union, formerly the European Economic Community, to negotiate trade deals. As an EU member, Britain cannot strike its own trade deals, but the bloc has successfully secured 36 trade agreements for its member-states, spanning more than 60 countries. It is unclear whether Britain can continue to participate in these deals once it leaves the EU.

[stephenterry]

2 hours ago, travelling wilbury said:

It is all bluff 

without a deal u.k. can impose tarriffs on all those foreign cars and goods flooding into u.k remember we are a net importer from europe how long do you think it will take for europe to beg boris for a deal ? But if fact long term no deal means uk can start to make the goods we use not import them as now 

what happened to GREAT BRITAIN oh yes we joined the common market and could no longer compete in manufacturing anything.

Where is the great british car industry   the ship building  heavy industry and all the other industries britain once had  all we have now is financial services and banking and computer driven  services and look where banking got us. 

We pay billions to europe every week and what do we get in return  ?   Laws telling us we cannot make cornish pasties in devon and stupid shit like that WE DO NOT NEED THAT

the eu has made more laws that the u.k. blindly follow (most other countries ignore ) since u.k. joined in 197?  than u.k. did in over 1000 years and life did exist before europe.

I think you'll find that it has been successive UK governments who have run down manufacturing industries by failing to invest in the future, and then bring in an austerity program to finish it off.

 

As for laws, have you, your family, your neighbours, your workmates, man in the street, friends etc, been affected by any EU laws? Total rubbish to blame the EU..

 

 

Nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

[stephenterry]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Exactly, the TINY minority of eu citizens allowed to vote in those decisions....

 

And yet you have a problem with the tory party electing a new PM?

They are electing a Tory leader, not a PM.

[Joinaman]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

'Hard Brexit this, Hard Brexit that' - these weren't on the ticket either. 

So what was on the ticket ?

I thought it was Leave, or Remain 

I saw nothing about what would happen in the future if we remain, just like i saw nothing about what would happen if we leave

But leave won, so why cant we just accept that and get out and sort things out as soon as possible 

People keep saying we are all gunna die if we leave, but never tell us what will happen if we stay, especially when the Lisbon Treaty kicks in

[tebee]

6 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Our financial & insurance services are still by far the largest in Europe - (taken as a whole in terms of revenue generated - 2nd only to the US) and deal with many international clients, but yes, sadly our manufacturing and industrial base has been decimated over the last 5 decades. However, this is not actually the point re: the EU imposing tarrifs. They know by doing so they would effectively be penalising the UK for leaving and if they did so that the UK would be well within its rights - and likely - to impose similar tariffs on EU manufactured goods, and as the bloc's largest market in the world by some way, this would be very bad news for a number of the EU's largest and most influencial industries and corporations.

The problem is if we leave with no deal, they are obliged by international law(WTO)  to apply the same tariffs to UK goods as they do to the rest of the world. Simmeraly the UK can not cherry pick EU goods and zero rate them .

Also remember it's not just the tariffs, all goods passing between the EU and UK will require customs and compliance papers - it's been estimated that this can cost 5 times the cost of any tariffs.

 

Simmerly our service industries have extra compliance costs and may be excluded by existing law from certain sectors.  

[stephenterry]

6 minutes ago, tebee said:

The problem is if we leave with no deal, they are obliged by international law(WTO)  to apply the same tariffs to UK goods as they do to the rest of the world. Simmeraly the UK can not cherry pick EU goods and zero rate them .

Also remember it's not just the tariffs, all goods passing between the EU and UK will require customs and compliance papers - it's been estimated that this can cost 5 times the cost of any tariffs.

 

Simmerly our service industries have extra compliance costs and may be excluded by existing law from certain sectors.  

So why is the Tory government insisting on leaving the EU? Don't bother to answer the irrational - it's because they'll lose face with a minority electorate and lose their seats at the next GE. Nothing more than self-preservation - nothing to do with what's best for Britain.

 

Can't wait for them to be destroyed when the GE comes to pass. Along with Johnson and Brexit.

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, travelling wilbury said:

It is all bluff 

without a deal u.k. can impose tarriffs on all those foreign cars and goods flooding into u.k remember we are a net importer from europe how long do you think it will take for europe to beg boris for a deal ? But if fact long term no deal means uk can start to make the goods we use not import them as now 

what happened to GREAT BRITAIN oh yes we joined the common market and could no longer compete in manufacturing anything.

Where is the great british car industry   the ship building  heavy industry and all the other industries britain once had  all we have now is financial services and banking and computer driven  services and look where banking got us. 

We pay billions to europe every week and what do we get in return  ?   Laws telling us we cannot make cornish pasties in devon and stupid shit like that WE DO NOT NEED THAT

the eu has made more laws that the u.k. blindly follow (most other countries ignore ) since u.k. joined in 197?  than u.k. did in over 1000 years and life did exist before europe.

The decline of strategic components of the British industry is mainly due to Thatcherism and its continuation by following governments, not to the EU. Countries like Germany or France did not apply Thatcherism and -oh, surprise- they did not experience the same fate.

Just a reminder:

"Thirdly, industrial policy was all but abandoned. The state retained control of some nationalised industries – the railways, for example – but BT, British Airways, British Steel, British Gas and the British Airports Authority were among the big companies sold off. Thatcher did not believe in "picking winners"; instead she preferred to rely on market forces to ensure the survival of the fittest. To the extent that there was an industrial strategy, it was to sell Britain as a destination for Japanese car companies and to shift the focus of the economy away from manufacturing towards financial services."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-transform-britain-economy

Edited July 1, 2019 by candide

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, AlexRich said:

You post more words than a Tolstoy novel? There were no Leave politicians campaigning for a leave on WTO terms with no transition? Not one of them. People voted based on promises made .... Daniel Hannan’s comment about “not leaving the single market” was simply one of many. So no one voted leave expecting that outcome ... an outcome that simply has no mandate. May’s deal takes the UK out of the EU ... more than Daniel Hannan’s Brexit promise. Even Farage is quoted extolling the economic success of Norway outside of the EU. Again, May’s deal goes further than Norway. 

 

If Norway are outside the EU, then so is May’s deal. And that’s leave.

 

if you favour no deal, WTO, and no transition ... you need a second referendum and a mandate for it. 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Take what is on offer, not reject it for an ideological pipe-dream. Tolstoy was right. How much land does a man need?

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, Joinaman said:

Care to give us the truth then

Would be good to get some REAL facts from the people who know more than all the others

Please include the facts about the above, but include any costs incurred up to now, and in the future with the Lisbon treaty, if we stay in the EU

Its time someone told us the "FACTS" 

Here are some trade facts issued by GovUK:

 

Leaving the EU with a deal remains the government’s top priority. This has not changed. While a number of these continuity trade agreements are likely to be concluded, it is the duty of government to produce a highly cautious list of those that may not be in place so that businesses and individuals can prepare for every eventuality.

It remains the government’s priority to conclude trade continuity agreements with these countries when the UK leaves the EU or as soon as possible thereafter. The government is exploring a range of options to ensure continuity of effect for trade agreements if an agreement has not been ratified and brought into force in time.

The government is seeking continuity for existing EU trade agreements which the UK participates in as a member of the EU. These agreements constitute around 11% of the UK’s trade.

 

Satisfied?

 

[AlexRich]

55 minutes ago, Joinaman said:

Would this have had anything to do with the Unions running the country in those days by any chance ? Ramapant inflation, crazy wage rises that we couldn't afford, Commies in the car manufacturing 

You say we will have this again if we leave the EU?

We joined the EEC, not the Federal EU

We will go back to the 70s if we get labour in power, but hey, isn't that what remainers want

Scotland can go do one if it so wishes, who will miss it, Will the EU let it join ? Can it pay its bills on the declining oil revenues, keep free universities, free prescriptions, etc, etc

Scotland will be more than happy to do one, as will Northern Ireland ... possibly before Scotland. And Scotland will attract enormous amounts of internal investment from countries looking for a foothold in the EU market, and the financial services industry in Edinburgh will also receive a boost. Meanwhile Little England will  be negotiating trade relations with Mesopotamia and the Congo. 

[SheungWan]

They are electing a Tory leader, not a PM.

Its a 2-4-1.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[stephenterry]

3 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

Scotland will be more than happy to do one, as will Northern Ireland ... possibly before Scotland. And Scotland will attract enormous amounts of internal investment from countries looking for a foothold in the EU market, and the financial services industry in Edinburgh will also receive a boost. Meanwhile Little England will  be negotiating trade relations with Mesopotamia and the Congo. 

Don't forget the Falklands. Remember Thatcher sank the 7,069-ton armoured cruiser General Belgrano on 2 May 1982 during the Falklands War by the Royal Navy submarine Conqueror with the loss of 323 lives. Losses from General Belgrano totalled just over half of Argentine military deaths in the UK war with Argentina to preserve these islands.

[SheungWan]

Scotland will be more than happy to do one, as will Northern Ireland ... possibly before Scotland. And Scotland will attract enormous amounts of internal investment from countries looking for a foothold in the EU market, and the financial services industry in Edinburgh will also receive a boost. Meanwhile Little England will  be negotiating trade relations with Mesopotamia and the Congo. 

Good luck negotiating with Mesopotamia.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[AlexRich]

7 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Don't forget the Falklands. Remember Thatcher sank the 7,069-ton armoured cruiser General Belgrano on 2 May 1982 during the Falklands War by the Royal Navy submarine Conqueror with the loss of 323 lives. Losses from General Belgrano totalled just over half of Argentine military deaths in the UK war with Argentina to preserve these islands.

They’ll be changing their name to the Malvinas soon. 

 

Brexit started off as this great adventure to put Great Britain back on the world stage .... but instead it’s going to leave it broken up and diminished.

 

But Brexiteer bravado will still be going strong ... there’s nothing like a bit of revisionist history to bolster the bruised ego.

[billd766]

1 minute ago, stephenterry said:

Don't forget the Falklands. Remember Thatcher sank the 7,069-ton armoured cruiser General Belgrano on 2 May 1982 during the Falklands War by the Royal Navy submarine Conqueror with the loss of 323 lives. Losses from General Belgrano totalled just over half of Argentine military deaths in the UK war with Argentina to preserve these islands.

You are correct about the Belgrano but omitted to mention that 2 days later HMS Sheffield was sunk along with HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS Coventry, MV Atlantic Conveyor. Also lost were the RFA Sir Galahad and RFA Sir Tristram.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Sinking_of_ARA_General_Belgrano

 

If you are going to write about something like the Falklands war, try to show what happened on BOTH sides and not just on one side.

[AlexRich]

6 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Good luck negotiating with Mesopotamia.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Old Iraq ... alluding to the Empire lovers of Brexit.

[Mavideol]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

You are correct about the Belgrano but omitted to mention that 2 days later HMS Sheffield was sunk along with HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS Coventry, MV Atlantic Conveyor. Also lost were the RFA Sir Galahad and RFA Sir Tristram.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Sinking_of_ARA_General_Belgrano

 

If you are going to write about something like the Falklands war, try to show what happened on BOTH sides and not just on one side.

ot they could give it to the Argentines and not more worries, it's quite far from the UK.... 555

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

You are correct about the Belgrano but omitted to mention that 2 days later HMS Sheffield was sunk along with HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS Coventry, MV Atlantic Conveyor. Also lost were the RFA Sir Galahad and RFA Sir Tristram.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Sinking_of_ARA_General_Belgrano

 

If you are going to write about something like the Falklands war, try to show what happened on BOTH sides and not just on one side.

Apologies, Bill, not intentional to overlook British casualties, as the theme was who the UK could be trading with post Brexit.  thanks for reminding me and posting the link.

[billd766]

36 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Apologies, Bill, not intentional to overlook British casualties, as the theme was who the UK could be trading with post Brexit.  thanks for reminding me and posting the link.

OK I was lucky to be in the UK at the time at RAF Brize Norton providing back up equipment. None of my friends were hurt or injured down there.

[billd766]

41 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

ot they could give it to the Argentines and not more worries, it's quite far from the UK.... 555

So what to do about the Falkland Islanders themselves?

 

They have already had their referendum back in 2013.

 

2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum

 

A referendum on political status was held in the Falkland Islands on 10–11 March 2013.[1][2][3] The Falkland Islanders were asked whether or not they supported the continuation of their status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom in view of Argentina's call for negotiations on the islands' sovereignty.[4]

On a turnout of 92%, 99.8% voted to remain a British territory, with only three votes against.[5] Had the islanders rejected the continuation of their current status, a second referendum on possible alternatives would have been held.[4] Brad Smith, the leader of the international observer group, announced that the referendum was free and fair and executed in accordance with international standards and international laws.[6]

[bomber]

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

For the past 44 years, the UK has relied upon the European Union, formerly the European Economic Community, to negotiate trade deals. As an EU member, Britain cannot strike its own trade deals, but the bloc has successfully secured 36 trade agreements for its member-states, spanning more than 60 countries. It is unclear whether Britain can continue to participate in these deals once it leaves the EU.

the trade deal the EU signed with south america last week took TEN YEARS to complete,yet brexiteers say its will be a piece of cake,and they moan when we call them thick.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, candide said:

The decline of strategic components of the British industry is mainly due to Thatcherism and its continuation by following governments, not to the EU. Countries like Germany or France did not apply Thatcherism and -oh, surprise- they did not experience the same fate.

Just a reminder:

"Thirdly, industrial policy was all but abandoned. The state retained control of some nationalised industries – the railways, for example – but BT, British Airways, British Steel, British Gas and the British Airports Authority were among the big companies sold off. Thatcher did not believe in "picking winners"; instead she preferred to rely on market forces to ensure the survival of the fittest. To the extent that there was an industrial strategy, it was to sell Britain as a destination for Japanese car companies and to shift the focus of the economy away from manufacturing towards financial services."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-transform-britain-economy

The Guardian misses so much out, as ever, so please don't call it a reminder.

 

When Thatcher came in, many industries were inefficient and most British industry was losing money hand over fist. There was little reinvestment and previous Labour governments allowed Communism to penetrate the unions and they became very powerful, with their members freely spending more time in the pub (but clocked-on by their mates) or on strike than they spent at work - it was always going to end badly - now the unions are weak as a result of these previous excesses. The EEC/EU did encourage and assist the transfer of British industry, or control of it, over to other EU countries, especially after the smaller eastern European countries joined the EU. 

[tebee]

20 minutes ago, billd766 said:

So what to do about the Falkland Islanders themselves?

 

They have already had their referendum back in 2013.

 

2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum

 

A referendum on political status was held in the Falkland Islands on 10–11 March 2013.[1][2][3] The Falkland Islanders were asked whether or not they supported the continuation of their status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom in view of Argentina's call for negotiations on the islands' sovereignty.[4]

On a turnout of 92%, 99.8% voted to remain a British territory, with only three votes against.[5] Had the islanders rejected the continuation of their current status, a second referendum on possible alternatives would have been held.[4] Brad Smith, the leader of the international observer group, announced that the referendum was free and fair and executed in accordance with international standards and international laws.[6]

The problem for the Falkland isles is that their economy it to a large part based on fishing exports to the EU and payments for the licences involved. They have tariff free access to the EU as   a UK  Overseas Territory. No deal brexit will stop this.

 

https://www.france24.com/en/20190418-how-brexit-threatens-falklands-economy-spanish-fishermen

[vogie]

13 minutes ago, bomber said:

the trade deal the EU signed with south america last week took TEN YEARS to complete,yet brexiteers say its will be a piece of cake,and they moan when we call them thick.

Bait post, reported.

[tebee]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The Guardian misses so much out, as ever, so please don't call it a reminder.

 

When Thatcher came in, many industries were inefficient and most British industry was losing money hand over fist. There was little reinvestment and previous Labour governments allowed Communism to penetrate the unions and they became very powerful, with their members freely spending more time in the pub (but clocked-on by their mates) or on strike than they spent at work - it was always going to end badly - now the unions are weak as a result of these previous excesses. The EEC/EU did encourage and assist the transfer of British industry, or control of it, over to other EU countries, especially after the smaller eastern European countries joined the EU. 

And we still have some of the worst productivity in western Europe. It's not the EU that has encouraged the sell off of British industry, more the Conservatives who were more interested in the finance sector.

 

If we leave the EU it will just be the US and China buying up the dregs of our decimated industries.