I have a growing feeling that Britain will NOT leave the EU

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

The bigger concern is damage that the EU states will cause in the hopes of being able to benefit - like taking over our banking sector.]

Banks have a say in whether they want to be taken over and a choice in whether to move into the highly intrusive, risky lumbering EU where all manner of new finance regulations are comming down the pipe, including Basal4 and Mifid 2

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

yes it is possible that CAP would have been reformed to provide low/zero tariff on african foodstuffs : to some extent this has been achieved with unprocessed foods. I've no idea whether the UK led or followed.
The policies of the EU have caused huge un-necessary poverty in Africa and damaged the people of the EU over the last 40 years : I acknowledge welcome changes over the recent few years.

some interesting reading

https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/

or
http://www.reformthecap.eu/issues/policy-instruments/tariffs

You do know that the UK has been an active participant in your hated EU for some decades now? Whether they led or followed is irrelevant - if the EU has been deliberately starving Africans then either the UK has welcomed that or just gone along with it.

It's also quite possible that the case you make is being massively over-egged. Either way it has nothing to do with Brexit. If the UK delights in the starvation of Africans that will continue, if the UK is indifferent then that will continue also.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Evidence based or straight prejudice?

its difficult to provide evidence for future events

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

You do know that the UK has been an active participant in your hated EU for some decades now? Whether they led or followed is irrelevant - if the EU has been deliberately starving Africans then either the UK has welcomed that or just gone along with it.

It's also quite possible that the case you make is being massively over-egged. Either way it has nothing to do with Brexit. If the UK delights in the starvation of Africans that will continue, if the UK is indifferent then that will continue also.

I have been in favour of leaving the EU for some decades ; there are many reason including that of sovereignty and that the EU is not an optimal arrangement of states . I fully accept that there have been good things arising from the EU.
CAP has been extensively debated for many decades too. Only an Europhile acolyte could possibly suggest that the UK was a dominant player.

I understand that you think nothing can change for the better and that UK decisions will always be at least as bad as those of the EU : I don't agree.

As a sovereign trading nation we can chose to trade with African and other nations on mutually agreeable terms : which of course we can't do now because for the EU.

I find you mocking distain for the developing nations and your unpleasant reference to delighting in the starvation of african both racist and nasty. But I guess that just you.

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

Banks have a say in whether they want to be taken over and a choice in whether to move into the highly intrusive, risky lumbering EU where all manner of new finance regulations are comming down the pipe, including Basal4 and Mifid 2

They have a choice in whether they can be taken over (unless they are publicly traded), but they may not have a choice in relocating to the EU, or just dropping the EU market, if they lose the ability to trade from London. Both provide huge opportunities for France/Germany to boost their financial sector.

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

I have been in favour of leaving the EU for some decades ; there are many reason including that of sovereignty and that the EU is not an optimal arrangement of states . I fully accept that there have been good things arising from the EU.
CAP has been extensively debated for many decades too. Only an Europhile acolyte could possibly suggest that the UK was a dominant player.

I understand that you think nothing can change for the better and that UK decisions will always be at least as bad as those of the EU : I don't agree.

As a sovereign trading nation we can chose to trade with African and other nations on mutually agreeable terms : which of course we can't do now because for the EU.

I find you mocking distain for the developing nations and your unpleasant reference to delighting in the starvation of african both racist and nasty. But I guess that just you.

You understand wrong (of course). I think lots of things may change for the better post-Brexit. It's just that I think the welfare of African farmers won't be one of them.

Oh, I'm not mocking Africans by the way. I'm mocking your faux concern and your desperation to cling to the moral high ground.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

They have a choice in whether they can be taken over (unless they are publicly traded), but they may not have a choice in relocating to the EU, or just dropping the EU market, if they lose the ability to trade from London. Both provide huge opportunities for France/Germany to boost their financial sector.

This is the rub. We can not talk about the EU as a single entity, when it is clearly not.

Sure, some of the countries positioned well might pick up extra business by drawing it away from London.

But it's unlikely to be Poland or Greece or Portugal.

The smaller less wealthy of the 27 EU states will still want to protect their interests.

It might be tricky for the EU 27 to come to a collective position when it comes to negotiating priorities.

Jason74

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

So it is my belief that Article 50 will be put forward - and by the end of March as TM has said.
Because to do otherwise does indeed pose a real and serious risk to national security for the reasons I show clearly above.

This is of course absolutely right, as is most of the rest of your post. I share your view that article 50 will be (and even as a remain voter, I believe should be) triggered by the end of March for the exact reasons you describe.


I think where I have a slightly different view, is what happens next. People voted out for a whole host of reasons, from a (imho very wrong) belief that economically we're better off out longer term, to concerns about sovereignty, to a desire to kick the establishment that they felt had ignored them for decades in any way they could. And yes, a significant number (albeit by no means all I hasten to add), were driven in large part by a desire to reduce immigration.


The negotiation process lasts at least two years, and a lot can happen in that time. People may change their mind on the economic side, or they may switch to a view that the sovereignty issue is a price worth paying in order to safeguard economic benefits. Alternatively, some may harden against the EU as the process unfolds. And all that is before we even start on the issue that domestic politics in key member states could shift, meaning in turn that negotiating positions from the EU side could change as things progress.


So while I 100% agree that the negotiation should start, I think it's impossible to predict where it will end. I also think that whatever is decided is likely to be so controversial and divisive that failing to agree a final position via a second referendum (and I think at that point, a "hard brexit", "soft brexit", or "forget the whole thing" are all possible outcomes) would be almost as damaging to our democracy as ignoring the initial vote and not starting the A50 process that now surely has to begin.

Herzlos

Jason74 wrote: »

So while I 100% agree that the negotiation should start, I think it's impossible to predict where it will end. I also think that whatever is decided is likely to be so controversial and divisive that failing to agree a final position via a second referendum (and I think at that point, a hard brexit, soft brexit, or "forget the whole thing" are all possible outcomes) would be almost as damaging to our democracy as ignoring the initial vote and not starting the A50 process that now surely has to begin.

Definitely. We're heading to a point where no-one is going to be happy with the outcome, and we want to try and avoid that.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

You understand wrong (of course). I think lots of things may change for the better post-Brexit. It's just that I think the welfare of African farmers won't be one of them.

Oh, I'm not mocking Africans by the way. I'm mocking your faux concern and your desperation to cling to the moral high ground.

I believe trade is MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL.

No moral high ground there.

However it does seems particularly distressing when trade, which would help both us and African farmers, is stopped for EU political reasons.

I do in fact have concerns about the welfare of people even if it isn't in my own self interest : however it seems you think that inconceivable.

On the matter of trade with africa, in the same way that some people credit the EU with peace in europe, I do believe that greater prosperity and trade in Africa, would perhaps have brought greater peace there too.